Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC - PA DEP

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC

Requirement L-4 – Module S3- Identification and

Description of Potential Project Impacts

Regional Energy Access Expansion Project – Regional Energy Lateral and Existing Compressor Station 515

April 2021

Regional Energy Access Expansion Project – Regional Energy Lateral PA DEP Chapter 105 Joint Permit Application Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC Requirement L-5, Module S4 – Mitigation Plan

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Module S4- Mitigation Plan

S4.A.1-2 Resource Impact Avoidance and Minimization Measures S4.B1.i-iii Repair, Rehabilitation, and Restoration Actions of Impacted Resources

S4.B.2 Proposed Preservation and Maintenance Operations to Reduce or Eliminate Project Impacts

S4.C Compensatory Mitigation S4.D Post-Construction Wetland and Watercourse Monitoring Plan

References

Appendices Appendix S4 – 1 Transco Project-Specific Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures Appendix S4 – 2 Onsite Wetland and Riparian Reforestation Plan

Appendix S4 – 3 Compensatory Offsite Wetland Mitigation Plan

Appendix S4 – 4 Invasive Species Management Plan

Regional Energy Access Expansion Project – Regional Energy Lateral and Existing Compressor Station 515 PA DEP Chapter 105 Joint Permit Application Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC Requirement L-5, Module S4 – Mitigation Plan

1

MODULE S4 MITIGATION PLAN

S4.A.1-2 Resource Impact Avoidance and Minimization Measures Transco has sited the Project to avoid and minimize effects to wetland and watercourse

to the greatest extent practicable while maintaining constructability and safety, as described in

greater detail in the Section S3.F of Module 3 / Requirement S of the Joint Permit Application.

Given the linear nature of the pipeline component of the Project, total avoidance of wetlands,

streams, and floodways is not feasible and therefore installation of the proposed pipelines will

result in temporary and permanent impacts to wetlands and watercourses.

S4.B.1 Repair, Rehabilitation, and Restoration of Impacted Resources Watercourses, Floodway and Riparian Areas

Construction of the Regional Energy Lateral and Existing Compressor Station 515 will

result in seventy-seven pipeline associated watercourses and/or floodway crossings (fourteen

floodway only). To minimize adverse effects at stream crossings, Transco proposes to implement

the Transco Project-Specific Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures

(Procedures) provided in Appendix S4-1 during the construction, post-construction restoration,

and operation of the Project. Construction activities at stream crossings will be performed in

accordance with applicable federal and state permit requirements. Transco developed the

Procedures to address temporary waterbody effects associated with construction of the Project.

The Procedures are intended to satisfy the waterbody restoration requirements of applicable

resource protection agencies with jurisdiction over areas affected by the Project.

In-stream construction will be conducted during normal or low flow conditions, to the extent

practicable. Construction during this period will minimize sedimentation and turbidity, minimize

streambed and bank disturbances, and limit the time it takes to complete in-stream construction.

Selected trees may be preserved along the edge of the pipeline corridor to help minimize impacts,

if possible. Stumps and root systems will be left intact when feasible by cutting them at or slightly

above ground level. Preserving tree/shrub stumps and root systems will facilitate re-sprouting

during the restoration period.

Upon completion of in-stream construction, Transco will stabilize the stream banks and

streambed to pre-construction conditions and contours, unless otherwise specified. Riparian

areas will be revegetated with the Ernst Riparian Buffer Mix (ERNMX-178), or an alternative

riparian seed mix that contains similar species. This seed mix will be used to revegetate riparian


2

areas where slopes are less than 10%. For slopes greater than 10%, a standard upland ROW

seed mix will be used. Erosion control blankets will be placed on restored stream banks at the

ordinary water line and should extend 50 to 100 feet beyond the top of bank (depending on

Chapter 93 existing/designated uses) unless wetlands are encountered. Streams that have

existing bank protection measures installed should be restored to match the pre-existing

conditions of the stream banks in those locations. Native streambed material shall be placed

within the streambed over top the pipeline. No significant changes in the streambed grade and

thalwag alignment should occur at any crossing location.

Transco will replant native tree and shrubs within the impacted forested riparian buffers,

as outlined in Appendix S4-2 Onsite Wetland and Riparian Reforestation Plan. A 10-foot-wide

herbaceous corridor will be maintained over the center of the pipeline within the riparian buffer

area. Trees and other woody vegetation will also be allowed to reestablish naturally within the

construction ROWs that were cleared for construction of the pipeline. However, trees within 15

feet of the centerline and between existing pipelines will be removed to maintain the integrity of

the pipeline. The use of erosion control BMP’s will avoid and/or minimize erosion and runoff that

could potentially affect surface water quality.

Wetlands

Construction of the Project will result in temporary impacts to one hundred and eight PEM,

PSS and PFO wetlands. Permanent functional conversion impacts (PFO/PSS to PEM) wetlands

located within the proposed maintained pipeline ROW will occur to 39 wetlands, for a total of 1.67

acres. Temporary functional conversion impacts of wetlands located within the temporary

workspace will occur to 47 wetlands, for a total of 3.47 acres. Wetlands outlined as temporary

functional conversion impacted wetlands will be replanted onsite. To minimize adverse impacts

at wetland crossings, Transco will implement its Procedures during the construction, post-

construction restoration, and operation of the Project. Transco developed the Procedures to

address temporary wetland effects associated with construction of the Project. The Procedures

are intended to satisfy the wetland restoration requirements of applicable resource protection

agencies with jurisdiction over areas affected by the Project.

Transco will use pipeline construction crossing methods based on site-specific conditions

and resource sensitivity. These methods primarily consist of conventional open-cut with a few

crossing locations associated with existing road infrastructure being conventional bore. Operation

of construction equipment through wetlands will be limited to only what is necessary for each


3

stage of construction (e.g., clearing, trenching, staging). Transco will minimize compaction of

topsoil within unsaturated wetlands by stripping, segregating, and stockpiling topsoil separately

from subsoil during construction. Topsoil segregation techniques will be used in unsaturated

wetlands to preserve the seed bank and to facilitate successful restoration. Construction

workspaces have been minimized to the extent practicable within these resources. Pipeline

construction will use the conventional dry open-cut method at most locations. Construction

equipment will use timber mats to prevent soil rutting for construction access through the

wetlands. Trench plugs will be installed at the entrance and exit of the pipeline through the wetland

to ensure that the wetland is not drained along the pipeline. In forested and scrub-shrub wetlands,

Transco will minimize clearing to the extent practicable while maintaining safe construction

conditions.

Pipe stringing and fabrication may occur within saturated and unsaturated wetlands

adjacent to the trench or adjacent to the wetland. Soil structure and the presence of standing

water commonly found in wetlands along with the large surface loads of construction equipment

and materials to construct large diameter pipelines contribute to the need for additional workspace

adjacent to wetland crossings. Hydric soils typically are lower in strength and become weaker

when saturated. Handling weak material during the excavation/stockpile process further reduces

the strength of the soil mass by disturbance/remolding/mixing, thus requiring a larger area to

stockpile the soils. Additionally, buoyancy control (e.g., weights, concrete-coated pipe) may be

necessary in wetland environments, which require the trench to be larger in both width and depth,

resulting in additional stockpile material. Wetland crossings that require concrete coating are

outlined in Appendix S3-1 Subfacility Details Table.

Upon completion of construction within wetlands, Transco will promptly restore wetlands

to their original configurations and contours and stabilize disturbed adjacent upland areas.

Wetland areas will be revegetated with Ernst FACW Meadow Mix (ERNMX-122), or an alternative

wetland seed mix that contains similar species, where standing water is not present, to stabilize

disturbed soils. PEM wetlands, dominated primarily by low-growing sedges, rushes, and other

herbaceous vegetation, will revert to emergent vegetation following construction, resulting in no

permanent change to wetland type. PSS and PFO wetlands affected during construction will be

seeded with the wetland seed mix and also replanted with native trees and shrubs outside of the

proposed maintained ROW (See Appendix S4-2). Following construction, Transco will monitor


4

disturbed wetlands and adjacent uplands until restoration and long-term stabilization is

documented.

S4.B.2 Proposed Preservation and Maintenance Operations to Reduce or Eliminate Project Impacts During operation and maintenance, the following actions will be taken to reduce or limit

impacts of the ROW:

• Transco will limit routine vegetation mowing or clearing within wetlands and adjacent

to waterbodies. A 10-foot-wide herbaceous corridor will be maintained over the center

of the pipeline within the wetland and riparian buffer areas. Trees and other woody

vegetation will also be allowed to reestablish naturally within the construction ROWs

that were cleared for construction of the pipeline. However, trees within 15 feet of the

centerline and between existing pipelines will be removed to maintain the integrity of

the pipeline.

• Transco will not use herbicides or pesticides in or within 100 feet of a waterbody except

as allowed by the applicant land management or state agency.

• Transco will implement time of year restrictions for mowing as specified in in the

Transco Plan found in Appendix S3-3. (April 15 - August 1 of any year is the typical

restriction period which applies to routine mowing and clearing of riparian areas.)

S4.C Compensatory Mitigation To mitigate for the temporary and permanent functional conversion of PSS and PFO

wetlands associated with the Effort Loop, an offsite mitigation area has been designated to offset

functional losses by providing a total of 6.91 acres of wetland enhancement. An Offsite

Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Plan for the overall Regional Energy Access Enhancement

Project including performance standards and a monitoring plan has been prepared and is

provided in Appendix S4-3.

In addition to offsite mitigation, onsite replanting of the temporary functional conversion

impacted wetlands located within the temporary workspace will occur. The onsite replanting will

take place in 47 wetlands, for a total of 3.47 acres. An Onsite Wetland and Riparian Reforestation

Plan for the overall Regional Energy Access Enhancement Project including performance

standards and a monitoring plan has been prepared and is provided in Appendix S4-2.


5

S4.D Post-Construction Wetland and Watercourse Monitoring Plan Post-Construction Wetland and Watercourse Monitoring shall occur annually for a period

of 5 years following construction and include wetlands and watercourses impacted by the Project,

and a monitoring report submitted thereafter. Each monitoring report will include, at a minimum,

the following information:

o Information describing the presence or absence of hydrology at the time of

inspection and a narrative comparison to hydrology present in the wetland or

watercourse during pre-permitting field investigation(s);

o Photographic Documentation;

o Vegetation data; and

Inventory of plant species

Percent coverage of native hydrophytic species (wetlands)

Invasive species documentation and management (outlined in Appendix

S4-4)

Stem counts survival

o Identification of any problems or concerns that require remedial measures,

including loss of hydrology, and a plan to address the deficiencies.


6

References Cowardin LM, Carter V, Golet FC, LaRoe ET. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater

habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Pub. FWS/OBS-79/31,

Washington, DC.

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical

Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

The Pennsylvania Code. Title 25 Environmental Protection, Chapter 93. Water Quality

Standards. (PACODE) Available online at

https://www.pacode.com/secure/data/025/chapter93/chap93toc.html. Accessed June

2019




2019




2019

United States. Department of Defense; Environmental Protection Agency. Army Corps of

Engineers. Federal Register, Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources.

70th ed. Vol. 73. Print.

https://www.pacode.com/secure/data/025/chapter93/chap93toc.html.%20Accessed%20June%202019






APPENDIX S4-1 TRANSCO PROCEDURES


Transco Project-Specific Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures

Regional Energy Access Expansion

March 2021

This page intentionally left blank.

TRANSCO PROJECT-SPECIFIC WETLAND AND REGIONAL ENERGY ACCESS EXPANSION WATERBODY CONSTRUCTION AND MITIGATION PROCEDURES

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. APPLICABILITY ................................................................................................................ 1

II. PRE-CONSTRUCTION FILING ........................................................................................ 2

III. ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTORS ................................................................................... 3

IV. PRE-CONSTRUCTION PLANNING .................................................................................. 3

B. AGENCY COORDINATION ...................................................................................... 5

V. WATERBODY CROSSINGS............................................................................................. 5

A. NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES AND PERMITS ..................................................... 5

B. INSTALLATION ........................................................................................................ 5

C. RESTORATION .......................................................................................................12

D. POST-CONSTRUCTION MAINTENANCE ..............................................................13

VI. WETLAND CROSSINGS .................................................................................................14

A. GENERAL ...............................................................................................................14

B. INSTALLATION .......................................................................................................15

C. RESTORATION .......................................................................................................18

D. POST-CONSTRUCTION MAINTENANCE AND REPORTING ................................19

VII. HYDROSTATIC TESTING ...............................................................................................20

A. NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES AND PERMITS ....................................................20

B. GENERAL ...............................................................................................................21

C. INTAKE SOURCE AND RATE .................................................................................21

D. DISCHARGE LOCATION, METHOD, AND RATE ...................................................21



1

I. APPLICABILITY

A. The intent of these Procedures is to identify baseline mitigation measures for minimizing

the extent and duration of the Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (Transco)

Regional Energy Access Expansion (Project) related disturbance on wetlands and

waterbodies. Transco will specify in its applications for a new Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission (FERC) authorization, and in prior notice and advance notice

filings, any individual measures in these Procedures it considers unnecessary,

technically infeasible, or unsuitable due to local conditions and fully describe alternative

measures they would use. Transco will also explain how those alternative measures will

achieve a comparable level of mitigation. Deviations from the FERC Procedures

proposed by Transco to reflect site-specific conditions are bolded in the text.

Once the Project is authorized, Transco may request further changes as variances to the

measures in the Transco Procedures. The Director of the Office of Energy Projects

(Director) will consider approval of variances upon Transco’s written request, if the

Director agrees that a variance:

1. provides equal or better environmental protection;

2. is necessary because a portion of these Procedures is infeasible or unworkable

based on Project-specific conditions; or

3. is specifically required in writing by another federal, state, or Native American

land management agency for the portion of the project on its land or under its

jurisdiction.

Project-related impacts on non-wetland areas are addressed in the Transco

Project-specific Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan (Transco

Plan).

B. Definitions

1. “Waterbody” includes any natural or artificial stream, river, or drainage with

perceptible flow at the time of crossing, and other permanent waterbodies such

as ponds and lakes:

a. “minor waterbody” includes all waterbodies less than or equal to 10 feet

wide at the water’s edge at the time of crossing;


2

b. “intermediate waterbody” includes all waterbodies greater than 10 feet

wide but less than or equal to 100 feet wide at the water’s edge at the

time of crossing; and

c. “major waterbody” includes all waterbodies greater than 100 feet wide at

the water’s edge at the time of crossing.

2. “Wetland” includes any area that is not in actively cultivated or rotated cropland

and that satisfies the requirements of the current federal methodology for

identifying and delineating wetlands.

II. PRE-CONSTRUCTION FILING

A. The following information will be filed with the Secretary of FERC (Secretary) prior to the

beginning of construction, for the review and written approval by the Director:

1. site-specific justifications for additional temporary workspace (ATWS) areas that

would be closer than 50 feet from a waterbody or wetland; and

2. site-specific justifications for the use of a construction right-of-way greater than

75 feet wide in wetlands.

B. The following information will be filed with the Secretary prior to the beginning of

construction:

1. Spill Prevention and Response Procedures specified in Section IV.A;

2. a schedule identifying when trenching or blasting will occur within each

waterbody greater than 10 feet wide, within any designated coldwater fishery,

and within any waterbody identified as habitat for federally-listed threatened or

endangered species. Transco will revise the schedule as necessary to provide

FERC staff at least 14 days advance notice. Changes within this last 14-day

period must provide for at least 48 hours advance notice;

3. plans for horizontal directional drills (HDD) under wetlands or waterbodies,

specified in Section V.B.6.d;

4. site-specific plans for major waterbody crossings, described in Section V.B.9;

5. a wetland delineation report as described in Section VI.A.1, and

6. the hydrostatic testing information specified in Section VII.B.3.


3

III. ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTORS

A. At least one Environmental Inspector having knowledge of the wetland and waterbody

conditions in the Project area is required for each construction spread. The number and

experience of Environmental Inspectors assigned to each construction spread shall be

appropriate for the length of the construction spread and the number/significance of

resources affected.

B. The Environmental Inspector’s responsibilities are outlined in the Transco Plan.

IV. PRE-CONSTRUCTION PLANNING

A. Transco has filed a Project-specific Spill Prevention and Response Procedures that meet

applicable requirements of state and federal agencies. A copy will be filed with the

Secretary prior to construction and made available in the field on each construction

spread. Refer to the Transco Project-specific Construction Spill Prevention and

Response Procedures for Oil and Hazardous Materials.

1. Transco and its contractors will structure their operations in a manner that

reduces the risk of spills or the accidental exposure of fuels or hazardous

materials to waterbodies or wetlands. Transco and its contractors must, at a

minimum, ensure that:

a. all employees handling fuels and other hazardous materials are properly

trained;

b. all equipment is in good operating order and inspected on a regular basis;

c. fuel trucks transporting fuel to on-site equipment travel only on approved

access roads;

d. all equipment is parked overnight and/or fueled at least 100 feet from a

waterbody or in an upland area at least 100 feet from a wetland

boundary. These activities can occur closer only if the Environmental

Inspector determines there is no reasonable alternative, and that Transco

and its contractors have taken appropriate steps (including secondary

containment structures) to prevent spills and provide for prompt cleanup

in the event of a spill;


4

e. hazardous materials, including chemicals, fuels, and lubricating oils, are

not stored within 100 feet of a wetland, waterbody, or designated

municipal watershed area, unless the location is designated for such use

by an appropriate governmental authority. This applies to storage of

these materials and does not apply to normal operation or use of

equipment in these areas;

f. concrete coating activities are not performed within 100 feet of a wetland

or waterbody boundary, unless the location is an existing industrial site

designated for such use. These activities can occur closer only if the

Environmental Inspector determines there is no reasonable alternative,

and Transco and its contractors have taken appropriate steps (including

secondary containment structures) to prevent spills and provide for

prompt cleanup in the event of a spill;

g. pumps operating within 100 feet of a waterbody or wetland boundary

utilize appropriate secondary containment systems to prevent spills; and

h. bulk storage of hazardous materials, including chemicals, fuels, and

lubricating oils have appropriate secondary containment systems to

prevent spills.

2. Transco and its contractors will structure their operations in a manner that

provides for the prompt and effective cleanup of spills of fuel and other

hazardous materials. At a minimum, Transco and its contractors will:

a. ensure that each construction crew (including cleanup crews) has on

hand sufficient supplies of absorbent and barrier materials to allow the

rapid containment and recovery of spilled materials and knows the

procedure for reporting spills and unanticipated discoveries of

contamination;

b. ensure that each construction crew has on hand sufficient tools and

material to stop leaks;

c. know the contact names and telephone numbers for all local, state, and

federal agencies (including, if necessary, the U.S. Coast Guard and the

National Response Center) that must be notified of a spill; and


5

d. follow the requirements of those agencies in cleaning up the spill, in

excavating and disposing of soils or other materials contaminated by a

spill, and in collecting and disposing of waste generated during spill

cleanup.

B. AGENCY COORDINATION

Transco will coordinate with the appropriate local, state, and federal agencies as outlined

in these Procedures and in FERC’s Orders.

V. WATERBODY CROSSINGS

A. NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES AND PERMITS

1. Apply to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), or its delegated agency, for

the appropriate wetland and waterbody crossing permits.

2. Provide written notification to authorities responsible for potable surface water

supply intakes located within three miles downstream of the crossing at least

one-week before beginning work in the waterbody, or as otherwise specified by

that authority.

3. Apply for state-issued waterbody crossing permits and obtain individual or

generic Section 401 water quality certification or waiver.

4. Notify appropriate federal and state authorities at least 48 hours before beginning

trenching or blasting within the waterbody, or as specified in applicable permits.

B. INSTALLATION

1. Time Window for Construction

In-stream construction time windows are based on agency approved permits. As

permitted by state agencies, in-stream work, except that required to install or

remove equipment bridges, will occur during the following time windows:

a. PA Trout Stocked Waters – June 16 through February 28;

b. PA Wild Trout Waters – January 1 through September 30; and

c. PA Class A Wild Trout Waters – April 2 through September 30.


6

Transco may request at specific identified locations to perform in-stream work

outside of specific state agency windows at individual waterbodies, as approved

by state agencies prior to construction.

2. Extra Work Areas

a. Locate all extra work areas (such as staging areas) and ATWS areas

(such as spoil storage areas and full right-of-way topsoil ) at least 50 feet

away from water’s edge, except where the adjacent upland consists of

cultivated or rotated cropland or other disturbed land.

In select areas, Transco will need to locate ATWS within 50 feet of a

stream in areas that are not active agricultural land due to adjacent

land use or topographic limitations. Transco will file with the

Secretary for review and written approval by the Director,

site-specific justification for each ATWS area with a less than

50-foot setback from the water’s edge, except where the adjacent

upland consists of cultivated or rotated cropland or other disturbed

land. The justifications will specify the conditions that will not

permit a 50-foot setback and measures to ensure the waterbody is

adequately protected.

b. Limit the size of ATWS areas to the minimum needed to construct the

waterbody crossing.

3. General Crossing Procedures

a. Comply with the USACE, or its delegated agency, permit terms and

conditions;

b. Construct crossings as close to perpendicular to the axis of the waterbody

channel as engineering and routing conditions permit;

c. Where pipelines parallel a waterbody, maintain at least 15 feet of

undisturbed vegetation between the waterbody (and adjacent wetland)

and the construction right-of-way, except where maintaining this offset will

result in greater environmental impact;

d. Where waterbodies meander or have multiple channels, route the pipeline

to minimize the number of waterbody crossings;


7

e. Maintain adequate waterbody flow rates to protect aquatic life, and

prevent the interruption of existing downstream uses;

f. Waterbody buffers (e.g., extra work area setbacks, refueling restrictions)

must be clearly marked in the field with signs and/or highly visible flagging

until construction-related ground disturbing activities are complete; and

g. Crossing of waterbodies when they are dry or frozen and not flowing may

proceed using standard upland construction techniques in accordance

with the Project-specific Plan, provided the Environmental Inspector

verifies that water is unlikely to flow between initial disturbance and final

stabilization of the feature. In the event of perceptible flow, Transco must

comply with all applicable Procedure requirements for “waterbodies” as

defined in Section I.B.1.

4. Spoil Pile Placement and Control

a. All spoil from minor and intermediate waterbody crossings, and upland

spoil from major waterbody crossings, must be placed in the construction

right-of-way at least 10 feet from the water’s edge or in ATWS areas as

described in Section V.B.2.

b. Use sediment barriers to prevent the flow of spoil or silt-laden water into

any waterbody.

5. Equipment Bridges

a. Only clearing equipment and equipment necessary for installation of

equipment bridges may cross waterbodies prior to bridge installation.

Limit the number of such crossings of each waterbody to one per piece of

clearing equipment

b. Construct and maintain equipment bridges to allow unrestricted flow and

to prevent soil from entering the waterbody. Examples of such bridges

include:

(1) equipment pads and culvert(s);

(2) equipment pads or railroad car bridges without culverts;

(3) clean rock fill and culvert(s); and


8

(4) flexi-float or portable bridges.

Additional options for equipment bridges may be utilized that achieve the

performance objectives noted above. Do not use soil to construct or

stabilize equipment bridges.

c. Design and maintain each equipment bridge to withstand and pass the

highest flow expected to occur while the bridge is in place. Align culverts

to prevent bank erosion or streambed scour. If necessary, install energy

dissipating devices downstream of the culverts.

d. Design and maintain equipment bridges to prevent soil from entering the

waterbody.

e. Remove temporary equipment bridges as soon as practicable after

permanent seeding.

f. If there will be more than one-month between final cleanup and the

beginning of permanent seeding and reasonable alternative access to the

right-of-way is available, remove temporary equipment bridges as soon

as practicable after final cleanup.

g. Obtain necessary approval from the USACE, or the appropriate state

agency for permanent bridges.

6. Dry-Ditch Crossing Methods

a. Unless approved otherwise by the appropriate federal or state agency,

install the pipeline using one of the dry-ditch methods outlined below for

crossings of waterbodies up to 30 feet wide (at the water’s edge at the

time of construction) that are state designated as either coldwater or

significant coolwater or warmwater fisheries, or federally designated as

critical habitat.

b. Dam and Pump

(1) The dam-and-pump method may be used without prior approval for

crossings of waterbodies where pumps can adequately transfer

streamflow volumes around the work area, and there are no

concerns about sensitive species passage.


9

(2) Implementation of the dam-and-pump crossing method must meet

the following performance criteria:

(i) use sufficient pumps, including on-site backup pumps, to

maintain downstream flows;

(ii) construct dams with materials that prevent sediment and

other pollutants from entering the waterbody

(e.g., sandbags or clean gravel with plastic liner);

(iii) screen pump intakes to minimize entrainment of fish;

(iv) prevent streambed scour at pump discharge; and

(v) continuously monitor the dam and pumps to ensure proper

operation throughout the waterbody crossing.

c. Flume Crossing

The flume crossing method requires implementation of the following

steps:

(1) install flume pipe after blasting (if necessary), but before trenching;

(2) use sand bag or sand bag and plastic sheeting diversion structure

or equivalent to develop an effective seal and to divert stream flow

through the flume pipe (some modifications to the stream bottom

may be required to achieve an effective seal);

(3) properly align flume pipe(s) to prevent bank erosion and streambed

scour;

(4) do not remove flume pipe during trenching, pipe laying, or

backfilling activities, or initial streambed restoration efforts.; and

(5) remove all flume pipes and dams that are not also part of the

equipment bridge as soon as final cleanup of the streambed and

bank is complete.

d. Horizontal Directional Drill

For each waterbody or wetland that would be crossed using the HDD

method, Transco will file with the Secretary for the review and written

approval by the Director, a plan that includes:


10

(1) site-specific construction diagrams that show the location of mud

pits, pipe assembly areas, and all areas to be disturbed or cleared

for construction;

(2) justification that disturbed areas are limited to the minimum needed

to construct the crossing;

(3) identification of aboveground disturbance or clearing between the

HDD entry and exit workspaces during construction;

(4) a description of how an inadvertent release of drilling mud would

be contained and cleaned up; and

(5) a contingency plan for crossing the waterbody or wetland in the

event the HDD is unsuccessful and how the abandoned drill hole

would be sealed, if necessary.

7. Crossings of Minor Waterbodies

Where a dry-ditch crossing is not required, minor waterbodies may be crossed

using the open-cut crossing method, with the following restrictions:

a. except for blasting and other rock breaking measures, complete in-stream

construction activities (including trenching, pipe installation, backfill, and

restoration of the streambed contours) within 24 hours. Stream banks

and unconsolidated streambeds may require additional restoration after

this period.

b. limit use of equipment operating in the waterbody to that needed to

construct the crossing.

c. equipment bridges are not required at minor waterbodies that do not have

a state-designated fishery classification or protected status

(e.g., agricultural or intermittent drainage ditches). However, if an

equipment bridge is used it must be constructed as described in

Section V.B.5.

8. Crossings of Intermediate Waterbodies

Where a dry-ditch crossing is not required, Transco will cross intermediate

waterbodies using the open-cut crossing method, with the following restrictions:


11

a. complete in-stream construction activities (not including blasting and

other rock breaking measures) within 48 hours, unless site-specific

conditions make completion within 48 hours infeasible;

b. limit use of equipment operating in the waterbody to that needed to

construct the crossing; and

c. all other construction equipment must cross on an equipment bridge as

specified in Section V.B.5.

9. Crossings of Major Waterbodies

Before construction, Transco will file with the Secretary for the review and written

approval by the Director a detailed, site-specific construction plan and scaled

drawings identifying all areas to be disturbed by construction for each major

waterbody crossing. This plan will be developed in consultation with the

appropriate state and federal agencies and shall include extra work areas, spoil

storage areas, sediment control structures, etc., as well as mitigation for

navigational issues.

The Environmental Inspector may adjust the final placement of the erosion and

sediment control structures in the field to maximize effectiveness.

10. Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control

Install sediment barriers (as defined in Section IV.F.3.a of the Transco Plan)

immediately after initial disturbance of the waterbody or adjacent upland.

Sediment barriers will be properly maintained throughout construction and

reinstalled as necessary (such as after backfilling of the trench) until replaced by

permanent erosion controls or restoration of adjacent upland areas is complete.

Temporary erosion and sediment control measures are addressed in more detail

in the Transco Plan; however, Transco will implement the following specific

measures at stream crossings:

a. Install sediment barriers across the entire construction right-of-way at all

waterbody crossings, where necessary to prevent the flow of sediments

into the waterbody. Removable sediment barriers (or drivable berms)

must be installed across the travel lane. These removable sediment

barriers can be removed during the construction day, but must be


12

re-installed after construction has stopped for the day and/or when heavy

precipitation is imminent.

b. Where waterbodies are adjacent to the construction right-of-way and the

right-of-way slopes toward the waterbody, install sediment barriers along

the edge of the construction right-of-way as necessary to contain spoil

within the construction right-of-way and prevent sediment flow into the

waterbody.

c. Use temporary trench plugs at all waterbody crossings, as necessary, to

prevent diversion of water into upland portions of the pipeline trench and

to keep accumulated trench water out of the waterbody.

11. Trench Dewatering

Dewater the trench (either on or off the construction right-of-way) in a manner

that does not cause erosion and does not result in silt-laden water flowing into a

waterbody. Remove the dewatering structures as soon as practicable after the

completion of dewatering activities.

C. RESTORATION

1. Use clean gravel or native cobbles for the upper one-foot of trench backfill in all

waterbodies that contain coldwater fisheries.

2. For open-cut crossings, stabilize waterbody banks and install temporary

sediment barriers within 24 hours of completing in-stream construction activities.

For dry-ditch crossings, complete streambed and bank stabilization before

returning flow to the waterbody channel.

3. Return all waterbody banks to pre-construction contours or to a stable angle of

repose as approved by the Environmental Inspector.

4. Install erosion control fabric or a functional equivalent on waterbody banks at the

time of final bank re-contouring. Do not use synthetic monofilament mesh/netted

erosion control materials in areas designated as sensitive wildlife habitat unless

the product is specifically designed to minimize harm to wildlife. Anchor erosion

control fabric with staples or other appropriate devices.

5. Application of riprap for bank stabilization must comply with USACE, or its

delegated agency, permit terms and conditions.


13

6. Unless otherwise specified by state permit, limit the use of riprap to areas where

flow conditions preclude effective vegetative stabilization techniques such as

seeding and erosion control fabric.

7. Revegetate disturbed riparian areas with native species of conservation grasses,

legumes, and woody species, similar in density to adjacent undisturbed lands.

8. Install a permanent slope breaker across the construction right-of-way at the

base of slopes greater than five percent that are less than 50 feet from the

waterbody, or as needed to prevent sediment transport into the waterbody. In

addition, install sediment barriers as outlined in the Plan.

