Geohazard Evaluation Report Rover Pipeline Eastern US October 30, 2015 Terracon Project No. J1149328

Prepared for: Project Consulting Services, Inc. Metairie, Louisiana 70002

Prepared by: Terracon Consultants, Inc. Manchester, New Hampshire

Geohazard Evaluation Report Rover Pipeline ■ Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and Michigan October 30, 2015 ■ Terracon Project No. J1149328

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 5 INTRODUCTION ...... 6 Project Information ...... 6 How to Use this Report ...... 7 GEOLOGIC SETTING ...... 8 Physiographic Setting and Project Overview ...... 8 Physiographic Setting ...... 8 Overview of Geologic Hazards ...... 8 Summary of Conditions ...... 9 The Central Lowlands ...... 9 Glaciated Appalachian Plateau ...... 10 Unglaciated Appalachian Plateau ...... 10 Bedrock Geology ...... 11 Dunkard Group (PIPd) ...... 11 Monongahela Group (IPm) ...... 12 Conemaugh Group (IPc) ...... 13 Allegheny and Pottsville Group-Undivided (IPap)...... 14 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ...... 15 Hazard Identifications ...... 15 Important Observations and Considerations in the Field ...... 15 Landslide Hazard Identification ...... 16 Subsidence Hazard Identification ...... 17 Landslide Hazard Model ...... 17 USGS Rock Type with Hazard Value ...... 18 Slope and Terrain...... 18 Stream Hydrography and Erosion...... 18 Landslide Hazard Overlay ...... 18 Subsidence Hazard Model ...... 19 Karst Subsidence ...... 19 Underground Mine Subsidence ...... 20 Subsidence Hazard Model ...... 20 Surface Mine Hazards ...... 21 Field Evaluation ...... 22 Aerial Survey ...... 23 Scan Line Survey ...... 23 CONSTRUCTION HAZARDS ...... 24 HAZARD MITIGATION ...... 24 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 24 GENERAL COMMENTS ...... 25 REFERENCES ...... 25 Publications ...... 25 Data ...... 28

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 3 Geohazard Evaluation Report Rover Pipeline ■ Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and Michigan October 30, 2015 ■ Terracon Project No. J1149328

Tables Table 1 ODNR Surface Mines Table 2 Aerial Summary Table 3 Scan Line Summary

Exhibits Exhibit A US Physiographic Provinces (1:2,500,000) Series B (1-3) Surficial Geology of the Eastern US (1:1,000,000) Series C (1-3) USGS Bedrock Geology (1:1,000,000) Series D (0-20) Subsidence Hazard Model (1:60,000) Series E (1-16) Landslide Hazard Model (1: 100,000) Series F (1-16) SSURGO Soil Parent Materials (1:60,000) Series G (1-16) Surface Mine Overview (1:60,000)

Appendices Appendix A ODNR Pipeline Standards and Construction Specifications Appendix B Hazard Mitigation Options

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 4 Geohazard Evaluation Report Rover Pipeline ■ Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and Michigan October 30, 2015 ■ Terracon Project No. J1149328

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report is intended to serve as a working document to support the identification and mitigation of geologic hazards likely to be encountered throughout the project. The Rover Pipeline Project traverses approximately 500 miles from Howell, Michigan to New Milton, West Virginia. Approximately 220 miles of the western portion of the alignment is in relatively level terrain of the previously glaciated Central Lowland province and Appalachian Plateau. The geologic setting and terrain in the westerly portion of the alignment is distinctly different from the approximately 280 miles of the eastern rugged unglaciated Appalachian Plateau.

The physiographic setting and former extent of continental glaciers provide a useful context for the understanding, identification, and mitigation of geologic hazards encountered throughout the project. The challenging portion of the alignment with respect to identification and mitigation of both landslide and subsidence geohazards will be in the unglaciated Appalachian Plateau, where a combination of steep slopes, deeply weathered rock, and remnants from both surface and underground mining activities will require careful observation and mitigation.

The report is supported by a rich GIS database of publicly available data and the results of Terracon’s proprietary geohazard modeling process. Results from our GIS analysis and modeling highlight areas of the project that are prone to landslide and subsidence hazards. Modeling results should not be used as a predictor of geologic hazards, but rather as a tool to help the project team evaluate local conditions. This report and the GIS data behind it should be used continuously to help evaluate and mitigate conditions as they are observed in the field.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 5 Geohazard Evaluation Report Rover Pipeline ■ Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and Michigan October 30, 2015 ■ Terracon Project No. J1149328

INTRODUCTION

The Rover Pipeline Project (Project) is a proposed natural gas pipeline system that will consist of 711.2 miles of supply laterals and mainlines, including 202.1 miles of dual pipelines, 10 compressor stations, and associated facilities located in parts of West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan. The Project will include 509.1 miles of proposed right-of-way, extending from the vicinity of New Milton, Doddridge County, West Virginia to the vicinity of Howell, Livingston County, Michigan.

The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of anticipated geologic hazards (geohazards) along the entire Project alignment. This report is also intended to provide guidance for field construction personnel to evaluate and mitigate potential geohazards encountered in the field during various stages of development. Knowledge of anticipated hazards, careful observation, discussion, and mitigation are essential elements of the construction process to ensure safety, successful project completion, and long term integrity of the proposed pipeline.

The report is a working document to be periodically updated based on review and feedback from the project team. This report is supported by a web-based GIS resource developed by Terracon to help evaluate and communicate the wealth of information available to support decisions throughout the construction process. Select data for sections of the alignment are represented in the Exhibit series that accompany this report. Additional coverage and detail may be necessary beyond what is shown in the map exhibits in order to evaluate the various geologic hazards discussed in this report. This GIS resource can be made available through web and mobile applications to help support project decision making and hazard evaluation.

Project Information

ITEM DESCRIPTION Project meetings and correspondence with Mr. Jeff Richardson (Project Consulting Services) and Mr. Brian Dorwart of Directional Project Support. Information Sources

Issued For Bid (IFB) Centerlines (transmitted 8/14/15) Type Proposed natural gas pipeline Location PA, WV, OH, and MI

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 6 Geohazard Evaluation Report Rover Pipeline ■ Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and Michigan October 30, 2015 ■ Terracon Project No. J1149328

How to Use this Report

This report is a working document that is intended to provide an overview of anticipated geologic hazards and guidance in the assessment and evaluation of hazards. Field construction personnel are expected to use this document in order to help understand and identify potentially hazardous conditions and to make appropriate decisions to discuss, mitigate, or seek professional engineering judgement based on observations. The report is structured to provide an overview of the regional geology (Section 3.0) and anticipated conditions based on the physiographic setting defined in Section 3.1.1, and then a discussion of the various categories of geologic hazards defined in Section 3.1.2.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 7 Geohazard Evaluation Report Rover Pipeline ■ Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and Michigan October 30, 2015 ■ Terracon Project No. J1149328

GEOLOGIC SETTING

Physiographic Setting and Project Overview

The project traverses the formerly glaciated Central Lowlands geologic province to the Appalachian Plateau (Exhibit A). The character of the terrain and the nature of surficial deposits throughout the Central Lowlands and portions of the Appalachian Plateau are significantly influenced by the former Laurentide Ice Sheet, the extent of which reached as far east as the I- 77 corridor at mile post (MP) 39 along the project mainline. Herein, we refer to the “glaciated” (Western) versus the “unglaciated” (Eastern) portions of the project alignment with respect to the Late Wisconsinan limit of glaciation (Mainline MP 39). An overview of the Project is shown on Exhibit A along with the Late Wisconsinan limit of glaciation (also referred to as the Last Glacial Maximum). The surficial geology of the Project is shown in Exhibit Series B.

Physiographic Setting Section Lateral MP Physiographic Setting Market Market Segment ITC 100-0 Central Lowlands Mainline 210-102 Central Lowlands Mainline Mainline 102-40 Glaciated Appalachian Plateau Mainline 40-0 Unglaciated Appalachian Plateau Burgetstown Lateral 0-52 Unglaciated Appalachian Plateau Cadiz Lateral 0-3 Unglaciated Appalachian Plateau Clarington Lateral 0-33 Unglaciated Appalachian Plateau Supply Lines Majorsville Lateral 0-24 Unglaciated Appalachian Plateau Seneca Lateral 0-26 Unglaciated Appalachian Plateau Sherwood Lateral 0-54 Unglaciated Appalachian Plateau CGT Lateral 0-6 Unglaciated Appalachian Plateau

Overview of Geologic Hazards Hazard Frequency for Physiographic Setting Summary of Geologic Hazards Project Alignment Perched, confined, and semiconfined groundwater (LS) Moderate Central Lowlands Variable thickness of glacial drift above karst geology (S) Moderate/Low Stream erosion hazards with related areas of moderately steep slopes (LS) Low Perched, confined, and semiconfined groundwater (LS) Moderate Glaciated Appalachian Limited areas of moderately steep slopes and stream Plateau erosion hazards (LS) Moderate Surface mine operations and mine spoil materials (S/LS/A) Low

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 8 Geohazard Evaluation Report Rover Pipeline ■ Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and Michigan October 30, 2015 ■ Terracon Project No. J1149328

Hazard Frequency for Physiographic Setting Summary of Geologic Hazards Project Alignment Steep Terrain (LS) High Stream Erosion (LS) High Fine-grained Residuum and Colluvium over Unglaciated Appalachian Siltstone/Claystone/Shale Geology (LS) High Plateau Surface mine operations and mine spoil materials Moderate- (S/LS/C) High* Moderate- Subsurface mine operations (S) High*

Hazard Category: LS – Landslide Hazards; S – Subsidence Hazards; C – Corrosion Hazards

Summary of Conditions

The Central Lowlands The proposed pipeline corridor follows a portion of the Central Lowlands Province, referred to as the Interior Plains Division, which is comprised of the Till Plains and Huron-Erie Lake Plains Sections.

The Till Plains are characterized by flat to gently rolling glacial landforms including end moraines, ground moraines, recessional moraines, outwash plains, kettles, bogs/fens, and some isolated lacustrine deposits. Prior to Wisconsinan glaciation the area had moderate relief and was highly dissected by streams and rivers. Wisconsinan glaciation resulted in the erosion of highlands, valley widening, and stream valley deposits up to 400 feet in total thickness. Post glaciation, the local relief across the Till Plains is up to 250 feet, rising gradually to the east.

The Till Plains contain a heterogeneous mixture of clay, silt, sand, gravel, and boulders (till) along with subglacial meltwater channels consisting of sand and gravel, and glacio-lacustrine deposits of silt and clay. Local areas of perched groundwater, confined, and semiconfined groundwater flow are anticipated due to the nature of these glacial deposits. Local pockets of perched or confined groundwater have the potential to cause water related soil stability problems in trenches and excavations and will require mitigation measures. The Till Plains are underlain by rocks of Pennsylvanian, Mississippian, Devonian, and Silurian age, including carbonates susceptible to karst formation. High to Moderate karst subsidence hazards have been identified beneath the Till Plains region due to karst susceptible geology, locally thin overburden deposits (less than 20 feet thick), and bedrock structural controls (see Section 4.2.1).

The Huron-Erie Lake Plains are characterized by lacustrine deposits of silt and clay with very low relief. This low-lying flat terrain is accompanied by low sandy beach ridge, dune, and bar deposits from post-glacial lacustrine limits as well as deltas and clay flats of the Lake Erie basin. Areas of lakebed clays are poorly drained, forming a region to the northwest of the Project known as the Great Black Swamp. Much of this region was drained in the late 1800’s to allow for settlement

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 9 Geohazard Evaluation Report Rover Pipeline ■ Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and Michigan October 30, 2015 ■ Terracon Project No. J1149328

and agriculture. Shallow water and poor drainage conditions may present excavation hazards during construction, particularly in wet weather. Thick deposits of clay help to cap the underlying carbonate rocks and minimize the formation of karst. Karst hazards may still exist throughout this region, particularly in local areas of higher groundwater infiltration.

Glaciated Appalachian Plateau The Glaciated Appalachian Plateau is characterized by smooth rolling hills, ridges, and broad flat valleys with moderate relief, locally up to 200 feet. Local ridges and hills expose bedrock and residual soils and alternate with broad drift filled stream floodplains. The glaciated portion of the Appalachian Plateau is largely underlain by rocks of Mississippian and Pennsylvanian age. Soils in the area are low in richness, acidic, and poorly drained. Glacial landforms include features such as terminal moraines, end moraines, ground moraines, kames, eskers, kettles, bogs/fens (wetlands that commonly contain peat deposits), outwash plains, and glacio-lacustrine deposits.

Unglaciated Appalachian Plateau The proposed pipeline corridor follows a portion of the Appalachian Plateau Province, referred to as the Appalachian Highlands Division, which is comprised of the Allegheny (Kanawha) Plateau Section, among others. The Unglaciated Appalachian Plateau is a rugged, eroded plain of sedimentary rock, marked by flat-topped highlands and rounded hills. This strongly dissected plateau forms areas of steep slopes and sharp relief from the active down-cutting and erosion from a vast dendritic network of streams. Mature-stage streams form well-developed floodplains, and meanders. Hills between major streams generally exhibit rounded summits and moderately shallow slopes. Elevation relief of the region is on the order of a few hundred feet.

The Appalachian Plateau is largely underlain by sedimentary strata of Permian and Pennsylvanian age that appear near horizontal in road cuts and outcrops. The actual structure of the rocks is gently folded, with fold limbs generally less than 2 or 3 degrees. The region is rich in mineral resources such as coal, natural gas, and petroleum. Surface and underground mines are common throughout the plateau, contributing to subsidence hazards. Soils in this area are often low in fertility and acidic.

The soils in the unglaciated plateau portion of the project consist of mainly residuum, colluvium, glacial outwash, lacustrine/glacio-lacustrine, and alluvium. Some areas also contain a thin veneer of loess deposits.

Residuum (also sometimes called residual soil) is defined as unconsolidated, completely or partly weathered mineral material that accumulated as sound rock disintegrated in place. The texture and composition of residuum reflects the parent rock type. Residual soil derived from siltstones, mudstones and shale are therefore fine-grained and often result in unstable slope conditions. Given sufficient slope, fine-grained residuum is prone to landslide movement.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 10 Geohazard Evaluation Report Rover Pipeline ■ Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and Michigan October 30, 2015 ■ Terracon Project No. J1149328

Colluvium (colluvial soil) is defined as loose, unconsolidated sediments that have been moved by creep, slide, water, or a combination of processes and deposited at the base of steep slopes. Colluvium is commonly composed of a heterogeneous range of rock types and sediments with grain sizes ranging from silt up to rock fragments of various sizes. Unlike residuum, the composition of colluvial soil is often different than the bedrock below it.

Glacial outwash includes sand and gravel deposits deposited by meltwater streams in front of a glacier in stratified deposits. Typically outwash deposits are coarse textured, weakly to strongly bedded, sand and gravels overlain by finer textured silty or loamy deposits. Outwash may be pitted with kettles or dissected by postglacial streams. Outwash plains are commonly cross- bedded with units of alternating grain size.

Lacustrine/Glacio-lacustrine deposits are located in scattered areas throughout the unglaciated plateau portion of this project. Glaciers blocked the natural drainage ways in the area which in turn caused the formation of lakes. Silts and clays were deposited in the bottom of lakes and as the glaciers retreated, lacustrine deposits remained in the form of terraces and valley fills.

Alluvium (alluvial soil) is comprised of sand, silt, or clay that has been deposited on land by streams. Alluvium, within the Project, is typically subdivided into old and recent deposits. Old alluvium (old floodwater deposits) are found in areas containing low and high terraces located along major streams. Recent alluvium (recent floodwater deposits) is the younger deposit which continues to accumulate as fresh sediment is deposited by streams overflowing their banks.

Loess is a geologically recent deposit consisting of silt-sized particles transported and deposited by wind (aeolian). Loess deposits are typically a few inches to a few feet thick. Loess deposits in the Project area typically overly residuum.

Bedrock Geology

The following bedrock geologic units are encountered in the unglaciated portion of the project alignment. These units are discussed with respect to relative stratigraphic position, mineral resources (mining), karst development, weathering, and characteristics that may result in hazardous conditions encountered along the Project.

Dunkard Group (PIPd) The Permian/Pennsylvanian aged Dunkard Group consists of abundant claystone (mudstone), shale, siltstone, and sandstone. It is also noted to contain limestone and discontinuous, thin impure coals. . The depositional environments for the Dunkard Group units were wetlands, lakes, and also deltas of the large rivers that flowed across the coastal lowlands. The Dunkard Group has a sharp lower contact with the Monongahela Group and is overlain by Cenozoic sediments. The Dunkard Group ranges in thickness from 0 to more than 600 feet.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 11 Geohazard Evaluation Report Rover Pipeline ■ Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and Michigan October 30, 2015 ■ Terracon Project No. J1149328

Claystone, shale, and siltstone vary in color from red, yellow, olive, green, brown and black; they are typically argillaceous to sandy, non-bedded to thinly bedded and can be locally calcareous. Sandstone is typically brown to gray, fine grained to conglomeratic, thin to massive to cross bedded, and can be micaceous. Limestone is typically gray to black, argillaceous to micrite rich (lime mud), and thin to medium bedded. Coal is black, typically impure, banded, thinly bedded, discontinuous, and bituminous.

Limestone and sandstone units are resistant to weathering while the claystone, siltstone, and shale units are less resistant to weathering and will form thin to thick colluvium deposits on slopes. Coal beds are prone to weathering especially near their outcrops. Landslides in the claystone and shale units (especially in the “red beds”) are common. Rock falls also occur as these claystone and shale units weather allowing undermining of the more competent sandstone and limestone beds.

Shallow excavations are feasible through the weathered shales, claystones, and coal by ripping. Massively bedded sandstone, limestone, unweathered siltstone, and shale are resistant to ripping; therefore, blasting, breaking or cutting may be required for excavation. Coalbeds in the Dunkard are not considered commercially mineable. However, coal has been mined for local use (house coal) in areas because of its near surface location.

Monongahela Group (IPm) The Pennsylvanian aged Monongahela Group consists of abundant shale, siltstone, and claystone. It is also noted to contain sandstone, limestone and coal. Lateral and vertical changes between rock types are common. The depositional environments for Monongahela Group were wetlands, lakes, and also deltas of the large rivers that flowed across the coastal lowlands. The Monongahela Group has a sharp upper contact with the Dunkard Group and a sharp lower contact with the Conemaugh Group. The Monongahela Group ranges in thickness from 230 to 350 feet.

Claystone, shale, and siltstone vary in color from red, gray, olive, green, yellow, and black; the units are typically argillaceous to sandy, non-bedded to thinly bedded, and locally calcareous. Sandstone is typically brown to gray, fine to conglomeratic, thin to massive to cross bedded, locally calcareous and micaceous. Limestone is typically gray to black, micritic to coarse grained, thin to medium bedded but can also be nodular to irregularly bedded. Coal is black, banded, and bituminous, thin to thickly bedded, and can be locally or regionally distributed.

Limestone and sandstone are resistant to weathering. Claystone, siltstone, coal, and shale units are less resistant to weathering and will form thin to thick colluvium deposits on slopes. Landslides in the claystone and shale units (especially in the red beds) are common and rock- falls also occur as the shale and claystone weather allowing undermining below the more competent sandstone and limestone beds.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 12 Geohazard Evaluation Report Rover Pipeline ■ Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and Michigan October 30, 2015 ■ Terracon Project No. J1149328

Subsidence can occur in areas where voids have been created from underground mining of coal and clay. Economic coals in this group are the Pittsburgh (No. 8), Pomeroy (No. 8a), Meigs Creek (No. 9), and Waynesburg (No.11). Adits into the mine complexes may include drift entries, slope entries, and vertical air shafts. Structural failures of the mine support system may also create additional hazards from the failure of support pillars and timbers within the mine, pillar punching, and roof beam failure. Subsidence hazards may propagate immediately to the surface and be expressed as a catastrophic shear failure or may be expressed as a slow and steady expanding depression or swell. The extent of surface expression is dependent on the type and thickness of the overlying soils and rocks.

Shale, claystone, and coal units near the surface can be ripped with some difficulty. Sandstone, limestone, unweathered siltstone, and shale are resistant to ripping and blasting, breaking or cutting is required for excavation.

Conemaugh Group (IPc) The Pennsylvanian aged Conemaugh Group consists of abundant shale, siltstone, and claystone. It is also noted to contain sandstone, limestone and coal. Lateral and vertical changes between rock types are common. Depositional environments for the Conemaugh Group were nearshore marine environments, deltas, marine and brackish bays and lagoons, and coastal lowlands.

The Conemaugh Group has a sharp upper contact with the Monongahela Group and a sharp lower contact with the Allegheny Pottsville-Undivided (in Ohio) and the Allegheny Group (in West Virginia and Pennsylvania). In Pennsylvania, the Conemaugh Group is divided into the Casselman and Glenshaw Formations. The Casselman Formation includes all rock units above the Ames Limestone while the Glenshaw Formation includes all rock units from the top of the Ames Limestone to the top of the Upper Freeport Coal (Allegheny Formation). The Conemaugh Group ranges in thickness from 350 to 500 feet (in Ohio), 450 to 520 feet (in West Virginia), and 230 to 890 feet (in Pennsylvania).

Claystone, shale, and siltstone vary in color from red, yellow, olive, green, brown and black; they are typically argillaceous to sandy, non-bedded to thinly bedded and can be locally calcareous. Sandstone is typically brown to gray, fine grained to conglomeratic, thin to massive to cross bedded, and can be micaceous. Limestone is typically gray to black, micritic to coarse grained, thin to medium bedded; marine fossils can be found in the lower part of the unit. Coal is black, bituminous, impure, thinly bedded to discontinuous.

Limestone and sandstone units are resistant to weathering. Claystone, siltstone, coal, and shale units are less resistant to weathering and will form thin to thick colluvium deposits on slopes. Landslides in the claystone and shale units (especially in the red beds) are common and rockfalls also occur as the shale and claystone weather, allowing undermining below the more competent sandstone and limestone beds.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 13 Geohazard Evaluation Report Rover Pipeline ■ Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and Michigan October 30, 2015 ■ Terracon Project No. J1149328

The Mahoning (No. 7a) coal has been mined commercially in Jefferson and Columbiana Counties in Ohio; but overall the Conemaugh has a lack of mineable coals with the exception of a few locally thick seams that were mined economically. Conemaugh sandstones have been noted to produce economic quantities of oil, gas, and brine in the shallow subsurface. Some of the limestone units within this group are also mined locally.

The weathered shales, claystones, and coal near the surface can be ripped. Sandstone, limestone, unweathered siltstone, and shale are resistant to ripping; therefore, blasting, breaking or cutting may be required for excavation.

Allegheny and Pottsville Group-Undivided (IPap) The Pennsylvanian aged Allegheny and Pottsville Group-Undivided is characterized by an abundance of shale, sandstone, and conglomerate and a subordinate amount of limestone, clay, flint, coal, and underclay. Rapid horizontal and vertical changes between rock types are common. The rock units were deposited in a wide variety of depositional environments such as deep valleys cut into Mississippian rocks, shallow marine environments, shorelines, deltas, large rivers flowing across coastal lowlands, and bays and lagoons that occurred in the coastal lowlands.

The Allegheny Pottsville Group-Undivided has a sharp upper contact with the Conemaugh Group and a sharp lower contact with the Cuyahoga Formation (in northeast Ohio) and the Logan Formation, Maxville Limestone, or the Rushville Formation (in southeastern Ohio). These two formations/groups are combined in Ohio due to the Newland (No.4 Brookville) coal is missing either due to never being deposited or it has been eroded. In Pennsylvania and West Virginia the base of the Newland (No. 4 Brookville) is dividing line between the Allegheny Formation and the Pottsville Formation. The Allegheny Pottsville Group -Undivided ranges in thickness from 450 to 620 feet in Ohio. The Allegheny Formation ranges in thickness from 150 to 325 feet (in West Virginia) and 270 to 330 feet (in Pennsylvania) The Pottsville Formation ranges in thickness from 200 to 360 feet (in West Virginia) and 20 to 250 feet (in Pennsylvania)

Shale is gray to black in color, clayey to sandy, thin to medium bedded, locally calcareous and fossiliferous. Underclay is clayey to silty, non-bedded, and underlies the coal beds. Sandstone is typically gray to brown in color, very fine to coarse grained, thin to massively bedded, locally conglomeratic, quartz rich and calcareous. Limestone is gray to black in color, micritic to medium grained, thin to medium bedded, nodular to irregular bedded and may grade to flint (chert). Non- marine limestone occurs in the upper portion of the Allegheny Group and micritic limestone is commonly found underlying the coal beds of the Allegheny Group. Coals are banded, bituminous, and thin to thick bedded.

Subsidence can occur in areas where voids have been left from underground mining of coal. Economic coals in this unit are the Lower Mercer No. 3, Upper Mercer No. 3a, Newland No. 4 (Brookville), Clarion No. 4a, Lower Kittanning No. 5, Middle Kittanning No. 6, Lower Freeport No. 6a, and the Upper Freeport No. 7. Mineable coals are abundant but are generally restricted to

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 14 Geohazard Evaluation Report Rover Pipeline ■ Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and Michigan October 30, 2015 ■ Terracon Project No. J1149328

localized areas. Underclays were mined for the production of bricks, pottery, etc. Limestone found within these Groups was mined in various locations. Sandstones from this unit have been noted to produce economic quantities of oil, gas, and brine in the shallow subsurface.

Sandstone, limestone, and conglomerate are resistant to weathering. Shale, clay, and coal are less resistant to weathering and form thin to thick colluvium deposits on slopes. Rock falls occur where resistant sandstone and limestone have been undermined by erosion of weaker shale and clay layers.

GEOLOGIC HAZARDS

Hazard Identifications

Important Observations and Considerations in the Field Field personnel should be aware and take note of the following features:  Hummocky (undulating) ground,  Rippled ground,  Cracks  Presence of water and natural drainage conditions  Vegetation type, density, and habit (e.g. curved tree trunks, toppled trees)

Removal of vegetation and/or restriction of natural drainage may result in increased landslide susceptibility. Water control and drainage are important considerations during all phases of construction. Excavation activities that disturb natural drainage should be discussed with the site supervisor and appropriate measures should be taken to control or re-route water to the base of the slope. Contact a geotechnical engineer if you are uncertain about conditions or the appropriate mitigation measures.

Observe, Identify, and Review Discuss and Decide Execute or Evaluate

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 15 Geohazard Evaluation Report Rover Pipeline ■ Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and Michigan October 30, 2015 ■ Terracon Project No. J1149328

Landslide Hazard Identification Landslide Hazards  Fall  Topple Mass detaches from Forward rotation or a steep slope or tilting of a column of cliff. Free-fall, rock or soil bouncing, or rolling

 Flow  Avalanche Fluid-like movement Extremely rapid flow- of a mass; slowly or or sheet-like swiftly. Flows of movement of a large, mud and debris may crumbling mass down resemble moving a steep mountainside wet concrete or over a cliff.