In some areas, with the approval of the Environmental Inspector, an earthen

berm may be suitable as a sediment barrier adjacent to the waterbody.

9. Sections V.C.3 through V.C.7 above also apply to those perennial or intermittent

streams not flowing at the time of construction.

D. POST-CONSTRUCTION MAINTENANCE

1. Limit routine vegetation mowing or clearing adjacent to waterbodies to allow a

riparian strip at least 25 feet wide, as measured from the waterbody’s mean high

water mark, to permanently revegetate with native plant species across the entire

construction right-of-way. However, to facilitate periodic corrosion/leak surveys,

a corridor centered on the pipeline and up to 10 feet wide may be cleared at a

frequency necessary to maintain the 10-foot corridor in an herbaceous state. In

addition, trees that are located within 15 feet of the pipeline that have roots that

could compromise the integrity of the pipeline coating may be cut and removed

from the permanent right-of-way. Do not conduct routine vegetation mowing or

clearing in riparian areas that are between HDD entry and exit points.

2. Do not use herbicides or pesticides in or within 100 feet of a waterbody except as

allowed by the appropriate land management or state agency.

3. Time of year restrictions specified in Section VII.A.5 of the Transco Plan

(April 15 – August 1 of any year) apply to routine mowing and clearing of riparian

areas.


14

VI. WETLAND CROSSINGS

A. GENERAL

1. Transco will conduct wetland delineations using the current federal methodology

and will file wetland delineation reports with the Secretary before construction.

This report will identify:

a. by milepost all wetlands that would be affected;

b. the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) classification for each wetland;

c. the crossing length of each wetland in feet; and

d. the area of permanent and temporary disturbance that would occur in

each wetland by NWI classification type.

The requirements outlined in this section do not apply to wetlands in actively

cultivated or rotated cropland. Standard upland protective measures, including

workspace and topsoiling requirements, apply to these agricultural wetlands.

2. Route the pipeline to avoid wetland areas to the maximum extent possible. If a

wetland cannot be avoided or crossed by following an existing right-of-way, route

the new pipeline in a manner that minimizes disturbance to wetlands. Where

looping an existing pipeline, overlap the existing pipeline right-of-way with the

new construction right-of-way. In addition, locate the loop line no more than

25 feet away from the existing pipeline unless site-specific constraints would

adversely affect the stability of the existing pipeline.

3. Limit the width of the construction right-of-way to 75 feet or less. Prior written

approval of the Director is required where topographic conditions or soil

limitations require that the construction right-of-way width within the boundaries

of a federally-delineated wetland be expanded beyond 75 feet. Early in the

planning process Transco will identify site-specific areas where excessively wide

trenches could occur and/or where spoil piles could be difficult to maintain

because existing soils lack adequate unconfined compressive strength.

4. Wetland boundaries and buffers will be clearly marked in the field with signs

and/or highly visible flagging until construction-related ground disturbing activities

are complete.


15

5. Implement the measures of Sections V and VI in the event a waterbody crossing

is located within or adjacent to a wetland crossing. If all measures of Sections V

and VI cannot be met, Transco will file with the Secretary a site-specific crossing

plan for review and written approval by the Director before construction. This

crossing plan will address at a minimum:

a. spoil control;

b. equipment bridges;

c. restoration of waterbody banks and wetland hydrology;

d. timing of the waterbody crossing;

e. method of crossing; and

f. size and location of all extra work areas.

6. Do not locate aboveground facilities in any wetland, except where the location of

such facilities outside of wetlands would prohibit compliance with U.S.

Department of Transportation regulations.

B. INSTALLATION

1. Extra Work Areas and Access Roads

a. Locate all extra work areas (such as staging areas and additional spoil

storage areas) at least 50 feet away from wetland boundaries, except

where the adjacent upland consists of cultivated or rotated cropland or

other disturbed land.

b. Transco will file with the Secretary for review and written approval by the

Director, site-specific justification for each extra work area and ATWS

with a less than 50-foot setback from wetland boundaries, except where

adjacent upland consists of cultivated or rotated cropland or other

disturbed land. The justification will specify the site-specific conditions

that will not permit a 50-foot setback and measures to ensure the wetland

is adequately protected.

In select areas, Transco will need to locate ATWS within 50 feet of a

wetland in areas that are not active agricultural land due to adjacent

land use or topographic limitations. Transco will file with the


16

Secretary for review and written approval by the Director,

site-specific justification for additional workspace within 50 feet of

wetlands. The justifications specify the conditions that will not

permit a 50-foot setback and measures to ensure the wetland is

adequately protected.

c. The construction right-of-way may be used for access when the wetland

soil is firm enough to avoid rutting or the construction right-of-way has

been appropriately stabilized to avoid rutting (e.g., with timber riprap,

prefabricated equipment mats, or terra mats).

d. In wetlands that cannot be appropriately stabilized, all construction

equipment other than that needed to install the wetland crossing shall use

access roads located in upland areas. Where access roads in upland

areas do not provide reasonable access, limit all other construction

equipment to one pass through the wetland using the construction

right-of-way.

e. The only access roads, other than the construction right-of-way, that can

be used in wetlands are those existing roads that can be used with no

modifications or improvements, other than routine repair, and no impact

on the wetland.

2. Crossing Procedures

a. Comply with the USACE, or its delegated agency, permit terms and

conditions.

b. Assemble the pipeline in an upland area unless the wetland is dry enough

to adequately support skids and pipe.

c. Use “push-pull” or “float” techniques to place the pipe in the trench where

water and other site conditions allow.

d. Minimize the length of time that topsoil is segregated and the trench is

open. Do not trench the wetland until the pipeline is assembled and

ready for lowering in.


17

e. Limit construction equipment operating in wetland areas to that needed to

clear the construction right-of-way, dig the trench, fabricate and install the

pipeline, backfill the trench, and restore the construction right-of-way.

f. Cut vegetation just above ground level, leaving existing root systems in

place, and remove it from the wetland for disposal. Transco may burn

woody debris in wetlands, if approved by the USACE and in accordance

with state and local regulations, ensuring that all remaining woody debris

is removed for disposal.

g. Limit pulling of tree stumps and grading activities to directly over the

trenchline. Do not grade or remove stumps or root systems from the rest

of the construction right-of-way in wetlands unless the Chief Inspector

and Environmental Inspector determine that safety-related construction

constraints require grading or the removal of tree stumps from under the

working side of the construction right-of-way.

h. Segregate the top one-foot of topsoil from the area disturbed by

trenching, except in areas where standing water is present or soils are

saturated. Immediately after backfilling is complete, restore the

segregated topsoil to its original location.

i. Do not use rock, soil imported from outside the wetland, tree stumps, or

brush riprap to support equipment on the construction right-of-way.

j. If standing water or saturated soils are present, or if construction

equipment causes ruts or mixing of the topsoil and subsoil in wetlands,

use low-ground-weight construction equipment, or operate normal

equipment on timber riprap, prefabricated equipment mats, or terra mats.

k. Remove all Project-related material used to support equipment on the

construction right-of-way upon completion of construction.

3. Temporary Sediment Control

Install sediment barriers (as defined in Section IV.F.3.a of the Transco Plan)

immediately after initial disturbance of the wetland or adjacent upland. Sediment

barriers must be properly maintained throughout construction and reinstalled as

necessary (such as after backfilling of the trench). Except as noted below in


18

Section VI.B.3.c, maintain sediment barriers until replaced by permanent erosion

controls or restoration of adjacent upland areas is complete. Temporary erosion

and sediment control measures are addressed in more detail in the Plan.

a. Install sediment barriers across the entire construction right-of-way

immediately upslope of the wetland boundary at all wetland crossings

where necessary to prevent sediment flow into the wetland.

b. Where wetlands are adjacent to the construction right-of-way and the

right-of-way slopes toward the wetland, install sediment barriers along the

edge of the construction right-of-way as necessary to contain spoil within

the construction right-of-way and prevent sediment flow into the wetland.

c. Install sediment barriers along the edge of the construction right-of-way

as necessary to contain spoil and sediment within the construction

right-of-way through wetlands. Remove these sediment barriers during

right-of-way cleanup.

4. Trench Dewatering

Dewater the trench (either on or off the construction right-of-way) in a manner

that does not cause erosion and does not result in silt-laden water flowing into

any wetland. Remove the dewatering structures as soon as practicable after the

completion of dewatering activities.

C. RESTORATION

1. Where the pipeline trench may drain a wetland, construct trench breakers at the

wetland boundaries and/or seal the trench bottom as necessary to maintain the

original wetland hydrology.

2. Restore pre-construction wetland contours to maintain the original wetland

hydrology.

3. For each wetland crossed, install a trench breaker at the base of slopes near the

boundary between the wetland and adjacent upland areas. Install a permanent

slope breaker across the construction right-of-way at the base of slopes greater

than five percent where the base of the slope is less than 50 feet from the

wetland, or as needed to prevent sediment transport into the wetland. In

addition, install sediment barriers as outlined in the Project-Specific Plan. In


19

some areas, with the approval of the Environmental Inspector, an earthen berm

may be suitable as a sediment barrier adjacent to the wetland.

4. Do not use fertilizer, lime, or mulch unless required in writing by the appropriate

federal or state agency.

5. Transco will consult with the appropriate federal or state agencies to develop a

Project-specific wetland restoration plan. The restoration plan will include

measures for re-establishing herbaceous and/or woody species, controlling the

invasion and spread of invasive species and noxious weeds (e.g., purple

loosestrife and phragmites), and monitoring the success of the revegetation and

weed control efforts. Refer to the Project-specific Invasive Species Management

Plan.

6. Until a Project-specific wetland restoration plan is developed and/or implemented,

temporarily revegetate the construction right-of-way with annual ryegrass at a rate

of 40 pounds/acre (unless standing water is present).

7. Ensure that all disturbed areas successfully revegetate with wetland herbaceous

and/or woody plant species.

8. Remove temporary sediment barriers located at the boundary between wetland

and adjacent upland areas after revegetation and stabilization of adjacent upland

areas are judged to be successful as specified in Section VII.A.4 of the Transco

Plan.

D. POST-CONSTRUCTION MAINTENANCE AND REPORTING

1. Do not conduct routine vegetation mowing or clearing over the full width of the

permanent right-of-way in wetlands. However, to facilitate periodic corrosion/leak

surveys, a corridor centered on the pipeline and up to 10 feet wide may be

cleared at a frequency necessary to maintain the 10-foot corridor in an

herbaceous state. In addition, trees within 15 feet of the pipeline with roots that

could compromise the integrity of pipeline coating may be selectively cut and

removed from the permanent right-of-way. Do not conduct any routine vegetation

mowing or clearing in wetlands that are between HDD entry and exit points.

2. Do not use herbicides or pesticides in or within 100 feet of a wetland, except as

allowed by the appropriate federal or state agency.


20

3. Time of year restrictions specified in Section VII.A.5 of the Transco Plan

(April 15 – August 1 of any year) apply to routine mowing and clearing of wetland

areas.

4. Monitor and record the success of wetland revegetation annually until wetland

revegetation is successful.

5. Wetland revegetation shall be considered successful if all of the following criteria

are satisfied:

a. the affected wetland satisfies the current federal definition for a wetland

(i.e., soils, hydrology, and vegetation);

b. vegetation is at least 80 percent of either the cover documented for the

wetland prior to construction, or at least 80 percent of the cover in

adjacent wetland areas that were not disturbed by construction;

c. if natural rather than active revegetation was used, the plant species

composition is consistent with early successional wetland plant

communities in the affected ecoregion; and

d. invasive species and noxious weeds are absent, unless they are

abundant in adjacent areas that were not disturbed by construction.

6. Within three years after construction, Transco will file a report with the Secretary

identifying the status of the wetland revegetation efforts and documenting

success as defined in Section VI.D.5, above.

For any wetland where revegetation is not successful at the end of three years

after construction, Transco will develop and implement (in consultation with a

professional wetland ecologist) a remedial revegetation plan to actively

revegetate wetlands. Continue revegetation efforts and file a report annually

documenting progress in these wetlands until wetland revegetation is

successful.

VII. HYDROSTATIC TESTING

A. NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES AND PERMITS

1. Apply for state-issued water withdrawal permits, as required;


21

2. Apply for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System or state-issued

discharge permits, as required; and

3. Notify appropriate state agencies of intent to use specific sources at least

48 hours before testing activities unless they waive this requirement in writing.

B. GENERAL

1. Perform 100 percent radiographic inspection of all pipeline section welds or

hydrotest the pipeline sections, before installation under waterbodies or

wetlands.

2. If pumps used for hydrostatic testing are within 100 feet of any waterbody or

wetland, address secondary containment and the refueling of these pumps in

the Project-specific Spill Prevention and Response Procedures. Refer to the

Transco Project-specific Construction Spill Prevention and Response

Procedures for Oil and Hazardous Materials.

3. Transco will file with the Secretary before construction a list identifying the

location of all waterbodies proposed for use as a hydrostatic test water source

or discharge location.

C. INTAKE SOURCE AND RATE

1. Screen the intake hose to minimize the potential for entrainment of fish;

2. Do not use state-designated exceptional value waters, waterbodies which

provide habitat for federally listed threatened or endangered species, or

waterbodies designated as public water supplies, unless appropriate federal,

state, and/or local permitting agencies grant written permission;

3. Maintain adequate flow rates to protect aquatic life, provide for all waterbody

uses, and provide for downstream withdrawals of water by existing users; and

4. Locate hydrostatic test manifolds outside wetlands and riparian areas to the

maximum extent practicable.

D. DISCHARGE LOCATION, METHOD, AND RATE

1. Regulate discharge rate, use energy dissipation device(s), and install sediment

barriers, as necessary, to prevent erosion, streambed scour, suspension of

sediments, or excessive stream flow.


22

2. Do not discharge into state-designated exceptional value waters, waterbodies

which provide habitat for federally-listed threatened or endangered species, or

waterbodies designated as public water supplies, unless appropriate federal,

state, and local permitting agencies grant written permission.

APPENDIX S4-2 WETLAND AND RIPARIAN

REFORESTATION PLAN

WHM Consulting, LLC. i March 2021

M:\WHM CONSULTING\PROJECTS\WILLIAMS-19-238 (REA)\MITIGATION\Appendix S4 – 2 Onsite Wetland And Riparian Reforestation Plan\TOC.Doc

TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS PIPE LINE COMPANY, LLC REGIONAL ENERGY ACCESS EXPANSION PROJECT

ONSITE WETLAND AND RIPARIAN REFORESTATION PLAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS Sections

1.0 Project Overview

2.0 Forested and Scrub-Shrub Wetlands

3.0 Forested Riparian Buffers

4.0 Method of Planting

5.0 Plant Density and Placement

6.0 Wildlife Damage Control

7.0 As-Built Documentation and Monitoring Plan

8.0 Performance Standards

9.0 References

Figures E-1 – E-10: Effort Loop – Wetland and Riparian Reforestation Plan

R-1 – R-35: Regional Energy Lateral – Wetland and Riparian Reforestation Plan

Attachments A Ernst – FACW Meadow Mix -ERNMX-122

B Ernst – Riparian Buffer Mix – ERNMX-178

C Onsite Wetland and Riparian Buffer Replanting Table

D Planting Details

WHM Consulting, LLC. 1 March 2021

M:\WHM CONSULTING\PROJECTS\WILLIAMS-19-238 (REA)\MITIGATION\Appendix S4 – 2 Onsite Wetland and Riparian Reforestation Plan\Restoration Plan Narrative_031821.docx


ONSITE WETLAND AND RIPARIAN REFORESTATION PLAN

1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW On behalf of Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (Transco), a subsidiary of

The Williams Companies, Inc. (Williams), WHM Consulting, LLC. has prepared an onsite restoration and planting plan for the pipeline facilities associated with the Regional Energy Access Expansion Project (Project). This includes the Effort Loop located in Monroe County and the Regional Energy Lateral located in Luzerne County. This plan addresses the replanting of trees and shrubs associated with temporarily impacted forested riparian buffers and to Palustrine Forested (PFO) and Palustrine Scrub-Shrub (PSS) wetlands along the pipeline right-of-way (ROW). Tree and shrub plantings will take place outside of the permanent maintained ROW.

2.0 FORESTED AND SCRUB-SHRUB WETLANDS

Restoration of temporarily impacted wetlands associated with PFO and PSS wetlands will involve onsite replanting. After the completion of construction, wetland areas within the ROW will be restored to pre-construction contours and seeded with Ernst FACW Meadow Mix (ERNMX-122), as outlined in Attachment A, or an alternative wetland seed mix that contains similar species. After seeding, impacted PSS and PFO wetlands outside the permanent maintained ROW will be replanted with native live stakes, bare root or container tree and shrub species up to 5 feet from the pipeline centerline. A ten-foot-wide herbaceous corridor will remain over the pipeline and in between existing pipelines to allow for pipeline maintenance and to maintain the integrity of the pipe. In PFO impacted wetlands, only shrub species shall be planted from 5 to 15 feet of the pipeline centerline. Outside 15 feet, both tree and shrub species may be planted. A summary table outlining proposed PFO and PSS impacted wetlands, their location, and proposed restoration is outlined in Attachment C – Onsite Wetland and Riparian Buffer Replanting Table. In addition, replanting areas for each pipeline facility are outlined on the provided figures.

The vegetative design of the PFO and PSS impacted wetlands outlines a combination of specific native tree and shrub species selected for different hydrologic regimes and different vegetative cover types throughout the Project. Trees and shrubs selected for the replanting were based on species identified during wetland delineations and area outlined in Table 2-1.



TABLE 2-1 - WETLAND REPLANTING SPECIES LIST

Scientific Name Common Name Status Stratum

Black Willow Salix nigra OBL Tree

Silver Maple Acer saccharinum FACW Tree

River Birch Betula nigra FACW Tree

Yellow Birch Betula alleghaniensis FAC Tree

Red Maple Acer rubrum FAC Tree

Black Gum Nyssa sylvatica FAC Tree

American sycamore Platanus occidentalis FACW Tree

Smooth Alder Alnus serrulata OBL Shrub

Silky Dogwood Cornus amomum FACW Shrub

Common Ninebark Physocarpus opulifolius FACW Shrub

Highbush Blueberry Vaccinium corymbosum FACW Shrub

Winterberry Ilex verticillata FACW Shrub

Red Chokeberry Aronia arbutifolia FACW Shrub

Northern Spicebush Lindera benzoin FAC (EMP) FACW (NCNE) Shrub

Pussy Willow Salix discolor FACW Shrub

3.0 FORESTED RIPARIAN BUFFERS

Temporarily impacted forested riparian buffers (100’ or 150’ for special protection watersheds from each watercourse) will involve onsite replanting. After the completion of construction, riparian buffers within the ROW will be restored to pre-construction contours and revegetated with Ernst Riparian Buffer Mix (ERNMX-178), as outlined in Attachment B, or an alternative riparian seed mix that contains similar species. Forested riparian buffers were mapped using surveyed wood line data, aerial imagery and riparian buffer polygons for the perennial and intermittent watercourses. Impacted forested riparian buffers will be replanted with native live stakes, bare root or container tree and shrub species outside the permanent maintained ROW up to 5 feet from the pipeline centerline. A ten-foot-wide herbaceous corridor will remain over the pipeline and in between existing pipelines to allow for pipeline maintenance and to maintain the integrity of the pipe. Only shrub species shall be planted from 5 to 15 feet of the pipeline centerline. Outside 15 feet, both tree and shrub species may be planted. A summary table outlining proposed forested riparian buffer impact areas, their location, and proposed restoration is outlined in Attachment C – Onsite Wetland and Riparian Buffer Replanting Table. In addition, replanting areas for each pipeline facility are outlined on the provided figures.

The vegetative design of the forested riparian buffers outlines a combination of specific

native tree and shrub species selected for different hydrologic regimes and different vegetative cover types throughout the Project. Trees and shrubs selected for the project were selected based on the Department of Environmental Protection’s Riparian Forest Buffer Guidance, document number 394-5600-001 and observations of woody vegetation within riparian buffers during field surveys. The trees and shrubs selected for forested riparian buffer replanting are in Table 3-1 below:



TABLE 3-1 - RIPARIAN BUFFER REPLANTING SPECIES LIST

Scientific Name Common Name Status Stratum

Black Willow Salix nigra OBL Tree

Silver Maple Acer saccharinum FACW Tree

American Sycamore Platanus occidentalis FACW Tree

River Birch Betula nigra FACW Tree

Red Maple Acer rubrum FAC Tree

Black Gum Nyssa sylvatica FAC Tree

Tuliptree Liriodendron tulipifera FACU Tree

Bigtooth Aspen Populus grandidentata FACU Tree

White Pine Pinus strobus FACU Tree

Eastern Hemlock Tsuga canadensis FACU Tree

Smooth Alder Alnus serrulata OBL Shrub/Small Tree

Speckled Alder Alnus incana FACW Shrub/Small Tree

American Hornbeam Carpinus caroliniana FAC Shrub/Small Tree

Silky Dogwood Cornus amomum FACW Shrub

Common Ninebark Physocarpus opulifolius FACW Shrub

Highbush Blueberry Vaccinium corymbosum FACW Shrub

Rosebay Rhododendron

Rhododendron maximum FAC Shrub

American Hazelnut Corylus americana FACU Shrub

Mountain Laurel Kalmia latifolia FACU Shrub

4.0 METHOD OF PLANTING

All plants shall be installed according to acceptable standards of the trade under the supervision of a landscape professional with suitable practical field experience in pipeline replanting projects. A qualified professional with documented experience shall oversee the replanting effort. Minor changes to the plan that will not adversely affect the overall success of the site or changes which enhance the success of the site may be implemented during the project without consultation. Any plan deviations will be documented in the as-built reporting.

All plant materials shall be nursery grown and shall be guaranteed to be true to name

and healthy upon delivery. During planting operations, the contractor shall keep the trees and shrubs out of direct sunlight and maintain moisture on the roots to ensure that the roots don’t dry out prior to planting. Trees and shrubs shall be planted by digging a hole twice the size of the width of the rootball down into the substrate at the point of installation. If the plant is in a plastic container, this shall be carefully removed to keep the rootball intact. After planting, the area will be backfilled and watered. Trees may be provided with support stakes or tree or shrub shelters. Shelters will only be placed on those plants suitable for shelters. Care shall be taken when installing support stakes or tree shelters to ensure that the root ball is not disturbed when



driving the support stake into the soil. Fertilizer tablets may be placed in the backfilled soil to help the growth of the planted trees and shrubs. 5.0 PLANT DENSITY AND PLACEMENT

All plants will be planted in clumps of monocultures consisting of three to six plants of the species. All plants will be planted in a clumped distribution of monoculture blocks of individual species. Monocultures will be planted randomly with spacing of approximately 8.0 feet on center for shrubs and small trees species and 12.0 feet on center for tree species. Trees and shrubs will be planted at a density of 435 stems per acre. No tree plantings are to take place within 15’ of the pipeline or between existing utilities. Typical planting details are included within Attachment D.

6.0 WILDLIFE DAMAGE CONTROL

After planting of the site has been completed, tree and shrub shelters shall be installed for those plants suitable for shelters. If deemed necessary, other methods of wildlife damage control may include the application of rodenticide to each tree/shrub or installing bait boxes for meadow vole control. 7.0 AS-BUILT DOCUMENTATION AND MONITORING PLAN As-built documentation for the planting shall occur as the planting is completed. Thereafter, monitoring of the onsite wetland and riparian buffers replanting areas shall take place annually for five years after planting to determine the success of the replanting areas. During the monitoring, the survival of trees and shrubs will be counted and documented. Any threats to the riparian buffers will be documented and remedial measures will be recommended. Photographs will be taken at representative crossings to document the success of the replanting areas. The as built documentation and monitoring reports will include, at a minimum, the following information:

a) Dates of inspection and names of inspectors; b) Photographic Documentation; c) Hydrology indicators (wetlands); d) Vegetation data

a. percent coverage of native hydrophytic species (wetlands); b. inventory of plant species; and, c. stem count survival.

e) Identification of any problems that need required remedial measures. 8.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Performance standards have been established for the onsite replanting areas. These standards will be used to determine the success of the replanting effort. By monitoring the site as proposed in the monitoring plan and comparing results to the performance standards, a determination of success can be evaluated. The performance standards are as follows:



• Planted trees and shrubs shall meet 85% survival throughout the 5-year monitoring period.

If the performance standards have not been achieved, appropriate remedial actions, as outlined in the adaptive management plan must take place to ensure the success of the site. A vegetative analysis must continue on a yearly basis until the performance standards or goals have been met. In the situations where the buffer planting is not successful, the monitoring report must include a discussion of remedial measures to correct the deficiencies.



9.0 REFERENCES

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Watershed Management. 2010. Riparian Forest Buffer Guidance. Document number 394-5600-001. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Harrisburg, PA.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2018. National Wetland Plant List, version 3.4.

http://wetland_plants.usace.army.mil/ US Army Corps of Engineers Engineer Research and Development Center Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH.

WHM Consulting, LLC. 2020. Regional Energy Access Expansion Project - Wetland and

Watercourse Delineation Report. State College, PA. November, 2020.

http://wetland_plants.usace.army.mil/

FIGURES

EFFORT LOOP

!

!

!

45.8

45.9

W4-T6

W4-T6

W2-T6

W1-T6W2-T6

W3-T6

W4-T6

W4-T6

S3-T5

1 inch = 75 feet

2525 Green Tech Drive, Suite B,State College, PA 16803Tele: 814.689.1650 Fax: 814.689.1557 CHESTNUT H ILL TOWNSH IP MONR OE COUN TY PENNSYLVAN IA E-1

0 75 150Feet

03/05/21

Drawn By :

DMW

WHM DRAW ING NU MBER:

WILLIA MS2 45 B001 -EL

Da t e :

F igu re Numbe r :

§

RESOURCE CROSSING - EL-2

TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS PIPE LINE COMPANY, LLCREGIONAL ENERGY ACCESS EXPANSION PROJECT - EFFORT LOOP

WETLAND AND RIPARIAN REFORESTATION PLAN

! Mile PostExisting Leidy LinesProposed Effort LoopLimits of DisturbanceRiparian Buffer Planting AreaPSS Planting AreaPFO Planting Area

Delineated ChannelPEMPSSPFOPOW

Map Reduced From PEMA Aerial Imagery

!

!

!

46.3

46.2

46.4

W2-T2W3-T2

W2-T2

W2-T2

1 inch = 75 feet


0 75 150Feet

03/05/21

Drawn By :

DMW



Da t e :

F igu re Numbe r :

§




! Mile PostExisting Leidy LinesProposed Effort LoopLimits of DisturbanceRiparian Buffer Planting AreaPSS Wetland Planting AreaPFO Wetland Planting Area

Delineated ChannelPEM WetlandPSS WetlandPFO WetlandPOW Wetland


!

!

!

48.548.6

48.4S1-T1

1 inch = 75 feet


0 75 150Feet

03/05/21

Drawn By :

DMW



Da t e :

F igu re Numbe r :

§





Riparian BufferDelineated ChannelPEM WetlandPSS WetlandPFO WetlandPOW Wetland


!

!

!

49.5

49.4

W1-T1

W1-T1

W1-T1

W1-T1

W1-T1

W1-T1

W1-T1

W1-T1

S1-T2

S2-T2

S3-T2

1 inch = 75 feet

2525 Green Tech Drive, Suite B,State College, PA 16803Tele: 814.689.1650 Fax: 814.689.1557 CHESTNUT HIL L TOWNSH IP MON ROE COUNTY PENN SYLVAN IA E-4

0 75 150Feet

03/24/21

Draw n By :

DMW

WHM DRAW ING NUMBE R:

WILL IAMS2 45 B00 4-EL

Da te :

F igu r e Num be r :

§




! Mile PostExisting Leidy LinesProposed Effort LoopLimits of Disturbance

Riparian Buffer Planting AreaPSS Wetland Planting AreaPFO Wetland Planting Area



!

! !

52.7

52.6

W2-T1

W2-T1 W2-T1

S2-T1

S3-T1

1 inch = 75 feet

2525 Green Tech Drive, Suite B,State College, PA 16803Tele: 814.689.1650 Fax: 814.689.1557 CHESTNUT HIL L AN D TUNK HA NN OCK TOW NSH IPS MON ROE COUNTY PENN SYLVAN IA E-5

0 75 150Feet

03/24/21

Draw n By :

DMW



Da te :


§







!!

!!

53.7

53.6

W9-T2

W9-T2

W9-T2

W9-T2

W9-T2W9-T2

S5-T2

1 inch = 75 feet

2525 Green Tech Drive, Suite B,State College, PA 16803Tele: 814.689.1650 Fax: 814.689.1557 TUNKHAN NOCK TOWNSHI P MONR OE COUN TY PENNSYLVAN IA E-6

0 75 150Feet

03/05/21

Drawn By :

DMW



Da t e :

F igu re Numbe r :

§







!

!!

55.2

55.1

W12-T2

W12-T2

1 inch = 75 feet


0 75 150Feet

03/05/21

Drawn By :

DMW



Da t e :

F igu re Numbe r :

§







!

!

!

!

56.6

56.5

56.7

W14-T2 W13-T2W4-T3

W4-T3

1 inch = 75 feet


0 75 150Feet

03/05/21

Drawn By :

DMW



Da t e :

F igu re Numbe r :

§







!!

!57

56.9

57.1

W3-T1

W4-T1

W3-T1

W15-T2W3-T1

W3-T1

W3A-T1

S8-T2

S7-T2S9-T2

1 inch = 75 feet

2525 Green Tech Drive, Suite B,State College, PA 16803Tele: 814.689.1650 Fax: 814.689.1557 TUN KHAN NOCK TOWNSH IP MON ROE COUNTY PENN SYLVAN IA E-9

0 75 150Feet

03/24/21

Draw n By :

DMW



Da te :


§







!

!

!

57.4

57.5

W8-T1W8-T1

W8-T1

W8-T1

W8-T1

W8-T1

W10A-T1

W9-T1

W8-T1

W10-T1W8-T1

W9A-T1

W8-T1

W8-T1

W8-T1

W8-T1

W5F-T1

W8-T1

W8-T1

S4-T1

1 inch = 75 feet


0 75 150Feet

03/05/21

Drawn By :

DMW



Da t e :

F igu re Numbe r :

§







REGIONAL ENERGY LATERAL

!!!!

0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3

W22-T1W22-T1

W22-T1

W79-T1

W79-T1

W21-T1

W79-T1

W111-T2

W22-T1

W110-T2

W43-T2

W78-T1

W22-T1

S20-T2

S18-T2

S19-T2

S21-T2

1 inch = 100 feet

2525 Green Tech Drive, Suite B,State College, PA 16803Tele: 814.689.1650 Fax: 814.689.1557 BUCK TOWN SH IP LUZERN E COUNTY PENN SYLVAN IA R-1

0 100 200Feet

03/24/21

Draw n By :

DMW


WILL IAMS2 44 B00 1-REL

Da te :


§

RESOURCE CROSSING - REL-1

TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS PIPE LINE COMPANY, LLCREGIONAL ENERGY ACCESS EXPANSION PROJECT - REGIONAL ENERGY LATERAL


! Mile PostExisting Leidy LineProposed Regional Energy LateralLimit of DisturbanceRiparian Buffer Planting AreaPSS Planting AreaPFO Planting Area



!

!

!

!

!

!

1

1.1

1.3

1.2

W10-T4

W10-T4

W40-T3

W10-T4

W11-T4

W10b-T4

W55-T1W10-T4

W108-T2

W54-T1

W10a-T4

W53-T1

W10-T4

W9-T4

W10a-T4

W41-T3

W52-T1

W109-T2S44-T2

S3-T13

S44a-T2

1 inch = 125 feet

2525 Green Tech Drive, Suite B,State College, PA 16803Tele: 814.689.1650 Fax: 814.689.1557 BUCK TOWN SH IP LUZERN E COUNTY PENN SYLVAN IA R-2

0 125 250Feet

03/24/21

Draw n By :

DMW



Da te :


§

RESOURCE CROSSING - REL-2 AND REL-3






REL-2

REL-3

!

!

!

!

!

1.7

1.51.6

W8-T4

W103-T2

W39-T3

W103-T2

W38-T3

W5-T13

W105-T2

W103-T2

W50-T1

W39-T3 W39-T3

W103-T2

W39-T3

W106-T2

W51-T1

W38-T3

W104-T2W103-T2

W39-T3

S1-T13

S2-T13

1 inch = 100 feet

2525 Green Tech Drive, Suite B,State College, PA 16803Tele: 814.689.1650 Fax: 814.689.1557 BUCK A ND B EAR CREEK TOWN SH IP S LUZERN E COUNTY PENN SYLVAN IA R-3

0 100 200Feet

03/24/21

Draw n By :

DMW



Da te :


§







!

!

!

!

!

2.32.4

2.2

W35-T3W7-T4

W7a-T4

W7a-T4

W7a-T4

W4-T4

W6-T4

W100-T2

W3-T13

W7a-T4

W101-T2

W118-T4

W3-T13

W3-T13

W5-T4

S42-T2

S43-T2

S1-T4

1 inch = 100 feet

2525 Green Tech Drive, Suite B,State College, PA 16803Tele: 814.689.1650 Fax: 814.689.1557 BEAR CREEK TOWN SHIP LUZERN E COUNTY PENN SYLVAN IA R-4

0 100 200Feet

03/24/21

Draw n By :

DMW



Da te :


§







REL-8REL-9

!

!

!

!

2.9

2.7

2.8

W42-T1

W42-T1

W42-T1

W1-T4

W42-T1

W42-T1

W1a-T4W42-T1W42-T1

W99-T2

W98-T2

W1-T4

W1-T4

W42-T1

W42-T1

S10-T3

1 inch = 100 feet


0 100 200Feet

03/05/21

Draw n By :

DMW



Da te :


§







REL-12

REL-13

!

!

!

!4

3.83.9

W31-T3

W31-T3

W31-T3

W31-T3

W32-T3

W31-T3W31-T3

W31-T3

W47-T1

W31-T3W31-T3

W31-T3

W31-T3

W94-T2

S38-T2

S5-T11

1 inch = 100 feet


0 100 200Feet

03/24/21

Draw n By :

DMW



Da te :


§







REL-15REL-17

!!

!

!

4.1

4.34.2

W96-T2

W96-T2

W14-T5

W14-T5

W96-T2

W96-T2

W95-T2

W96-T2

W96-T2W96-T2

W96-T2

W96-T2W96-T2

W96-T2

W96-T2

W96-T2

W96-T2

W96-T2

W96-T2

W96-T2

W96-T2

W96-T2W96-T2

S40-T2

S39-T2

1 inch = 100 feet


0 100 200Feet

03/24/21

Draw n By :

DMW



Da te :


§







REL-18REL-19

!!

!

!

!

4.7

4.4

4.5

4.6

W97-T2

W49-T1

W49-T1

W97-T2

W49-T1W97-T2

W49-T1

W49-T1

W97-T2

W49-T1

W49-T1

W97-T2

W49-T1

W15b-T5

W15-T5

W15b-T5

W15a-T5

W15b-T5

W49-T1

W97-T2

W15c-T5

W49-T1 W15b-T5

W97-T2

W15b-T5

W1-T13

W49a-T1

W48-T1

W97-T2

W15b-T5

W48-T1W48-T1

W15b-T5

W49-T1

W48-T1

S8-T5 S9-T5

1 inch = 125 feet


0 125 250Feet

03/24/21

Draw n By :

DMW



Da te :


§

RESOURCE CROSSING - REL-20, REL-21 AND REL-22






REL-20

REL-21

REL-22

!!

!

5

4.9

W9-T5

W9-T5

W4-T12

W34-T3

W84-T2

W4-T12

1 inch = 75 feet


0 75 150Feet

03/24/21

Draw n By :

DMW



Da te :


§







!! !!

5.4 5.3W86-T2W12-T5

W12-T5 W86-T2

W6-T12

W11-T5

W6a-T12

W7-T12

1 inch = 75 feet


0 75 150Feet

03/24/21

Draw n By :

DMW



Da te :


§







REL-24REL-25

!! !! !!

5.9 5.7 5.65.8

W13-T5 W13-T5

W13-T5

W13-T5W13-T5W89-T2

W89-T2

W89-T2

W89-T2W89-T2

W89-T2W89-T2

W89-T2W89-T2

W90-T2 W89-T2

W13-T5

W89-T2

S35-T2

S2-T12S36-T2

1 inch = 125 feet


0 125 250Feet

03/24/21

Draw n By :

DMW



Da te :


§







REL-27 REL-26

!

!

!

6.8

6.7

6.6

W136-T2W132-T2

W131-T2

W135-T2

W142-T2

W137-T2

W14-T13

W132-T2

W12-T13

W131-T2

W12-T13

W12-T13

W12-T13W131-T2

W12-T13

W12-T13

W12-T13

W132-T2

W12-T13W131-T2

W12-T13

W13-T13

W132A-T2

W12-T13

W12-T13

W131-T2

W131-T2

W12-T13

W12-T13

S61-T2S62-T2

S63-T2

S65-T2

S64-T2

1 inch = 75 feet


0 75 150Feet

03/24/21

Draw n By :

DMW



Da te :


§







!

!

!

7.2

7.1

7.3

W140-T2

W16-T13

W139-T2

W16-T13

W16-T13

W16-T13

W141-T2

W16-T13

W16-T13

W16-T13

W16-T13

W151-T2

W138-T2

W16-T13

W16-T13

W16-T13

W16-T13

W16-T13

S8-T13

S68-T2

S69-T2

1 inch = 75 feet


0 75 150Feet

03/24/21

Draw n By :

DMW



Da te :


§







! !

!

7.57.67.7

W150-T2

W20-T4

W180-T2

W146-T2W158-T2

W170-T2

W171-T2

W170-T2

S79-T2

S75-T2

S83-T2

S71-T2

S70-T2

S76-T2

S10-T4

S14-T13

S10-T13

S70a-T2

1 inch = 100 feet

2525 Green Tech Drive, Suite B,State College, PA 16803Tele: 814.689.1650 Fax: 814.689.1557 BEAR CREEK A ND PLAIN S TOWN SHI PS LUZERN E COUNTY PENN SYLVAN IA R-14

0 100 200Feet

03/24/21

Draw n By :

DMW



Da te :


§







REL-32 REL-31

!

!

!

!

8

7.9

W18-T13

W48-T3W54-T3

W50-T3

W49-T3

W17-T13

W147-T2

W54-T3

W18-T13

W51-T3

W147-T2

W155-T2

W17-T13

W148-T2W148-T2

W154-T2W155-T2

W148-T2

W48-T3

S9-T13

S11-T4

S19-T3

S12-T4

S15-T13

S19a-T3

1 inch = 75 feet

2525 Green Tech Drive, Suite B,State College, PA 16803Tele: 814.689.1650 Fax: 814.689.1557 PLAIN S TOWN SHI P LUZERN E COUNTY PENN SYLVAN IA R-15

0 75 150Feet

03/24/21

Draw n By :

DMW



Da te :


§







REL-34

REL-35

!9.4

W66-T2

W66-T2

W36b-T1

W36-T1 W36b-T1

W66-T2

W36b-T1

W36-T1

W36-T1

W163-T2

W36-T1 W36a-T1

W36a-T1

S30-T2

1 inch = 75 feet

2525 Green Tech Drive, Suite B,State College, PA 16803Tele: 814.689.1650 Fax: 814.689.1557 PLAIN S TOWN SHI P LUZERN E COUNTY PENN SYLVAN IA R-16

0 75 150Feet

03/24/21

Draw n By :

DMW



Da te :


§







REL-39

REL-40

!

!

!

!

!

!

10.710.5

10.4

10.6

W37-T1

W74-T2W75-T2

W26-T3

W73-T2

W72-T2

W40-T1

W27-T3

W37a-T1

W28-T3

W71-T2

W165-T2

W157-T2

W72-T2W71-T2

S8-T3

S19-T1

S33-T2

S32-T2

S31-T2

S82-T2

1 inch = 125 feet

2525 Green Tech Drive, Suite B,State College, PA 16803Tele: 814.689.1650 Fax: 814.689.1557 JEN K IN S TOWN SH IP AN D LAFL IN BOR OUGH LUZERN E COUNTY PENN SYLVAN IA R-17

0 125 250Feet

03/24/21

Draw n By :

DMW



Da te :


§

RESOURCE CROSSING - REL-42, REL-43 AND REL-45






REL-42

REL-43

REL-45

!

!

!

!

11

10.810.9

W2-T10

W4-T10

W2-T10

W3-T10

W1-T10W2-T10

W160-T2

W1-T10

W39-T1

S8a-T3

S17-T1

S4-T5

S81-T2

1 inch = 100 feet

2525 Green Tech Drive, Suite B,State College, PA 16803Tele: 814.689.1650 Fax: 814.689.1557 LAFL IN B OROUG H LUZERN E COUNTY PENN SYLVAN IA R-18

0 100 200Feet

03/24/21

Draw n By :

DMW



Da te :


§







REL-46

REL-47

!

!

!

!

11.3

11.2

W76-T2

S8b-T3

S6-T5S34-T2

S5-T5

S18-T1

1 inch = 75 feet

2525 Green Tech Drive, Suite B,State College, PA 16803Tele: 814.689.1650 Fax: 814.689.1557 LAFL IN B OROUG H LUZERN E COUNTY PENN SYLVAN IA R-19

0 75 150Feet

03/24/21

Draw n By :

DMW



Da te :


§







!

!

!

12

11.9

11.8

W24-T1

W23-T1

W44-T2

W23-T1

W44-T2

W23-T1

W23-T1

W25-T1

W46-T2

W44-T2

S6-T1

1 inch = 75 feet

2525 Green Tech Drive, Suite B,State College, PA 16803Tele: 814.689.1650 Fax: 814.689.1557 JEN K IN S TOWN SH IP LUZERN E COUNTY PENN SYLVAN IA R-20

0 75 150Feet

03/24/21

Draw n By :

DMW



Da te :


§







REL-51

REL-53

!

!

!

!

12.5

12.7

12.8

12.6

S9-T3

1 inch = 100 feet


0 100 200Feet

03/24/21

Draw n By :

DMW



Da te :


§







!

!

!

13

12.9

13.1

W20-T3

W20-T3

W20-T3

1 inch = 75 feet


0 75 150Feet

03/24/21

Draw n By :

DMW



Da te :


§







!

!

!

!

13.6

13.8

13.7

W12-T1

W75-T1W75-T1

W75-T1

W12-T1

W75-T1 W75-T1

W77-T1

W76-T1

W11-T1

S1-T5

1 inch = 100 feet

2525 Green Tech Drive, Suite B,State College, PA 16803Tele: 814.689.1650 Fax: 814.689.1557 JEN K IN S TOWN SH IP & WYOMIN G BOR OUGH LUZERN E COUNTY PENN SYLVAN IA R-23

0 100 200Feet

03/24/21

Draw n By :

DMW



Da te :


§







!

!

!

14

W29-T2

W62-T1

W61-T1

W61a-T1

W61b-T1

W61c-T1

1 inch = 75 feet

2525 Green Tech Drive, Suite B,State College, PA 16803Tele: 814.689.1650 Fax: 814.689.1557 WYOMING B OROUG H LUZERN E COUNTY PENN SYLVAN IA R-24

0 75 150Feet

03/24/21

Draw n By :

DMW



Da te :


§







REL-58

REL-59

!

!

!

!

14.814.9

W11-T3

W11-T3

1 inch = 75 feet

2525 Green Tech Drive, Suite B,State College, PA 16803Tele: 814.689.1650 Fax: 814.689.1557 WYOMING B OROUG H LUZERN E COUNTY PENN SYLVAN IA R-25

0 75 150Feet

03/24/21

Draw n By :

DMW



Da te :


§





Delineated ChannelWetland

PEM WetlandPSS WetlandPFO WetlandPOW Wetland


!

!

! !!

15.215.315.4

15.1

W13-T1

W26-T2W30-T2

W26-T2

W27-T2

W15-T1

W25-T2

S14-T2

1 inch = 100 feet

2525 Green Tech Drive, Suite B,State College, PA 16803Tele: 814.689.1650 Fax: 814.689.1557 WYOMING A ND WEST W YOMING B OROUG HS LUZERN E COUNTY PENN SYLVAN IA R-26

0 100 200Feet

03/24/21

Draw n By :

DMW



Da te :


§







REL-63

REL-65

!

!

!

!

15.8

15.7

15.515.6 W15-T3

W15-T3

W34-T2

W15-T3

W16-T1

W15-T3

W15-T3

W15-T3

W35-T2

W15-T3

W15-T3

W34-T2

W15-T3

W15-T3

W15-T3

W15-T3

S15-T2

S15a-T2

1 inch = 100 feet

2525 Green Tech Drive, Suite B,State College, PA 16803Tele: 814.689.1650 Fax: 814.689.1557 WEST WYOMIN G BOR OUGH LUZERN E COUNTY PENN SYLVAN IA R-27

0 100 200Feet

03/24/21

Draw n By :

DMW



Da te :


§







!

!

!

16

15.9S15c-T2

1 inch = 75 feet


0 75 150Feet

03/24/21

Draw n By :

DMW



Da te :


§







REL-AR-20

REL-69

!

!

!

16.3

16.2

W49-T2

W63-T2

S15b-T2

S23-T2

S23a-T2

1 inch = 75 feet


0 75 150Feet

03/24/21

Draw n By :

DMW



Da te :


§







!

!

!

!

17

17.2

17.1

17.3

W56-T2

W55-T2

W51-T2W51-T2

W52-T2

W63-T1 W63-T1

W54-T2W54-T2

W53-T2

W52-T2

S26-T2S24-T2

S29-T2

1 inch = 100 feet


0 100 200Feet

03/24/21

Draw n By :

DMW



Da te :


§







REL-74

REL-75

!

!

!

!

18.7

18.6

W6-T13

W6-T13

W6-T13

W6-T13

W6a-T13

S50-T2

S51-T2

1 inch = 75 feet

2525 Green Tech Drive, Suite B,State College, PA 16803Tele: 814.689.1650 Fax: 814.689.1557 KING STON TO WNSHIP LUZERN E COUNTY PENN SYLVAN IA R-31

0 75 150Feet

03/24/21

Draw n By :

DMW



Da te :


§







!

!

!

!

!

20.5

20.4

20.6

W60-T1

W1 9-T4

W115-T2

W60-T1

W60-T1

W1 9-T4

W60-T1

W60-T1W60-T1

W60-T1

W60-T1

W60-T1

W60-T1

W60a-T1

W58-T1

W60-T1

W60-T1

W60-T1

W59-T1

W60-T1

W60-T1

W60a-T1

W116-T2

W59-T1

W60-T1W60-T1

W60a-T1

W60-T1

W60-T1

W60a-T1

S47-T2

S4-T13

S48-T2

S47-T2

1 inch = 100 feet

2525 Green Tech Drive, Suite B,State College, PA 16803Tele: 814.689.1650 Fax: 814.689.1557 KING STON TO WNSHIP LUZERN E COUNTY PENN SYLVAN IA R-32

0 100 200Feet

03/24/21

Draw n By :

DMW



Da te :


§







REL-79

REL-80

!

!

!

21

W15-T4

W15-T4

W83-T2

W83-T2

W83-T2

W83-T2

S49-T2

1 inch = 75 feet

2525 Green Tech Drive, Suite B,State College, PA 16803Tele: 814.689.1650 Fax: 814.689.1557 DA LLAS TOWNSH IP LUZERN E COUNTY PENN SYLVAN IA R-33

0 75 150Feet

03/24/21

Draw n By :

DMW



Da te :


§







!

!

!

!

21.9

21.8

21.7

W44-T3

W131-T3W82-T2

S52-T2

S4-T11S3-T11

S52a-T12

1 inch = 100 feet


0 100 200Feet

03/24/21

Draw n By :

DMW



Da te :


§







!

!

!

!! REL-8422.3

22.1

22.2

22.32

W2-T11

W81-T2

W81-T2

W81-T2

W4-T11

W81-T2

W81-T2

W81-T2

W5-T11

W16-T4

W2-T12

W81-T2

W3-T11W81-T2

W1-T11

W3-T12

W4-T11

W81-T2

W2-T11

W81-T2

W81-T2

S1-T11

S2-T11

1 inch = 100 feet


0 100 200Feet

03/24/21

Draw n By :

DMW



Da te :


§







ATTACHMENT A ERNST – FACW MEADOW MIX (ERNMX-122)

FACW Meadow Mix - ERNMX-122

Botanical Name Common Name Price/lb32.00 % Carex vulpinoidea, PA Ecotype Fox Sedge, PA Ecotype 24.0020.00 % Elymus virginicus, PA Ecotype Virginia Wildrye, PA Ecotype 9.6514.00 % Carex lurida, PA Ecotype Lurid (Shallow) Sedge, PA Ecotype 64.0010.00 % Carex lupulina, PA Ecotype Hop Sedge, PA Ecotype 72.006.30 % Carex scoparia, PA Ecotype Blunt Broom Sedge, PA Ecotype 72.003.00 % Juncus effusus Soft Rush 40.002.00 % Aster puniceus, PA Ecotype Purplestem Aster, PA Ecotype 320.002.00 % Heliopsis helianthoides, PA Ecotype Oxeye Sunflower, PA Ecotype 42.002.00 % Verbena hastata, PA Ecotype Blue Vervain, PA Ecotype 32.001.50 % Asclepias incarnata, PA Ecotype Swamp Milkweed, PA Ecotype 240.001.00 % Aster umbellatus, PA Ecotype Flat Topped White Aster, PA Ecotype 320.001.00 % Eupatorium perfoliatum, PA Ecotype Boneset, PA Ecotype 300.001.00 % Onoclea sensibilis Sensitive Fern 108.000.50 % Alisma subcordatum, PA Ecotype Mud Plantain (Water Plantain), PA Ecotype 160.000.50 % Carex intumescens, PA Ecotype Bladder Sedge, PA Ecotype 128.000.50 % Cinna arundinacea, PA Ecotype Wood Reedgrass, PA Ecotype 120.000.50 % Juncus tenuis, PA Ecotype Path Rush, PA Ecotype 66.000.50 % Scirpus cyperinus, PA Ecotype Woolgrass, PA Ecotype 180.000.50 % Zizia aurea, PA Ecotype Golden Alexanders, PA Ecotype 240.000.30 % Eupatorium fistulosum, PA Ecotype Joe Pye Weed, PA Ecotype 228.000.30 % Penthorum sedoides, PA Ecotype Ditch Stonecrop, PA Ecotype 240.000.20 % Chelone glabra, PA Ecotype Turtlehead, PA Ecotype 600.000.20 % Ludwigia alternifolia, PA Ecotype Seedbox, PA Ecotype 180.000.20 % Mimulus ringens, PA Ecotype Square Stemmed Monkeyflower, PA Ecotype 260.00

100.00 % Mix Price/lb Bulk: $58.22

Seeding Rate: 20 lb per acre, or 1/2 lb per 1,000 sq ftWet Meadows & Wetlands

The diverse species provide pollinator habitat and erosion control in wet meadows. Excellent for facultative wetland mitigation sites. Mix formulations are subject to change without notice depending on the availability of existing and new products. While the formula may change, the guiding philosophy and function of the mix will not.

Price quotes guaranteed for 30 days.All prices are FOB Meadville, PA.

Please check our web site at www.ernstseed.comfor current pricing when placing orders.

Ernst Conservation Seeds8884 Mercer Pike

Meadville, PA 16335(800) 873-3321 Fax (814) 336-5191

www.ernstseed.com

Date: April 04, 2018

http://www.ernstseed.com/


ATTACHMENT B ERNST – RIPARAIN BUFFER MIX (ERNMX-178)

Riparian Buffer Mix - ERNMX-178

Botanical Name Common Name Price/lb30.00 % Panicum clandestinum, 'Tioga' Deertongue, 'Tioga' 17.0916.00 % Sorghastrum nutans, PA Ecotype Indiangrass, PA Ecotype 12.6215.00 % Elymus riparius, PA Ecotype Riverbank Wildrye, PA Ecotype 7.4410.00 % Andropogon gerardii, 'Niagara' Big Bluestem, 'Niagara' 12.257.00 % Panicum virgatum, 'Carthage', NC Ecotype Switchgrass, 'Carthage', NC Ecotype 5.173.00 % Chamaecrista fasciculata, PA Ecotype Partridge Pea, PA Ecotype 10.003.00 % Rudbeckia hirta, Coastal Plain NC Ecotype Blackeyed Susan, Coastal Plain NC Ecotype 20.003.00 % Verbena hastata, PA Ecotype Blue Vervain, PA Ecotype 32.002.00 % Asclepias incarnata, PA Ecotype Swamp Milkweed, PA Ecotype 240.002.00 % Heliopsis helianthoides, PA Ecotype Oxeye Sunflower, PA Ecotype 42.002.00 % Juncus effusus Soft Rush 40.002.00 % Juncus tenuis, PA Ecotype Path Rush, PA Ecotype 66.001.50 % Aster puniceus, PA Ecotype Purplestem Aster, PA Ecotype 320.001.00 % Eupatorium perfoliatum, PA Ecotype Boneset, PA Ecotype 300.000.80 % Vernonia noveboracensis, PA Ecotype New York Ironweed, PA Ecotype 220.000.50 % Aster novae-angliae, PA Ecotype New England Aster, PA Ecotype 360.000.50 % Eupatorium fistulosum, PA Ecotype Joe Pye Weed, PA Ecotype 228.000.50 % Monarda fistulosa, Fort Indiantown Gap-PA Ecotype Wild Bergamot, Fort Indiantown Gap-PA Ecotype 160.000.20 % Pycnanthemum tenuifolium Narrowleaf Mountainmint 140.00

100.00 % Mix Price/lb Bulk: $33.05

Seeding Rate: 20 lb per acre with a cover crop at 30 lb per acre (dry sites - grain oats, Jan 1-Aug 1; or, grain rye, Aug 1-Jan 1; moist sites - grain rye year-round)

Riparian Sites

A diverse mix of upland and wetland grasses, forbs and shrubs with extensive wildlife and pollinator value. Provides food and cover for many of our songbirds, pheasants, deer and turkey. Mix formulations are subject to change without notice depending on the availability of existing and new products. While the formula may change, the guiding philosophy and function of the mix will not.

Price quotes guaranteed for 30 days.All prices are FOB Meadville, PA.

Please check our web site at www.ernstseed.comfor current pricing when placing orders.

Ernst Conservation Seeds8884 Mercer Pike

Meadville, PA 16335(800) 873-3321 Fax (814) 336-5191

www.ernstseed.com

Date: February 06, 2018



ATTACHMENT C TABLE 1 – ONSITE WETLAND AND

RIPARIAN BUFFER REPLANTING TABLE

Pipeline Facility Crossing Number Mile Post Feature ID TypeReplanting Area

(sq.ft.)

Replanting Area

(acres)

EL‐2 45.8 W4‐T6 PSS 187 0.00

EL‐5 46.3 W2‐T2 PSS 1,395 0.03

EL‐6 48.5 S1‐T1 RIPARIAN 12,900 0.30

W1‐T1 PSS 1,559 0.04

S1‐T2, S2‐T2, S3‐T2 RIPARIAN 4,753 0.11

EL‐9 52.7 S2‐T1 RIPARIAN 21,740 0.50PFO to PSS 2,249 0.05

PFO 7,618 0.17

S5‐T2, S5a‐T2 RIPARIAN 6,559 0.15PFO to PSS 153 0.00

PFO 585 0.01PFO to PSS 113 0.00

PFO 496 0.01

PFO to PSS 133 0.00PFO 2,359 0.05

W3A‐T1 PFO 201 0.00PFO to PSS 1,661 0.04

PFO 6,226 0.14

S7‐T2, S8‐T2 RIPARIAN 25,301 0.58

W8‐T1 PSS 2,325 0.05

S4‐T1, S5‐T1 RIPARIAN 1,461 0.03

5,466 0.13

17,485 0.40

4,309 0.10

72,714 1.67

PFO to PSS 561 0.01

PFO 2,281 0.05

S20‐T2, S21‐T2 RIPARIAN 17,088 0.39

W41‐T3 PSS 1 0.00

S3‐T13 RIPARIAN 21,884 0.50

PFO to PSS 24 0.00

PFO 253 0.01

S44‐T2 RIPARIAN 19,938 0.46

PSS 2,023 0.05

PFO to PSS 1,389 0.03

PFO 2,985 0.07

PFO to PSS 353 0.01

PFO 349 0.01

S1‐T13, S2‐T13 RIPARIAN 9,550 0.22

PFO to PSS 2,927 0.07

PFO 4,413 0.10

1.7 W38‐T3 PFO 470 0.01

PFO to PSS 146 0.00

PFO 348 0.01

REL‐9 2.3 S1‐T4, S42‐T2, S43‐T2 RIPARIAN 12,917 0.30

PFO to PSS 451 0.01

PFO 320 0.01

PSS 6,411 0.15

PFO to PSS 3,112 0.07

PFO 7,752 0.18

S10‐T3 RIPARIAN 704 0.02

PSS 2,422 0.06

PFO to PSS 3,395 0.08

PFO 9,342 0.21

S4‐T11 RIPARIAN 2,201 0.05

REL‐17 3.9 S38‐T2 RIPARIAN 5,950 0.14

REL‐18 4.2 W14‐T5 PSS 3,074 0.07

EL‐11

EL‐12

EL‐13

ATTACHMENT C

Onsite Wetland and Riparian Buffer Replanting Table

Effort Loop

Forested Riparian Replanting Area

EL‐16

EL‐7

EL‐10

PSS Replanting Area

PFO Replanting Area

PFO to PSS Conversion Area

REL‐1

REL‐2

REL‐3

REL‐8

REL‐5

REL‐12

REL‐13, REL‐AR‐8


W9‐T2

W12‐T2

W4‐T3

W15‐T2

W3‐T1

W79‐T1

W10a‐T4

W10‐T4

W39‐T3

W103‐T2

W3‐T13

W1‐T4

W42‐T1

W31‐T3

0.5

1.0

1.2

1.3

1.5

1.6

2.2

2.7

2.9

3.8

49.4

53.7

55.2

56.6

56.9

57.0

57.4


(sq.ft.)

Replanting Area

(acres)

ATTACHMENT C


PSS 5,299 0.12

PFO to PSS 671 0.02

PFO 5,092 0.12

S39‐T2, S40‐T2 RIPARIAN 3,292 0.08

PSS 1,946 0.04

PFO to PSS 170 0.00

PFO 106 0.00

S8‐T5, S9‐T5 RIPARIAN 5,635 0.13

W48‐T1 PSS 64 0.00

PSS 3,172 0.07

PFO to PSS 3,258 0.07

PFO 5,346 0.12

PSS 1,071 0.02

PFO to PSS 2,103 0.05

PFO 9,592 0.22

PFO to PSS 113 0.00

PFO 1,565 0.04

PFO to PSS 107 0.00

PFO 675 0.02

PFO to PSS 444 0.01

PFO 470 0.01

PFO to PSS 345 0.01

PFO 888 0.02

PFO to PSS 963 0.02

PFO 7,753 0.18

S2‐T12 RIPARIAN 5,011 0.12

PFO to PSS 326 0.01

PFO 1,836 0.04

S35‐T2, S36‐T2 RIPARIAN 19,773 0.45

W132‐T2 PSS 1,449 0.03

S61‐T2, S62‐T2, S63‐T2 RIPARIAN 24,067 0.55

PFO to PSS 555 0.01

PFO 968 0.02

S8‐T13, S68‐T2 RIPARIAN 16,459 0.38

REL‐31 7.5 S75‐T2 RIPARIAN 12,933 0.30

REL‐32 7.6 S10‐T4, S79‐T2 RIPARIAN 9,352 0.21

REL‐34 7.9 S9‐T13 RIPARIAN 9,123 0.21

W17‐T13 PSS 534 0.01

S15‐T13, S19‐T3 RIPARIAN 7,773 0.18

PSS 223 0.01

PFO to PSS 151 0.00

PFO 3,913 0.09

S30‐T2 RIPARIAN 7,783 0.18

PFO to PSS 211 0.00

PFO 2,667 0.06

REL‐42 10.4 S19‐T1 RIPARIAN 3,753 0.09

W71‐T1 PSS 152 0.00

S31‐T2, S32‐T2 RIPARIAN 13,453 0.31

REL‐45 10.6 S8‐T3 RIPARIAN 9,805 0.23

W1‐T10 PSS 2 0.00

S8‐T3 RIPARIAN 15,441 0.35

PFO to PSS 284 0.01

PFO 801 0.02

S81‐T2 RIPARIAN 18,370 0.42

W160‐T2 PFO 94 0.00

REL‐49 11.3 S8‐T3 RIPARIAN 708 0.02

REL‐51 11.8 W46‐T2 PSS 59 0.00

Regional Energy

Lateral

REL‐40

REL‐43

REL‐24

REL‐25

REL‐27

REL‐26

REL‐28



REL‐21


REL‐23

REL‐47

W96‐T2

W15b‐T5

W49‐T1

W97‐T2

W9‐T5

REL‐46 10.9

REL‐30

REL‐35

REL‐39

4.2

4.5

4.6

W16‐T13

W36‐T1, W36b‐T1

W66‐T2

W2‐T10

4.7

4.9

5.0

5.3

5.4

W4‐T12

W86‐T2

W12‐T5

W13‐T5

W89‐T2

9.4

9.5

10.5

11.0

5.7

5.9

6.7

7.2

8.0


(sq.ft.)