 Rotational  Translational Bowl-shaped failure. Movement occurring Movement at top along a relatively (scarp) is downward planar surface; and may tilt into the commonly parallel to slope. Bottom is the slope marked by bulging mass (toe bulge).

 Spread  Creep Lateral movement Similar to spread, but causing the ground commonly to pull apart; or in imperceptibly slow formation of parallel movement; results fractures. May occur hummocky on gentle slopes. (undulating) ground surface and curved tree trunks

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 16 Geohazard Evaluation Report Rover Pipeline ■ Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and Michigan October 30, 2015 ■ Terracon Project No. J1149328

Subsidence Hazard Identification

 Ground Subsidence  Sinkhole Downward ground movement (sag) or settlement of Localized downward ground movement forming a an area. closed depression with or w/out open drain hole or throat.

Landslide Hazard Model

Terracon’s landslide hazard model consists of a series of customized tools that work to calculate landslide susceptibility along pipeline routes. The model generates a total susceptibility score based on multiple input factors. The model is created using python scripting tools and ESRI 10.2 ArcGIS platform with Spatial Analyst.

The following data sources are used to develop the landslide hazard model:

 USGS Open File Report (2005-1305) Integrated Map Databases for the United States (http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1305/index_map.htm );  National Elevation Dataset (NED) (http://ned.usgs.gov/ ),  USGS National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) (http://nhd.usgs.gov/ ),

Terracon’s landslide hazard model first processes and classifies the publicly available data to develop a weighted raster overlay using the following parameters:

 USGS Rock Type with Hazard Value (determined by our local knowledge and experience);  Steep Slopes; and  Stream Erosion (based on stream proximity to slopes).

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 17 Geohazard Evaluation Report Rover Pipeline ■ Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and Michigan October 30, 2015 ■ Terracon Project No. J1149328

USGS Rock Type with Hazard Value

Total Rock Hazard Geologic Unit Map Label Unit Code Count Crossing Type Value (Mi) Allegheny and Pottsville IPap OHPAap;0 shale 22 35.3 7 Groups, Undivided Conemaugh Group IPc OHPAc;0 siltstone 54 82.0 10 Monongahela Group IPm OHPAm;0 shale 86 32.2 9 Dunkard Group PIPd OHPPAd;0 mudstone 54 61.9 10 Casselman Formation Pcc PAPAcc;6 shale 10 9.0 10 Glenshaw Formation Pcg PAPAcg;6 shale 2 0.4 10 Monongahela Group Pm PAPAm;6 limestone 8 0.9 9 Allegheny Formation Pna WVPAa;0 sandstone 2 0.6 5 Conemaugh Group Pnc WVPAc;0 shale 3 4.4 10 Monongahela Group Pnm WVPAm;0 sandstone 10 3.1 9 Dunkard Group Pd WVPd;0 sandstone 10 50.3 10 Quaternary Alluvium Qal WVQal;0 alluvium 3 0.9 10 Total 281.0 Note: Mileage crossing based on distance from Mainline MP 39 (LGM boundary). Hazard values are based on input provided by Terracon local geoprofessionals with local experience.

Slope and Terrain

Slope Slope Hazard Classification (degrees) Value Low/Negligible 0 to 5 1 Gradual 6 to 11 2 Moderate 12 to 18 3 Steep 19 to 90 4

Stream Hydrography and Erosion To account for the potential influence of stream channel erosion to undermine the toe of steep slopes, we developed a tool to assign a hazard value to all areas where an NHD stream channel exists within 400 feet of slopes greater than 30 degrees.

Landslide Hazard Overlay Results from Terracon’s landslide hazard model are presented in Exhibit Series E. The landslide hazard model is classified on a scale of 1-9 representing overall susceptibility to slope stability issues. This classification is to be used for general reference only to help prioritize and evaluate

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 18 Geohazard Evaluation Report Rover Pipeline ■ Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and Michigan October 30, 2015 ■ Terracon Project No. J1149328

conditions in the field. The type and severity of landslide hazards will vary significantly based upon the local geology, vegetation, presence of water, loading at the top of slope, and undercutting/erosion at the bottom of slope.

All slopes should be carefully evaluated at the time of tree clearing and initial construction. Site construction activities may disrupt natural conditions resulting in increased susceptibility to landslide hazards (See Section 4.3).

A crossing table summary of the resulting landslide hazard model for the Project is provided below:

Landslide Hazard Score Line 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 TOTAL Sherwood Lateral 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.2 4.2 18.4 27.2 0.0 2.9 54.0 Seneca Lateral 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 4.2 10.4 10.7 0.0 0.9 26.3 Majorsville Lateral 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.5 7.5 12.5 0.0 1.7 23.6 Mainline A/B 0.0 0.0 6.9 4.9 9.6 13.0 5.2 0.0 0.0 39.6 Clarington Lateral 0.0 0.0 1.3 5.0 7.6 8.5 8.4 0.1 1.5 32.4 CGT Lateral 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.7 4.6 0.0 0.4 5.8 Cadiz Lateral 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.7 1.8 0.4 0.0 0.0 3.5 Burgettstown Lateral 0.0 0.0 0.9 2.9 16.2 19.4 10.8 0.3 1.2 51.7 Berne Lateral 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.6 0.2 2.4 0.0 0.1 4.3 Note: Crossing distance values in miles

Subsidence Hazard Model

Terracon developed a custom subsidence model for the Project based on available data for subsurface mine extents and karst susceptible rock formations. The results from our subsidence model are summarized in Exhibit Series D and explained as follows:

Karst Subsidence Terracon evaluated existing publicly available data for Karst susceptible geology for the Project and assigned a hazard value of 1 for all lithologic formations identified by USGS Open-File Report 2014-1156, Karst and Potential Karst Areas in Soluble Rocks in the Contiguous United States (Weary and Doctor, 2014). Additional consideration was also given to an isolated area identified by TetraTech, in their Characterization of Karst Prone Areas Relative to the Proposed Pipeline Route, dated June 2015. In this report TetraTech identified high probability of karst development beneath the Mainline Section MP128 to 161; this particular section of the mainline was assigned a hazard value of 2.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 19 Geohazard Evaluation Report Rover Pipeline ■ Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and Michigan October 30, 2015 ■ Terracon Project No. J1149328

Underground Mine Subsidence Terracon evaluated GIS data of documented underground mine extents from the state repositories in Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania (scanned maps only) and Michigan (scanned maps only). Michigan did not have documented mine extents in the Project vicinity.

The Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) maintains a detailed GIS database of active and historic mining operations, including upper and lower mine elevations. Terracon conducted GIS analysis of the data by comparing mine elevations to the ground surface elevation for all mine extent data intersected by the Project. Based on this evaluation, and assuming an angle of draw equal to 35 degrees for all mine extents, Terracon calculated a buffer distance for each mine where sufficient data exists. For all other mine areas, an average buffer distance of 280 feet was applied to the mine extent data. Documented underground mine extents (with buffer) were assigned a hazard value of 2 for inclusion in the subsidence hazard model.

For Pennsylvania, Terracon reviewed scanned mine maps from the Project vicinity which identified the Pittsburg Coal Seam as the primary source of minable coal. The Pittsburg Coal seam is the thickest and most extensive coal bed in the Appalachian Basin, forming the basal member of the Monongahela Group. For purposes of conservative estimation, Terracon selected the portion of the Monongahela Group, as identified from the USGS Open File Report, copied the GIS data within a 5 mile buffer of the Project, and assigned the area a hazard value of 3 (potential karst and mine extents) for incorporation in the subsidence model.

Subsidence Hazard Model Terracon’s subsidence model is based on a GIS raster overlay that calculates the cumulative sum of overlapping areas with values assigned (as described above). The resulting raster model indicates values from 1 to 3, where 1= potential karst hazard, 2= high probability karst hazard or mine extents, and 3= potential karst hazard and overlapping mine extents.

A crossing table summary of the resulting subsidence hazard model for the Project is provided below:

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 20 Geohazard Evaluation Report Rover Pipeline ■ Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and Michigan October 30, 2015 ■ Terracon Project No. J1149328

Subsidence Model Value 1 2 3 Total Line Miles % Miles % Miles % Length Burgettstown Lateral 2.4 5% 5.4 11% 1.2 2% 51.7 CGT Lateral 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 5.8 Sherwood Lateral 0.0 0% 0.3 0% 0.0 0% 54.0 Majorsville Lateral 1.0 4% 14.1 60% 1.2 5% 23.6 Clarington Lateral 5.6 17% 14.8 46% 6.9 21% 32.4 Cadiz Lateral 1.1 30% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 3.5 Berne Lateral 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 4.3 Seneca Lateral 0.0 0% 4.0 15% 0.0 0% 26.4 Mainline A/B 34.9 17% 40.2 19% 0.0 0% 209.6 Market Segment ITC 1.1 1% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 99.9 Note: Crossing distance values in miles

Surface Mine Hazards

Active and former surface mines present potential hazards due to water, erosion, corrosive soil and water conditions, or a combination of factors. Highwall structures, formed as a result of mining (e.g., auger mining or highwall miner), present a number of hazards, particularly where the mines have been backfilled with uncontrolled spoils. Differential settlement is typically expected along the edge of the highwall where natural rock abuts the uncontrolled backfill of mine spoils. The presence of water seeping from the rock face may exacerbate settlement and also result in corrosive conditions.

Water flowing through the pulverized rock of the mine spoils exposes greater surface area of sulfide minerals (particularly common in shales) which facilitate oxidation and formation of acidic drainage. Ponding of acidic waters at or near the ground surface poses a corrosion hazard to pipeline infrastructure. The specific conditions at a particular site will be a function of the highwall size and configuration, uncontrolled mine spoil materials, bedrock type and local mineralogy, bedrock structure, sources of groundwater or surface water, and ponding/impoundment. Outside of highwall mining areas, mine spoil materials are subject to differential settlement and erosion, a condition which typically attenuates over time.

Terracon has performed an evaluation of potential surface mine hazards, using the following sources of data:

 ODNR Disturbed Reclamation Land: actual disturbed area affected by Surface Coal Mine Operations (SCMO)  WVGES Surface Coal Mining Areas from Coal Bed Mapping Program – Surface Mine Extents

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 21 Geohazard Evaluation Report Rover Pipeline ■ Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and Michigan October 30, 2015 ■ Terracon Project No. J1149328

 SSURGO Parent Materials – Mine Spoil Materials (WV/PA)

Potential surface mine hazards from the above data are represented in Exhibit Series G. See Table 1 – ODNR Surface Mines for a summary of Ohio surface mines intersecting the alignment along with mile post references, crossing distances, and regulatory information provided by ODNR.

Field conditions should be evaluated at the time of construction to observe for signs of settlement and erosion, water exfiltration and ponding, and highwall/backfill boundaries. Additional details can be requested from the appropriate state regulatory agency for detailed file review

Provided below are the appropriate regulatory contacts for additional file review and information if certain conditions are observed in the field that warrant further investigation.

State Agency Contact Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) Beth Wilson, Public Information [email protected] Division of Mineral Resources Management 614-265-6901 http://minerals.ohiodnr.gov West Virginia Department of Environmental Wendy Luther, Administrative Services Assistant Protection (WVDEP) [email protected] (304) 926-0499 x.1462 Office of Abandoned Mine Lands and http://www.dep.wv.gov/aml/Pages/default.aspx Reclamation Pennsylvania Department of Environmental MSI Help Desk (M-F, 8 AM-4 PM) Protection (PDEP) http://www.dep.state.pa.us/msi/contactdep.html 1-800-922-1678 Mine Subsidence Insurance Section http://www.dep.state.pa.us/msi/index.html

Field Evaluation

Terracon has performed an aerial survey and scan line review of the unglaciated Appalachian Plateau segments of the Project alignment. Comparison of these observations to the landslide hazard model provides useful context for the evaluation of the model results. In general the model reflects a linear relationship between slope angle and severity of landslide hazard. Depending on the type of landslide hazard, the relationship between slope angle and severity of the hazard includes several other variables that are not accounted for in the model. Specifically, the type and density of vegetation (and associated root systems), depth and extent of residuum and/or colluvial soil development, the presence of springs and other sources of water, slope curvature, and emplaced fills are all important variables not captured in the landslide hazard model.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 22 Geohazard Evaluation Report Rover Pipeline ■ Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and Michigan October 30, 2015 ■ Terracon Project No. J1149328

Aerial Survey Terracon conducted an aerial survey of the unglaciated Appalachian Plateau segments of the Project alignment. The aerial survey was conducted between May 13 through 15, 2015 via helicopter traveling over the proposed pipeline right-of-way at a flight profile of about 100 to 300 feet. Field personnel were equipped with an iPad tablet and ESRI ArcGIS Collector to document location, photos, and observations during the aerial survey. Conditions at the time of aerial survey prevented clear observation of the ground surface throughout much of the alignment due to full foliage tree canopy. Observations from the aerial survey are summarized in Table 2. Observed features are referenced to the general location of the helicopter at the time of record capture. Due to methods and equipment used to locate observed features (no ground survey), direct comparison of observation locations to the model values is not appropriate. In general, aerial survey observations of landslide features appear to be consistent with the model results.

Scan Line Survey Terracon conducted a field survey of scan line locations selected for the purpose of model evaluation. Scan line locations were 1,000 feet long and were selected based on GIS desktop review of terrain features in various geologic settings. PCS coordinated site access for Terracon personnel. Field personnel were equipped with an iPad tablet and ESRI ArcGIS Collector to document location, photos, and observations at the time of the scan line review. This mobile GIS application enabled field personnel to access customized project base maps and data, including the proposed scan line locations and raster data from the preliminary landslide hazard model. A summary of results from the scan line survey is provided in Table 3. Scan line observations generally agree with the model results. High model values were often observed to be associated with rock toppling/fall type landslide hazards, a factor that is attributed to the strong influence of the slope classification. Scan line locations 2 and 4 both show a range of moderate to high values in the hazard model, where no significant hazards were observed in the field. This may be attributed to the density and type of vegetation, and other factors. In summary the landslide model results appear to present a conservative estimation of landslide hazards for the unglaciated portion of the Appalachian Plateau.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 23 Geohazard Evaluation Report Rover Pipeline ■ Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and Michigan October 30, 2015 ■ Terracon Project No. J1149328

CONSTRUCTION HAZARDS

 Changes in Vegetation – Trees and other vegetation help to anchor the soil in steep terrain. Tree clearing and vegetation removal along the right-of way will likely result in greater susceptibility to landslide hazards.  Excavation and Grading - Slope excavation will be required in sloping terrain. Excavation and grading may result in over-steepened slopes and/or undercutting of steep slopes, thereby increasing the risk of landslides.  Drainage and Groundwater Alterations - Water flowing through or over the ground is often a trigger for landslides. Drainage can be affected naturally by the geology and topography of an area or by man-made activities. Any activity that increases the amount of water flowing onto slopes can increase the potential of landslides. Channels, streams, ponding, and erosion on slopes are all indicators of potential slope problems. Ineffective storm water management, including water retention facilities that direct water onto slopes, and excess runoff can cause erosion and generate landslides.

HAZARD MITIGATION

 Minimize the three main construction hazards in sloping terrain: clearing of vegetation, over-steepening or undercutting slopes, and alterations to natural drainage.  For Best Management Practices regarding drainage alterations and stormwater control refer to ODNR-DSWC Pipeline Standards and Construction Specification (OPCS) provided as Appendix A. o NOTE: this document mentions soil stockpile management practices that are not recommended in landslide prone areas. See Appendix B for mitigation approaches relating to excavation and grading  Refer to mitigation approaches outlined in Appendix B.  Particular care should be taken to control and reroute stormwater and natural drainage/groundwater to the base of slope, away from the pipeline excavation areas.

RECOMMENDATIONS

This report is a working document, intended to provide guidance for field construction personnel to evaluate and mitigate potential geohazards encountered in the field during various stages of development. Knowledge of anticipated hazards, careful observation, discussion, and mitigation are essential elements of the construction process to ensure safety, successful project completion, and long term integrity of the proposed pipeline. Be sure to consult a geotechnical

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 24 Geohazard Evaluation Report Rover Pipeline ■ Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and Michigan October 30, 2015 ■ Terracon Project No. J1149328

engineer at any point in the construction process where observed geologic hazards are questionable and an appropriate hazard mitigation approach is not clearly defined.

We recommend that you provide the information and data referenced in this report to the field personnel so that they are able to make informed decisions throughout project planning and construction. The GIS resources used to develop supporting materials for this project can also be made available through web and mobile applications. These tools help to activate the available data and enable better project planning and decision making throughout the life of your project.

GENERAL COMMENTS

The scope of services for this project provides an opinion of geotechnical conditions based on publicly available data, further supported by GIS modeling and analysis for the purpose of preliminary planning only. This report does not reflect conditions and variations that may occur due to deviation from information reported by the public sources.

No subsurface exploration was performed by Terracon in this scope of work to confirm the third- party information and Terracon does not have first-hand knowledge of the actual conditions along the proposed pipeline corridor that could potentially impact construction or long-term pipeline integrity. Further any undocumented or unknown conditions affecting the potential for hazards (such as undocumented mining activities) could not be identified by this study. Therefore, any opinions regarding the actual subsurface conditions that would be encountered at this specific project site are very preliminary in nature, and may not represent actual conditions encountered at the project site.

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made.

REFERENCES

Publications Arkle, Thomas, Jr., 1953, The Geology of Switzerland Township, Monroe County, Ohio. The Ohio Journal of Science, Volume 53, No. 1, 13 p.

Catacosinos, Paul A., Westjohn, David B., Harrison III, William B., Wollensak, Mark S., 2001, Stratigraphic Lexicon for Michigan. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Geological Survey Division and the Michigan Basin Geological Society, Bulletin 8, Lansing, Michigan.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 25 Geohazard Evaluation Report Rover Pipeline ■ Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and Michigan October 30, 2015 ■ Terracon Project No. J1149328

Catena, Angeline and Hembree, Daniel, 2012, Recognizing Vertical and Lateral Variability in Terrestrial Landscapes: A Case Study from the Paleosols of the Late Pennsylvanian Casselman Formation (Conemaugh Group) Southeast Ohio, USA. Geosciences 2012, No. 2, 24 p.

Condit, D. Dale, 1912, Conemaugh Formation in Ohio. Geological Survey of Ohio, 4th Series, Bulletin 17.

Condit, Dale D., 1909, The Conemaugh Formation in Southern Ohio. The Ohio Naturalist, Volume 9, No. 6, 6 p.

Davies, William E., 1974, Landslide Susceptibility Maps of Eastern and Southern Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. United States Department of the Interior Geological Survey, U.S. Geological Survey Open File Maps 74-273 to 74-284.

Dean, Stuart L., Kulander, Byron R, Forsyth, Jane L., and Tipton, Ronald M., 1991, Field Guide to Joint Patterns and Geolomorphological Features of Northern Ohio. The Ohio Journal of Science, Volume 91, No. 1, 13 p.

Dorr, Jr., John A. and Eschman, Donald F., with illustrations by Bell, Derwin, 1988, Geology of Michigan. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. ISBN 0-472-08280-9.

Ellis, Garland D., 1979, The Mississippian and Pennsylvanian (Carbiniferous) Systems in the United States – Michigan. United States Department of the Interior Geological Survey and the State of Michigan, Geological Survey Division, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Geological Survey Professional Paper 1110-J, 13 p.

Fisher, Stanley P., Fanaff, Allan S., and Picking, Larry W., 1968, Landslides of Southeastern Ohio. The Ohio Journal of Science, Volume 68, No. 2, 15 p.

Lilienthal, Richard T., 1975, Stratigraphic Cross-Sections of the Michigan Basin: Report of Investigation 19. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Geological and Land Management Division, Geology and Minerals Research Unit, Geological Survey Division.

Morse, William C., 1910, The Maxville Limestone. Geological Survey of Ohio, 4th Series, Bulletin 13.

ODNR Division of Soil and Water Resources (2013), Pipeline Standards and Construction Specifications http://soilandwater.ohiodnr.gov/portals/soilwater/pdf/swcd/PipelineStandard_12-3- 13.pdf

Ohio Division of Geological Survey 1990 (rev. 2000, 2004), Generalized Column of Bedrock Units in Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, 1 p.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 26 Geohazard Evaluation Report Rover Pipeline ■ Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and Michigan October 30, 2015 ■ Terracon Project No. J1149328

Ohio Division of Geological Survey, 1998, Physiographic Regions of Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, page-size map with text, 2 p., scale 1:2,100,000.

Rover Pipeline Project Resource Report 6 – Geological Resources, 2015, February.

Schaetzl, Randall (Editor in Chief), Darden, Joe, Brandt, Danita, and others, with GIS and graphics production by Finn, Mark, 2009, Michigan Geography and Geology. Michigan State University. Pearson Custom Publishing. ISBN 0-536-98716-5.

Schumacher, G.A., Angle, M.P., and Mott, B.E., 2013, Ohio’s Geology in Core and Outcrop – A Field Guide for Citizens, Environmental and Geotechnical Investigators. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, Information Circular 63, 191 p.

Shakoor, A., and Smithmyer, A.J., 2003, An Analysis of Storm-Induced Landslides in Colluvial Soils Overlying Mudrock Sequences, Southeastern Ohio, USA. Engineering Geology, Volume 78, 17 p.

Shultz, Charles H. (Editor). 1999, The Geology of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Geological Survey Harrisburg and Pittsburgh Geological Survey, Special Publication 1. ISBN 0-8182-0227-0.

Stark, J.R., and McDonald, M.G., 1980, Ground Water of Coal Deposits, Bay County, Michigan. United States Department of the Interior Geological Survey and the State of Michigan, Geological Survey Division, Michigan Department of Natural Resources. United States Geological Survey Open-File Report 80-591, 15 p.

Stout, Wilber, and Lamb, G.F., 1938, Physiographic Features of Southeastern Ohio. The Ohio Journal of Science, Volume 38, No. 2, 34 p.

Veni, George, 2002, Revising the Karst Map of the United States. Journal of Cave and Karst Studies, Volume 64, No. 1, 5 p.

Walden, William A., 976, Report of Michigan Peat Reserves, The State of Michigan, Geological Survey Division, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Open File Report MGSD OFR 80- 2, 7 p.

Wu, Tien H., and Swanston, Douglas N., Risk of Landslides in Shallow Soils and Its Relation to Clearcutting in Southeastern Alaska. Forest Science, Volume 26, No.3, 15 p.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 27 Geohazard Evaluation Report Rover Pipeline ■ Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and Michigan October 30, 2015 ■ Terracon Project No. J1149328

Data

BEDROCK GEOLOGY

Nicholson, S.W., Dicken, C.L., Horton, J.D., Labay, K.A., Foose, M.P., Mueller, J.A.L. 2005. Preliminary Integrated Geologic Map Databases for the United States: Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, and West Virginia. 1:500,000 scale digital map data. U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 2005-1324. Version 1. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston VA.

KARST

Powers and Hull, 2006. Updates to the Known and Probable Karst Map of Ohio Ohio Division of Geologic Survey, 2015. Draft Shapefile of Field-Verified and Non-Field Verified Karst Features.

Tobin and Weary, 2004. Digital Engineering Aspects of Karst Map : A GIS version of Davies, W.E., Simpson, J.H., Ohlmacher, G.C., Kirk, W.S., and Newton, E.G., 1984, Engineering aspects of karst: U.S. Geological Survey, National Atlas of the United States of America, scale 1:7,500,000. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2004-1352. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2004/1352/data/USA_karst.pdf

West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey, 1968. Karst regions derived from 1968 geological map of West Virginia. http://wvgis.wvu.edu/data/dataset.php?ID=133

Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 2007. Digital data set of mapped karst features in south- central and southeastern Pennsylvania. http://www.pasda.psu.edu/uci/MetadataDisplay.aspx?entry=PASDA&file=DCNR_PAKar st.xml&dataset=3073

PHYSIOGRAPHY

U.S. Geological Survey. 1946. Physiographic Divisions of the Conterminous United States. 1:7,000,000 scale digital map vector data. U.S. Geological Survey, Dever, CO. https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/physiographic-divisions-of-the-conterminous-u-s

SSURGO

Soil Survey Staff. Gridded Soil Survey Geographic (gSSURGO) Database for the Conterminous United States. 1:24,000 nominal scale digital map vector data. United States Department of

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 28 Geohazard Evaluation Report Rover Pipeline ■ Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and Michigan October 30, 2015 ■ Terracon Project No. J1149328

Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Available online at https://gdg.sc.egov.usda.gov/. December 1, 2013 (FY2014 official release).

NED

U.S. Geological Survey. 2009 (first publication). 1/3-Arc Second National Elevation Dataset. SDE raster digital data, elevation model at 1/3-arc second (approx.. 10-m). Issue ID 0.1. U.S. Geological Survey, Sioux Falls, SD.

NHD

U.S. Dept. of Agriculture – Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Geological Survey, Environmental Protection Agency. 2014 (date accessed). National Hydrography Dataset, multiple locations. 1:24,000 digital map vector data. U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO.

SURFICIAL

Fullerton, David S., Bush, Charles A., Pennell, Jean N.. Surficial Deposits and Materials in the Eastern and Central United States (East of 102 degrees West Longitude). 1:2,000,000 scale digital map vector data. USGS Investigation Series Map I-2789. U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO.

LAST GLACIAL MAXIMUM

Ehlers, J. 2005. Maximum Ice Extent at the Last Glacial Maximum, compiled from Quaternary glaciations – Extent and Chronology (J. Ehlers & P. Gibbard, Elsevier, 2004). 1:1,000,000 scale digital map vector data. University of Cambridge Quaternary Palaeoenvironments Group, ELSEVIER Press. http://booksite.elsevier.com/9780444534477/.

MINES

Ohio Division of Natural Resources, Division of Mineral Resource Management. 2013. Disturbed Reclamation Lands. Digital map vector data of actual disturbance areas from surface coal mine operations. ODNR, DMRR, Columbus, OH.