Replanting Area

(acres)

ATTACHMENT C


REL‐53 12.0 S6‐T1 RIPARIAN 13,971 0.32

REL‐54 12.6 S9‐T3 RIPARIAN 27,376 0.63

REL‐55 13.0 W20‐T3 PFO 778 0.02

13.5 S1‐T5 RIPARIAN 1,205 0.03

13.8 W12‐T1 PFO 8,252 0.19

PFO to PSS 68 0.00

PFO 59 0.00

PFO to PSS 37 0.00

PFO 71 0.00

PFO to PSS 696 0.02

PFO 1,438 0.03

REL‐63 15.2 S14‐T2 RIPARIAN 11,609 0.27

REL‐65 15.4 W30‐T2 PSS 2,081 0.05

PSS 971 0.02

PFO to PSS 3,827 0.09

PFO 11,747 0.27

15.7 S15‐T2 RIPARIAN 22,433 0.51

REL‐69 16.0 S15c‐T2 RIPARIAN 14,874 0.34

REL‐70 16.3 S15b‐T2, S23‐T2 RIPARIAN 4,430 0.10

REL‐74 17.0 S29‐T2 RIPARIAN 15,405 0.35

REL‐75 17.3 S26‐T2 RIPARIAN 6,951 0.16

PFO to PSS 3,049 0.07

PFO 5,540 0.13

S50‐T2, S51‐T2 RIPARIAN 10,539 0.24

REL‐79 20.4 W59‐T1 PSS 359 0.01

PSS 2,065 0.05

PFO to PSS 244 0.01

PFO 402 0.01

S4‐T13, S47‐T2 RIPARIAN 11,396 0.26

PSS 2,570 0.06

PFO to PSS 1,676 0.04

PFO 995 0.02

PSS 11 0.00

PFO to PSS 249 0.01

PFO 248 0.01

S49‐T2 RIPARIAN 4,256 0.10

W44‐T3 PSS 1,976 0.05

S52‐T2 RIPARIAN 1,698 0.04

PSS 3,429 0.08

PFO to PSS 5,680 0.13

PFO 9,976 0.23

41,364 0.95

109,785 2.52

37,585 0.86

419,106 9.62

PFO Replanting Area

PFO to PSS Conversion Area Forested Riparian Replanting Area

PSS Replanting Area

REL‐86

REL‐61

REL‐68

REL‐77

REL‐80

REL‐83

REL‐57

REL‐58

REL‐59

REL‐84

W81‐T2

W62‐T1

W11‐T3

W15‐T3

W6‐T13

W60‐T1

W61‐T1

W15‐T4

W83‐T2

21.0

21.1

21.8

22.2

14.0

14.8

15.6

18.7

20.5

14.0

ATTACHMENT D PLANTING DETAILS

TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS PIPE LINE COMPANY, LLC

APPENDIX S4-3 COMPENSATORY OFFSITE MITIGATION PLAN


COMPENSATORY OFFSITE WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN

APRIL 2021

Prepared by:

2525 Green Tech Drive; Suite B State College, PA 16803 Phone: 814-689-1650 Fax: 814-689-1557

WHM Consulting, LLC 1 March 2021

M:\WHM CONSULTING\PROJECTS\WILLIAMS-19-238 (REA)\MITIGATION\Appendix S4 – 3 Compensatory Offsite Mitigation Plan\TABLE ON CONTENTS.doc



Table of Contents

Sections 1.0 Objectives 2.0 Site Selection Criteria 3.0 Site Protection Instruments 4.0 Baseline Information

4.1 Grajweski Mitigation Site 4.1.1 Hydrology 4.1.2 Soil Descriptions

4.1.2.1 Chenango Gravelly Loam (ChA, ChB) 4.1.2.2 Holly silt loam (Ho) 4.1.2.3 Braceville Gravelly Loam (BrB) 4.1.2.4 Mardin Channery Silt Loam (MaB) 4.1.2.5 Rexford Loam (RdA)

4.1.3 Waters of the United States 4.2 Perin Mitigation Site

4.2.1 Hydrology 4.2.2 Soil Descriptions

4.2.2.1 Comly Silt Loam (CpA, CpB) 4.2.3 Waters of the United States 4.2.4 Bog Turtle Coordination

5.0 Credit Determination Methodology 6.0 Mitigation Work Plan

6.1 Wetland Enhancement 6.1.1 Method of Planting


M:\WHM CONSULTING\PROJECTS\WILLIAMS-19-238 (REA)\MITIGATION\Appendix S4 – 3 Compensatory Offsite Mitigation Plan\TABLE ON CONTENTS.doc

6.1.2 Wildlife Damage Control 7.0 Maintenance Plan 8.0 Performance Standards 9.0 Monitoring Requirements 10.0 Long-Term Management Plan 11.0 Adaptive Management Plan

11.1 Plant Survival 11.2 Invasive Species Management

12.0 Financial Assurances 13.0 References

Appendices A) Figures and Drawings

1 – Geographic Service Area Map 2a – Project Location Map - Perin 2b – Project Location Map - Grajewski 3a – USDA/NRCS Soils and NWI Map - Perin 3b – USDA/NRCS Soils and NWI Map - Grajewski 4a – Wetland Delineation Map - Perin 4b – Wetland Delineation Map - Grajewski 5a – Mitigation Design Plan - Perin 5b – Mitigation Design Plan - Grajewski

B) Declaration of Restrictive Covenants Agreement Template C) Wetland Delineation Reports D) Offsite Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Summary Table E) Photographic Documentation F) Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Index Environmental Review Receipt G) Cultural Resource Notice H) Past Performance History, Resumes & Project Profiles


M:\WHM CONSULTING\PROJECTS\WILLIAMS-19-238 (REA)\MITIGATION\Appendix S4 – 3 Compensatory Offsite Mitigation Plan\OFFSITE MITIGATION NARRATIVE_031921.docx



1.0 OBJECTIVES The objective of the compensatory wetland mitigation project is to provide sufficient

compensation to offset unavoidable wetland impacts resulting from the Regional Energy Access Expansion Project (Project) proposed by Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (Transco), a subsidiary of The Williams Companies, Inc. (Williams). Impacts resulting from the Project within the Philadelphia United State Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) District include: 1) temporary and permanent functional conversion impacts to 0.88 acre of Palustrine Shrub-Scrub (PSS) wetlands; and 2) temporary and permanent functional conversion impacts to 2.91 acre of PFO wetlands. Impacts resulting from the Project within the Baltimore USACE District include: 1) temporary and permanent functional conversion impacts to 0.47 acre of Palustrine Shrub-Scrub (PSS) wetlands and 2) temporary and permanent functional conversion impacts to 1.7 acre of PFO wetlands. Impacts requiring mitigation are located in the Upper Central Susquehanna River Subbasin, the Central Delaware River Subbasin and the Upper Delaware River Subbasin which corresponds to the Geographic Service Area of the Pennsylvania State Water Plan (Appendix A, Figure 1 – Geographic Service Area Map).

To mitigate for the wetland impacts, two offsite mitigation sites have been designated to offset functional losses by providing 2.85 acres of wetland enhancement within the Upper Central Susquehanna River Subbasin and 5.23 acres of wetland enhancement within the Central Delaware River Subbasin.

This document has been prepared in accordance with 25 PA Code Chapter 105-20a - Wetland Replacement Criteria, and Federal Register, Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers 33 CFR Parts 325 and 332, Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 230 – Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources; Final Rule, April 10, 2008. 2.0 SITE SELECTION CRITERIA

A desktop analysis was completed within the geographic service areas of Project to determine potential locations to offset water resource impacts resultant of the Project. Based on the review, several properties within the geographic service area were currently under an option agreement and have been assessed as areas where mitigation and/or water quality improvement projects would be beneficial within the watershed. Ultimately due to site suitability, landowner cooperation and the large contiguous nature of wetland features on the properties the Perin property in the Central Delaware River Subbasin located in Plainfield Township, Northampton County and the Grajweski property in Huntington Township, Luzerne County was selected as appropriate sites to provide compensatory mitigation for the Project impacts. The Perin property located in is located approximately 8 miles southeast of the Effort Loop pipeline. The Grajweski property is located approximately 17 miles west of the Regional Energy Lateral pipeline.

3.0 SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENTS

The sites are currently under an option agreement and will be placed in a Declaration of Restrictive Covenants upon acceptance and permit issuance from regulatory agencies. A template of the proposed Declaration of Restrictive Covenants Agreement is provided in



Appendix B. The Agreement states that construction restrictions, as well as any other restrictions, will be imposed upon the mitigation area. This Agreement shall run with the property in perpetuity and shall be binding on the owner, future owners, and their successors and assigns, lessees, easement holders, and any authorized agents, employees, or persons acting under their direction and control. The demarcation of the “Conservation Area” will be achieved with stakes/posts accordingly. The Declaration of Restrictive Covenant will serve as a form of long-term management of the site; which is to remain in a natural state. 4.0 BASELINE INFORMATION

Land use within each mitigation site primarily consists of marginal agricultural lands or idle wet meadow which have been historically or are currently used for pasture and/or harvesting hay and/or small grain crops. A high-water table and frequent flooding or ponding serve as limiting factors that make these lands less productive in terms of agricultural use. Converting these marginal agricultural lands to wetland preservation areas serves a higher function and creates an essential buffer area to sequester nutrients and sediment before entering streams; thereby improving water quality of downstream waters. Reference wetlands for each site are located on portions of each property and adjacent properties.

4.1 GRAJEWSKI MITIGATION SITE The Grajewski Mitigation Site is located approximately 1.4 miles east of the town

of Huntington Mills, Pennsylvania along Grange Road. Coordinates of the site are Latitude: 41.194966°N / Longitude: 76.208320°W. Agricultural operations at this farm have been recently scaled back to only include operations in the more productive soils to harvesting hay and occasional corn and/or small grain crops. The area proposed for wetland enhancement is a degraded PEM/PSS wetland complex. The area has had a recent change in land use due to scaling down operations and excluding cattle and pasturing operations at the farm.

4.1.1 Hydrology The wetland mitigation site is located within the Huntington Creek

watershed which, according to Pa. Code 25, Chapter 93 water quality standards, is classified as: Trout Stocked Fishes, Migratory Fishes (TSF, MF). Huntington Creek is also listed as a naturally reproducing trout stream by the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. The proposed wetland enhancement area’s primary source of hydrology is a shallow groundwater table.

4.1.2 Soil Descriptions

Soil units mapped within the mitigation area include six (6) soil classifications: Chenango gravelly loam (ChA, ChB), Braceville gravelly loam (BrB), Mardin channery silt loam (MaB), Rexford loam (RdA), and Holly silt loam (Ho). The Holly silt loam (Ho) soil series which is listed as being a hydric soil is the primary soil series. The following briefly describes soils found within the enhancement area as described by the USDA/NRCS Web Soil Survey:

4.1.2.1 Chenango gravelly loam (ChA & ChB):

This soil mapping unit consists of very deep, well and somewhat excessively drained soils formed in water-sorted material on outwash plains, kames, eskers, terraces, and alluvial fans. Permeability is



moderately rapid to rapid in the subsoil and substratum. Available water capacity is low to very low.

4.1.2.2 Holly silt loam (Ho):

The Holly series consists of deep, poorly drained, nearly level soils on flood plains. Permeability is moderate to moderately slow, and available water capacity is high. These soils are subject to frequent flooding. The seasonal high water table is within a depth of 6 inches during wet periods and stream overflow.

4.1.2.3 Braceville gravelly loam (BrB):

The Braceville series consists of deep, moderately well drained, nearly level to sloping soils. The fragipan in these soils restricts downward movement of roots and water. Permeability is slow in the fragipan. Available water capacity is moderate.

4.1.2.4 Mardin channery silt loam (MaB):

This gently sloping soil is on the smooth, slightly concave uplands of broad, rolling mountaintops and intermountain basins. Runoff is medium, and the hazard of erosion is moderate. This Mardin soil is medium in natural fertility and low in content of organic matter. The seasonal high water table delays tillage early in spring and during wet periods. Most limitations for nonfarm use are related to the seasonal high water table and slow permeability.

4.1.2.5 Rexford silt loam (RdA):

This nearly level soil is in smooth concave positions on glacial outwash terraces. Runoff is slow, and the hazard of erosion is none to slight. This Rexford soil is medium to low in natural fertility and low in content of organic matter. The seasonal high water table delays tillage early in spring and during wet periods. Most limitations for nonfarm use are related to the seasonal high water table and slow permeability.

4.1.3 Waters of the United States

The Grajewski Mitigation Site was originally delineated in 2013 and 2015. These boundaries were reconfirmed and or adjusted on September 1, 2020. An expansion of the original delineation area took place on January 22, 2021 (Appendix C – Wetland Delineation Reports).

The wetlands proposed to be enhanced are existing PEM and PSS wetlands located in slightly depressed areas UNT’s to Huntington Creek. This wetland complex is located within an area historically used as a cattle pasture and adjacent to and active agricultural field. The wetland receives hydrology from UNT’s which flow from the northeast corner to the southeast corner of the investigation area. This wetland exhibited multiple hydrologic indicators including: standing water, saturation at the surface, and drainage patterns. A restrictive layer was observed at multiple data point locations at a depth of 6 inches. Soil test pits throughout the wetland revealed hydric soils exhibiting depleted matrixes.



Dominant vegetation within the emergent portion of Wetland 1 included common rush (Juncus effusus, OBL), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea, FACW). sensitive fern, (Onoclea sensibilis, FACW), Devil’s beggatick (Bidens frondosa, FACW), and shallow sedge (Carex lurida, OBL). Dominant vegetation within the Shrub-Scrub portion of Wetland 1 included: silky dogwood (Cornus amomum, FACW), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea, FACW), and fowl mannagrass (Glyceria striata, OBL). Dominant vegetation within the forested section of Wetland 1 include red maple, (Acer rubrum. FAC), common buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis, OBL), hazel alder (Alnus serrulata, OBL), and silky dogwood, (Cornus amomum, FACW).

The overall wetland complex is approximately 10.16 acres of which 7.23 acres considered PEM, 2.13 acres is considered PSS, and 0.80 acres square feet is considered PFO.

4.2 PERIN MITIGATION SITE

The Perin Mitigation Site is located approximately 1.8 miles southeast of the town of Pen Argyl, Pennsylvania along Green Meadow Road. Coordinates of the site are Latitude: 40.844809°N / Longitude: 75.236284°W. Current land use for the proposed mitigation site consists of wetlands and abandoned agriculture fields. Through a review of historic aerial imagery, the properties have been utilized for agriculture purposes for at least 70 years. The portions of the properties proposed for mitigation contains marginal crop farmland due to the high-water table at the site.

4.2.1 Hydrology The proposed Perin mitigation site is located within the floodway Waltz

Creek watershed which according to the Pa. Code 25, Chapter 93 water quality standards is classified as: Cold Water Fishery with Migratory Fishes (CWF, MF). Waltz Creek is listed as a naturally reproducing trout stream. Therefore, wetlands that are hydrologically connected are considered Exceptional Value (EV). Through a review of historical aerial photography and during onsite investigations, UNT’s and Waltz Creek (Perin Site) were observed throughout the wetlands (Appendix A, Figure 4 – Wetland Delineation Map). The hydrology that drives the existing wetlands is provided primarily by upslope runoff, direct precipitation that support a shallow seasonal groundwater table, and flooding from the UNT’s and Waltz Creek.

4.2.2 Soil Descriptions

Soil units mapped within the mitigation area include two (2) soil classifications: Comly silt loam (CpA, CpB). The following briefly describes soils found within the enhancement area as described by the USDA/NRCS Web Soil Survey:

4.2.2.1 Comly silt loam (CpA, CpB):

The Comly series consists of deep, moderately well drained and somewhat poorly drained soils that formed in material weathered from glacial till or from frost-churned acid, gray shale. These nearly level to gently sloping soils generally are on lower foot slopes, along streams, and in drainageways. Comly soils have moderate available moisture



capacity. Permeability in the lower part of the subsoil is moderately slow, and the water table is within ½ to 3 feet of the surface during periods of wetness. Most areas receive run-off from higher elevations. The moderately slow permeability and the seasonal high-water table are limitations to most uses.

4.2.2.2 Holly silt loam (Ho):

The Holly series consists of deep, poorly drained, nearly level soils on flood plains. Permeability is moderate to moderately slow, and available water capacity is high. These soils are subject to frequent flooding. The seasonal high water table is within a depth of 6 inches during wet periods and stream overflow.

4.2.3 Waters of the United States

A field investigation was conducted to delineate wetland and water resource boundaries on the properties and to determine if suitable conditions exist for mitigation activities to take place onsite. The proposed Perin Mitigation Site was delineated on September 8th and 17th, 2020.

The wetlands proposed to be enhanced are existing PEM and PSS wetlands located in slightly depressed areas along Waltz Creek and UNT’s to Huntington Creek. Portions of the wetlands extended into agricultural fields at the Perin site which was evident though stunted growth of crops. The remainder of the agricultural field displayed upland vegetation with less hydrologic wetland indicators. This wetland exhibited multiple primary hydrologic indicators including: standing water, saturation at the surface and drainage patterns. Soil test pits throughout the wetland revealed hydric soils exhibiting depleted matrices.

Dominant vegetation within the emergent portion of Wetland 1 included reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea, FACW). sensitive fern, (Onoclea sensibilis, FACW), tearthrumb (Persicaria sagittata, OBL), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria, FACW), Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum, FAC), jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), and woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus, OBL). Dominant vegetation within the Shrub-Scrub portion of Wetland 1 included: hazel alder (Alnus serrulata, OBL), southern arrowwood (Viburnum recognitum, FAC), black willow (Salix nigra, OBL), and silky dogwood, (Cornus amomum, FACW). Dominant vegetation within the forested section of Wetland 1 include red maple (Acer rubrum. FAC) and black willow (Salix nigra, OBL).

The overall wetland complex is approximately 11.29 acres or 491,975 square feet in size of which 8.7 acres are considered PEM, 2.12 acres are considered PSS and 0.48 acres are considered PFO.

4.2.4 Bog Turtle Coordination

The PNDI review indicated a potential occurrence of the bog turtle. A phase 1 survey was completed at the site in September 2020, and it was determined that potentially suitable bog turtle habitat is present. A Phase 2 survey is proposed in the spring of 2021.



5.0 CREDIT DETERMINATION METHODOLOGY Because the pipeline will be placed subsurface, there will be no permanent loss of

wetland habitat; however, the temporary and permanent functional conversion from a PSS / PFO wetland community to PSS or PEM will occur. Transco will replant impacted PFO and PSS wetlands within the temporary workspace and provide offsite compensatory mitigation for the temporary functional conversion while the shrub and tree canopy layers re-establish in those areas.

The Project will result in 1.35 acres of temporary and permanent functional conversion impacts to PSS wetlands and 4.61 acres of temporary and permanent functional conversion impacts to of PFO wetlands. Functional conversion impacts are proposed to be offset though an acreage-based replacement ratio methodology. Each wetland mitigation site will serve to increase functions and values in the form of wetland enhancement and the permanent protection of existing, degraded wetland ecosystems which abut stream channels. The following mitigation ratios were assessed for the Project:

• 2.5:1 for Exceptional Value (EV) PFO wetlands • 2:1 for non-EV PFO wetlands and EV PFO to PSS • 1.75:1 for EV PSS wetlands • 1.5:1 for non-EV PSS wetlands non-EV PFO to PSS • 1.25:1 for EV PEM wetlands • 1:1 for non-EV PEM wetlands • 1:1 for temporary functional conversion impacts to PSS or PFO wetlands that are EV

or non-EV wetlands (these wetlands will also include onsite replanting) To mitigate for the wetland impacts, two offsite mitigation sites have been designated to offset functional losses by providing 2.85 acres of wetland mitigation consisting of wetland enhancement within the Upper Central Susquehanna River Subbasin and by providing 5.23 acres of wetland mitigation within the Central Delaware River Subbasin. A breakdown of the impacts and proposed mitigation for the Project are included in Appendix D – Offsite Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Summary Table.

The functions and values provided at the proposed mitigation sites will provide sufficient compensation to offset water resource impacts. The mitigation areas will enhance the existing wetland complexes located at the sites. The work plan will result in the functional enhancement of the existing condition of the PEM and PSS wetlands onsite, which are considered low quality due to land use. The permanent protection/conservation of the areas, including implementation of a diverse tree and shrub planting plan, will result in an enhanced wetland ecosystem consisting of a mixed wetland /riparian buffer complex. The mitigation activities at the sites will allow for the areas to once again provide essential functions and values within the sensitive resource areas. The primary functional improvements of the mitigation areas include: 1) water quality benefits through the increased sediment and nutrient sequestration; 2) floral and vegetative diversity; and 3) enhanced wildlife habitat / utilization. 6.0 MITIGATION WORK PLAN The proposed design of the mitigation sites consists of the enhancement of existing wetlands. The proposed mitigation work plan will result in a functional improvement of the wetland’s existing condition. The current land use and position of each mitigation site within each of the watersheds results in considerable nutrient inputs and minimal canopy cover. The vegetative design of the sites is intended to supplement naturally occurring succession



(volunteer species) that will result from the change in land use type. The enhancement areas each abut streams and will lead to an overall benefit to functions and values in wetland / riparian ecosystem within each sites local watershed. 6.1 WETLAND ENHANCEMENT

Wetlands within the enhancement areas are low quality PEM and PSS wetlands. The existing vegetation with the proposed enhancement areas will be supplemented with native tree and shrub plantings to allow the wetlands to revert to a forested and/or scrub-shrub state; thereby increasing functions and values in these sensitive resource areas. The vegetative design proposed will incorporate diverse planting plans for each site that consist of a clumped distribution of monocultural blocks of trees and shrubs within the wetland enhancement areas to create a mixed wetland ecosystem. A planting plan for each mitigation site is provide in Table 6.1-1 and 6.1-2.

TABLE 6.1-1 GRAJEWSKI WETLAND ENHANCEMENT PLANTING PLAN (2.85 ACRES)

Scientific Name Common Name Status Spacing

Cornus amomum silky dogwood FACW Shrub 4' O.C.

Cornus racemosa gray dogwood FAC Shrub 4' O.C.

Ilex verticillata winterberry FACW Shrub 4' O.C.

Alnus serrulata hazel alder OBL Shrub 4' O.C.

Salix discolor pussy willow FACW Shrub 4' O.C.

Salix nigra black willow OBL Shrub/Tree 4' O.C.

Quercus palustris pin oak FACW Tree 10' O.C.

Acer saccharinum silver maple FACW Tree 10' O.C.

Acer rubrum red maple FAC Tree 10' O.C.

Nyssa sylvatica black gum FAC Tree 10' O.C.

Platanus occidentalis american sycamore FACW Tree 10' O.C.

Notes:

Select a minimum of 3 tree species and 3 shrubs species to be planted in enhancement area.

Plant at a density of 435 stems per acre (1,240 total stems)

TABLE 6.1-2 PERIN WETLAND ENHANCEMENT PLANTING PLAN (5.23 ACRES)

Scientific Name Common Name Status Spacing

Cornus amomum silky dogwood FACW Shrub 4' O.C.

Viburnum recognitum southern arrowwood

FAC Shrub 4' O.C.

Alnus serrulata hazel alder OBL Shrub 4' O.C.

Salix discolor pussy willow FACW Shrub 4' O.C.

Salix nigra black willow OBL Shrub/Tree 4' O.C.

Quercus palustris pin oak FACW Tree 10' O.C.

Acer saccharinum silver maple FACW Tree 10' O.C.



Acer rubrum red maple FAC Tree 10' O.C.

Notes:

Select a minimum of 3 tree species and 3 shrubs species to be planted in enhancement area.

Plant at a density of 435 stems per acre (2,275 total stems)

6.1.1 Method of Planting

All plants shall be installed according to acceptable standards of the trade under supervision of a landscape professional with suitable practical field experience in wetlands installation projects. All plant materials shall be nursery grown and shall be guaranteed to be true to name and healthy upon delivery.

All plants will be planted in clumps of monocultures consisting of five (5) to ten (10) plants. Shrub and willow monocultures will be planted 4 feet on center (O.C.); while tree monocultures are to be planted 10 feet O.C. Shrubs and trees shall be planted by digging a hole twice the size of the width of the rootball down into the substrate at the point of installation. If the plant is in a plastic container, this shall be carefully removed to keep the rootball intact. After planting, the area should be backfilled and watered. Trees may be provided with support stakes if this is deemed necessary by the installer. Care should be taken when installing support stakes to ensure that the root ball is not disturbed by driving of the support stake into the soil.

6.1.2 Wildlife Damage Control

After planting of the site has been completed, a method for herbivory control will be established by installation of tree and shrub tubes. Alternatively, temporary electric fencing may be installed along the perimeter of the site, if necessary. Other methods of wildlife damage control include the application of rodenticide to each tree/shrub and meadow vole bait stations established at a minimum of 1 per acre.

7.0 MAINTENANCE PLAN

The goal of the wetland enhancement area is for the site to be self-sustaining post-construction with no maintenance needs beyond the five-year monitoring period. Maintenance activities will take place in conjunction with the monitoring requirements for the site. The site shall be inspected at least twice a year for the first two years and no less than once per year during the following three years, or as directed by regulatory agencies. Maintenance activities may include removal of invasive species by cutting or spot herbicide treatment, inspection of the site after flooding events, tree tube alignment and removal, and other appropriate measures to ensure the performance standards are being met. 8.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Performance standards have been established that correspond with the goals and objective to offset water resource impacts. These standards will be used to determine the success of the Project. By monitoring the site for a period of no less than five years, and comparing results to the performance standards, a determination of the success of the site can be determined. The performance standards are as follows:

Provide 8.08 acres of wetland enhancement consisting of mixed PSS & PFO habitat;



Planted trees and shrubs shall meet 75% survival during the 5-year monitoring period. Native woody plants naturally colonizing the enhancement area shall be included in plant density estimates;

Vegetation within the enhanced wetland areas shall not be dominated by state or federally listed introduced, invasive, and/ or noxious species identified on the current Pennsylvania noxious weed control list and the Federal noxious weed list;

Any deviation from these standards must be agreed upon by appropriate regulatory agencies.

If a successful mixed wetland community has not been achieved, additional plantings may be necessary to supplement the natural succession of the site. A vegetative analysis must continue on an annual basis until the performance standards or goals have been met. If mitigation is not successful, the monitoring report must include a discussion of remedial measures to correct the deficiencies. 9.0 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS

The monitoring will involve periodic inspections by qualified personnel for a period of five consecutive growing seasons. The inspections will take place at an interval of no less than twice per year for the first two years and no less than once per year during the following three years, or as outlined in permit conditions. Each monitoring report will include, at a minimum, the following information:

a) Dates of inspection; b) Photographic Documentation; c) Hydrology indicators; d) Vegetation data;

a. percent coverage of native hydrophytic species b. inventory of plant species c. stem count survival

e) Clearly indicate if performance standards are being met; and f) Identification of any problems that need required remedial measures and a

description of remedial measures to be taken. This shall include a timetable for completion the remedial actions.

10.0 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN The goal of the proposed wetland mitigation site is to be self-sustaining natural areas with no long-term management needs. No mechanical structures or berms were incorporated into the design of the site. The wetland enhancement will result in wetland communities that will fit naturally into the landscape. The deed restriction placed on the property will ensure long-term protection of the area and will be referenced by future landowners. After meeting performance standards, long-term financing mechanisms for each site are not proposed due to the nature of the work.



11.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN A qualified professional with documented experience in wetland mitigation will oversee

the project. If plant species or spacing requirements need to be modified during the project, the consultant shall notify the district engineer of the modifications and reasons that were necessary to achieve the overall goal of the project. Minor changes to the plan that will not adversely affect the overall success of the site or enhance to success of the site may be implemented during the project.

To ensure the compensatory mitigation proposed meets the objectives and goals outlined in the offsite wetland mitigation plan, measures will be implemented to identify if success is being achieved, and to modify activities during and post-construction to ensure success of the site. Adaptive management is closely related to the mitigation work plan, monitoring/maintenance plan, and linked directly to the performance standards. Monitoring of the sites will identify the progression of the mitigation areas toward the performance standards set and will identify any areas not trending in the desired direction. For any areas not progressing towards the performance standards, appropriate remedial actions or measures, as outlined below will be implemented.

Although most of the mitigation activities proposed are low risk in nature, several potential challenges to achieving success have been identified regarding plant survival and noxious/invasive species control, as outlined below.

11.1 PLANT SURVIVAL

The planting plan was developed with the knowledge that trees and shrubs do not survive or do well in all locations within wetlands. Several potential challenges to the success of plantings have been identified. These challenges relate to competition from other vegetation, predation by deer and meadow voles, and mortality from excessively wet soils.

To prevent competition with other vegetation, herbicide application is proposed as a remedial measure and will be applied at the base of trees and shrub shelters. Herbicide application will be performed at an interval necessary to suppress growth in these areas as the trees and shrubs become established. The installation of tree and shrub shelters will also aid in vegetation success.

Predation due to deer browse and meadow vole girdling is a noted concern for

newly planted woody vegetation. Tree and shrub shelters will protect woody vegetation from browsing until a time when they’ve become established or branches of trees are above browse height. Also, each planted tree/shrub will include the application and reapplications of Repellex tablets (animal repellent). In certain situations, where the meadow vole population is extensive, meadow vole bait stations including rodenticide may be utilized to control the local population.

If the survival rate is not meeting performance standards, replanting will take place. Replanting will be based upon best professional judgment when determining the conditions that may have resulted in the low survival rate. Replanting could take into account a species-specific replanting or only planting woody vegetation within certain locations within the mitigation area that are more adaptable.



11.2 INVASIVE SPECIES CONTROL Invasive species will be documented during all monitoring events. As needed, herbicides and/or hand pulling will be utilized to control the occurrence of any invasive species. Invasive species will be controlled in order to prevent the site from becoming dominated by invasive and/or noxious species identified on the current Pennsylvania noxious weed control list and the Federal noxious weed list.

12.0 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES

The permittee (Transco) has contracted WHM Solutions, LLC (WHM) to provide mitigation services as it relates to the proposed mitigation project. WHM will be responsible for the execution of the deed restriction on the property, the permitted design, construction, and monitoring/maintenance of the project. Ryan Nelson, PWS, is the lead designer and will carry out his role as a technical advisor for this project.