Ohio Division of Natural Resources, Division of Mineral Resource Management. 2013. Underground Coal Mining Extents. Digital map vector data of areas of subsurface coal mine extents. ODNR, DMRR, Columbus, OH.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 29

TABLES

Table 1 ODNR Surface Mines Draft Final Geohazard Evaluation Report Rover Pipeline Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and Michigan

Pipeline Segment Permittee Permit ID From Mile Post To Mile Post Crossing Length Total Crossing Law Application Date Document Source Burgettstown Lateral S & D CONSTRUCTION CORP C-804 20.04 20.13 0.096 0.096 3 3/16/1979 C-804.TIF Burgettstown Lateral OHIO RIVER COLLIERIES CO D-497 25.35 25.50 0.152 0.152 4 5/21/1986 D-497.TIF Cadiz Lateral CONSOLIDATION COAL CO A-302 0.16 0.22 0.055 0.055 1 7/20/1973 A-302-1.TIF Cadiz Lateral CONSOLIDATION COAL CO C-14 0.49 0.97 0.484 0.484 3 3/8/1978 C-14.TIF Cadiz Lateral CONSOLIDATION COAL CO C-1345 1.97 2.05 0.075 0.116 3 5/12/1983 C-1345.TIF Cadiz Lateral CONSOLIDATION COAL CO C-1345 2.27 2.28 0.013 0.116 3 5/12/1983 C-1345.TIF Cadiz Lateral CONSOLIDATION COAL CO C-1345 2.29 2.30 0.007 0.116 3 5/12/1983 C-1345.TIF Cadiz Lateral CONSOLIDATION COAL CO C-1345 2.35 2.37 0.020 0.116 3 5/12/1983 C-1345.TIF Clarington Lateral CONSOLIDATION COAL CO A-1007 27.67 27.76 0.085 0.196 1 4/29/1975 A-1007-1.TIF Clarington Lateral CONSOLIDATION COAL CO A-1007 27.20 27.31 0.111 0.196 1 4/29/1975 A-1007-1.TIF Clarington Lateral CONSOLIDATION COAL CO A-813 27.76 27.80 0.042 0.042 1 10/18/1971 A-813-1.TIF Clarington Lateral R & F COAL CO C-1095 19.26 19.28 0.022 0.022 3 7/17/1980 C-1095.TIF Clarington Lateral BANNOCK COAL CO C-243 21.32 21.80 0.478 0.478 3 7/6/1979 C-243.TIF Clarington Lateral BANNOCK COAL CO C-1103 22.09 22.09 0.004 0.036 3 6/22/1981 C-1103.TIF Clarington Lateral BANNOCK COAL CO C-1103 21.89 21.91 0.024 0.036 3 6/22/1981 C-1103.TIF Clarington Lateral BANNOCK COAL CO C-1103 21.81 21.82 0.008 0.036 3 6/22/1981 C-1103.TIF Clarington Lateral R & F COAL CO C-590 19.96 19.97 0.008 0.008 3 8/6/1980 C-590.TIF Clarington Lateral R & F COAL CO C-1315 20.40 20.40 0.004 0.198 3 8/30/1983 C-1315.TIF Clarington Lateral R & F COAL CO C-1315 20.28 20.37 0.091 0.198 3 8/30/1983 C-1315.TIF Clarington Lateral R & F COAL CO C-1315 20.09 20.15 0.068 0.198 3 8/30/1983 C-1315.TIF Clarington Lateral R & F COAL CO C-1315 20.00 20.03 0.034 0.198 3 8/30/1983 C-1315.TIF Clarington Lateral R & F COAL CO C-212 19.21 19.25 0.033 0.033 3 6/11/1979 C-212.TIF Clarington Lateral CONSOLIDATION COAL CO C-1049 26.87 26.98 0.106 0.106 3 8/4/1979 C-1049.TIF Clarington Lateral R & F COAL CO C-1126 27.57 27.73 0.158 0.158 3 3/21/1980 C-1126.TIF Clarington Lateral CONSOLIDATION COAL CO C-1493 29.26 29.33 0.072 0.344 3 2/16/1982 C-1493.TIF Clarington Lateral CONSOLIDATION COAL CO C-1493 28.96 29.24 0.273 0.344 3 2/16/1982 C-1493.TIF Clarington Lateral CONSOLIDATION COAL CO C-170 26.84 27.01 0.170 0.421 3 5/16/1979 C-170.TIF Clarington Lateral CONSOLIDATION COAL CO C-170 26.49 26.74 0.250 0.421 3 5/16/1979 C-170.TIF Clarington Lateral CONSOLIDATION COAL CO C-1261 29.37 29.37 0.001 0.009 3 10/26/1983 C-1261.TIF Clarington Lateral CONSOLIDATION COAL CO C-1261 29.35 29.35 0.007 0.009 3 10/26/1983 C-1261.TIF Clarington Lateral CONSOLIDATION COAL CO C-1261 29.34 29.34 0.001 0.009 3 10/26/1983 C-1261.TIF Clarington Lateral BELMONT COAL INC D-1020 5.82 5.83 0.002 0.002 4 10/1/2001 D-1020.TIF Clarington Lateral R & F COAL CO D-955 21.56 21.69 0.125 0.125 4 2/26/1992 D-955.TIF Clarington Lateral MARIETTA COAL CO D-776 14.89 14.93 0.041 0.041 4 9/27/1995 D-776.TIF Clarington Lateral CONSOLIDATION COAL CO D-174 29.33 29.35 0.019 0.019 4 7/30/1998 D-174.TIF Clarington Lateral ENSURCO ASSOCIATES INC D-620 30.18 30.19 0.012 0.012 4 9/19/1989 D-620.TIF Clarington Lateral CONSOLIDATION COAL CO D-826 29.79 29.83 0.040 0.259 4 7/1/1996 D-826.TIF Clarington Lateral CONSOLIDATION COAL CO D-826 29.45 29.63 0.177 0.259 4 7/1/1996 D-826.TIF Clarington Lateral CONSOLIDATION COAL CO D-826 29.35 29.39 0.042 0.259 4 7/1/1996 D-826.TIF Clarington Lateral CRAVAT COAL COMPANY D-2087 24.10 24.99 0.890 1.401 4 7/18/2006 D-2087.TIF Clarington Lateral CRAVAT COAL COMPANY D-2087 23.27 23.78 0.511 1.401 4 7/18/2006 D-2087.TIF Clarington Lateral COMPANY D-2100 27.16 27.52 0.363 0.375 4 8/6/2007 D-2100.TIF Clarington Lateral COMPANY D-2100 27.11 27.12 0.012 0.375 4 8/6/2007 D-2100.TIF Clarington Lateral INC D-2121 25.08 25.54 0.457 0.457 4 8/23/2007 D-2121.TIF Clarington Lateral CRAVAT COAL CO D-2228 21.01 21.09 0.073 0.089 4 7/24/2006 D-2228.TIF Clarington Lateral CRAVAT COAL CO D-2228 20.88 20.89 0.016 0.089 4 7/24/2006 D-2228.TIF Clarington Lateral Oxford Mining D-2238 26.67 26.69 0.025 0.047 4 D-2238_Final Clarington Lateral Oxford Mining D-2238 26.52 26.54 0.021 0.047 4 D-2238_Final Mainline A PUSKARICH MINING INC A-782 183.87 183.95 0.086 0.221 1 9/29/1971 A-782-1.TIF Mainline A PUSKARICH MINING INC A-782 184.13 184.23 0.106 0.221 1 9/29/1971 A-782-1.TIF Mainline A PUSKARICH MINING INC A-782 183.65 183.68 0.030 0.221 1 9/29/1971 A-782-1.TIF Mainline A WILMOT MINING CO B-839 163.58 163.61 0.026 0.026 2 10/14/1975 B-839.TIF Mainline A PUSKARICH MINING CO B-181 183.80 183.85 0.049 0.082 2 1/24/1974 B-181.TIF Mainline A PUSKARICH MINING CO B-181 183.93 183.96 0.033 0.082 2 1/24/1974 B-181.TIF Mainline A PUSKARICH MINING CO INC B-975 183.97 184.14 0.168 0.168 2 4/10/1976 B-975.TIF Mainline A R & F COAL CO C-1217 206.51 206.53 0.018 0.956 3 7/29/1982 C-1217.TIF Mainline A R & F COAL CO C-1217 206.55 206.66 0.110 0.956 3 7/29/1982 C-1217.TIF Mainline A R & F COAL CO C-1217 206.70 206.70 0.007 0.956 3 7/29/1982 C-1217.TIF Mainline A R & F COAL CO C-1217 206.78 207.60 0.822 0.956 3 7/29/1982 C-1217.TIF Mainline A PUSKARICH MINING CO INC C-160 183.89 184.22 0.321 0.321 3 12/24/1979 C-160.TIF Mainline A COUNTYWIDE LANDFILL INC D-938 170.39 170.40 0.009 0.009 4 9/26/2000 D-938.TIF Mainline A MILLER MINING INC D-1121 176.95 177.42 0.468 0.475 4 4/13/1998 D-1121.TIF Mainline A MILLER MINING INC D-1121 177.44 177.45 0.007 0.475 4 4/13/1998 D-1121.TIF Mainline A RED MALCUT INC D-800 178.39 178.56 0.164 0.662 4 10/26/1995 D-800.TIF Mainline A RED MALCUT INC D-800 178.58 178.82 0.239 0.662 4 10/26/1995 D-800.TIF Mainline A RED MALCUT INC D-800 179.12 179.38 0.260 0.662 4 10/26/1995 D-800.TIF COUNTYWIDE RECYCLING Mainline A AND DISPOSAL FAC D-2169 170.37 170.37 0.004 0.004 4 4/14/2008 D-2169.TIF Mainline A Countywide Landfill Inc. IM-0750 170.25 170.38 0.135 0.381 4 Mainline A Countywide Landfill Inc. IM-0750 170.52 170.55 0.028 0.381 4 Mainline A Countywide Landfill Inc. IM-0750 170.58 170.80 0.219 0.381 4 Majorsville Lateral CRAVAT COAL CO D-153 22.43 22.56 0.130 0.130 4 6/8/1984 D-153.TIF Seneca Lateral QUARTO MINING CO D-433 23.12 23.13 0.013 0.066 4 2/23/1995 D-433-1.TIF Seneca Lateral QUARTO MINING CO D-433 23.14 23.20 0.053 0.066 4 2/23/1995 D-433-1.TIF Notes: 1. Ohio Division of Natural Resources, Division of Mineral Resource Management (2013), Disturbed Reclamation Lands. 2. All distances are reported in miles

page 1 of 1 Table 2 Aerial Summay Draft Final Geohazard Evaluation Report Rover Pipeline Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and Michigan

Location 1 Site ID Description (Latitude, Longitude)

Burgettstown Lateral AOI-1 40.443 -81.082 Subsidence / potential sinkhole Mainline A and B AOI-2 40.390 -81.162 Landslide / potential scarp and toe bulge Landslide / potential toe bulge and creep (hummocky ground AOI-3 40.366 -81.137 surface) Majorsville Lateral AOI-4 39.984 -80.897 Landslide / potential creep (hummocky ground surface) AOI-5 39.965 -80.643 Potential seepage (slope instability) AOI-6 39.962 -80.632 Fallen trees (potential slope instability) Clarington AOI-7 39.839 -80.885 Landslide / potential scarp Seneca Lateral Landslide / potential creep (hummocky ground surface / cattle AOI-8 39.833 -80.904 paths) AOI-9 39.826 -80.968 Landslide AOI-10 39.800 -81.293 Landslide / potential scarp AOI-11 39.799 -81.308 Landslide / potential scarp Sherwood Lateral AOI-12 39.488 -80.956 Subsidence / potential sinkhole AOI-13 39.400 -80.848 Landslide AOI-14 39.308 -80.732 Landslide / ponding water or seepage CGT Lateral Landslide / potential scarp and creep (hummocky ground AOI-15 39.285 -80.686 surface) AOI-16 39.313 -80.626 Landslide / potential scarp

Note: 1 Locations are approximate, based on helicopter position at the time of observation Table 3 Scan Line Summary Draft Final Geohazard Evaluation Report Rover Pipeline Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and Michigan

Approx. Inspection Vegetation Landslide Hazard Scan Line ID City State Latitude Longitude Pipeline Hazard Setting Notes Vegetation Type Milepost Date Density Model Values

Hummocky topography, dense vegetation, Potential Small Trees, Scan 2 Woodsfield OH 39.776 -81.0219 Sherwood Lateral 50.5 9/30/2015 becomes steep. Past logging activity evident. Dense 3 to 7 Landslide underbrush Natural drainage feature parallel to scan.

Rock Rock outcrops with rocky colluvial debris. Steep Small Trees, Scan Alt. 2 New Milton WV 39.2715 -80.6957 Sherwood Lateral 0.3 9/29/2015 Dense 5 to 9 Topple/Fall grades. underbrush

None Small natural drainage feature at top. Creek at Trees, saplings, Scan 4 Weirton WV 40.4645 -80.5306 Burgettstown Lateral 10.8 9/28/2015 Moderate to Dense 4-5, 7-9 Observed toe underbrush

Steep slope with well defined bench located 3/4 down from top of slope (possible old rotational Trees, saplings, Scan 1 Paden City WV 39.6138 -80.9097 Sherwood Lateral 35.3 9/30/2015 Landslide slide), Very steep, shallow bedrock outcrops at Dense 5 to 9 underbrush top of slope. Curved tree trunks and hummocky topography at base of slope.

Detatched rock outcrop near top, 30 ft vertical face. Very steep terrain with shallow scars, old Trees, saplings, Scan 5 Sardis OH 39.623 -80.9233 Sherwood Lateral 36.3 9/30/2015 Landslide Dense 7 to 9 benches (now vegetated), and colluvial rock underbrush debris. Curved tree trunks and toppled trees.

EXHIBITS

APPENDIX A

ODNR-DWSC Pipeline Standards and Construction Specifications

Pipeline Standard and Construction Specifications Note: This technical standard has been developed by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Soil and Water Resources in order to recommend what is considered best practice for the protection of soil, water and related resources during pipeline construction. These are not to be considered as mandatory requirements unless cited by other laws, rules or legal agreements. Users are encouraged to use them as guidance for development of plans, on‐site practices and implementation or for remediating problem areas.

I. Description A line of pipe with valves, pumps, and control devices used for the conveying of liquids, gases, or finely divided solids. Pipelines convey oil, gasoline, gas, water, or any other liquefied product. This specification provides measures intended to limit the impact of the pipeline construction on agricultural productivity or on other lands where maintaining the natural soil and drainage attributes is important.

II. Condition Where Practice Applies This practice applies where it is desirable or necessary to convey liquid or gaseous products in a closed conduit from one point to another point.

III. Definition of Terms Agricultural Land ‐ Land which is presently under cultivation; land which has been previously cultivated and not subsequently developed for non‐agricultural use; and cleared land which is capable of being cultivated. It includes land used for cropland, hayland, improved pastureland, managed woodlands, truck gardens, farmsteads, commercial agricultural related facilities, feedlots, livestock confinement systems, land on which farm buildings are located, and land in government set‐aside programs. Best Management Practice ‐ Any structural, vegetative or managerial practice (BMP) used to treat, prevent or reduce soil erosion or to capture pollutants such as sediment. Such practices may include temporary seeding of exposed soils, construction of retention basins for storm water control and scheduling the implementation of all BMP’s to maximize their effectiveness. Cropland ‐ Land used for growing row crops, small grains, or hay; includes land that was formerly used as cropland but is currently in a government set‐aside program, and pasture land formerly used as cropland. Inspector – A person qualified by education and experience for the purpose of evaluating pipeline construction in relation to soils removal and replacement, drainage repairs, corridor restoration and other items identified in this standard. This person is sometimes retained by the pipeline company for the above purposes, but may be a third party that is mutually agreed upon by the landowner and the pipeline company. Landowner ‐ Person(s) holding legal title to property on the pipeline route from whom the pipeline company is seeking, or has obtained, a temporary or permanent easement. Landowner’s Designate ‐ Any person(s) legally authorized by a landowner to make decisions regarding the mitigation or restoration of agricultural impacts to such landowner's property. Non‐Agricultural Land ‐ Any land that is not "Agricultural Land" as defined above.

Page 1 of 22 ODNR‐DSWR Pipeline Standard 12‐3‐13

Pipeline ‐ The pipeline and its related appurtenances. Pipeline Company ‐ The entity responsible for installing the pipeline, its successors, and assigns, on its own behalf and as operator of the company. Right‐of‐Way ‐ Includes the permanent and temporary easements that the pipeline company acquires for the purpose of constructing and operating the pipeline. Slope Breaker ‐ A ridge or channel constructed diagonally across a utility right‐of–way or a road (water bar) that is subject to erosion. Subsoil ‐ Subsoil is defined as the soil material that starts at the bottom of the topsoil to a depth of three feet. Exceptions to this are soils where fractured bedrock or hard bedrock is encountered before three feet. Subsurface Drain or Drainage ‐ Any artificial system of pipes or conduits designed to intercept, collect, and convey excess soil moisture to a suitable outlet. These may include: clay and concrete tile, vitrified sewer tile, corrugated plastic tubing, and stone drains. Surface Drains ‐ Any surface drainage system such as shallow surface field drains, grassed waterways, open ditches, or any other conveyance of surface water. Tenant ‐ Any person lawfully residing on or in possession of the land. Topsoil ‐ The upper most part of the soil commonly referred to as the plow layer, the A layer, or the A horizon, or its equivalent in uncultivated soils. It is the surface layer of the soil that has the darkest color or the highest content of organic matter (as Identified in the USDA County Soil Survey and verified w/ right‐of‐way samples). Topsoil is described as all surface and near surface soil horizons (layers) that have a moist Munsell color value of 4 and chroma of 3 or darker and a clay content increase of 10% or less between the individual horizons. On agricultural land at least the top eight inches will be considered topsoil. Horizons with up to a twenty‐five percent mixing of the subsoil into the topsoil by agricultural processes will still be considered topsoil. In areas demonstrating substantial soil erosion, topsoil colors may be lighter than a moist Munsell color value of 4 and chroma 3. In these areas the top 8 inches will be considered topsoil. Surface horizons with a moist Munsell color value of 4 and chroma of 3 or darker in forested areas that have not been plowed are typically thinner. In these areas the top six inches will be considered topsoil. In areas where the above conditions do not apply, the top eight inches will be considered topsoil on agricultural land and the top six inches will be considered topsoil on forested land that has not been plowed. Trench Breaker ‐ Trench breakers (also known as trench plugs) are barriers placed within an open pipeline excavation in order to slow flow and reduce erosion in the trench and also to prevent the trench from becoming a subsurface drainage path.

IV. Planning Phase A. Construction Plans and Maps The pipeline company shall provide the landowner general construction plan maps with the following information concerning agricultural areas/uses: 1. Pasture/Grazing areas including unimproved grazing areas (brushy or wooded land used by livestock), permanent open pasture (land devoted only to pasture use, not suited to tillage

Page 2 of 22 ODNR‐DSWR Pipeline Standard 12‐3‐13

rotation), improved pasture (including tillable rotation pasture/hayland), and livestock fence lines. 2. Cropland areas including hayland, rotation cropland, long‐term cropland and agricultural lands enrolled in either the annual set‐aside or the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) of the U.S.D.A. Consolidated Farm Service Agency. Such lands will be identified through consultation with the offices of the Consolidated Farm Service Agency and the county Soil and Water Conservation District. 3. Unique Agricultural Lands, which include specialty cropland (vegetables, berries, etc.), orchards, vineyards, maple sugarbushes, organic mucklands, and permanent irrigation systems. The areas mentioned above will be identified with the help of the County Soil and Water Conservation Districts.

B. Sensitive Agricultural Soils Sensitive agricultural soils are defined as areas of cropland, hayland, or pasture that are more susceptible than other agricultural soils to construction disturbance due to slope, relative soil wetness, and/or shallowness to bedrock. Wetness conditions are the result of factors such as landscape position, soil texture, seasonal water table and/or slowly permeable subsoil horizons (e.g., areas of laterally draining subsoils). All sensitive agricultural soils including, but not limited to, those identified in the county soil survey as fragipans, lacustrine soils, dense basal tills, soils with a seasonally high water table, or soils with less than 5 feet of depth to bedrock are to be located and identified on the project map using the following codes: 1. "SE" ‐ designates the general area of soils sensitive to erosion due to R‐O‐W factor(s) of slope and/or the texture of exposed soil. 2. "SW" ‐ designates the general area of soils susceptible to soil horizon wetness as described above. 3. "SR" ‐ designates the general area of soils susceptible to shallow depth to bedrock. 4. "SO" ‐ designates the location of unavoidable organic mucklands. C. Other Features In addition, the pipeline company shall note the following information on the general construction plan maps or on the construction alignment sheets. 1. Other land and water management features including subsurface drainage areas (where they can be identified prior to construction), open ditches, diversions, diversion terraces, buried utility lines (for farmstead consumptive use), water sources (developed springs, etc.), grassed waterways, water impoundment structures (dams and ponds) and unnamed water flows. 2. Depth of cover if it varies from those listed in the Construction Specifications. 3. Any off right‐of‐way access roads and work or storage areas. Map all such areas identified at the time of the construction plan submission, indicating their proposed locations. Any other areas that may be identified during construction will be considered and filed as a change in the construction plans. 4. The planned location of any compressor stations, valve stations, metering and regulating stations and any other proposed facilities including pipeline markers.

Page 3 of 22 ODNR‐DSWR Pipeline Standard 12‐3‐13

5. Locations for best management practices for control of erosion, sediment and trench water. Plans should note relevant sizes, grade, capacities and materials of practices. Trench breakers and slope breakers (permanent and temporary) shall be provided on the plan and during construction. See Figure 11 through 13 for more information regarding trench and slope breakers. Plans shall include notations of the distance between breakers based on percent of slope, or appended charts of breaker spacing by percent of slope. 6. General locations for subsurface intercept drains to control soil saturation and/or aid trench breakers in minimizing water piping, based on the sensitive agricultural soils data (see Section B) and site monitoring. Such locations will generally coincide with "SE" sensitive agricultural soils and breaks in slopes.

D. Point of Contact during Construction Prior to the construction of the pipeline, the pipeline company shall provide to each landowner, landowner’s designate and/or tenant: the name, telephone number and mailing address of the pipeline company representative assigned to that geographic area and responsible for the liaison activities on behalf of the pipeline company. This pipeline company representative shall be the contact person both during construction and operational related activities. The pipeline company shall respond promptly to any landowner and/or tenant issues or concerns both during construction and long‐term operational activities.

V. Construction Specifications

A. Ingress and Egress Routes Prior to the pipeline installation, the pipeline company and the landowner shall reach a mutually acceptable agreement on the route that will be utilized for entering and leaving the pipeline right‐of‐ way, should access to the right‐of‐way not be practical or feasible from adjacent segments of the pipeline right‐of‐way or from public highway or railroad right‐of‐ways. Where access road access ramps/pads are required from the highway to the pipeline construction area, the topsoil shall be removed and stockpiled for replacement, an underlayment of durable geotextile matting shall be placed over the exposed subsoil surface prior to the placement of temporary rock access fill material (see earlier materials regarding access road entrances and Figure 1 below). All such material will be removed upon completion of the project. The use of durable geotextile matting as an underlayment helps prevent rock and stone from becoming embedded in the subsoil material. Complete removal of the ramp upon completion of the project and restoration of the impacted site is required prior to topsoil replacement.

B. Temporary Roads The location of temporary roads to be used for construction purposes will be negotiated with the Figure 1 Access road entrance. landowner and the tenant. The temporary roads will

Page 4 of 22 ODNR‐DSWR Pipeline Standard 12‐3‐13

be designed to not impede proper drainage and will be built to minimize soil erosion on or near the temporary roads. Every attempt will be made to use existing farm lanes for access and to repair damages to the existing lanes. Upon construction completion, temporary roads may be left intact through mutual agreement of the landowner, the tenant and the pipeline company unless otherwise restricted by federal, state or local regulations. If the temporary roads are to be removed, the right‐of‐way upon which the temporary roads are constructed will be returned to its previous use and restored to a condition equivalent to that existing prior to their construction.

C. Clearing of Brush and Trees in the Right‐of‐Way Unless otherwise restricted by federal, state or local regulations, the pipeline company shall follow the landowner's desires as stated in the easement agreement regarding the disposal of trees, brush and stumps of no value to the landowner by burning, burial, chipping, etc., or complete removal from any affected property. The pipeline company shall identify black cherry trees located on the right‐of‐way near active livestock use areas during the construction plan development. Black cherry tree vegetation is toxic to livestock when wilted and shall not be stockpiled in areas accessible to livestock. During the clearing phase, such vegetation will be disposed of in a manner that prevents contact with livestock. Unless otherwise restricted by federal, state or local regulations, the pipeline company shall follow the landowner's or landowner designate’s desires as stated in the easement agreement regarding the removal of tree stumps that the pipeline company might otherwise leave in the ground.

D. Soil Removal and Protection 1. Topsoil and subsequent horizons shall be determined by a properly qualified inspector, soil scientist or soil technician who will set stakes or flags every 200 feet along the right‐of‐way identifying the depth of topsoil to be removed. Topsoil will be stripped to the actual depth of the topsoil, not to exceed 16 inches (see Figure 2 Depth of Topsoil Removal), along the construction right‐of‐way and other areas where construction activities warrant (e.g. staging areas), including land that is currently forested. Full right‐of‐way topsoil stripping will avoid issues such as topsoil mixing from deep rutting and topsoil compaction. Topsoil may not be intermixed with subsoil materials. Topsoil will be stored in a Note: Where the topsoil is finely textured and is deeper windrow parallel to the pipeline trench in than 12 inches, stripping is required to the depth of the such a manner that it will not become subsoil, or 16 inches, whichever is less. intermixed with subsoil materials. In Figure 2 Depth of topsoil removal. forested areas where clearing activities are necessary, minimal amounts of topsoil mixing may occur. 2. Topsoil shall be removed following clearing and prior to any activity by any equipment or

Page 5 of 22 ODNR‐DSWR Pipeline Standard 12‐3‐13

delivery trucks. During the clearing/grading phase, the inspector shall monitor site‐specific depths of topsoil stripping. Topsoil shall be removed from the full width of the right‐of‐way and stockpiled along either edge and on the right‐of‐way. (See Figure 3.) Where right‐of‐way construction requires cut‐and‐fill of the soil profile across grades, to the extent practicable, topsoil stockpiling will be located on the up slope edge of the right‐of‐way (see Figure 4). Where topsoil cannot be separately stored on the up slope side, suitable right‐of‐way space will be provided on the down slope side to ensure the complete segregation of the topsoil from all cut‐and‐fill Figure 3 Topsoil and other ssoil segregation. material. 3. All subsoil material that is removed from the trench will be placed in a second windrow parallel to the pipeline trench that is separate from the topsoil windrow. If any soil horizon or section of the soil profile has a significant increase in the concentration of rock, that soil shall be separated in order to be placed back at pre‐existing contours. In no case shall the concentration of rock be increased in any section of the profile. 4. The soil below the subsoil (substratum) will be placed in a third windrow parallel to the pipeline trench that is separate from the topsoil and subsoil windrows. 5. In backfilling the trench, the stockpiled substratum material will be placed back into the trench before replacing the subsoil and topsoil. 6. Refer to Item F of these construction specifications for Figure 4 Topssoil stockpiling on slopes procedures pertaining to rock (NY State Dept. of Agriculture & Markets Pipeline Drawings). removal from the subsoil and topsoil. 7. Refer to Item O for procedures pertaining to the alleviation of compaction of the topsoil. 8. The topsoil must be replaced so that after settling occurs, the topsoil's original depth and contour will be restored. The same shall apply where excavations are made for road, stream, drainage ditch, or other crossings. In no instance will the topsoil materials be used for any other purpose or removed from the right of way. 9. Surface drainage should not be blocked or hinderedd in any way. IIf excess spoil is produced, it will

Page 6 of 22 ODNR‐DSWR Pipeline Standard 12‐3‐13

be removed offsite to prevent ridging. Adding additional spoil to the crown over the trench in excess of that required for settlement will not be permitted.