WHM has successfully employed over 30 wetland mitigation projects in the Baltimore, Pittsburgh, and Philadelphia USACE Districts over the past 15 years. Within the last 5 years, most of the mitigation provided has consisted of wetland enhancement primarily due to permanent functional conversion impacts (similar to this proposed mitigation project). Financial Assurances have not been required due to the relative nature of these projects (tree and shrub plantings within existing wetlands), selecting of appropriate sites for mitigation activities to occur, and the past performance of WHM in fulfilling mitigation requirements. The deed restriction on the property provides long-term assurance that after performance standards are met the mitigation area will be maintained in a natural state. Appendix G – Past Performance History, Resumes & Project Profiles has been included to outline our experience.



13.0 REFERENCES Munsell Color (Firm). Munsell Soil Color Charts: with Genuine Munsell Color Chips. Grand

Rapids, MI: Munsell Color, 2010. Print. Pennsylvania Code. 2010. Pennsylvania Code Title 25, Chapter 105

http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/025/025toc.html. Accessed 05 April, 2018. Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture. 2017. Pennsylvania noxious weed control list

(https://www.agriculture.pa.gov/Plants_Land_Water/PlantIndustry/NIPPP/Pages/default.aspx, accessed 20 January 2021). Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture.

Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of

Agriculture. Official Soil Series Descriptions [Online WWW]. Available URL: http://soils.usda.gov/technical/classification/osd/index.html. Accessed 01/21/21. USDA-NRCS, Lincoln, NE.

Streever, B. (1999). “Examples of performance standards for wetland creation and restoration

in Section 404 permits and an approach to developing performance standards.”WRP Technical Notes Collection (TN WRP WG-RS-3.3). U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. www.wes.army.mil/el/wrp.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2018. National Wetland Plant List (Version 3.4). http://wetland-

plants.usace,army.mil/ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Engineer Research and Development Center. Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2012. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland

Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountain and Piedmont Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, C. V. Noble, and J. F. Berkowitz. ERDC/EL TR-12-1. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.

USDA, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ). Last Updated 09/30/2014. Federal noxious weed list USDA, APHIS, PPQ.

United States. Department of Defense; Environmental Protection Agency. Army Corps of

Engineers. Federal Register, Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources. 70th ed. Vol. 73. Print.

United States. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service. Rapid Watershed Assessment. 2005. Web. <http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/programs/financial/?&cid=stelprdb1042191>.

United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Classification of Wetlands Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Washington D.C. Print.

http://www.wes.army.mil/el/wrp

http://wetland-plants.usace,army.mil/

http://wetland-plants.usace,army.mil/

APPENDIX A FIGURES / DRAWINGS

!(

!(

Grajewski MitigationSite Location

WYOMINGCOUNTY

LACKAWANNACOUNTY

SUSQUEHANNACOUNTYBRADFORD

COUNTY

SULLIVANCOUNTY

LUZERNECOUNTY

COLUMBIACOUNTY

WAYNECOUNTY

MONROECOUNTY

NORTHAMPTONCOUNTY

PIKECOUNTY

CARBON COUNTY

LEHIGHCOUNTY

BUCKSCOUNTY

BERKSCOUNTY

MONTGOMERYCOUNTY

SCHUYLKILLCOUNTY

NORTHUMBERLANDCOUNTY

MONTOURCOUNTY

LYCOMINGCOUNTY

LEBANONCOUNTY

Perin MitigationSite Location

Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed

GEOGRAPHIC SERVICE AREA MAP

1 inch = 15 miles

REGIONAL ENERGY ACCESS EXPANSION PROJECTCOMPENSATORY OFFSITE MITIGATION PLAN

1

01/22/21

Dra w n B y :

DMW

WHM Draw ing Number :

WILL277A001

Date:

F i gu r e Nu m be r :

0 15Miles

2525 Green Tech Drive, Suite B,State College, PA 16803Tele: 814.689.1650 Fax: 814.689.1557 UPPER CE NTRAL SUSQUEHAN NA A ND UPPER & CE NTRAL DE LAWARE WATERSHEDS

§


!( REAE Mitigation Sites

Effort Loop Pipeline

Regional Energy Lateral Pipeline

PA County Boundary

Central Delaware River Watershed

Upper Delaware River Watershed

Upper Central Susquehanna River Watershed


2525 Green Tech Drive, Suite B,State College, PA 16803Tele: 814.689.1650 Fax: 814.689.1557 2a

01/25/21

Dra w n B y :

DM W


Wi l l27 7A002a

Date:


0 1,000 2,000

FeetProject Location

PROJECT LOCATION MAPPERIN PROPERTY MITIGATION SITE

PLAINFIELD TOWNSHIP NORTHAMPTON COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA

§

1 inch = 2,000 feet

Map Reduced From USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle: BANGOR


2525 Green Tech Drive, Suite B,State College, PA 16803Tele: 814.689.1650 Fax: 814.689.1557 2b

3/08/21

Dra w n B y :

DM W


MITIGATION

Date:


0 2,000 4,000

FeetInvestigation Area

PROJECT LOCATION MAPGRAJEWSKI PROPERTY MITIGATION SITE

HUNTINGTON TOWNSHIP LUZERNE COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA

1 inch = 2,000 feet

§

PFO1A

R5UBH

R5UBH R5UBH

Ho

CpB

BkD

MaD

MaB

PgB

CpA

BkC BkC

BkC

BkDBkB

BkB

PgB


01/25/21

Dra w n B y :

DM W


Wi l l27 7A003a

Date:


0 100 200

Feet

Soil Mapping Bounday

NWI Wetlands

Project Location

USDA - NRCS SOILS AND NWI MAPPERIN PROPERTY MITIGATION SITE


§

1 inch = 200 feet

PFO1C

PFO1C

PFO1/SS1E

PSS1/EM5C

PEM5C

PEM5C

PEM5C

PSS1E

PSS1/EM5E

PEM5E

PFO1C

RdB

BrB

BrB

OlB

ClB

ChA

VoBVoCMaB

OlB

MaBOlD

BkB

At

OlC

BkB

MaC

Mu

OXF

OlC

MaD

VrB

BrB

MaB

OlB

MaC

Ho

BnB

ChB

OlB

BrA

MaC

VoB

OlBClA

MaBOlD

At

VrB

BkC

At

MaB

OlB

BkB

RdA

MoB

RdA

VoB

Wa

BkB

BkB

MaB

RdB

MaBBkB

OlC

MaB

BrB

VoB

ClBMaC

Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS,

USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community


03/08/21

Dra w n B y :

DM W


SOL136A003

Date:


0 500 1,000

Feet

Investigation Area

Soil Mapping Boudnary

NWI Wetlands

USDA-NRCS SOILS AND NWI MAP

GRAJEWSKI PROPERTY MITIGATION SITE


1 inch = 500 feet

§

!C

!C !C

!C

!C

P1

^ !

P8

^

!P5

^ !

P4^

!

P7^

!

P2

^ !

P3^

!

P6^!

UNT-1

UNT-

3

UNT-2

UNT-1

DP-Up-1

DP-W1-1a

DP-W1-1b

DP-W1-1c

DP-W1-2a


1/25/21

Dra w n B y :

DM W


Wi l l27 7A004a

Date:


0 100 200

Feet

^ ! Photo Location

!C Data Point

Open-Ended Boundary

Delineated Waterway

Investigation Area (16.46 Acres)

Delineated WetlandPEM (8.7 Acres)

PFO (0.48 Acres)

PSS (2.12 Acres)

WETLAND DELINEATION MAPPERIN PROPERTY MITIGATION SITE


§

1 inch = 200 feet

Wetland 1

!C

!C

!C

!C

!C

!C

UNT-1

UNT-2

UNT-3

Wetland 1

^

!

^

!

^

!

^

!

^ !

^

!

^

!^

!

P8

P7

P6

P5

P4

P3

P2

P1

DP-6

DP-1

DP-7

DP-4

DP-3

DP-2

Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS,

USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community


03/08/21

Dra w n B y :

DM W


MITIGATION

Date:


0 250 500

Feet

!C Data Point

^ !Photo Location

Delineated Stream

Open-ended WetlandBoundary

Delineated Wetlands - PEM(±7.23 acres)

Delineated Wetlands - PSS

(±2.13 acres)

Delineated Wetlands - PFO(±0.80 acres)

Property Boundary

Investigation Area (±14.26acres)

WETLAND DELINEATION MAPGRAJEWSKI PROPERTY MITIGATION SITE


1 Inch = 250 Feet

§

Notes:1. Property Boundary accquired from

Luzerne County GIS department


890


890

APPENDIX B DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS AGREEMENT TEMPLATE

1

PIN:

DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS FOR CONSERVATION

THIS DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS FOR CONSERVATION (hereinafter “Declaration”) is made this day of , 20 by , (HEREINAFTER “Grantor”);

WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, Grantor is the fee simple owner of a certain tract of land located in Township, County, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, known as Tax Parcel

No. , and being the property conveyed to the Grantor by deed recorded as Instrument Number: in the land records of County, Pennsylvania, more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated by reference, hereinafter referred to as the “Property”; and

WHEREAS, the United States Department of the Army Corps of Engineers, through either its Baltimore, Philadelphia, or Pittsburgh District, Regulatory Branch, (hereinafter “Corps”) and the Grantor have agreed that the Grantor would make the portion of the Property hereinafter referred to as the “Conservation Area”, as more particularly described in Exhibit B attached hereto, subject to the conservation-based covenants described in this Declaration as a condition of the Department of Army Permit(s) or verification letter(s) to be issued for the Project; and

WHEREAS, the Grantor agrees to the creation of these conservation-based covenants and intends the Conservation Area shall be preserved and maintained in a natural condition in perpetuity;

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutually-held interests in preservation of the environment, as well as the terms, conditions, and restrictions contained herein, and pursuant to the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Grantor declares and agrees as follows:

1. PURPOSE

The purpose of this Declaration of Restrictive Covenants for Conservation is:

To preserve and protect the native flora, fauna, soils, water table and drainage patterns, and other conservation values of the Conservation Area;

2

To view the Conservation Area in its scenic and open condition; and in general,

To assure that the Conservation Area, including its air space and subsurface, will be retained in perpetuity in its natural condition as provided herein and to prevent any use of the Conservation Area that will impair or interfere with its natural resource functions and values. Grantor intends that this Declaration will confine the use of the Conservation Area to such activities as are consistent with the purpose of this Declaration.

To accomplish the purpose of this Declaration, the following rights are created in accordance with Pennsylvania common law:

A. To allow the Grantor, the Corps or the Pennsylvania Department ofEnvironmental Protection (hereinafter “PADEP”) the right to enter upon the Property to inspect the Conservation Area at reasonable times to monitor compliance with and otherwise enforce the terms of this Declaration; provided that, except in cases where any of such entities determines that immediate entry is necessary to prevent, terminate, or mitigate a violation of this Declaration; such entry shall, when practicable, be upon reasonable prior notice to any successor or assign, and Grantor shall not unreasonably interfere with the successor’s or assign’s use or quiet enjoyment of the Property in accordance with the terms of this Declaration;

B. To allow the Grantor, the Corps or the PADEP to enforce the terms of thisDeclaration by appropriate legal proceedings in accordance with Pennsylvania common law so as to prevent any activity on or use of the Conservation Area that is inconsistent with the purpose of this Declaration and to require the restoration of such areas or features of the Conservation Area that may be damaged by any inconsistent activity or use; and

C. To allow the Grantor, or their authorized representatives, to enter upon theProperty and its Conservation Area at reasonable times, upon prior notice to the then current Property owner; and upon prior notice and written approval by the Corps to take any appropriate environmental or conservation management measures consistent with the terms and purposes of this Declaration, including:

1) Planting of native vegetation (i.e. trees, shrubs, grasses and forbs); or2) Restoring, altering or maintaining: the topography; hydrology;

drainage; structural integrity; streambed; water quantity; water quality; any relevant feature of any stream, wetland, water body, or vegetative buffer within the Conservation Area.

2. DURATION

This Declaration shall remain in effect in perpetuity, shall run with the land regardless of ownership or use, and is binding upon all subsequent Property owners, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors, representatives, devisees, and assigns, as the case may be, as long as said party shall have any interest in any part of the Conservation Area.

3

3. PERMITTED USES

This Declaration will not prevent the Grantor, subsequent Property owner(s), and/or the personal representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns of either the Grantor or any subsequent Property owner from making any use of the Conservation Area that is not expressly prohibited herein and is not inconsistent with the purpose of this Declaration.

4. RESTRICTIONS

Any activity in or use of the Conservation Area inconsistent with the purpose of the Declaration by the Grantor, subsequent Property owner(s), and/or the personal representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns of either the Grantor or any subsequent Property owner, is prohibited. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, and except when an approved purpose under 1 .C above, or as necessary to accomplish mitigation approved under the aforementioned permit or any subsequent such approval or permit, the following activities and uses are expressly prohibited in, on, over, or under the Conservation Area, subject to all of the express terms and conditions below:

A. Structures. The construction of man-made structures including but notlimited to the construction, removal, placement, preservation, maintenance,alteration, or decoration of any buildings, roads, utility lines, billboards, orother advertising. This restriction does not include deer stands, bat boxes, birdnesting boxes, bird feeders, duck blinds, and the placement of signs for safetypurposes or boundary demarcation.

B. Demolition. The demolition of any fencing structures constructed for thepurpose of demarcation of the Conservation Area or for public safety.

C. Soils. The removal, excavation, disturbance, or dredging of soil, sand,peat, gravel, or aggregate material of any kind; or any change in thetopography of the land, including any discharges of dredged or fill material,ditching, extraction, drilling, driving of piles, mining, or excavation of any kind.

D. Drainage. The drainage or disturbance of the water level or the watertable, except for pre-existing or approved project-related stormwaterdischarges and any maintenance associated with those stormwaterdischarges.

E. Waste or Debris. The storage, dumping, depositing, abandoning, discharging, orreleasing of any gaseous, liquid, solid, or hazardous waste substance, materialsor debris of whatever nature on, in, over, or underground or into surface or groundwater, except for pre-existing or approved project-related stormwater dischargesand any maintenance associated with those stormwater discharges.

F. Non-Native Species. The planting or introduction of non-native species.

4

G. Herbicides, Insecticides and Pesticides. The use of herbicides, insecticides, or pesticides, or other chemicals, except as may be necessary to control invasive species that threaten the natural character of the Conservation Area. State-approved municipal application programs necessary to protect the public health and welfare are not included in this prohibition.

H. Removal of Vegetation. The mowing, cutting, pruning, or removal of any kind;

disturbance, destruction, or the collection of any trees, shrubs, or other vegetation, except for pruning, cutting or removal for:

1) safety purposes; or

2) control in accordance with accepted scientific forestry management practices for diseased or dead vegetation; or

3) control of non-native species and noxious weeds; or 4) scientific or nature study.

I. Agricultural Activities. Unless currently used for agricultural or similarly related purposes, conversion of, or expansion into, any portion of the Conservation Area for use of agricultural, horticultural, aquacultural, silvicultural, livestock production or grazing activities. This prohibition also includes conversion from one type of these activities to another (e.g., from agricultural to silvicultural).

J. Other: Other acts, uses, excavation, or discharges which adversely affect fish or

wildlife habitat or the preservation of lands, waterways, or other aquatic resources within the Conservation Area.

K. Destruction or alteration of the Conservation Area EXCEPT:

(i) Alteration necessary to construct any mitigation sites within the Conservation Area and associated improvements proposed to be built by a permittee, its contractors, successors, and/or assigns, and any alterations necessary to ensure the success of any such mitigation sites including monitoring, reconstruction, maintenance, or repair, all as permitted and/or approved by the Corps and PADEP, any such permit(s) and related mitigation plan(s) being incorporated herein by reference; and

(ii) Removal of vegetation when approved by the Corps and PADEP and

conducted for removal of noxious or invasive plans, or other purposes under H. above.

5. INSPECTION, ENFORCEMENT AND ACCESS RIGHTS

The Corps, and/or the PADEP, and its/their authorized representatives, agents, contractors, and/or designated surety/sureties shall have the right to enter and go upon the Property, to inspect the Conservation Area, to take actions necessary to verify

5

compliance with this Declaration and as determined to be necessary by the Corps and/or PADEP, to complete, monitor, maintain, repair, rehabilitate or restore any or all compensatory mitigation to be created on all or any portion of the Conservation Area. When practicable, and except in cases of emergency, such entry shall be upon prior reasonable notice preferably at least twenty-four (24) hours in advance, to the Property owner. The Grantor grants to the Corps, the U.S. Department of Justice, and/or the PADEP, a discretionary right to enforce this Declaration in a judicial action against any person(s) or other entity(ies) violating or attempting to violate these restrictive covenants: provided, however, that no violation of these restrictive covenants shall result in a forfeiture or reversion of title. In any enforcement action, an enforcing agency shall be entitled to a complete restoration for any violation, as well as any other judicial remedy such as civil penalties. Nothing herein shall limit the right of the Corps to modify, suspend, or revoke any related permit.

6. RECORDING AND EXECUTION

The Grantor agrees to record this Declaration in the Land Records of the county or counties where the Property is located and provide the Corps with proof of recordation prior to the start of the work authorized by any related permit. Further, if anticipated activities in the Conservation Area are agreed upon for future phases of the site, as spelled out in the “Reserved Rights”, the Grantor must submit plans to the Corps and PADEP for review and approval prior to any work in the Conservation Area.

7. NOTICE OF TRANSFER OF PROPERTY INTERESTS

No transfer of the rights of this Declaration, or of any other property interests pertaining to the Conservation Area or the underlying property it occupies shall occur without thirty (30) calendar days prior written notice to the PADEP and the Corps.

8. MODIFICATIONS

The restrictions contained in this Declaration fulfill requirements of one or more Department of the Army Permits or verification letters. There shall be no changes or alterations to the provisions in this Declaration without prior written approval from the appropriate District Commander of the Corps.

9. RESERVED RIGHTS

A. The Grantor and any holders of easements or other property rights for theoperation and maintenance of pre-existing or project-related structures or infrastructure such as roads, utilities, drainage ditches, or stormwater facilities that are present on, over or under the Conservation Area reserve the right, within the terms and conditions of their permits, their agreements, and the law, to continue with such operation and maintenance. All pre-existing or approved project-related structures or infrastructure are shown on the accompanying plat map attached to this instrument.

6

B. If the authorized project requires any related or unanticipatedinfrastructure modifications, utility relocation, drainage ditches, or stormwater controls within the identified Conservation Area, or if situations require measures to remove threats to life or property within the identified Conservation Area, said activities must be approved in writing by the Corps subject to terms and conditions set forth in the written approval. Approval is subject to the Corps' sole discretion. If approved, said activities must be identified on amended Exhibits A and B and must be recorded and specifically noted as an "amendment" and copies of the recorded amended Exhibits must be provided to the Corps and PADEP within 60 days of Corps approval. Approval of said activity by the Corps is in addition to any Clean Water Act, Section 404 permit, or other authorization, which may be required in order to legally implement said activity. The Grantor agrees to place any other responsible party on reasonable prior notice of their need to request such Corps approval, should Grantor have actual prior knowledge of such activity.

C. The Grantor intends and the Corps has acknowledged that various additionalenvironmental mitigation projects will be performed from time to time within the Conservation Area by Grantor’s authorized agent, WHM Solutions, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation with its current principal place of business at 2525 Green Tech Dr., State College, PA, provided that any such projects shall only be performed pursuant to prior written approval or permitting as required by the Corps; Grantor hereby appoints WHM Solutions, Inc. as its agent expressly authorized to execute any and all permit applications and related documents necessary or helpful to the approval and permitting of any such projects within the Conservation Area, and this Declaration shall constitute a limited power of attorney for such purpose.

10. SEVERABILITY

If any portion of this Declaration, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is found to be invalid, the remainder of the provisions of this instrument, or application of such provision to persons or circumstances other that those as to which it is found to be invalid, as the case may be, shall not be affected thereby.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF said GRANTOR has executed this Declaration the day and year first above written.

By:_____________________________

7

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania : : ss

County of :

On , 20 , before me, the undersigned officer, personally appeared , who acknowledged himself to be the known to me (or satisfactorily proven) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within Declaration, and acknowledged that he executed the same as , with authority to do so, for the purposes herein contained.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal.

Notary Public

APPROVED AS TO LEGALITY AND FORM

Date:___________________ _____________________________________ W. Scott Staruch, Esq.Laws, Staruch & Pisarcik20 Erford Rd., Ste 105Lemoyne, PA 17043(717) 975-0600

APPENDIX C

WETLAND DELINEATION REPORTS

PERIN MITIGATION SITE

WHM Solutions, LLC. i October 2020

M:\WHM CONSULTING\PROJECTS\MITIGATION _PROJECTS\NORTHAMPTON\PERIN\WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT\TOC.doc

PERIN PROPERTY WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT

Table of Contents

Narrative 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Methodology 3.0 Desktop Findings

3.1 USGS & Topographic Data 3.2 Water Quality 3.3 National Wetland Inventory 3.4 USDA/NRCS Soil Descriptions

4.0 Water Resource Descriptions 4.1 Wetland 1 4.2 Waltz Creek 4.3 UNT 1 4.4 UNT 2 4.5 UNT 3

5.0 Conclusions 6.0 References

Attachments A Data Forms B Photographic Documentation C Water Resource Summary Table D Resumes

WHM Solutions, LLC. 1 October 2020

M:\WHM CONSULTING\PROJECTS\MITIGATION _PROJECTS\NORTHAMPTON\PERIN\WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT\Perin Wetland Delineation Report 092820.docx


PLAINFIELD TOWNSHIP, NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT

1.0 INTRODUCTION WHM Solutions, LLC. (WHM) conducted a delineation of wetland and water resources

associated with the Perin Property located in Plainfield Township, Northampton County, Pennsylvania (Figure 1 – Project Location Map). The purpose of this investigation was to determine if regulated wetlands and waters exist within the proposed project area in accordance with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) guidelines as regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Pa Code 25 Chapter 105. This report provides information on the methodology, data collected, delineation field findings, and conclusions pertaining to wetland and water resources identified within the investigation area. The delineation was performed by David Wood, Charly Bloom and Peter Backhaus of WHM on September 8th and 17th, 2020.

2.0 METHODOLOGY WHM conducted investigations on the subject project area according to the procedures

and technical guidelines outlined in the 1987 USACE Wetland Delineation Manual including specifically the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Northcentral and Northeast Region (January 2012, Version 2.0). The USACE protocol establishes a three-parameter approach for identification and delineation of wetlands, which includes confirmation of the following:

I. Hydrophytic Vegetation: This condition exists when greater than 50% of the dominantplant species contain obligate (OBL), facultative-wet (FACW), or facultative (FAC) indicatorstatuses.

II. Hydric Soils: Hydric soils are defined as soils that formed under conditions ofsaturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to developanaerobic conditions in the upper part of the soil (Federal Register, July 13, 1994).

III. Wetland Hydrology: Wetland hydrology is recognized through evidence of inundationand/or saturation to the soil surface for at least 5% of the growing season during mostyears.

In undisturbed conditions, all three parameters must be confirmed to be present to characterize an area as a wetland. In highly disturbed or problematic wetland situations, Corps guidance details procedures to be used for evaluating these areas and determining which areas are most likely considered wetlands upon review by a Corps representative. Upon completing our investigations, areas exhibiting all three of the USACE criteria presented above and which also have surface water connection to other waters of the United States are identified as resources that are likely to be regulated by the USACE as Jurisdictional Wetlands. Areas exhibiting all three



parameters but without surface water connection to other waters are also likely to be designated as wetlands or waters but may or may not be regulated by the USACE. In many cases, wetland areas not regulated by the USACE are still likely to be regulated by other state or local governing bodies. In addition to wetlands, WHM also identifies waterways likely to be regulated as waters of the United States, including ephemeral, intermittent and perennial waterways. The term “jurisdictional waters of the United States” as used by Section 404 of the CWA and defined under 33 Code of Federal Register (CFR) Section 328.1, includes adjacent wetlands and tributaries to traditionally navigable waters (TNW) and other waters with a hydrological connection to a TNW. WHM provides a complete delineation flagging of wetland/waters resources and supporting data. As noted above, our determinations are based on our collective “best professional judgment” exercised with the guidance of the Corps’ Manual and Supplements. However, the final determination of the Jurisdictional status of the resources identified lies entirely within the review of the reviewing regulatory agencies. In other words, we identify a technically defensible boundary that must either be accepted or adjusted by the reviewing regulatory agencies in situations where encroachments may occur. As consultant environmental scientists, we do not have authority to assign regulatory jurisdiction.

For delineations performed in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, all wetlands and waters identified during the wetland delineation are deemed probable “Jurisdictional waters of the United States” until otherwise reviewed and accepted by the USACE and/or Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). If upon review the wetland or water is determined to be isolated by the regulators (i.e. has no significant nexus to “jurisdictional waters of the United States”), the regulatory body for such waters then becomes the jurisdiction of the DEP. 3.0 DESKTOP FINDINGS

WHM completed a review of natural resource data associated with the project site prior to conducting field investigations. Specifically, WHM reviewed USGS 7.5-minute topographical mapping for Bangor, Pennsylvania, U.S. Fish and Wildlife National Wetland Inventory mapping, and the U.S Department of Agriculture – NRCS Soil Survey for Northampton County, Pennsylvania. The results of this desktop analysis were used to help establish probable areas where wetlands and watercourses could be located before conducting the field investigation portion of the project.

3.1 USGS & TOPOGRAPHIC DATA

According to the 7.5-minute USGS quadrangle for Bangor, Pennsylvania, the center of the project area is located at 40.844775° N, -75.236030° W.

3.2 WATER QUALITY

The project area is located within the Waltz Creek watershed. According to PA Code 25, Chapter 93 Water Quality Standards, the Waltz Creek watershed is classified as a Cold Water Fishery with Migratory Fishes (CWF, MF). Waltz Creek is listed as a naturally



reproducing trout stream. Therefore, wetlands that are hydrologically connected are considered Exceptional Value (EV).

3.3 NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping within and surrounding the project area are presented in Figures 2 – USDA-NRCS Soils and NWI Map. According to NWI mapping, there are two (2) NWI wetlands located within project area. The NWI classifications within the project area include:

PEM5A – Palustrine Emergent Phragmites australis Temporarily Flooded PEM5C- Palustrine Emergent Phragmites australis Seasonally Flooded

3.4 USDA/NRCS SOIL DESCRIPTIONS The soil associations on the site are identified through the Natural Resources

Conservation Service (NRCS) web soil survey for Northampton County, Pennsylvania. Three (3) soil mapping units are located within the investigation area: Comly silt loam (CpA, CpB) and Holly silt loam (Ho). Additionally, the Hydric Soils List for Northampton County was reviewed to determine the Hydric Rating for these soil mapping units. Holly silt loam (Ho) is listed as a hydric soil and Comly silt loam (CpA, CpB) is listed as having hydric inclusions. The mapping limits of these soils can be viewed in Figure 2 - USDA-NRCS Soils and NWI Map. The following briefly describes the soil series mapped within the investigation area as described in the Soil Survey for Northampton County, Pennsylvania:

Comly silt loam (CpA, CpB): The Comly series consists of deep, moderately well drained and somewhat poorly drained soils that formed in material weathered from glacial till or from frost-churned acid, gray shale. These nearly level to gently sloping soils generally are on lower foot slopes, along streams, and in drainageways. Comly soils have moderate available moisture capacity. Permeability in the lower part of the subsoil is moderately slow, and the water table is within ½ to 3 feet of the surface during periods of wetness. Most areas receive run-off from higher elevations. The moderately slow permeability and the seasonal high-water table are limitations to most uses. The taxonomic class is Fine-loamy, mixed, active, mesic Oxyaquic Fragiudalfs. The following is a typical soil profile for the Comly soil series:

Ap--0 to 9 inches; dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) silt loam; weak fine granular structure; friable, nonsticky, nonplastic; 5 percent rock fragments; slightly acid; clear wavy boundary. (8 to 12 inches thick)

Bt1--9 to 20 inches; yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) silt loam; moderate fine and medium subangular blocky structure; friable, slightly sticky, slightly



plastic; few faint clay films on faces of peds; 5 percent rock fragments; slightly acid; clear wavy boundary. (7 to 15 inches thick)

Bt2--20 to 27 inches; light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4) silty clay loam; common fine distinct yellowish brown (10YR 5/8) and light gray (10YR 7/2) mottles; weak medium prismatic structure parting to weak medium subangular blocky; firm, slightly sticky, plastic; common faint clay films on faces of peds and lining pores; 10 percent rock fragments; strongly acid; clear wavy boundary. (5 to 10 inches thick)

Btx1--27 to 53 inches; yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) channery loam; many fine distinct yellowish brown (10YR 5/8) and light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) mottles and many fine faint dark brown (10YR 4/3) mottles; weak very coarse prismatic structure parting to weak medium platy; very firm, brittle, slightly sticky, slightly plastic; common faint clay films on faces of peds; few prominent black coatings; 20 percent rock fragments; strongly acid; clear wavy boundary. (10 to 30 inches thick)

Btx2--53 to 62 inches; yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) very channery loam; many medium faint pale brown (10YR 6/3) and distinct gray (5Y 5/1) mottles; weak very coarse prismatic structure parting to weak thin and medium platy; very firm, brittle, slightly sticky, slightly plastic; few faint clay films on faces of peds and lining pores; few prominent black coatings. 40 percent rock fragments; moderately acid; gradual wavy boundary.

R--62 inches; light olive brown (2/5Y 5/4) weathered shale.

Holly silt loam (Ho): The Holly series consists of deep, nearly level, poorly drained to very poorly drained soils that are on flood plains along most of the perennial streams in the county. These soils formed in mixed alluvial material deposited by streams that flowed through areas of many kinds of soils. These soils are commonly along the smaller streams and are subject to flooding. Water stands on the surface for short periods during heavy rains and after spring thaw. These soils have high available moisture capacity and moderate permeability. Susceptibility to flooding and a high-water table are major limitations to most nonfarm uses. The taxonomic class is fine-loamy, mixed, active, nonacid, mesic Fluvaquentic Endoaquepts. The following is a typical soil profile for the Holly soil series:

A-- 0 to 3 inches; dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) silt loam, light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) dry; moderate medium granular structure; friable; slightly acid; clear wavy boundary. (2 to 8 inches thick.)



Bg1-- 3 to 9 inches; dark gray (5Y 4/1) silt loam; weak medium subangular blocky structure; friable; common fine prominent brown (7.5YR 4/4) masses of iron accumulation in the matrix; slightly acid; clear smooth boundary.

Bg2-- 9 to 14 inches; dark gray (5Y 4/1) silt loam; weak coarse subangular blocky structure; friable; common medium prominent yellowish red (5YR 4/6) masses of iron accumulation in the matrix; slightly acid; clear smooth boundary.