E. Depth of Cover 1. Except for above‐ground piping appurtenances, such as mainline block valves, tap valves, meter stations, etc., and except as otherwise stated in the Agreement, the pipeline will be buried as follows: a) On cropland, pastureland or other agricultural land provide a minimum of 60 inches of cover. b) On wooded or brushy land that is not suitable for cropland provide a minimum of 36 inches of cover. c) A minimum of 60 inches of cover shall be maintained over the top of the pipeline where it crosses surface drains, diversions, grassed waterways, open ditches, and streams. 2. In those areas where rock in its natural formation is encountered, the minimum depth of cover will be 36 inches. 3. On agricultural land subject to erosion, the company is responsible for inspecting the pipeline right‐of‐way on a reasonably frequent basis in order to detect areas of erosion to the cover so that no cover will be less than 3 feet at any time. 4. A minimum of 12 inches of separation shall be maintained between the pipeline and drainage lines unless adequate measures are taken to protect the present and future integrity of the pipeline and the subsurface drain. F. Rock Removal (Shallow Soils) The cover within the pipeline trench, bore pits, or other excavations shall not be backfilled with soil containing rocks of any greater concentration or size than existed prior to the pipeline construction. The following rock removal procedures only pertain to rocks found in the topsoil, subsoil, and substratum. A. Before replacing any topsoil, all rocks greater than 3 inches in any dimension will be removed from the surface of all exposed subsoil (i.e. work area and subsoil storage areas). All material placed above the pipe shall not contain rocks of any greater concentration or size than existed prior to the pipeline construction. B. All rocks greater than 3 inches in any dimension will be removed from the topsoil surface using a rock rake following final restoration unless undisturbed areas adjacent to the ROW can be shown to contain similar concentration and size. C. If trenching, blasting, or boring operations are required through rocky terrain, suitable precautions will be taken to minimize the potential for oversized rocks to become interspersed with adjacent soil material. Landowners/operators and adjacent landowners will be given timely notice prior to blasting. D. Rocks and soil containing rocks removed from the subsoil areas, topsoil, or from any excavations will be returned to the pre‐existing soil horizon levels, hauled off the landowner's premises or disposed of on the landowner's premises at a location that is mutually acceptable to the landowner and the company and in accordance with any applicable laws or regulations.

Page 7 of 22 ODNR‐DSWR Pipeline Standard 12‐3‐13

G. Repair of Damaged and Adversely Affected Subsurface Drains All subsurface drainage repair and/or replacement shall be completed prior to topsoil replacement. If subsurface drainage is damaged by the pipeline installation, it shall be repaired in a manner that assures the drain's proper operating condition at the point of repair. If subsurface drain lines in the pipeline construction area are adversely affected by the pipeline construction, the pipeline company will take such actions as are necessary to insure the proper functioning of the drain lines, including the relocation, reconfiguration, and replacement of the existing drain lines. The following standards and policies shall apply to the drain line repair: 1. All effort shall be made to locate all subsurface drainage within the right‐of‐way prior to the pipeline installation. The pipeline company will contact the local County Soil and Water Conservation Districts and affected landowners/tenants for their knowledge of subsurface drain locations prior to the pipeline installation. All identified drain lines will be marked with a 4 foot stake to alert construction crews to the need for subsurface drain repairs. 2. During construction all drain lines that are damaged, cut, or removed shall be distinctly marked by placing a highly visible 4 foot stake in the trench spoil bank directly opposite each drain line. This marker shall not be removed until the drain line has been permanently repaired and such repairs have been approved and accepted by the landowner, or the landowner’s designate. Technical assistance may be available from the local County Soil and Water Conservation District. Repair shall follow guidelines set forth in this document and in Figures 5 through 10 regarding drainage repair. 3. All drain lines shall be repaired with materials of the same or better quality as that which was damaged. The repair plans shall be approved by the landowner, or the landowner’s designate. The repair may require the installation of a submain to reduce the number of drain lines crossing the pipeline (see Figure 10 drainage system new submain). 4. Where drain lines are severed by the pipeline trench, steel channel iron, steel angle iron, full‐ round slotted steel pipe, half‐round steel pipe, or schedule 80 PVC pipe with 1/8 inch diameter holes shall be used to support the drain lines across the trench (see Figures 5 through 10). (Schedule 80 PVC pipe shall be limited to lengths without joints.) a. If the drain repairs involve clay or concrete tile, the support member shall extend to the first tile joint beyond the minimum 3‐foot distance. If the drain repairs involve plastic pipe it shall be supported at a 90‐degree angle from the bottom of the drain. This may involve using angle Iron to provide proper support. b. There shall be a minimum of 12 inches of clearance between the drain line and the pipeline whether the pipeline passes over or under the line. If this clearance cannot be attained, the drain line must be protected from damage that might result from the proximity of the pipeline. c. In no instance shall the grade of the drain line be decreased. d. To prevent settlement of the drain repair, the trench, from the bottom of the pipeline to 1 foot above drain repair, shall be backfilled with coarse aggregate.

Page 8 of 22 ODNR‐DSWR Pipeline Standard 12‐3‐13

Figure 5 Subsurface drainage damaged during pipeline work must be inspected and repaired. 5. Before completing permanent drain repairs, all drain lines shall be examined by suitable means (see Figure 5 regarding drainage line inspection) on both sides of the trench for their entire length within the right‐of‐way to check for drain that might have been damaged by construction equipment. If any drain line is found to be damaged, it shall be repaired so it will function as well after construction as before construction began. 6. Temporary repairs of drain lines shall be made as soon as exposed. This shall include the use of filter material to prevent the movement of soil into the drain line or the temporary plugging of the drain line until permanent repairs can be made. 7. All permanent drain line repairs shall be made within 30 days following completion of the pipeline installation on any affected landowner's property. 8. Following completion of the pipeline construction, the pipeline company shall also be responsible for correcting and repairing all drain line repairs that fall on the permanent and construction right‐of‐way. The plans for the repairs shall be approved and accepted by the landowner, or the landowner’s designate. Technical assistance for plan or site review or may be available from the local County Soil and Water Conservation District. 9. The pipeline company shall also document the location and known elevations of all drain lines that are found and/or repaired and provide a photo or description of the repair. Documentation should include a map with the latitude and longitude of drain lines encountered and repaired. This information shall be provided to the local County Soil and Water Conservation District and made available to the landowner or the landowner’s designate.

Page 9 of 22 ODNR‐DSWR Pipeline Standard 12‐3‐13

Notes: 1. Perforated pipe shall be installed so that holes are facing down. 2. The perforated rigid support pipe is shouldered back into the firm, undisturbed soil profile to ensure consistent gravity flow gradient of the drainage line across the trench as the backfill material gradually settles for up to two years. 3. Long stretches of the pipe support across the trench may need to be supported by sand bags or other means to prevent sagging.

Figure 6 Repair of severed drainage.

Page 10 of 22 ODNR‐DSWR Pipeline Standard 12‐3‐13

Notes: 1. Extend support and replacement drainage line a minimum of 3 feet onto undisturbed earth on both sides of trench, measured perpendicular from the wall of the trench.. 2. Provide steel support for drain tile or plastic pipe to maintain function while the ditch is open. 3. Should a drain cross a ditch at a skew of greater than 45 degrees, the replacement drain is to be relocated into undisturbed soil or out of conflict with the pipeline ditch. The replacement drain pipe is to be installed to match elevation of existing pipes. Figure 7 Repair of severed drainage lines.

Page 11 of 22 ODNR‐DSWR Pipeline Standard 12‐3‐13

Notes: 1. Trench breakers prevent gully erosion while the trench is open and help to inhibit water piping along the pipeline after backfilling. 2. Intercept drains receive soil moisture draining naturally from the undisturbed soil profile into the disturbed backfill soil within the trench. The intercept drain lines hellp prevent saturated soil conditions along the pipeline. 3. Agricultural cropland may require cross trench drainagee or parallel drainage. Figure 8 Interception of drainage crossing the pipeline trench.

Page 12 of 22 ODNR‐DSWR Pipeline Standard 12‐3‐13

Note: Parallel drainage installation shall be approved for agricultural soil conditions where repair of existing cross drainage would be less effective. For example, in situations of:

1. Shallow bedrock.

2. Interference by other utility lines.

3. Closely spaced shallow drains and french drains where a header is needed.

Figure 9 Interception of drainage crossing the pipeline trench.

Page 13 of 22 ODNR‐DSWR Pipeline Standard 12‐3‐13

Note: To be determined by an agricultural specialist based on slope and drainage area in consultation with the local Soil and Water Conservation District. Figure 10 A new submain may be needed to allow continued function of draainage systems.

Page 14 of 22 ODNR‐DSWR Pipeline Standard 12‐3‐13

Figure 11 Trench breakers reduce trench erosion and the volume and velocity of trench water at the bottom of the slope (figure from New York Department of Agriculture Pipeline standards).

Page 15 of 22 ODNR‐DSWR Pipeline Standard 12‐3‐13

Trench Breaker (also known as trench plugs) Spacing (Adapted from the Pennsylvania State Standards)

Slope (%) Spacing (feet) 0‐5 Not Required except at stream or water body crossings 5 ‐ 15 300 >15 – 30 200 >30 100

Notes:

1. Trench breakers are required at all stream, river, or water‐body crossings regardless of trench

slope.

2. Depending on the specific conditions of slopes exceeding 40%, the spacing between trench

breakers may continue diminishing as illustrated, or may cease once a spacing of 30 to 35 feet

has been reached.

3. Trench breakers may be sand bags or earth filled sacks (not topsoil), which are durable yet

flexible and will conform to gradual shifting of pipeline and backfill, while serving their function,

to impede the flow of subsurface water along the trench. In some cases cement filled bags or

mortared stone may be used.

4. In agricultural lands, the top of trench breaker will not be closer than two feet from the

restored surface.

Figure 12 Trench breakers (also known as trench plugs) should be placed in the trench before crossing water bodies and spaced in the trench based on the percent slope.

Slope (%) Spacing (feet) 5 ‐ 15 300 >15 – 30 200 >30 100 Figure 13 Slope breakers are similar to water bars and should be spaced based on the percent slope.

Page 16 of 22 ODNR‐DSWR Pipeline Standard 12‐3‐13

H. Slope Breakers Slope breakers are necessary to limit erosion on most rights of way, except in cultivated and residential areas. Slope breakers shall divert surface runoff to adjacent stable vegetated areas or to energy‐dissipating devices. Water shall be released in a non‐erosive manner. Generally, slope breakers are installed immediately downslope of all trench breakers. The gradient (fall) for each slope breaker shall be two to four percent unless otherwise approved by state inspectors based on site conditions. Slope breakers shall be installed as specified on the construction drawings or with a maximum spacing as shown in Figure 13.

I. Return to Pre‐construction Contours Once disturbed areas are stabilized and within 2 years of completion of pipeline construction, slope breakers, water bars, diversions and other similar grade stabilization structures shall be graded to original pre‐construction contour elevations (unless negotiated to remain with the landowner).

J. Construction Debris, Erosion, Sediment and Other Pollution Control Practices and Restoration of Right‐of‐Way Best management practices shall be applied on pipeline projects in a timely manner to capture sediments and other pollutants, to prevent erosion and the release of pollution and to prevent degrading water resources. Practices applied, including slope breakers (Figure 13) shall meet the specifications and standards published by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Oil and Gas Resources, the Division of Soil and Water Resources, the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (Field Office Technical Guide) or other applicable standards. All construction‐related debris and material, including litter generated by the construction crews will be removed from the right‐of‐way. Following the completion of the pipeline or any significant portion, the right‐of‐way will be restored to its original pre‐construction elevation and contour. If uneven settling occurs or surface drainage problems develop as a result of the pipeline construction, the pipeline company will provide land leveling services within 45 days of being notified by the landowner. Delays due to poor weather and soil conditions may be permitted.

K. Installations of Additional Drainage Lines The pipeline company shall be responsible for installing such additional drain and other drainage measures as are necessary to properly drain wet areas on the permanent and temporary right‐of‐ ways caused by the construction and/or existence of the pipeline.

L. Repair of Damaged Soil Conservation Practices All soil conservation practices (such as spring developments and pipelines, terraces, grassed waterways, water and sediment control basins, critical area seedings, etc.) damaged by the pipeline’s construction will be restored to their pre‐construction condition and approved by the landowner or local SWCD. For example, grassed waterways shall be graded to original dimensions and grades with erosion control matting installed. Watering sources, such as spring developments, affected by pipeline construction, shall be replaced with an alternative supply of water within 24 hours of the watering source being disrupted unless the disruption has been negotiated with the landowner. An alternative supply of water shall be provided until the water source is fully functional at pre‐construction flow rates.

Page 17 of 22 ODNR‐DSWR Pipeline Standard 12‐3‐13

M. Control of Trench Washouts, Water Piping and Blowouts Trench breakers shall be installed for the dual purpose of preventing trench washouts during construction and abating water piping and blowouts subsequent to trench backfill. The distances between permanent trench breakers will be as described in plans and meet the spacing shown in Figure 12. Plans will record each installed trench breaker location, by map‐referenced station‐ number.

N. Pumping Of Water from Open Trenches No back filling shall be done in water filled trenches. All freestanding water shall be removed prior to any back filling. In the event it becomes necessary to pump water from open trenches, the pipeline company shall pump the water in a manner that will avoid damaging adjacent agricultural land, crops, and/or pasture. Such damages include, but are not limited to: inundation of crops for more than 24 hours, sheet and rill erosion, discharge of sediment in ditches and other water courses, and the deposition of gravel in fields, pastures, and any water courses. If it is impossible to avoid water‐related damages as described above, the pipeline company will restore the land, pasture, watercourses, etc. to their pre‐construction condition. All pumping of water shall comply with existing drainage laws, local ordinances relating to such activities, and provisions of the Clean Water Act.

O. Compaction, Rutting, Fertilization, Liming, Seeding (Temporary and Permanent) and Mulching 1. In all agricultural sections of the right‐of‐way traversed by vehicles and construction equipment, where topsoil is stripped and prior to topsoil replacement, the subsoil shall be fractured by deep ripping to a depth of 16 inches below the surface of the subsoil with the appropriate industrial ripper. Note that some subsurface features (e.g. drain, other utilities) may warrant less depth. The ripper shall have maximum teeth spacing of 16 inches. The ripping shall be performed parallel to the pipeline and at 30 degrees to the pipeline. Following the ripping operation all stone and rock material three (3) inches and larger in size which has been lifted to the surface shall be collected and removed from the site for disposal. Upon approval by the inspector of the subsoil decompaction and the stone removal, the topsoil temporarily removed for the period of construction shall then be replaced. The soil profile in the full width of the right‐of‐way shall be shattered to a depth not to exceed 16 inches with a heavy‐ duty sub‐soiling tool having angled legs. Stone removal shall be completed, as necessary, to eliminate any additional rocks and stones brought to the surface as a result of the final subsoil shattering process. 2. The entire right‐of‐way will then be disked. Three passes will be made across any agricultural land that is ripped. 3. Ripping and disking will be done at a time when the soil is dry enough for normal tillage operations to occur on undisturbed farmland adjacent to the areas to be ripped. 4. All rutted and compacted land will be restored as near as practicable to its original condition. 5. All disturbed areas will be provided temporary and permanent vegetative cover as needed in order to prevent erosion and to re‐establish agreed upon vegetative cover. a. Establishment methods and vegetative targets for permanent cover (grasses, forbs,

Page 18 of 22 ODNR‐DSWR Pipeline Standard 12‐3‐13

trees, or shrubs) that have been agreed upon by the landowner shall be utilized. b. Seeding or planting shall be repeated if a satisfactory stand has not been obtained after 1 growing season. c. Areas that reach final grade or are planned to be idle shall be seeded within 7 days of the most recent disturbance, or within 2 days within 50 feet of streams or water resources. Areas left idle during periods that are unsuitable for planting shall be provided appropriate cover using mulch or erosion control matting. Areas nearing or exceeding 3:1 slopes are candidates for use of rolled erosion control products (matting) or turf reinforcement matting if they are not cropped. d. All disturbed areas will be seeded and mulched according to guidance provided in the ODNR Rainwater and Land Development manual or USDA NRCS Standard Codes: i) 342 – Critical Area Planting, ii) 484 – Mulching, and iii) Appendix A Seeding Tables. In all areas where permanent vegetation is re‐established, the landowner will be consulted to select an appropriate weed‐free seed mixture or planting stock. Mulch should be held in place using tackifier or by crimping with a straight disk or other applicable implement, in order to prevent mulch from being removed by wind or runoff. 6. Depending upon the construction schedule and the landowner’s cropping plans, allowance may be made to allow the landowner to be appropriately compensated and to apply the appropriate type and amounts of fertilizer, manure, and/or lime in coordination with the landowner’s farming plans. In this case, an area may require temporary seeding and or mulch if an area is left idle for an extended number of days or weeks. 7. In Ohio, subsoil decompaction and topsoil replacement activities may have to be performed as weather permits due to the generally unsuitable weather for continuing agricultural land restoration in late autumn, winter, and early spring.

P. Backfill Profile and Trench Crowning Material shall be used to backfill the trench in an order and manner that corresponds to the original profile, that is, substratum followed by subsoil and then topsoil. All rock not utilized as trench backfill material shall be removed from the right‐of‐way. The remaining backfill material shall consist of suitable subsoil material. Trench crowning shall occur during the trench backfilling operation using subsoil materials over the trench to allow for trench settling. In Ohio, this will be performed in accordance with Figure 14 below. In areas where trench settling occurs after topsoil spreading, imported topsoil shall be used to fill each depression. Topsoil from the adjacent agricultural land shall not be used to fill the depressions. Settlement inspections shall occur at 3 months, 1 year, 2 year and 3 years after construction has finished. In agricultural areas where the materials excavated during trenching are insufficient in quantity to meet backfill requirements, the soil of any agricultural land adjacent to the trench and construction zone shall not be used as either backfill or surface cover material. Under no circumstances shall any topsoil materials be used for pipe padding material or trench backfill. In situations where imported soil materials are employed for backfill on agricultural lands, such material shall be of similar texture and quality to the existing soils on site. Imported soils should be from similar soil types and free from noxious weeds and other pests to the extent possible.

Page 19 of 22 ODNR‐DSWR Pipeline Standard 12‐3‐13

Q. Fencing All fencing and gates removed for the installation of the pipeline shall be replaced or installed according to the landowner’s specifications. Temporary fencing shall be provided as necessary to restrict access to active work areas by livestock until there is adequate vegetative cover over the work area.

R. Pipeline Markers Unless specified by law, pipeline markers shall be located at roads, fence lines and edge of field boundaries where they will not be damaged or disrupt farming operations.

S. Reinforced Crossings Unless declined by the landowner, the pipeline company shall provide at least one reinforced crossing for the purpose of logging access on woodlots that will be isolated from the rest of the parcel or from public roads by the pipeline.

Figure 14 Filled pipeline trenches shall be crowned in order to allow for appropriate settling (trench crowning).

Page 20 of 22 ODNR‐DSWR Pipeline Standard 12‐3‐13

Three Year Monitoring and Remediation 1. General Monitoring and Remediation A monitoring and remediation period shall be provided of no less than three years immediately following the full‐length activation of the pipeline or the completion of initial right‐of‐way restoration, whichever occurs last. The pipeline company shall be responsible for the cost of the monitoring and remediation. The three‐year period allows for the effects of climatic cycles such as frost action, precipitation and growing seasons to occur, from which various monitoring determinations can be made. The monitoring and remediation phase shall be used to identify any remaining impacts associated with the pipeline construction that are in need of correction and to implement the follow‐up restoration. General right‐of‐way conditions to be monitored include topsoil thickness, relative content of rock and large stones, trench settling, crop production, drainage and repair of severed fences, etc. The problems or concerns shall be identified through on‐site monitoring of all areas along the right‐of‐way and through contact with the respective landowner/operator and local County Soil and Water Conservation District. Topsoil deficiency and trench settling shall be restored with imported topsoil that is consistent with the quality of topsoil on the affected site. Excessive amounts of rock and oversized stone material shall be determined by a visual inspection of the right ‐of‐way. Results shall be compared to portions of the same field located outside of the right‐of‐way. Included in the determination of relative rock and large stone content is the right‐of‐way's condition subsequent to tillage and the relative concentration of such materials within the right‐of‐way as compared to off the right‐of‐way. All excess rocks and large stones shall be removed and disposed of by the pipeline company. On‐site monitoring shall be conducted at least three times during the growing season and shall include a comparison of growth and yield for crops on and off the right‐of‐way. When the subsequent crop productivity within the affected right‐of‐way is less than that of the adjacent unaffected agricultural land, the landowner, in conjunction with the pipeline company as well as other appropriate organizations, shall help to determine the appropriate rehabilitation measures for the pipeline company to implement. During the various stages of the project, all affected farm operators shall be periodically apprised of the duration of remediation by the pipeline company. Because conditions that require remediation may not be noticeable at or shortly after the completion of construction, the signing of a release form prior to the end of the remediation period shall not relieve the pipeline company's responsibility to fully redress all project impacts. After completion of the specific remediation period, the pipeline company shall continue to respond to the reasonable requests of the landowner/operators to correct project related effects on the agricultural resources. On lands subject to erosion, the pipeline company shall patrol the pipeline right‐of‐way with reasonable frequency to detect erosion of the top cover. Whenever the loss of cover due to erosion creates a pollution or safety issue the pipeline company shall take corrective action. 2. Specific Monitoring and Remediation After the moisture of the soil profile on the affected right‐of‐way has returned to equilibrium with the adjacent off right‐of‐way land, subsoil compaction will be tested using an appropriate soil penetrometer or other soil compaction‐measuring device. Compaction tests shall be made for each soil type identified on the affected agricultural land. The subsoil compaction test results within the right‐of‐way shall be compared with those of the adjacent off right‐of‐way portion of the affected farm field/soil unit. Where representative subsoil density on the right‐of‐way exceeds the representative subsoil density outside

Page 21 of 22 ODNR‐DSWR Pipeline Standard 12‐3‐13

the right‐of‐way, additional shattering of the soil profile shall be performed using a deep, angled‐leg subsoiler tool to a depth of 16 inches. Deep shattering shall be applied during periods of relatively low soil moisture to prevent additional subsoil compaction. Oversized stone/rock material, which is lifted to the surface as a result of the deep shattering, shall be removed and disposed outside of the right‐of‐ way. In the event that subsequent construction or cleanup activities result in new compaction, additional deep shattering shall be performed to alleviate such compaction. For lands disturbed within or adjoined to agricultural areas where the construction alters the natural stratification of soil horizons and natural soil drainage patterns, the pipeline company shall rectify the effects with measures such as subsurface intercept drainage lines (see Figure 8, Intercept Drain Cross‐ Trench). Selection of the type of intercept drainage lines to be installed to prevent surface seeps and the seasonally prolonged saturation of the backfilled trench zone and adjacent areas shall be performed by a qualified person. During monitoring and follow‐up remediation, drawings of the drain shall be provided to the landowner for review before the pipeline company begins the corrective action. All drain lines shall be installed according to Natural Resource Conservation Service standards and specifications. 3. Communication Access The pipeline company shall provide all landowners/operators with a telephone number to facilitate direct contact with the pipeline company and the project's Inspector(s) through all of the stages of the project, including operation and maintenance.

Page 22 of 22 ODNR‐DSWR Pipeline Standard 12‐3‐13

APPENDIX B

Hazard Mitigation Options

Geohazard Evaluation Report – Appendix B Rover Pipeline ■ Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and Michigan October 30, 2015 ■ Terracon Project No. J1149328

Hazard Mitigation Options Observation/Hazard Description Risks Mitigation Options Tension cracks within slope Excavation collapse and or landslide Grading: excavation (top of slope and/or near excavation or benches) to flatten slope and/or sidewalls, sloughing of reduce height and construction of excavation sidewalls into the buttress fill or gravity berm at toe trench of slope or against excavation sidewalls. Ground movement In areas of sloping ground, excavation spoils should be placed on the downslope side of the excavation to mitigate sloughing and collapse due to surcharge loading. Removal of soil by water action Loss of support, displacement, Erosion protection with hay bales Soil erosion and channel across and adjacent to pipeline. rupture, uncontrolled spillage, scour, and silt fence, channel control, migration Flood conditions can also bank erosion, ROW encroachment, maintain or improve site drainage attribute to channel migration. pipe floatation by routing to base of slope. Soft, water-logged, highly Subsidence, loss of support, Over-excavation, remove and Organic soils compressible soils susceptible corrosivity replace with controlled fill to significant settlement Ponding of water on the ground Erosion, debris flow, excavation Establish temporary unlined surface and seeping into sloughing, high groundwater, ditches, surface grading to excavations excavation and slope instability eliminate low spots and promote positive drainage, minimize Surface water runoff infiltration by covering ground with plastic in the short-term and promoting vegetation in the long term. Geohazard Evaluation Report – Appendix B Rover Pipeline ■ Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and Michigan October 30, 2015 ■ Terracon Project No. J1149328

Observation/Hazard Description Risks Mitigation Options

Perched and/or high Loss of support, displacement, Establish surface drainage to groundwater. Groundwater rupture, uncontrolled spillage, scour, minimize infiltration, temporary encountered during trench pipe floatation local dewatering with sumps, excavation or seeping through widespread dewatering with drain wells or well points, long term Groundwater seepage excavation sidewalls. Loss of excavation or pipeline dewatering with horizontal drains, support, excavation sloughing, pipe vertical drains, or groundwater cut- buoyancy, excavation and slope Perched or confined off trench-drains, Long-term instability and long-term subsidence groundwater conditions mitigation of subsidence with due to trench erosion common in glaciated terrain. trench-breakers or plugs. Near-vertical rock faces which Prone to rock slides and falls resulting Retaining structures or anchors. Steep, angled bedrock may have soil cover in loss of support, displacement, Consult geotechnical engineer. impact, etc. Soil/weathered rock alternating Prone to soil and rock slides and falls Retaining structures or anchors. Scalloped soil/bedrock with bedrock resulting in loss of support Consult geotechnical engineer. Large rocks at the surface or Obstacles to pipeline construction Avoidance, blasting, specialty Boulders (glaciated buried, common within excavation equipment terrain) glaciated terrain.