Bg3-- 14 to 27 inches; gray (5Y 5/1) sandy loam; weak coarse subangular blocky structure; friable; common medium and fine prominent brown (7.5YR 4/4) and strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) masses of iron accumulation in the matrix; slightly acid; clear wavy boundary. (Combined thickness of the Bg horizons are 10 through 32 inches.)

C1-- 27 to 35 inches; gray (N 5/0) loam; massive; friable; common medium prominent yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) masses of iron accumulation in the matrix; slightly acid; clear wavy boundary.

C2-- 35 to 43 inches; dark gray (N 4/0) sandy loam; massive; friable; slightly alkaline; clear wavy boundary.

2C3-- 43 to 60 inches; dark greenish gray (5BG 4/1) gravelly sand; single grain; loose; slightly alkaline.

4.0 WATER RESOURCE DESCRIPTIONS After the completion of a desktop analysis, a formal wetland delineation was completed.

Areas exhibiting the potential for regulated wetlands and watercourses were evaluated to determine whether they satisfied the USACE requirements. A total of one (1) wetland and four (4) watercourses were located within the investigation area (See Figure 3 – Wetland Delineation Map). Attachment A – Representative Data Forms includes data collected for the wetlands and watercourses at the site. Attachment B - Photographic Documentation includes photographs of the investigation area as well as a brief description of the featured water resource. Attachment C – Water Resource Summary Table provides information on the type, size, dimensions, and classifications of the water resources onsite. The following provides a summary of the findings within the project area.

4.1 WETLAND 1 Wetland 1 is a complex of Palustrine Emergent (PEM), Palustrine Scrub-Shrub

(PSS) and Palustrine Forested (PFO) wetland. This wetland complex is located within a vacant field. Wetland 1 receives hydrology from Waltz Creek and unnamed tributaries (UNTs) 1, 2 and 3. Wetland 1 has a pocket to the west of an old road that is connected hydrologically to the section of the wetland located to the east. This wetland exhibited multiple primary hydrologic indicators including: standing water, saturation at the surface



and drainage patterns. Soil test pits throughout the wetland revealed hydric soils exhibiting depleted matrixes.

Dominant vegetation within the emergent portion of Wetland 1 included reed

canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea, FACW). sensitive fern, (Onoclea sensibilis, FACW), tearthrumb (Persicaria sagittata, OBL), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria, FACW), Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum, FAC), jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), and woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus, OBL). Dominant vegetation within the Shrub-Scrub portion of Wetland 1 included: hazel alder (Alnus serrulata, OBL), southern arrowwood (Viburnum recognitum, FAC), black willow (Salix nigra, OBL), and silky dogwood, (Cornus amomum, FACW). Dominant vegetation within the forested section of Wetland 1 include red maple (Acer rubrum. FAC) and black willow (Salix nigra, OBL).

The overall wetland complex is approximately 11.29 acres or 491,975 square feet

in size of which 8.7 acres are considered PEM, 2.12 acres are considered PSS and 0.48 acres are considered PFO.

4.2 WALTZ CREEK

Waltz Creek is a perennial watercourse that flows west to east along the northern boundary of the investigation area within Wetland 1. Waltz Creek provides hydrology to Wetland 1 through overbank flows. Evidence of flooding was observed through sediment deposition within Wetland 1. The channel flows in a southwesterly direction from the northeast corner of the investigation area. The channel is well defined and its width ranges from 3-15 feet. Bank heights were approximately 3 feet. The depth of water was between 6 and 24 inches. The substrate of the channel consisted of gravel, sand, cobble, and silt. The channel was left open ended on both sides of the investigation area. Waltz Creek travels for 1,638 linear feet or 16,380 square feet within the investigation area.

4.3 UNT 1

UNT 1 flows into Waltz Creek at the eastern section of Wetland 1. UNT 1 is an intermittent channel that meanders and braids through Wetland 1 providing hydrology to the wetland. The channel flows in an easterly direction and originates within Wetland 1. The channel is well defined and its width ranges from 1-5 feet. Bank heights were approximately 3 feet. The depth of water was between 6 and 24 inches. The substrate of the channel consisted of gravel, sand cobble and silt. UNT 1 travels for 1,209 linear feet or 3,627 square feet within the investigation area.

4.4 UNT 2

UNT 2 is an intermittent channel. The channel flows in a southernly direction for a short distance prior to entering UNT 1. The channel is well defined, and its width is approximately 1 foot. Bank heights were approximately 1 foot. The depth of water varied between 0 and 6 inches. The substrate of the channel consisted of sand and silt. UNT 2 travels for 105 linear feet or 105 square feet within the investigation area.



4.5 UNT 3

UNT 3 is an intermittent channel that flows through Wetland 1 providing hydrology. The channel flows in a northerly direction from the southern boundary of the investigation area. The channel is well defined until it reaches the mucky portion of Wetland and dissipates. The width of UNT 1 ranges from 1-3 feet. Bank heights were approximately 2 feet. No water was present during the survey. The substrate of the channel consisted of gravel, sand, cobbles and silt. UNT 3 travels for 408 linear feet or 1,224 square feet within the investigation area.

5.0 CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of the field investigation approximately 11.29 acres or 491,975 square feet of wetlands and 3,360 linear feet or 21,336 square feet of watercourses were delineated within the investigation area. Any impacts to the identified resources would require authorization under PADEP and USACE guidelines.



6.0 REFERENCES 1. Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands

deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior and the Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

2. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Tech.

Rep. Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, M.S.

3. Munsell Soil Color Charts. 2010. Revised Washable Edition

4. Pennsylvania Code. 2020. http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/025/025toc.html.

5. Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Official Soil Series Descriptions [Online WWW]. Available URL: “http://soils.usda.gov/technical/classification/osd/index.html” [Accessed September 2020]. USDA-NRCS, Lincoln, NE.

6. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2012. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers

Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountain and Piedmont Region 2.0., ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, C. V. Noble, and J. F. Berkowitz. ERDC/EL TR-12-1. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.

7. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetland Inventory Map, 7.5 Minute Series

Quadrangle, Bangor, Pennsylvania.

8. United States Geological Survey (USGS). Topographic Quadrangle 7.5 minute Series Quadrangle, Bangor, PA.

9. United State Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey of Northampton County Pennsylvania.

ATTACHMENT A DATA FORMS

NWI Classification:

Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?

Are vegetation N , soil N , or hydrology N significantly disturbed?

Are vegetation N , soil N , or hydrology N naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in remarks)

Hydrophytic vegetation present? Is the sampled area within a wetland?

Hydric soil present?

Wetland hydrology present?

HYDROLOGY

Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)

Surface Water (A1)

High Water Table (A2)

X Saturation (A3)

Water Marks (B1) Moss Trim Lines (B16)

Sediment Deposits (B2) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)

Drift Deposits (B3) Crayfish Burrows (C8)

Algal Mat or Crust (B4) X

Iron Deposits (B5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)

X Geomorphic Position (D2)

Shallow Aquitard (D3)

Microtopographic Relief (D4)

X FAC-Neutral Test (D5)

Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Aquatic Fauna (B13)

Field Observations:

Surface water present?

Water table present?

Saturation present?

Depth (inches):

No

Wetland hydrology

present?

Yes Depth (inches):

Yes X No

(includes capillary fringe)

X

Remarks:

Yes X No Depth (inches):

XNo

Surface

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region

Northampton County 9/17/20


Plainfield Township

Slope (%): 0 to 3%

Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR R NAD 83

Applicant/Owner:

Investigator(s):

Sampling Date:Perin Mitigation SiteProject/Site: City/County:

DP-W1-1a

40.844374 Long.: -75.235145

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)

Water-Stained Leaves (B9)

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

Yes X No

True Aquatic Plants (B14)

Thin Muck Surface (C7)

Surface Soil Cracks (B6)

Drainage Patterns (B10)

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)

Sparsley Vegetated Concave Surface

Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)

PEM5C

X NoYes

Yes

Yes

(If no, explain in remarks)

Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Remarks:

Sampling Point:

none

PAState:

floodplain

DW, CB Section, Township, Range:

Datum:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none):

No

Holly silt loam (Ho)

Lat.:

Yes

X

Soil Map Unit Name:

Secondary Indicators (minimum of two

required)

Yes

US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants

Dominance Test Worksheet

1 (A)

2

3 (B)

4

5

6

7 Prevalence Index Worksheet

= Total Cover Total % Cover of:

OBL species x 1 =

FACW species x 2 =

FAC species x 3 =

1 FACU species x 4 =

2 UPL species x 5 =

3 Column totals (A) (B)

4 Prevalence Index = B/A =

5 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

6 1 - Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation

7 X 2 - Dominance test is >50%

= Total Cover 3 - Prevalence index is ≤3.0*

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

= Total Cover

1

2

3

4

= Total Cover

5 - Problematic hydrophytic vegetation*

(explain)

Indicator

Staus

135

Hydrophytic

vegetation

present?

Absolute

% Cover

Dominant

Species

Percent of Dominant

Species that are OBL,

FACW, or FAC:

Tree Stratum (Plot Size:_____30'____)

Absolute

% Cover

Dominant

Species

Indicator

Staus

No

Y

*Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be

present, unless disturbed or problematic

OBL

Absolute

% Cover

100 Y

Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)

Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter

at breast height (DBH), regardless of height.

Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and

greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.

Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of

size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.

Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in

height.

Yes X

Definitions of Vegetation Strata:

(A/B)

Total Number of Dominant

Species Across all Strata:

Number of Dominant


FACW, or FAC:

2

100.00%

FACW

Indicator

Staus

4 - Morphogical adaptations* (provide

supporting data in Remarks or on a

separate sheet)

2

320

5 N FACW

Dominant

Species

30

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size:_____30'_____

Phalaris arundinacea

Persicaria sagittata

Impatiens capensis

Herb Stratum (Plot Size:________5'_______)

Absolute

% CoverSapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size:____15'_____

DP-W1-1aSampling Point:

Dominant

Species

Indicator

Staus


SOIL

Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)

Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:

Histisol (A1)

Histic Epipedon (A2)

Black Histic (A3)

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)

Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)

2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) X Depleted Matrix (F3) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)

Depleted Below Dark Suface (A11) Redox Dark Suface (F6) Other (Explain in Remarks)

Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7)

Redox Depressions (F8)

Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)

Sandy Redox (S5)

Stripped Matrix (S6)

*Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic

Restrictive Layer (if observed):



Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)

Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)

Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147

Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 147, 148)

Yes

*Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains **Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix

Type:

Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA

136)

Matrix

% Type*

Redox Features

Texture

Clay loamMC

Color (moist)

147,148)

Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, MLRA

Remarks

Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 136,

147)

Dark Surface (S7)

Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA

147,148)

Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)

2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)

207.5YR 5/88010YR 4/1

% Loc**Color (moist)

0-14

X

Remarks:

Depth (inches):

No

Depth

(Inches)

Hydric Soil Indicators:


NWI Classification:







HYDROLOGY


Surface Water (A1)


X Saturation (A3)




Algal Mat or Crust (B4)








Remarks:

Sampling Point:

none

PAState:

floodplain


Datum:


No

Comly silt loam (CpB)

Lat.:

Yes

X

Soil Map Unit Name:


required)

Yes

PEM5A

X NoYes

Yes

Yes







Yes X No













Plainfield Township

Slope (%): 0 to 8%


Applicant/Owner:

Investigator(s):


DP-W1-1b

40.844146 Long.: -75.235905

Remarks:


XNo

Surface

X


Field Observations:



Saturation present?

Depth (inches):

No

Wetland hydrology

present?

Yes Depth (inches):

Yes X No

Aquatic Fauna (B13)




1 (A)

2

3 (B)

4

5

6



OBL species x 1 =

FACW species x 2 =

FAC species x 3 =


2 UPL species x 5 =







1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

= Total Cover

1

2

3

4

= Total Cover

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size:____15'_____

Alnus serrulata

Viburnum recognitum

DP-W1-1bSampling Point:

Dominant

Species

Indicator

Staus

20 Y

40 Y

Absolute

% Cover

20 Y OBL

Dominant

Species

FACW

20


Onoclea sensibilis

Microstegium vimenium


Impatiens capensis

Scirpus cyperinus


FACW

Indicator

Staus



separate sheet)

6

(A/B)



Number of Dominant


FACW, or FAC:

6

100.00%

Absolute

% Cover

30 Y









height.

Yes X


OBL

Y



FACW

OBL

No

Percent of Dominant


FACW, or FAC:


Absolute

% Cover

Dominant

Species

Indicator

Staus


(explain)

FAC

5 N

Indicator

Staus

95

Hydrophytic

vegetation

present?

Absolute

% Cover

Dominant

Species

20 Y


SOIL



Histisol (A1)


Black Histic (A3)








Sandy Redox (S5)




Hydric soil present? X

Remarks:

Depth (inches):

No

10-14

Depth

(Inches)


70 7.5YR 5/810YR 6/1

% Loc**

M

Color (moist)

0-10 107.5YR 5/89010YR 4/1

Mucky clay


147)

Dark Surface (S7)


147,148)




136)

Matrix

%

30 C

Type*

Redox Features

Texture

Mucky clayMC

Color (moist)

147,148)


Remarks





Yes


Type:

DP-W1-1bSampling Point:


NWI Classification:







HYDROLOGY


Surface Water (A1)


X Saturation (A3) X







X Shallow Aquitard (D3)




Aquatic Fauna (B13)

Field Observations:



Saturation present?

Depth (inches):

No

Wetland hydrology

present?

Yes Depth (inches):

Yes X No


X

Remarks:


XNo

Surface




Plainfield Township

Slope (%): 0 to 8%


Applicant/Owner:

Investigator(s):


DP-W1-1c

40.844964 Long.: -75.23662





Yes X No










PEM5A

X NoYes

Yes

Yes




Remarks:

Sampling Point:

none

PAState:

floodplain


Datum:


No

Holly silt loam (Ho)

Lat.:

Yes

X

Soil Map Unit Name:


required)

Yes




1 (A)

2

3 (B)

4

5

6



OBL species x 1 =

FACW species x 2 =

FAC species x 3 =


2 UPL species x 5 =







1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

= Total Cover

1

2

3

4

= Total Cover


(explain)

Indicator

Staus

100

Hydrophytic

vegetation

present?

Absolute

% Cover

Dominant

Species

Salix nigra

Percent of Dominant


FACW, or FAC:


Absolute

% Cover

Dominant

Species

Indicator

Staus

No

Y



OBL

OBL

Absolute

% Cover

70 Y









height.

Yes X


(A/B)



Number of Dominant


FACW, or FAC:

4

50

100.00%

Y

FACW

Indicator

Staus



separate sheet)

4

10 N FACW

Dominant

Species

20




Impatiens capensis


5 Y

Absolute


Salix nigra

DP-W1-1cSampling Point:

Dominant

Species

Indicator

Staus

OBL


SOIL



Histisol (A1)


Black Histic (A3)








Sandy Redox (S5)





DP-W1-1cSampling Point:





Yes


Type:


136)

Matrix

%

10 C

Type*

Redox Features

Texture

Mucky clayMC

Color (moist)

147,148)


Remarks


147)

Dark Surface (S7)


147,148)



2010YR 4/68010YR 4/1

Mucky clay90 7.5YR 3/47.5 YR 2/1

% Loc**

M

Color (moist)

0-10

X

Remarks:

Depth (inches):

No

10-14

Depth

(Inches)



NWI Classification:







HYDROLOGY


Surface Water (A1)


X Saturation (A3)




Algal Mat or Crust (B4) X







Aquatic Fauna (B13)

Field Observations:



Saturation present?

Depth (inches):

No

Wetland hydrology

present?

Yes Depth (inches):

Yes X No


X

Remarks:


XNo

Surface




Plainfield Township

Slope (%): 0 to 8%


Applicant/Owner:

Investigator(s):


DP-W1-2a

40.845195 Long.: -75.237813





Yes X No










PEM5A

X NoYes

Yes

Yes




Remarks:

Sampling Point:

none

PAState:

floodplain


Datum:


No


Lat.:

Yes

X

Soil Map Unit Name:


required)

Yes




1 (A)

2

3 (B)

4

5

6



OBL species x 1 =

FACW species x 2 =

FAC species x 3 =


2 UPL species x 5 =







1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

= Total Cover

1

2

3

4

= Total Cover


(explain)

5 N

N

Indicator

Staus

90

5 N FACW

5

Hydrophytic

vegetation

present?

Absolute

% Cover

Dominant

Species

FACU

5 N

Percent of Dominant


FACW, or FAC:


Absolute

% Cover

Dominant

Species

Indicator

Staus

No

OBL

Y



FACW

Absolute

% Cover

50 Y









height.

Yes X


(A/B)



Number of Dominant


FACW, or FAC:

2

100.00%

FACW

Indicator

Staus



separate sheet)

2

320

10 N OBL

Dominant

Species

FACW

20



Lythrum salicaria


Carex lurida

Impatiens capensis

Onoclea sensibilis

Muliflora rose


Absolute



Dominant

Species

Indicator

Staus


SOIL



Histisol (A1)


Black Histic (A3)








Sandy Redox (S5)










Yes


Type:


136)

Matrix

%

5 C

Type*

Redox Features

Texture

Clay loamMC

Color (moist)

147,148)


Remarks


147)

Dark Surface (S7)


147,148)



1010YR 3/69010YR 4/1

Clay loam95 10YR 5/810YR 6/1

% Loc**

M

Color (moist)

0-10

X

Remarks:

Depth (inches):

No

10-14

Depth

(Inches)



NWI Classification:







HYDROLOGY


Surface Water (A1)


Saturation (A3)






Geomorphic Position (D2)



FAC-Neutral Test (D5)



Remarks:

Sampling Point:

none

PAState:

convex


Datum:


No


Lat.:

No X

X

Soil Map Unit Name:


required)

Yes

PEM5A

X NoYes

No

No







Yes No













Plainfield Township

Slope (%): 0 to 8%


Applicant/Owner:

Investigator(s):


DP-UP1

40.845179 Long.: -75.23781

Remarks:

Yes No X Depth (inches):

XNo

X


Field Observations:



Saturation present?

Depth (inches):

No

Wetland hydrology

present? X

Yes Depth (inches):

Yes No

Aquatic Fauna (B13)




1 (A)

2

3 (B)

4

5

6



OBL species x 1 =

FACW species x 2 =

FAC species x 3 =


2 UPL species x 5 =





7 2 - Dominance test is >50%


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

= Total Cover

1

2

3

4

= Total Cover


DP-UP1

140

110

Sampling Point:

Dominant

Species

Indicator

Staus

FACU

Absolute

% Cover

20 Y FACU

Dominant

Species

FACU

30


Cirsium arvense

Microstegium vimineum

Solidago canadensis

Ageratina altissima

Alliaria petiolata


Y

FACU

Indicator

Staus



separate sheet)

530

1

3.79

440

90

(A/B)



Number of Dominant


FACW, or FAC:

4

40

25.00%

Absolute

% Cover

30 Y


X








height.

Yes


30

FACU

Y



FAC

No

Junglans nigra

Percent of Dominant


FACW, or FAC:


Absolute

% Cover

Dominant

Species

Indicator

Staus


(explain)

10 N

Indicator

Staus

100

Hydrophytic

vegetation

present?

Absolute

% Cover

Dominant

Species

10 N


SOIL



Histisol (A1)


Black Histic (A3)



2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Depleted Matrix (F3) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)





Sandy Redox (S5)





Remarks:

Depth (inches):

No X

10-14

Depth

(Inches)


10010YR 4/4

% Loc**Color (moist)

0-6 10010YR 4/3

Silt loam


147)

Dark Surface (S7)


147,148)




136)

Matrix

% Type*

Redox Features

Texture

Silt loam

Color (moist)

147,148)


Remarks





Yes


Type:

DP-UP1Sampling Point:


14:AW5907_T0714-03/16/09-D1

✔ Pennsylvania

Northampton

9/17/2020

✔ Waltz Creek

✔

DW, CB

✔

✔

Northeast to Southwest

3-15'

3-20'

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔ vegetation/grass

✔

✔

✔

✔

3'

✔

3'

✔

0

✔ ✔

0-150'+

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔ ✔ ✔

✔

Waltz Creek

PA smartweed, RCG, Tearthumb, Silky dogwood,Black Willow

caddisfly

14:AW5907_T0714-03/16/09-D1

✔ Pennsylvania

Northampton

9/17/2020

✔

✔

DW, CB

✔

✔

Northeast to Southwest

1-4'

1-5'

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

3'

✔

3'

✔

0

✔

✔

0-100'

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔ ✔ ✔

✔

UNT 1

PA smartweed, RCG, Tearthumb, Silky dogwood,Black Willow

14:AW5907_T0714-03/16/09-D1

✔ Pennsylvania

Northampton

9/17/2020

✔

✔

DW, CB

✔

✔

North to South

1'

1'

✔

✔

✔

✔

2'

✔

2'

✔

0

✔

✔

0'

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔ ✔ ✔

✔

UNT 2

PA smartweed, RCG, Tearthumb, Broadleaf cattail

14:AW5907_T0714-03/16/09-D1

✔ Pennsylvania

Northampton

9/17/2020

✔

✔

DW, CB

✔

✔

South to North

1'

1-3'

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

2'

✔

2'

✔

0

✔

✔

0-75'

✔

✔

✔ ✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔ ✔

✔

UNT 3

PA smartweed, RCG, Tearthumb, Jewelweed,Red maple

ATTACMENT B PHOTOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION


M:\WHM CONSULTING\PROJECTS\MITIGATION _PROJECTS\NORTHAMPTON\PERIN\WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT\Photo Page.Docx

ID: Photo 1

Date: 9/17/20

Taken by: CB

Comments: This photo shows a southeastern view of Waltz Creek.

ID: Photo 2

Date: 9/17/20

Taken by: CB

Comments: This photo shows a southeastern view of UNT 1.



ID: Photo 3 Date: 9/17/20 Taken by: CB Comments: This photo shows a southern view of UNT 2.

ID: Photo 4 Date: 9/17/20 Taken by: CB Comments: This photo shows a southern view of UNT 3.



ID: Photo 5 Date: 9/17/20 Taken by: CB Comments: This photo shows an eastern view of the PEM portion of Wetland 1.

ID: Photo 6 Date: 9/17/20 Taken by: CB Comments: This photo shows a northwestern view of a PEM and PSS break within Wetland 1.



ID: Photo 7 Date: 9/7/20 Taken by: PB Comments: This photo shows a southern view of a PEM and PSS break with a PSS and PFO break in the background within Wetland 1.

ID: Photo 8 Date: 9/7/20 Taken by: PB Comments: This photo shows a northern view of a PEM and PSS break within Wetland 1.

ATTACHMENT C WATER RESOURCE SUMMARY TABLE

Waters Name Cowardin Code HGM Code

Estimated

Amount of

Aquatic

Resource in

Review Area (sq

ft)

Estimated Amount

of Aquatic

Resource in Review

Area Linear (ft)

Estimated

Channel

Width (ft)

Water

Types

PA Code

Chapter 93

Water

Quality

Designated

Use

PA Code

Chapter 93

Water

Quality

Existing

Use

Latitude (dd nad

83)

Longitude (dd nad

83)Local Waterway

Stream Type (P‐

Perennial, I‐

Intermittent, or E‐

Ephemeral)

Wetland 1 PEM DEPRESS 378,937 N/A N/A RPWWD ‐ ‐ 40.84483 ‐75.23608 Waltz Creek ‐

Wetland 1 PSS DEPRESS 92,204 N/A N/A RPWWD ‐ ‐ 40.844062 ‐75.235765 Waltz Creek ‐

Wetland 1 PFO DEPRESS 20,834 N/A N/A RPWWD ‐ ‐ 40.844789 ‐75.237551 Waltz Creek ‐

Waltz Creek R3 RIVERINE 16,380 1,638 10 RPW CWF, MF ‐ 40.845823 ‐75.237347 Waltz Creek P

UNT 1 R3 RIVERINE 3,627 1,209 3 RPW CWF, MF ‐ 40.84445 ‐75.23618 Waltz Creek I

UNT 2 R3 RIVERINE 105 105 1 RPW CWF, MF ‐ 40.84491 ‐75.23686 Waltz Creek I

UNT 3 R3 RIVERINE 1,224 408 3 RPW CWF, MF ‐ 40.84567 ‐75.23814 Waltz Creek I

21,336 3,360

491,975 ‐

PERIN PROPERTY

WATER RESOURCE SUMMARY TABLE

Wetland Total

Watercourse Total

ATTACHMENT D

RESUMES

David Wood, PWS, Environmental Specialist

David Wood has more than 8 years of professional work experience in natural resources management, wetland sciences, soil science, field biology, and plant sciences. Mr. Wood is a Professional Wetland Scientist (PWS) certified by the Society of Wetland Scientists (SWS). He has coordinated and/or contributed significantly to a wide variety of environmental projects throughout the North Atlantic Region. He has worked in both the public and private sectors for a diverse clientele that include government agencies, non-profit entities, corporations, and individuals.

Professional Experience

Environmental Surveys • Performed Pennsylvania rare, threatened and endangered plant surveys and

reporting. • Assisted on several USFWS endangered plant surveys for Scirpus ancistrochaetus and

Isotria medeoloides with several surveys resulting in the identification of S. ancistrochaetus;

• Field assistant on multiple Timber Rattlesnake Phase I and II surveys and Allegheny Wood Rat surveys;

• Conducted water quality analysis’s including macroinvertebrate sampling and identification; and

• Performed forest inventory and assessments.

Water Resource Projects

• Performed wetland and water resource delineations and reporting; • Conducted wetland and riparian buffer mitigation construction and planting oversite

on various mitigation projects throughout Pennsylvania; • Conducted wetland and stream mitigation monitoring and reporting. • Collected water samples and onsite water quality data.

Environmental Permitting

• Produced mitigation plans for wetland and stream impacts, including grading plans, vegetative design, vegetative planting zones, enhancement species lists;

• Completed local, state and federal environmental permitting for various types of development and water quality improvement projects;

• Performed Erosion and Sediment control inspections on gas well sites and pipeline right-of-way’s;

• Assisted with a variety of environmental permitting projects; and

Equipment and Mapping

• Performed task utilizing Trimble GPS equipment; • Utilized GIS software for mapping and data analysis: • Performed land analysis utilizing GIS software for determining suitable areas for

development; and • Used survey equipment to characterize pre and post construction conditions for

mapping and design purposes on stream and wetlands for various projects.

Education

• B.A., Environmental Studies, The Pennsylvania State University, 2010; Minor in Biology

Certifications

• Professional Wetland Scientist (PWS) PWS Seal # 2903

• PA DCNR Wild Plant Management Permit #19-658

Professional Training

• PADEP Technical Workshops – Prepare for The New Aquatic Resource Condition Assess. (Ch. 5) – June 2017

• The Wetland Training Institute – Planning Hydrology, Vegetation, & Soils Constructed Wetlands – July 2016

• Swamp School Field Identification of Wetland Sedges, Grasses and Rushes – June 2016

• PA Botany Steering Committee – A Consulting Botanist’s Toolkit – Dec. 2015

• The PNPS – Identification of Grasses, Sedges, and Rushes – July 2015

• SWS Mid-Atlantic Chapter Wetland Mitigation, Restoration and Ecology - PA – Apr. 4-5, 2014

• PNDI Updates Presentation, PA – Dec. 2013

• FERC “Environmental Review and Compliance for Natural Gas”, TX – Sept. 2013

• PADEP ESCGP-2 Training, PA - July 2015

• PASFI® Training: Prof. Timber Harvesting Ess., Wildlife-Young Forest Initiative, Game of Logging, Lev 1 – May 2012

• Marcellus Workshop “An Update on PHMSA Pipeline Regulations & Act 127” – Feb 2012

• PASPGP-4 Workshop: ACE, Baltimore District– Oct. 2011

• Regional Supplement to USACE Delineation Manual, PA – M.N. Gilbert Environmental – Apr. 2011

• Ohio Rapid Assessment Method for Wetland v. 5.0 2014 Training Course – April 2015

• 38-Hour ACOE Wetland Delineation/Waters of the US Training, Richard Chinn – March 2014

PA SFI® Training; Prof. Timber Harvesting

of Logging - Level 1; May 2012

PA SFI® Training; Prof. Timber Wildlife - Young Forest Initiative, Game of

Logging - Level 1; May 2012

Assessments (Ch. 105) – June 2017

Provider – Wetlands (Interdisciplinary) Biological Components, Pennsylvania

Peter J. Backhaus, WPIT, Environmental Technician

Mr. Backhaus is a graduate of the Pennsylvania State University, where he was awarded a Master of Science in Geography. As a member of the Riparia research center, his research focused on the use of remote sensing data in wetland assessment. He has conducted specialized rapid assessment protcols and ecological assessments for reference wetlands throughout the Mid-Atlantic Region. During his time at the WHM, he has assisted with projects including wetland delineation, bog turtle surveys, and wetland maintenance and monitoring. He is certified as a Wetland Professional in Training (WPIT) by the Society of Wetlands Scientists Professional Certification Program and is an active member of the SWS and its Mid-Atlantic Chapter.


Wetlands Wetland delineations using the US Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands

Delineation Manual 1987 and applicable regional supplements

Assisted with wetland monitoring and maintenance

Function and value assessments of wetlands

GIS & Mapping Spatial data collection with Trimble GeoXH, TDC150, and Juno series

GPS units utilizing TerraSync and ArcPad software

Project mapping and analysis using ERSI ArcGIS

Biological Identification and documentation of wetland flora and herptile species

Assisted with invasive plant control and removal, including herbicidal and biocontrol methods

Assisted with bog turtle Phase I (habitat), Phase II (presence/absence), and Phase II (trapping) surveys and radio telemetry studies

Education

M.S. Geography, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 2018

B.S. Environmental Science, SUNY Plattsburgh, Plattsburgh, NY, 2013

Certifications

Wetland Professional in Training (WPIT), 2019-Present


Adult First Aid/CPR – American Heart Association, Pennsylvania, December 2018

OSHA 24-Hour HAZWOPER Training – Allprobe Environmental, March 2015 (8-Hour Refresher December 2019)

Williams Contractor Safety, March 2015

Energy Transfer Contractor Safety Orientation, February 2016

Southwest Energy Training Assurance Program (TAP) – 2015 Core and Supplement, February 2016

Memberships & Affiliations

Society of Wetlands Scientists (2016 – Present)

Association of State Wetland Managers (2018 – Present)



Charly Bloom, Environmental Technician

Ms. Bloom is a graduate from Lock Haven University in 2019, where she was awarded a Bachelors degree in Biological Environmental and Ecological Science. Ms. Bloom is an Environmental Technician that works in the field and wetland crews for WHM.


General Environmental Projects • Used GIS software for mapping and analysis • Used a Trimble GPS for mapping boundaries for mapping purposes • Composed various Environmental Reports for landfills, gas companies,

wind farms, construction companies, private landowners, and regulatory agencies

Environmental Projects

• Performed wetland monitoring and maintenance on various wetlands • Performed Stream Surveys • Performed wetland and watercourse delineations using US Army Corps

of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual 1987 and applicable regional supplements

EDUCATION • Environmental & Ecological Biology,

Bachelor of Science, Lock Haven University, Pennsylvania, 2019.

PROFESSIONAL TRAINING

• OSHA 40 Hour HAZWOPER Training; AllProbe Environmental; June 2019

GRAJEWSKI MITIGATION SITE

WHM Consulting, LLC. i March 2021

M:\WHM CONSULTING\PROJECTS\MITIGATION _PROJECTS\LUZERNE\Grajewski Property\GRAJEWSKI - Upper Central Susquehanna\WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT\REAE Wetland Report Mitigation\Grajewski Wetland Delineation Report

030821.docx


HUNTINGTON TOWNSHIP, LUZERNE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

GRAJEWSKI PROPERTY WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Narrative 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Methodology 3.0 Desktop Findings

3.1 USGS & Topographic Data 3.2 Water Quality

3.3 National Wetland Inventory 3.4 USDA/NRCS Soil Descriptions

4.0 Water Resource Descriptions 4.1 Wetland 1 4.2 UNT 1

4.3 UNT 2 4.4 UNT 3

5.0 Conclusions 6.0 References

Attachments A Data Forms B Photographic Documentation C Water Resource Summary Table

D Resumes

WHM Solutions, LLC. 1 March 2021


030821.docx


HUNTINGTON TOWNSHIP, LUZERNE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

GRAJEWSKI PROPERTY WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT

1.0 INTRODUCTION WHM Consulting, LLC. (WHM) conducted a delineation of wetland and water resources

associated with the Grajewski Property located in Huntingdon Township, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania (Figure 2 – Project Location Map). The purpose of this investigation was to determine if regulated wetlands and waters exist within the proposed project area in accordance with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) guidelines as regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Pa Code 25 Chapter 105. This report provides information on the methodology, data collected, delineation field findings, and conclusions pertaining to wetland and water resources identified within the investigation area. The delineation was performed by Paul Fisher of WHM during July of 2013. A follow-up field visit to review the boundaries, as delineated in 2013, was conducted by David Wood, Lawrence Burns and Taylor Harris of WHM on December 8th, 2015. Delineation boundaries were then confirmed and adjusted by Curtis George and Cameron Clark of WHM on September 1, 2020.

2.0 METHODOLOGY WHM conducted investigations on the subject project area according to the procedures

and technical guidelines outlined in the 1987 USACE Wetland Delineation Manual including specifically the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Northcentral and Northeast Region (January 2012, Version 2.0). The USACE protocol establishes a three parameter approach for identification and delineation of wetlands, which includes confirmation of the following:

I. Hydrophytic Vegetation: This condition exists when greater than 50% of the dominantplant species contain obligate (OBL), facultative-wet (FACW), or facultative (FAC) indicatorstatuses.

II. Hydric Soils: Hydric soils are defined as soils that formed under conditions ofsaturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to developanaerobic conditions in the upper part of the soil (Federal Register, July 13, 1994).

III. Wetland Hydrology: Wetland hydrology is recognized through evidence of inundationand/or saturation to the soil surface for at least 5% of the growing season during mostyears.

In undisturbed conditions, all three parameters must be confirmed to be present to characterize an area as a wetland. In highly disturbed or problematic wetland situations, Corps guidance details procedures to be used for evaluating these areas and determining which areas



030821.docx

are most likely considered wetlands upon review by a Corps representative. Upon completing our investigations, areas exhibiting all three of the USACE criteria presented above and which also have surface water connection to other waters of the United States are identified as resources that are likely to be regulated by the USACE as Jurisdictional Wetlands. Areas exhibiting all three parameters but without surface water connection to other waters are also likely to be designated as wetlands or waters but may or may not be regulated by the USACE. In many cases, wetland areas not regulated by the USACE are still likely to be regulated by other state or local governing bodies.

In addition to wetlands, WHM also identifies waterways likely to be regulated as waters of the United States, including ephemeral, intermittent and perennial waterways. The term “jurisdictional waters of the United States” as used by Section 404 of the CWA and defined under 33 Code of Federal Register (CFR) Section 328.1, includes adjacent wetlands and tributaries to traditionally navigable waters (TNW) and other waters with a hydrological connection to a TNW.

WHM provides a complete delineation flagging of wetland/waters resources and supporting data. As noted above, our determinations are based on our collective “best professional judgment” exercised with the guidance of the Corps’ Manual and Supplements. However, the final determination of the Jurisdictional status of the resources identified lies entirely within the review of the reviewing regulatory agencies. In other words, we identify a technically defensible boundary that must either be accepted or adjusted by the reviewing regulatory agencies in situations where encroachments may occur. As consultant environmental scientists, we do not have authority to assign regulatory jurisdiction.

For delineations performed in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, all wetlands and waters identified during the wetland delineation are deemed probable “Jurisdictional waters of the United States” until otherwise reviewed and accepted by the USACE and/or Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). If upon review the wetland or water is determined to be isolated by the regulators (i.e. has no significant nexus to “jurisdictional waters of the United States”), the regulatory body for such waters then becomes the jurisdiction of the DEP.

3.0 DESKTOP FINDINGS WHM completed a review of natural resource data associated with the project site prior

to conducting field investigations. Specifically, WHM reviewed USGS 7.5-minute topographical mapping for Shickshinny, Pennsylvania, U.S. Fish and Wildlife National Wetland Inventory mapping, and the U.S Department of Agriculture – NRCS Soil Survey for Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. The results of this desktop analysis were used to help establish probable areas where wetlands and watercourses could be located before conducting the field investigation portion of the project.

3.1 USGS & TOPOGRAPHIC DATA According to the 7.5-minute USGS quadrangle for Shickshinny, Pennsylvania, the

center of the project area is located at 41.196433° N, -76.207543° W.



030821.docx

3.2 WATER QUALITY The project area is located within the Huntington Creek watershed. According to

PA Code 25, Chapter 93 Water Quality Standards, the Huntington Creek watershed is classified as a Trout Stocked Fishery with Migratory Fishes (TSF, MF). Huntington Creek is listed as a naturally reproducing trout stream. Therefore, wetlands that are hydrologically connected are considered Exceptional Value (EV).

3.3 NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping within and surrounding the project area are presented in Figures 3 – USDA-NRCS Soils and NWI Map. According to NWI mapping, there are three (3) NWI wetlands located within project area. The NWI classifications within the project area include:

PSS1/EM5C – Palustrine Scrub-Shrub/ Emergent Phragmites australis Seasonally Flooded PEM5C- Palustrine Emergent Phragmites australis Seasonally Flooded

3.4 USDA/NRCS SOIL DESCRIPTIONS The soil associations on the site are identified through the Natural Resources

Conservation Service (NRCS) web soil survey for Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. Six (6) soil mapping units are located within the project area: Braceville gravelly loam (BrB), Chenango gravelly loam (ChA,ChB), Holly silt loam (Ho), Mardin channery silt loam (MaB), Rexford loam (RdA). Additionally, the Hydric Soils List for Luzerne County was reviewed to determine the Hydric Rating for these soil mapping units. Holly silt loam (Ho) is listed as a hydric soil. The mapping limits of these soils can be viewed in Figure 3 - USDA-NRCS Soils and NWI Map. The following briefly describes the soil series mapped within the investigation area as described in the Soil Survey for Luzerne County, Pennsylvania:

Braceville gravelly loam (BrB): The Braceville series consists of very deep, moderately well drained soils formed in glacial outwash of stratified sand, silt, and gravel. They are on terraces, benches, fans, and moraines. Permeability is moderately slow to slow. Taxonomic class is coarse-loamy, mixed, active, mesic Typic Fragiudepts. The following is a typical soil profile for the Braceville soil series:

Ap--0 to 8 inches, dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) gravelly loam; weak medium granular structure; friable, nonsticky, slightly plastic; 15 percent rock fragments; strongly acid; abrupt smooth boundary. (6 to 11 inches thick.)

Bw1--8 to 18 inches, yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) gravelly loam; weak fine subangular blocky structure; friable, slightly sticky, slightly plastic; 20 percent rock fragments; strongly acid; clear wavy boundary. (5 to 15 inches thick.)



030821.docx

Bw2--18 to 24 inches, yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) gravelly loam; common medium distinct light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4) mottles; weak medium subangular blocky structure; friable, slightly sticky, slightly plastic; 20 percent rock fragments; strongly acid; abrupt wavy boundary. (4 to 14 inches thick.)

Bx--24 to 36 inches, brown (10YR 5/3) gravelly loam; common medium distinct grayish brown (10YR 5/2) and yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) mottles; grayish brown (10YR 5/2) faces of prisms; weak very coarse prismatic structure parting to weak medium platy; firm, brittle; few faint clay films lining pores; 30 percent rock fragments; strongly acid; gradual wavy boundary. (8 to 35 inches thick.)

C--36 to 60 inches, grayish brown (2.5Y 5/2) stratified sand and gravel; common medium distinct gray (N 5/) streak-like mottles; single grain; strongly acid.

Chenango gravelly loam (ChA, ChB): The Chenango series consists of very deep, well and somewhat excessively drained soils formed in water-sorted material on outwash plains, kames, eskers, terraces, and alluvial fans. The taxonomic class is loamy-skeletal, mixed, superactive, mesic Typic Dystrudepts. The following is a typical soil profile for the Chenango soil series:

Ap -- 0 to 8 inches; very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) gravelly silt loam, light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) crushed and dry; weak fine and medium granular structure; friable; many fine roots; 20 percent pebbles; moderately acid; abrupt boundary.

Bw1 -- 8 to 12 inches; dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) gravelly silt loam; very weak fine subangular blocky and very weak very fine granular structure; very friable; many fine roots; common fine pores; 15 percent dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) material filling earthworm channels; 30 percent pebbles; strongly acid.

Bw2 -- 12 to 20 inches; dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) very gravelly silt loam; very weak fine and medium subangular blocky structure; friable; few fine roots; common fine pores; 40 percent pebbles; strongly acid; gradual wavy boundary.

BC -- 20 to 30 inches; brown (10YR 4/3) very gravelly loam; massive; friable; few fine roots; common fine and medium pores; 50 percent pebbles; strongly acid.

2C -- 30 to 72 inches; dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2), grayish brown (10YR 5/2), and brown (10YR 4/3) extremely gravelly loamy coarse sand; upper surface of pebbles have thin caps of dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) loamy material; single grain except massive in caps; loose; few roots in upper part; 10 percent soft dark brown and dark yellowish brown weathered pebbles; strongly acid in the upper part grading to slightly acid with depth.



030821.docx

Holly silt loam (Ho): The Holly series consists of very deep, very poorly and poorly drained hydric soils formed in loamy alluvium on flood plains. Saturated hydraulic conductivity is moderately high through high in the mineral soil. Slope ranges from 0 through 3 percent. The taxonomic class is fine-loamy, mixed, active, nonacid, mesic Fluvaquentic Endoaquepts. The following is a typical soil profile for the Holly soil series:

A-- 0 to 3 inches; dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) silt loam, light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) dry; moderate medium granular structure; friable; slightly acid; clear wavy boundary. (2 to 8 inches thick.)

Bg1-- 3 to 9 inches; dark gray (5Y 4/1) silt loam; weak medium subangular blocky structure; friable; common fine prominent brown (7.5YR 4/4) masses of iron accumulation in the matrix; slightly acid; clear smooth boundary.

Bg2-- 9 to 14 inches; dark gray (5Y 4/1) silt loam; weak coarse subangular blocky structure; friable; common medium prominent yellowish red (5YR 4/6) masses of iron accumulation in the matrix; slightly acid; clear smooth boundary.

Bg3-- 14 to 27 inches; gray (5Y 5/1) sandy loam; weak coarse subangular blocky structure; friable; common medium and fine prominent brown (7.5YR 4/4) and strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) masses of iron accumulation in the matrix; slightly acid; clear wavy boundary. (Combined thickness of the Bg horizons are 10 through 32 inches.)

C1-- 27 to 35 inches; gray (N 5/0) loam; massive; friable; common medium prominent yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) masses of iron accumulation in the matrix; slightly acid; clear wavy boundary.

C2-- 35 to 43 inches; dark gray (N 4/0) sandy loam; massive; friable; slightly alkaline; clear wavy boundary.

2C3-- 43 to 60 inches; dark greenish gray (5BG 4/1) gravelly sand; single grain; loose; slightly alkaline.

Mardin channery sillt loam (MaB): The Mardin series consists of very deep, moderately well drained soils on glaciated uplands, mostly on broad hilltops, shoulder slopes and backslopes. These soils formed in loamy till, and have a dense fragipan that starts at a depth of 36 to 66 cm (14 to 26 in) below the soil surface. The taxonomic class is coarse-loamy, mixed, active, mesic Typic Fragiudepts. The following is a typical soil profile for the Mardin soil series:

Ap--0 to 20 cm (0 to 8 in); brown (10YR 4/3) channery silt loam; pale brown (10YR 6/3) dry; moderate fine granular structure; very friable, nonsticky, slightly plastic; 20 percent channers; neutral, pH 7.0; abrupt smooth boundary.



030821.docx

BE--20 to 30 cm (8 to 12 in); light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4) channery silt loam; weak fine subangular blocky structure; very friable, nonsticky, slightly plastic; 15 percent channers; slightly acid, pH 6.3; clear wavy boundary. (0 to 18 cm thick) (0 to 7 in thick)

Bw1--30 to 41 cm (12 to 16 in); yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) channery silt loam; moderate medium subangular blocky structure; friable, nonsticky, slightly plastic; 20 percent channers; moderately acid, pH 5.8; clear wavy boundary.

Bw2--41 to 51 cm (16 to 20 in); brown (10YR 4/3) channery silt loam; weak medium subangular blocky structure; friable, nonsticky, slightly plastic; 15 percent fine faint pale brown (10YR 6/3) and light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) iron depletions and 15 percent fine faint brown (7.5YR 4/4) masses of oxidized iron; 20 percent channers; strongly acid, pH 5.3; abrupt irregular boundary.

Bx1--51 to 91 cm (20 to 36 in); dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) channery silt loam; strong very coarse prismatic structure parts to weak very thick platy structure; very firm, slightly sticky, slightly plastic; brittle; many fine pores; clay films on surfaces along pores; 15 percent fine distinct light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) iron depletions; 30 percent channers; strongly acid, pH 5.3; gradual wavy boundary.

Bx2--91 to 145 cm (36 to 57 in); olive brown (2.5Y 4/4) channery silt loam; strong very coarse prismatic structure parts to weak coarse angular blocky structure; very firm, slightly sticky, moderately plastic; brittle; many fine pores; 20 percent clay films on all faces of peds and 20 percent clay films on surfaces along pores; 15 percent fine distinct light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2) iron depletions and 15 percent fine distinct brown (7.5YR 4/4) masses of oxidized iron; 35 percent channers

C--145 to 183 cm (57 to 72 in); olive brown (2.5Y 4/4) channery silt loam; massive structure; firm, nonsticky, slightly plastic; 15 percent fine distinct brown (7.5YR 4/4) masses of oxidized iron and 15 percent fine distinct light olive gray (5Y 6/2) iron depletions; 35 percent channers; strongly acid, pH 5.3.

Rexford loam (RdA): The Rexford series consists of very deep, somewhat poorly drained to poorly drained soils on terraces and moraines. They formed in glacial outwash or stream terraces derived mainly from sandstone and shale. Slopes range from 0 to 15 percent. The taxonomic class is Coarse-loamy, mixed, active, mesic Aeric Fragiaquepts. The following is a typical soil profile for the Rexford soil series:

Ap--0 to 8 inches; dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) silt loam; weak fine granular structure; very friable, slightly sticky, slightly plastic; many fine roots; 10 percent rock fragments; slightly acid, abrupt wavy boundary. (6 to 10 inches thick)



030821.docx

Bw--8 to 12 inches; yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) loam; common fine distinct grayish brown (10YR 5/2) mottles; weak fine subangular blocky structure; friable, slightly sticky, slightly plastic; many fine roots; 10 percent rock fragments; moderately acid; clear wavy boundary. (2 to 6 inches thick) Bg--12 to 17 inches; grayish brown (10YR 5/2) loam; common fine distinct yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) mottles; weak fine and medium subangular blocky structure; firm, slightly sticky, slightly plastic; common very fine roots; 10 percent rock fragments; moderately acid; gradual wavy boundary. (3 to 12 inches thick) 2Bx1--17 to 30 inches; brown (7.5YR 5/4) gravelly loam; many fine distinct gray (10YR 6/1) and strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) mottles; moderate very coarse prismatic structure parting to moderate medium and thick platy; very firm, brittle, slightly sticky, slightly plastic; few faint clay films in pores; 25 percent rock fragments; strongly acid; gradual wavy boundary. (8 to 20 inches thick) 2Bx2--30 to 38 inches; brown (7.5YR 4/4) gravelly loam; many coarse prominent light gray (10YR 7/2) and strong brown (7.5YR 5/8) mottles; moderate very coarse prismatic structure parting to moderate thick platy and weak fine subangular blocky; very firm, brittle, slightly sticky, slightly plastic; very few faint clay films in pores; 15 percent rock fragments; strongly acid; abrupt wavy boundary. 2C1--38 to 44 inches; brown (10YR 5/3) very gravelly sandy loam; massive; firm, nonsticky, nonplastic; 40 percent gravel; strongly acid; abrupt wavy boundary. 2C2--44 to 60 inches; olive brown (2.5Y 4/4) stratified sand and gravel; single grain; loose; strongly acid.

4.0 WATER RESOURCE DESCRIPTIONS After the completion of a desktop analysis, a formal wetland delineation was completed.

Areas exhibiting the potential for regulated wetlands and watercourses were evaluated to determine whether they satisfied the USACE requirements. A total of one (1) wetland and three (3) streams were located within the investigation area (See Figure 3 – Wetland Delineation Map). Attachment A – Representative Data Forms includes data collected for the wetlands and streams at the site. Attachment B - Photographic Documentation includes photographs of the investigation area as well as a brief description of the featured water resource. The following provides a descriptive summary of the findings within the project area.

4.1 WETLAND 1 Wetland 1 is a complex of Palustrine Emergent (PEM), Palustrine Scrub-Shrub

(PSS), and Palustrine Forested (PFO) wetland. This wetland complex is located within an area historically used as a cattle pasture and adjacent to and active agricultural field. Wetland 1 receives hydrology from unnamed tributaries (UNTs) 1, 2, and 3 which flow from the northeast corner to the southeast corner of the investigation area. Wetland 1



030821.docx

has an upper pocket to the north that is connected hydrologically to the main section of the wetland located to the south. This wetland exhibited multiple hydrologic indicators including: standing water, saturation at the surface, and drainage patterns. A restrictive layer was observed at multiple data point locations at a depth of 6 inches. Soil test pits throughout the wetland revealed hydric soils exhibiting depleted matrixes.

Dominant vegetation within the emergent portion of Wetland 1 included common

rush (Juncus effusus, OBL), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea, FACW). sensitive fern, (Onoclea sensibilis, FACW), Devil’s beggatick (Bidens frondosa, FACW), and shallow sedge (Carex lurida, OBL). Dominant vegetation within the Shrub-Scrub portion of Wetland 1 included: silky dogwood (Cornus amomum, FACW), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea, FACW), and fowl mannagrass (Glyceria striata, OBL). Dominant vegetation within the forested section of Wetland 1 includes red maple, (Acer rubrum. FAC), common buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis, OBL), hazel alder (Alnus serrulata, OBL), and silky dogwood, (Cornus amomum, FACW).

Observed soils in the wetland area from 0-4 inches displayed a matrix of 10YR 4/1

with 5% 7.5YR 5/6 redox concentrations. From 4-10 inches soils displayed the same characteristics as the layer above, except in some cases where a fragipan was encountered at a depth of 6 inches. Soil from 10 - 14 inches displayed a matrix of 10YR 5/2 with 5% 10YR 5/8 redox concentrations except where the restrictive layer was observed. Soil test pits throughout the wetland revealed hydric soils exhibiting depleted matrixes.

The overall wetland complex is approximately 11.05 acres or 481,127 square feet in size of which 8.14 acres or 354,595 square feet is considered PEM, 2.14 acres, or 93,249 square feet is considered PSS, and 0.76 acres, or 33,283 square feet is considered PFO.

4.2 UNT 1

UNT 1 flows into UNT 2 at the northern section of Wetland 1. UNT 1 is a perennial channel that meanders through Wetland 1 providing hydrology. The channel flows in a southwesterly direction from the northeast corner of the investigation area. The stream channel is well defined and its width ranges from 1-2 feet. Bank heights were approximately 1 foot. The depth of water was 7-12 inches. The substrate of the channel consisted of gravel and silt. The channel was left open ended in the northeast corner of the investigation area. UNT 1 travels for 380 linear feet or 570 square feet within the investigation area.

4.3 UNT 2

UNT 2 is a perennial channel that meanders through Wetland 1 providing hydrology. The channel flows in a southeasterly direction from the western boundary of Wetland 1. The stream channel is well defined and its width ranges from 1-2 feet. Bank heights were approximately 1 foot. The depth of water varied between 7-24 inches. The substrate of the channel consisted of gravel and silt. UNT 2 travels for 236 linear feet or



030821.docx

354 square feet within the investigation area. UNT 2 flows into UNT 3 in the center of Wetland 1.

4.4 UNT 3

UNT 3 is a perennial channel that meanders through Wetland 1 providing hydrology. The channel flows in a southeasterly direction from the northern boundary of Wetland 1. The stream channel is well defined and its width ranges from 1-2 feet. Bank heights were approximately 1 foot. The depth of water varied between 7-12 inches. The substrate of the channel consisted of gravel and silt. UNT 3 travels for 1,492 linear feet or 2,238 square feet within the investigation area. UNT 3 flows into Huntington Creek south of the investigation area.

5.0 CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of the field investigation, 481,127 square feet or 11.05 acres of wetlands and 2,108 linear feet or 3,162 square feet of streams were delineated within the investigation area. Any impacts to the identified resources would require authorization under PADEP and USACE guidelines.



030821.docx

6.0 REFERENCES 1. Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands

deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior and the Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

2. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Tech.

Rep. Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, M.S.

3. Munsell Soil Color Charts. 2010. Revised Washable Edition

4. Pennsylvania Code. 2014. http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/025/025toc.html.

5. Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Official Soil Series Descriptions [Online WWW]. Available URL: “http://soils.usda.gov/technical/classification/osd/index.html” [Accessed December 2015]. USDA-NRCS, Lincoln, NE.

6. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2012. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers

Wetland Delineation Manual: Northcentral and Northeast Region 2.0., ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, C. V. Noble, and J. F. Berkowitz. ERDC/EL TR-12-1. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.

7. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetland Inventory Map, 7.5 Minute Series

Quadrangle Shickshinny, Pennsylvania.

8. United States Geological Survey (USGS). Topographic Quadrangle 7.5 minute Series Quadrangle, Shickshinny, PA.

9. United State Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey of Luzerne County Pennsylvania.

http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/025/025toc.html

ATTACHMENT A DATA FORMS

NWI Classification:






Wetland hydrology present? If yes, optional wetland site ID:

HYDROLOGY


X Surface Water (A1)

X High Water Table (A2)

X Saturation (A3)

Water Marks (B1)

Sediment Deposits (B2)

Drift Deposits (B3)


Iron Deposits (B5)

X


Depth (inches):

Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes X No





Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)

1"


Yes X No

Wetland hydrology

present?

Wetland 1


Field Observations:



Saturation present?

Depth (inches):

NoXYes

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)

Aquatic Fauna (B13)

Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)


0"


X No

0"

Yes

Remarks: Primary and secondary hydrology indicators present.

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast Region

Luzerne 12/8/15

PennEast

Huntington Township

Slope (%): 0-3%


Applicant/Owner:

Investigator(s):

Sampling Date:Grajewski FarmProject/Site: City/County:

DP1Sampling Point:

concave

PAState:

Depression

LB, DW, TH Section, Township, Range:

Datum:41.19726 Long.: -76.20588


Lat.:

n/a

X NoYes

Soil Map Unit NameHolly silt loam (Ho)

X

X

Marl Deposits (B15)



Dry-Season Water Table (C2)






required)



Remarks: Clear skies, high of 45 degrees. Data point located in PEM portion of Wetland 1. Wetland connects to UNT 1, 2, and 3.

X

Crayfish Burrows (C8)


Yes X No

Moss Trim Lines (B16)

US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region – Version 2.0



1 (A)

2

3 (B)

4

5

6 (A/B)



OBL species x 1 =

FACW species x 2 =

FAC species x 3 =


2 UPL species x 5 =




6 X 1 - Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

= Total Cover

1

2

3

4

= Total Cover


Juncus effusus

Carex sp.

Herb Stratum (Plot Size:_________5'______)

Woody vine Stratum (Plot Size:______________

Hydrophytic

vegetation

present?

Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation present.

Percent of Dominant


FACW, or FAC:

2

Yes X No




100.00%

Tree Stratum (Plot Size:_______________)



Number of Dominant


FACW, or FAC: 2

Dominant

Species

Indicator

Staus

Indicator

Staus

Absolute

% Cover

Absolute

% Cover

Dominant

Species

10 N FAC

Dominant

Species

35 Y FACW

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size:____________

Absolute

% Cover

Dominant

Species

Indicator

Staus

Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at

breast height (DBH), regardless of height.






height.

Indicator

Staus

65

Sampling Point: DP1



separate sheet)

Absolute

% Cover


(explain)20 Y OBL


SOIL



Histisol (A1) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B

Histic Epipedon (A2) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R)

Black Histic (A3) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R)

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L

Stratified Layers (A5) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L)

Depleted Below Dark Suface (A11) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L)

Thick Dark Surface (A12) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R)

Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) X Depleted Matrix (F3) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B)

Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B)

Sandy Redox (S5) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (TF2)

Stripped Matrix (S6) Redox Depressions (F8) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)




X No

Depth

(Inches)


Hydric soil present?Type:

0-10" 157.5 YR 5/68510 YR 4/1

Color (moist) Remarks

Thin Dark Surface (S9)

(LRR R, MLRA 149B

Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)

(LRR K, L)

Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA

149B)

Depth (inches):

Yes

Polyvalue Below Surface (S8)

(LRR R, MLRA 149B)


DP1

Remarks: Soils exhibit hydric indicators.

Sampling Point:

Matrix

% Type*

Redox Features

Texture

SiLMC

Color (moist) % Loc**


NWI Classification:







HYDROLOGY


Surface Water (A1)


X Saturation (A3)

Water Marks (B1)


Drift Deposits (B3)


Iron Deposits (B5)

Descrive recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Depth (inches):

X No







Yes X No

Wetland hydrology

present?

Wetland 1


Field Observations:



Saturation present?

Depth (inches):

NoYes X

4"


X


Aquatic Fauna (B13)



No

4"

Yes

Remarks: Primary hydrologic indicators present.


Luzerne 12/8/15

PennEast

Huntington Township

Slope (%): 0-3%


Applicant/Owner:

Investigator(s):


DP2Sampling Point:

Concave

PAState:

Depression


Datum:41.79893 Long.: -76.20646


Lat.:

PSS1/ EM5C

X NoYes

Soil Map Unit NameChenango gravelly loam (ChA)

X

X

Marl Deposits (B15)









required)



Remarks: Clear skies, high of 45 degrees. DP2 was taken at border of PEM and PFO portion of Wetland 1.

X



Yes X No






1 (A)

2

3 (B)

4

5

6 (A/B)



OBL species x 1 =

FACW species x 2 =

FAC species x 3 =


2 UPL species x 5 =







1

2

3

4

5

6

7

= Total Cover

1

2

3

4

= Total Cover

Solidago rugosa

Carex sp.

Euthamia graminifolia

Rubus flagellaris

Thelypteris palustris

Herb Stratum (Plot Size:______5'_________)

Woody vine Stratum (Plot Size:______15'_____

Hydrophytic

vegetation

present?


Acer rubrum

20

Percent of Dominant


FACW, or FAC:

Yes X No

100.00%

5

FACW




Tree Stratum (Plot Size:______30'_______)



Number of Dominant


FACW, or FAC: 5

Dominant

Species

Indicator

Staus

Indicator

Staus

Absolute

% Cover

Cephalanthus occidentalis


Sampling Point: DP2

60

40

Dominant

Species

20 Y FAC

Y

FAC

60








height.



separate sheet)

Absolute

% Cover

Dominant

Species

Y OBL

10 N FACU

5 N

10 N FAC

Absolute

% Cover

Dominant

Species

Indicator

Staus

60

Indicator

Staus

60

Cornus amomum

15 Y FAC

Y FACW

Absolute

% Cover


(explain)


SOIL

















X No

Depth

(Inches)



0-12" 207.5 YR 5/68010 YR 4/1



(LRR R, MLRA 149B

Yes


(LRR R, MLRA 149B)



Sampling Point:

Matrix

% Type*

Redox Features

Texture

SiLMC


DP2


(LRR K, L)


149B)

Depth (inches):


NWI Classification:







HYDROLOGY




X Saturation (A3)

Water Marks (B1)


Drift Deposits (B3)


Iron Deposits (B5)

X


Depth (inches):

X No






1"


Yes X No

Wetland hydrology

present?

Wetland 1


Field Observations:



Saturation present?

Depth (inches):

NoXYes


Aquatic Fauna (B13)



0"


X No

0"

Yes

Remarks: Primary and secondary hydrologic indicators present.


Luzerne 12/8/15

PennEast

Huntington Township

Slope (%): 0-3%


Applicant/Owner:

Investigator(s):


DP3Sampling Point:

Concave

PAState:

Depression


Datum:41.19862 Long.: -76.20645


Lat.:

PSS1/ EM5C

X NoYes

Soil Map Unit NameBraceville gravelly loam (BrB)

X

X

Marl Deposits (B15)









required)



Remarks: Clear skies and high of 45 degrees. DP3 was taken in PSS portion of wetland1.

X



Yes X No






1 (A)

2

3 (B)

4

5

6 (A/B)



OBL species x 1 =

FACW species x 2 =

FAC species x 3 =


2 UPL species x 5 =







1

2

a

4

5

6

7

= Total Cover

1

2

3

4

= Total Cover


Glyceria striata

Onoclea sensibilis

Polygonum sagittatum

Symplocarpus foetidus

Herb Stratum (Plot Size:_______5'________)


Hydrophytic

vegetation

present?


5

Percent of Dominant


FACW, or FAC:

Yes X No

100.00%

4

OBL




Tree Stratum (Plot Size:_______30'________)



Number of Dominant


FACW, or FAC: 4

Dominant

Species

Indicator

Staus

Indicator

Staus

Absolute

% Cover

Absolute

% Cover

Dominant

Species

Y OBL

15 N OBL

10 N

15 N FACW

Dominant

Species

50 Y FACW

Alnus serrulata


Absolute

% Cover

Dominant

Species

Indicator

Staus








height.

0

Indicator

Staus

120

Sampling Point: DP3



separate sheet)

20

15 Y FACW

Absolute

% Cover


(explain)

Cornus amomum

30 Y OBL


SOIL

















X No

Depth

(Inches)



0-12" 57.5 YR 5/69510 YR 4/1



(LRR R, MLRA 149B

Yes


(LRR R, MLRA 149B)



Sampling Point:

Matrix

% Type*

Redox Features

Texture

SiLMC


DP3


(LRR K, L)


149B)

Depth (inches):


NWI Classification:







HYDROLOGY


Surface Water (A1)


X Saturation (A3)

Water Marks (B1)

Sediment Deposits (B2) X

Drift Deposits (B3)


Iron Deposits (B5)


X

X

Marl Deposits (B15)









required)



Remarks: Clear skies, high of 45 degrees. DP4 was taken at border between PEM and PFO boundary of wetland.

X



Yes X No


Datum:41.19789 Long.: -76.20757


Lat.:

PSS1/ EM5C

X NoYes

Soil Map Unit NameChanengo gravelly loam (ChA)


Luzerne 12/8/15

PennEast

Huntington Township

Slope (%): 0-3%


Applicant/Owner:

Investigator(s):


DP4Sampling Point:

Concave

PAState:

Depression


6"


X No

6"

Yes


Wetland hydrology

present?

Wetland 1


Field Observations:



Saturation present?

Depth (inches):

NoYes X


Aquatic Fauna (B13)



Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes X No







Yes X No

Depth (inches):




1 (A)

2

3 (B)

4

5

6 (A/B)



OBL species x 1 =

FACW species x 2 =

FAC species x 3 =


2 UPL species x 5 =







1

2

a

4

5

6

7

= Total Cover

1

2

3

4

= Total Cover


(explain)25 Y FACW

Sampling Point: DP4



separate sheet)

Absolute

% Cover

0

Indicator

Staus


Absolute

% Cover

Dominant

Species

Indicator

Staus








height.

Dominant

Species

Indicator

Staus

Indicator

Staus

Absolute

% Cover

Absolute

% Cover

Dominant

Species

Dominant

Species

90 Y FACW




Number of Dominant


FACW, or FAC: 2

2




Hydrophytic

vegetation

present?


Percent of Dominant


FACW, or FAC:

Yes X No

100.00%


Onoclea sensibilis

Herb Stratum (Plot Size:_______________)



SOIL


















Sampling Point:

Matrix

% Type*

Redox Features

Texture

SiLMC


DP4


(LRR K, L)


149B)

Depth (inches):

Yes


(LRR R, MLRA 149B)


X No

Depth

(Inches)



0-12" 207.5 YR 5/68010 YR 4/1



(LRR R, MLRA 149B


NWI Classification:







HYDROLOGY




X Saturation (A3)

Water Marks (B1)

Sediment Deposits (B2) X

Drift Deposits (B3)


Iron Deposits (B5)


Depth (inches):

X No






2"


Yes X No

Wetland hydrology

present?

Wetland 2


Field Observations:



Saturation present?

Depth (inches):

NoXYes


Aquatic Fauna (B13)



0"


X No

0"

Yes



Luzerne 12/8/15

PennEast

Huntington Township

Slope (%): 0-3%


Applicant/Owner:

Investigator(s):


DP5Sampling Point:

none

PAState:

pasture


Datum:41.19991 Long.: -76.20991


Lat.:

n/a

X NoYes

Soil Map Unit NameHolly silt loam (Ho)

X

X

Marl Deposits (B15)









required)



Remarks: Clear skies, high of 45 degrees. DP5 was taken in the very northern isolated wetland pocket on the border between a corn field and forest.

X



Yes X No






1 (A)

2

3 (B)

4

5

6 (A/B)



OBL species x 1 =

FACW species x 2 =

FAC species x 3 =


2 UPL species x 5 =







1

2

a

4

5

6

7

= Total Cover

1

2

3

4

= Total Cover


Zea mays

Solidago rugosa



Hydrophytic

vegetation

present?

Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Hydrophytic vegetation present.

Percent of Dominant


FACW, or FAC:

Yes X No

67.00%

3







Number of Dominant


FACW, or FAC: 2

Dominant

Species

Indicator

Staus

Indicator

Staus

Absolute

% Cover

Absolute

% Cover

Dominant

Species

20 Y FAC

Dominant

Species

40 Y FACW


Absolute

% Cover

Dominant

Species

Indicator

Staus








height.

0

Indicator

Staus

100

Sampling Point: DP5



separate sheet)

Absolute

% Cover


(explain)40 Y UPL


SOIL

















X No

Depth

(Inches)


Hydric soil present?Fragipan Type:

0-6" 207.5 YR 5/68010 YR 4/1


Fragipan at 6"


(LRR R, MLRA 149B

6"

Yes


(LRR R, MLRA 149B)


Remarks: Soil exhibits hydric indicators. Fragipan at depth of 6".

Sampling Point:

Matrix

% Type*

Redox Features

Texture

SiLMC


DP5


(LRR K, L)


149B)

Depth (inches):


NWI Classification:







HYDROLOGY


Surface Water (A1)


Saturation (A3)

Water Marks (B1)


Drift Deposits (B3)


Iron Deposits (B5)


Depth (inches):

X No







Yes No X

Wetland hydrology

present?


Field Observations:



Saturation present?

Depth (inches):

NoYes X


Aquatic Fauna (B13)



Yes No X Depth (inches):

XNoYes

Remarks: No primary or secondary hydrologic indicators present.


Luzerne 12/8/15

PennEast

Huntington Township

Slope (%): 0-3%


Applicant/Owner:

Investigator(s):


DP6Sampling Point:

None

PAState:

pasture


Datum:41.194905 Long.: -76.209219


Lat.:

n/a

X NoYes

Soil Map Unit Name Mardin channery silt loam (MaB)

N

N

Marl Deposits (B15)









required)



Remarks: Mainly sunny, high of 45 degrees. DP6 is an upland point in the southwestern portion of the Investigation Area.

N



Yes No X






1 (A)

2

3 (B)

4

5

6 (A/B)



OBL species x 1 =

FACW species x 2 =

FAC species x 3 =


2 UPL species x 5 =





7 2 - Dominance test is >50%


1

2

a

4

5

6

7

= Total Cover

1

2

3

4

= Total Cover

Lolium perenne

Phluem pratense

Anthoxanthum odoratum

Herb Stratum (Plot Size:_______5'________)


Hydrophytic

vegetation

present?

Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation is not present.

X

Percent of Dominant


FACW, or FAC:

Yes No

0.00%

4.00

3

*Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic


220




Number of Dominant


FACW, or FAC: 0

Dominant

Species

Indicator

Staus

Indicator

Staus

Absolute

% Cover

Absolute

% Cover

Dominant

Species

15 Y FACU

Dominant

Species

25 Y FACU


Absolute

% Cover

Dominant

Species

Indicator

Staus








height.

0

Indicator

Staus

55

Sampling Point: DP6

4 - Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a

separate sheet)

220

Absolute

% Cover

5 - Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain)

55

55

15 Y FACU


SOIL










Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Matrix (F3) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B)







No X

Depth

(Inches)


Hydric soil present?FragiapanType:

0-6" 10010 YR 4/4


Restrictive layer at 6"


(LRR R, MLRA 149B

6"

Yes


(LRR R, MLRA 149B)


Remarks: Soils exhibited no hydric indicators. A fragipan was observed at a depth of 6".

Sampling Point:

Matrix

% Type*

Redox Features

Texture

SiL


DP6


(LRR K, L)


149B)

Depth (inches):


NWI Classification:







HYDROLOGY


Surface Water (A1)

High Water Table (A2) X

X Saturation (A3)

Water Marks (B1)


Drift Deposits (B3)


Iron Deposits (B5)


X

X

Marl Deposits (B15)









required)



Remarks: Mainly sunny, high of 45 degrees. DP7 is a PEM data point taken in the southwestern portion of the wetland.

X



Yes X No



Datum:41.194982 Long.: -76.207775


Lat.:

n/a

X NoYes

Soil Map Unit Name Rexford loam (RdA)


Luzerne 12/8/15

PennEast

Huntington Township

Slope (%): 0-3%


Applicant/Owner:

Investigator(s):


DP7Sampling Point:

Concave

PAState:

Depression


XNo

0"

Yes

Remarks: Primary and secondary hydrologic indicators present.


Aquatic Fauna (B13)




Field Observations:



Saturation present?

Depth (inches):

NoYes X


X No







Yes X No

Wetland hydrology

present?

Wetland 1

Depth (inches):




1 (A)

2

3 (B)

4

5

6 (A/B)



OBL species x 1 =

FACW species x 2 =

FAC species x 3 =


2 UPL species x 5 =







1

2

a

4

5

6

7

= Total Cover

1

2

3

4

= Total Cover

30 Y FACW

Absolute

% Cover

5 - Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain)

0

Y

Indicator

Staus

160

15 Y FACW

10

Absolute

% Cover

Dominant

Species

Indicator

Staus








height.

4 - Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a

separate sheet)

Absolute

% Cover

Dominant

Species

FAC

25 Y OBL

25 Y

25 Y FACW

Dominant

Species

30 Y OBL

Dominant

Species

Indicator

Staus

Indicator

Staus

Absolute

% Cover


Sampling Point: DP7




Number of Dominant


FACW, or FAC: 7

7

FACW

*Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic


Hydrophytic

vegetation

present?


Percent of Dominant


FACW, or FAC:

Yes X No

100.00%

Verbena hastata

Euthamia graminifolia

Scripus cyperinus


Bidens frondosa

Carex lurida

Onoclea sensibilis

Herb Stratum (Plot Size:___5'____________)



SOIL

















Remarks: Soils exhibited a depleted matrix hydric indicator. A fragipan was observed to a depth of 6".

Sampling Point:

Matrix

% Type*

Redox Features

Texture

SiLMC


DP7


(LRR K, L)


149B)

Depth (inches): 6"

Yes


(LRR R, MLRA 149B)


X No

Depth

(Inches)


Hydric soil present?Fragipan Type:

0-6" 207.5 YR 5/68010 YR 4/1


Fragipan at 6"


(LRR R, MLRA 149B


14:AW5907_T0714-03/16/09-D1

PA

Luzerne

12/8/15

✔

✔

DW, LB, TH

✔

✔

SW

1-2ft

1-2ft

✔

✔

✔

✔

1'

✔

1'

✔

1'

✔ ✔

✔

✔

✔ 15

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

UNT 1

reed canary grass

watercress

UNT 1 has a confluence with UNT 3 and then begins to flow south, as well as aconfluence with UNT 2 and continues to flow south.

14:AW5907_T0714-03/16/09-D1

PA

Luzerne

12/8/15

✔

✔

DW, LB, TH

✔

✔

E

1-2ft

1-2ft

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

1'

✔

1'

✔

1'

✔ ✔

✔

✔

✔ 15

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

UNT 2

reed canary grass

watercress

UNT 2 has a confluence with UNT 1 and then begins to flow south.

14:AW5907_T0714-03/16/09-D1

PA

Luzerne

12/8/15

✔

✔

DW, LB, TH

✔

✔

SE

1-2ft

1-2ft

✔

✔

✔

✔

1'

✔

1'

✔

1'

✔ ✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

UNT 3

watercress

UNT 3 has a confluence with UNT 1 and then continues to flow south.

ATTACMENT B PHOTOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION


M:\WHM CONSULTING\PROJECTS\MITIGATION _PROJECTS\LUZERNE\Grajewski Property\GRAJEWSKI - Upper Central Susquehanna\WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT\REAE Wetland Report Mitigation\Photo Page.Docx

ID: Photo 1 Date: 12/08/15 Taken by: DW Comments: This photo depicts a western view from the eastern boundary of Wetland 1.

ID: Photo 2 Date: 12/08/15 Taken by: DW Comments: This photo shows a southern view from the northern isolated pocket of Wetland 1.



ID: Photo 3 Date: 12/08/15 Taken by: DW Comments: This photo depicts a southern view from the northern boundary of the main section of Wetland 1.

ID: Photo 4 Date: 12/08/15 Taken by: DW Comments: This photo depicts a southern view across the majority of Wetland 1.



ID: Photo 6 Date: 12/08/15 Taken by: DW Comments: This photo depicts a southern view from the southern boundary of Wetland 1.

ID: Photo 5 Date: 12/08/15 Taken by: DW Comments: This photo depicts an eastern view from the western boundary of Wetland 1.



ID: Photo 8 Date: 12/08/15 Taken by: DW Comments: This photo shows a northern view from the southern boundary of Wetland 1.

ID: Photo 7 Date: 12/08/15 Taken by: DW Comments: This photo shows an eastern view from the western boundary of Wetland 1.

ATTACHMENT C WATER RESOURCE SUMMARY TABLE

Waters Name Cowardin Code HGM Code

Estimated

Amount of

Aquatic

Resource in

Review Area (sq

ft)

Estimated Amount

of Aquatic

Resource in Review

Area Linear (ft)

Estimated

Channel

Width (ft)

Water

Types

Latitude (dd nad

83)

Longitude (dd nad

83)Local Waterway

Stream Type (P‐

Perennial, I‐

Intermittent, or E‐

Ephemeral)

Wetland 1 PEM DEPRESS 354,595 N/A N/A RPWWD 41.19571 ‐76.20754 Huntington Creek N/A

Wetland 1 PSS DEPRESS 93,249 N/A N/A RPWWD 41.19687 ‐76.20781 Huntington Creek N/A

Wetland 1 PFO DEPRESS 33,283 N/A N/A RPWWD 41.19774 ‐76.20695 Huntington Creek N/A

UNT 1 R3 RIVERINE 570 380 1‐2 RPW 41.19828 ‐76.20570 Huntington Creek P

UNT 2 R3 RIVERINE 354 236 1‐2 RPW 41.19740 ‐76.20680 Huntington Creek P

UNT 3 R3 RIVERINE 2,238 1,492 1‐2 RPW 41.19874 ‐76.20680 Huntington Creek P

484,289 2,108

GRAJEWSKI PROPERTY

WATER RESOURCE SUMMARY TABLE

Total

ATTACHMENT D

RESUMES






















Education


Certifications

























Curtis George, Environmental Technician

Curtis George graduated from the Pennsylvania State University with a B.S. degree in Environmental Resource Management and minors in Watershed and Water Resource Management and Wildlife and Fisheries sciences. Throughout his career, Curtis has worked with private, state and federal agencies to gain experience performing a wide range of biological tasks throughout the United States. He has a background with wetlands and watershed management and has gained lots of knowledge performing surveys and using GIS software.

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

Environmental Experience

• Led wetland crews to perform wetland delineations for proposed construction sites;

• Participated in surveys of biological and physical parameters for stream restoration projects;

• Performed construction oversight for wetland creation projects;

• Performed a variety of biological surveys for birds, macroinvertebrates, herps, fish and plants;

• Controlled invasive plants and animal species using both manual and chemical means;

• Raised fish for stocking in state waterways;

• Contributed to report writing and permit preparation;

• Performed post construction monitoring on various oil and gas related projects.

Mapping and Surveying

• Used survey grade Trimble equipment to perform RTK elevation surveys for various biological and resiliency projects.

• Performed bathymetry surveys for creating sediment and water movement models;

• Utilized GIS software to create maps for various projects and to manipulate survey data;

• Performed surveys and tasks using Trimble Juno Series and GeoHX handheld GPS units;

• Used various GPS units to navigate the back country.

EDUCATION

• B.S. Environmental Resource Management, the Pennsylvania State University, 2010

HEALTH & SAFETY CERTIFICATIONS & TRAINING-

• ISN-03894196

• Atlantic Sunrise safety training – September 2017

• Kinder Morgan Safety Orientation – October 2017

• Adult First Aid/CPR– American Heart Association, Pennsylvania – June 2015

• OSHA 40 Hour HAZWOPER Training; All Probe Environmental; October 2017

PROFESSIONAL TRAINING

• Stream Habitat and Measurements Techniques – National Conservation Training Center – Shepherdstown, WV, March 2017

• FWS Geospatial Workshop – National Conservation Training Center – Shepherdstown, WV, March 2016

• Overview of Wetland Delineation Protocols and the Interim NC/NE Regional Supplement to the USACE Delineation Manual – State College, PA, April 2011

Cameron Clark, Environmental Technician

Cameron Clark is a graduate from The Pennsylvania State University in 2016, where he was awarded a Bachelors degree in Wildlife and Fisheries Science. Mr. Clark is a certified Timber Rattlesnake Monitor of WHM. Mr. Clark has over 2 years of professional experience with handling venous reptiles and also field experience on pipeline construction projects and wetland delineations.

Professional Experience General Environmental Projects

• Located and removed Timber Rattlesnakes from pipeline work area;

• Used a Trimble GPS for mapping boundaries for mapping purposes; • Participated in Phase 2 Timber Rattlesnake Den Habitat surveys; • Conducted vegetation surveys to map forest density, and; • Used ratio-telemetry to track Timber Rattlesnakes.

Wetland and Stream Restoration Projects

• Performed wetland monitoring and maintenance on various wetlands; • Practiced wetland delineations using US Army Corps of Engineers Wetland

Delineation Manual 1987 and applicable regional supplements; • Helped construct dams, cross veins and mud sills to improve stream habitat for

trout species; • Delineated wetlands and water resources at several projects throughout

Pennsylvania; • Carried out small mammal surveys to predict population density; • Completed trail reconstruction projects to improve recreational opportunities.

Education • B.A., Wildlife and Fisheries Science, ,

The Pennsylvania State University, 2016 Professional Training • OHSA 40 Hour HAZWOPER

Training; All Probe Environmental; April 2018

• OSHA 8 Hour HAZWOPER Refresher Training; All Probe Environmental; March 2019

• Williams Safety Training; April 2018, May 2019

PA SFI® Training; Prof. Timber Harvesting of Logging - Level 1; May 2012

PA SFI® Training; Prof. Timber Wildlife - Young Forest Initiative, Game of Logging - Level 1; May 2012

Assessments (Ch. 105) – June 2017 Provider – Wetlands (Interdisciplinary) Biological Components, Pennsylvania

APPENDIX D OFFSITE COMPENSATORY WETLAND MITIGATION SUMMARY TABLE

Facility Crossing Milepost Feature ID Wetland

Type

Chapter

105.17Impact Type Mitigation Ratio

Temporary Conversion 187 0.00 1 187 0.00

Permanent Conversion 447 0.01 1.75 782 0.02

Temporary Conversion 1,395 0.03 1 1,395 0.03

Permanent Conversion 729 0.02 1.5 1,094 0.03




PFO to PSS Conversion 2,249 0.05 2 4,498 0.10

Permanent Conversion 3,698 0.08 2.5 9,245 0.21


PFO to PSS Conversion 153 0.00 2 306 0.01



PFO to PSS Conversion 113 0.00 1.5 170 0.00

Permanent Conversion 234 0.01 2 468 0.01



57 W3a‐T1 PFO Other Temporary Conversion 201 0.00 1 201 0.00







PFO to PSS Conversion 561 0.013 2 1,122 0.026







PSS Temporary Conversion 2,023 0.05 1 2,023 0.05










1.7 W38‐T3 PFO Other Temporary Conversion 470 0.01 1 470 0.01






















POW POW 824 0.02 0 0 0.00








Permanent Conversion 620 0.01 1.75 1,085 0.02




REL‐2 1 W41‐T3 PSS EV

REL‐3

REL‐5

EVREL‐19,

REL‐AR‐114.2 W96‐t2

PSS

PFO

REL‐20,

REL‐AR‐12

REL‐18 4.2 W14‐T5 PSS Other

REL‐15,

REL‐AR‐93.8 W31‐T3

PFOEV

PFO

1.5 W39‐T3 PFO EV

1.3

2.9REL‐13,

REL‐AR‐8W42‐T1 EV

PSS

PFO

REL‐12 2.7 W1‐T4 PFO Other

4.5 W15b‐T5PFO

EV

4.5 W48‐T1 PSS EV

REL‐21 4.6 W49‐T1

PSS

PFO

EV

EL‐11

57.4EL‐16 W8‐T1 PSS EV

EL‐13


W10‐T4

1.3 W10a‐T4 PFO EV

1.6 W103‐T2 PFO EV

EV

REL‐1 0.5 W79‐T1 PFO EV

Appendix D

Offsite Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Summary

Wetland Mitigation

(sq.ft. / acres)

W4‐T3

W12‐T255.2

Other

Effort Loop ‐ Philadelphia USA

CE District

EL‐2

EL‐5

Impacted Area

(sq.ft. / acres)

45.8

46.3 W2‐T2 PSS

W4‐T6 PSS EV

W1‐T1 PSS EV

EV

EL‐7

EL‐19

W3‐T1 PFO EV57

49.4

53.7 W9‐T2 PFO

56.9 W15‐T2 PFO EV

PFO EV

PFO OtherEL‐12 56.6

Regional Energy Lateral ‐ Philadelphia USA

CE District


Type

Chapter


Appendix D


Wetland Mitigation

(sq.ft. / acres)

Impacted Area

(sq.ft. / acres)






















0 0.00 PFO to PSS Functional Conversion Mitigation 49,531 1.14

38,377 0.88 PSS Functional Conversion Mitigation 43,402 1.00

126,760 2.91 PFO Functional Conversion Mitigation 134,678 3.09

Temporary Conversion 1,449 0.03 1 to 1 1,449 0.03

Permanent Conversion 258 0.01 1.75 to 1 452 0.01

Temporary Conversion 968 0.02 1 to 1 968 0.02

PFO to PSS Conversion 555 0.01 2 to 1 1,110 0.03


REL‐35 8 W17‐T13 PSS EV Temporary Conversion 534 0.01 1 to 1 534 0.01

PSS Temporary Conversion 223 0.01 1 to 1 223 0.01


PFO to PSS Conversion 151 0.00 2 to 1 302 0.01




REL‐45 10.5 W71‐T2 PSS EV Temporary Conversion 152 0.00 1 to 1 152 0.00

REL‐46 10.9 W1‐T10 PSS EV Temporary Conversion 2 0.00 1 to 1 2 0.00




11 W160‐T2 PFO Other Temporary Conversion 94 0.00 1 to 1 94 0.00

REL‐51 11.8 W46‐T2 PSS Other Temporary Conversion 59 0.00 1 to 1 59 0.00

REL‐55 13 W20‐T3 PFO Other Temporary Conversion 778 0.02 1 to 1 778 0.02

REL‐57 13.8 W12‐T1 PFO Other Temporary Conversion 8,252 0.19 1 to 1 8,252 0.19


PFO to PSS Conversion 68 0.00 1.5 to 1 102 0.00

Permanent Conversion 66 0.00 2 to 1 132 0.00




PFO to PSS Conversion 696 0.02 1.5 to 1 1,044 0.02






PFO to PSS Conversion 3,827 0.09 1.5 to 1 5,741 0.13

Permanent Conversion 2,309 0.05 2 to 1 4,618 0.11


PFO to PSS Conversion 3,049 0.07 2 to 1 6,098 0.14

Permanent Conversion 1,832 0.04 2.5 to 1 4,580 0.11








REL‐80 20.5

REL‐24 5.3 W86‐T2 PFO

W60‐T1

PSS

PFO

Other

18.7 W6‐T13 EV

Other


REL‐26 5.7 W13‐T5

EV

4.9 W9‐T5 PFO EV

REL‐23

5 W4‐T12 PFO Other

REL‐22,

REL‐AR‐134.7 W97‐T2

PFO

REL‐77 PFO

PFO EV


REL‐28 6.7 W132‐T2 PSS EV


PFOREL‐39 9.4 W36‐T1 EV

PFO EV

W30‐T2 PSS Other

REL‐58 14 W61‐T1 PFO Other

REL‐59 14 W62‐T1

REL‐47

Regional Energy Lateral ‐ Baltimore USA

CE District

Total Philadelphia USACE District

Overall Permanent PEM Impacts

Overall Temporary and Permanent Functional Conversion PSS Impacts

Overall Temporary and Permanent Functional Conversion PFO Impacts

REL‐68PFO

15.6 W15‐T3 Other

REL‐61


PFO Other

REL‐65 15.4

10.9 W2‐T10

14.8 W11‐T3

PFO Other

REL‐79 20.4 W59‐T1 PSS Other


Type

Chapter


Appendix D


Wetland Mitigation

(sq.ft. / acres)

Impacted Area

(sq.ft. / acres)


Permanent Conversion 863 0.02 1.75 to 1 1,510 0.03



Permanent Conversion 821 0.02 2.5 to 1 2,053 0.05
























REL‐86 22.2 W81‐T2

PSS

PFO

EV

21.1 W83‐T2PFO

EV

REL‐84 21.8 W44‐T3 PSS EV

Mitigation Ratios

2.5:1 for permanent conversion impacts to PFO wetlands that are Exceptional Value (EV)

2:1 for permanent conversion impacts to PFO wetlands that are non‐EV and PFO to PSS conversions that are EV

1.75:1 for permanent conversion impacts to PSS wetlands that are EV

1.5:1 for permanent conversion impacts to PSS wetlands that are non‐EV and PFO to PSS conversions that are non‐EV

1.25:1 for permanent conversion impacts to PEM wetlands that are EV

1:1 for permanent conversion impacts to PEM wetlands that are non‐EV

1:1 for temporary conversion impacts to PSS or PFO wetlands that are EV or non‐EV (these wetlands will include onsite replanting)


21 EV



SUMMARY PER PIPELINE COMPONENT

W15‐T4

PSS

PFOREL‐83

OVERALL WETLAND IMPACT AND MITIGATION SUMMARY (COMBINED BALTIMORE AND PHILADELPHIA DISTRICTS)




Total Baltimore USACE District

Effort Loop




Regional Energy Lateral




APPENDIX E PHOTOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION

WHM Consulting, Inc. 2 March 2021

M:\WHM CONSULTING\PROJECTS\WILLIAMS-19-238 (REA)\MITIGATION\Appendix S4 – 3 Compensatory Offsite Mitigation Plan\Appendix E - Photographic Documentation\Mitigation Area - Photopage_030821.docx

ID: Photo 1

Date: 12/08/15

Taken by: DW

Comments: This photo depicts a western view from the eastern boundary of Wetland 1 at the Grajewski Property Mitigation Site.

ID: Photo 2

Date: 12/08/15

Taken by: DW

Comments: This photo shows a southern view from the northern isolated pocket of Wetland 1 at the Grajewski Property Mitigation Site.



ID: Photo 3

Date: 12/08/15

Taken by: DW

Comments: This photo depicts a southern view from the northern boundary of the main section of Wetland 1 at the Grajewski Property Mitigation Site.

ID: Photo 4

Date: 12/08/15

Taken by: DW

Comments: This photo depicts a southern view across the majority of Wetland 1 at the Grajewski Property Mitigation Site.



ID: Photo 6

Date: 9/17/20

Taken by: CB

Comments: This photo shows an eastern view of the PEM portion of Wetland 1 at the Perin Property Mitigation Site.

ID: Photo 5

Date: 9/17/20

Taken by: CB

Comments: This photo shows a view of Wetland 1 at the Perin Property Mitigation Site.



ID: Photo 7

Date: 9/7/20

Taken by: PB

Comments: This photo shows a southern view of a PEM and PSS break with a PSS and PFO break in the background within Wetland 1 at the Perin Property Mitigation Site.

ID: Photo 8

Date: 9/7/20

Taken by: PB

Comments: This photo shows a northern view of a PEM and PSS break within Wetland 1 at the Perin Property Mitigation Site.

APPENDIX F PENNSYLVANIA NATURAL DIVERSITY INDEX ENVIRONNEMENTAL

REVIEW RECEIPT


Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Project Search ID: PNDI-731161PNDI Receipt: project_receipt_perin_farm_wetland_mitiga_731161_FINAL_1.pdf

1. PROJECT INFORMATION

Project Name: Perin Farm Wetland Mitigation SiteDate of Review: 3/31/2021 09:00:28 AMProject Category: Habitat Conservation and Restoration, Wetland Restoration, Wetland Creation, or WetlandEnhancementProject Area: 25.09 acres County(s): NorthamptonTownship/Municipality(s): PLAINFIELD TOWNSHIPZIP Code: Quadrangle Name(s): BANGORWatersheds HUC 8: Middle Delaware-MusconetcongWatersheds HUC 12: Martins Creek-Delaware RiverDecimal Degrees: 40.844806, -75.236819Degrees Minutes Seconds: 40° 50' 41.3025" N, 75° 14' 12.5482" W

2. SEARCH RESULTS

Agency Results ResponsePA Game Commission No Known Impact No Further Review Required

PA Department of Conservation andNatural Resources

No Known Impact No Further Review Required

PA Fish and Boat Commission No Known Impact No Further Review Required

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Potential Impact MORE INFORMATION REQUIRED, SeeAgency Response

As summarized above, Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) records indicate there may be potentialimpacts to threatened and endangered and/or special concern species and resources within the project area. If theresponse above indicates "No Further Review Required" no additional communication with the respective agency isrequired. If the response is "Further Review Required" or "See Agency Response," refer to the appropriate agencycomments below. Please see the DEP Information Section of this receipt if a PA Department of EnvironmentalProtection Permit is required.

Page 1 of 7


Page 2 of 7


Page 3 of 7


RESPONSE TO QUESTION(S) ASKED

Q1: Accurately describe what is known about wetland presence in the project area or on the land parcel by selectingONE of the following. "Project" includes all features of the project (including buildings, roads, utility lines, outfall andintake structures, wells, stormwater retention/detention basins, parking lots, driveways, lawns, etc.), as well as allassociated impacts (e.g., temporary staging areas, work areas, temporary road crossings, areas subject to grading orclearing, etc.). Include all areas that will be permanently or temporarily affected -- either directly or indirectly -- by anytype of disturbance (e.g., land clearing, grading, tree removal, flooding, etc.). Land parcel = the lot(s) on which sometype of project(s) or activity(s) are proposed to occur.Your answer is: Someone qualified to identify and delineate wetlands has investigated the site, and determined thatwetlands ARE located in or within 300 feet of the project area. (A written report from the wetland specialist, anddetailed project maps should document this.)

3. AGENCY COMMENTSRegardless of whether a DEP permit is necessary for this proposed project, any potential impacts to threatenedand endangered species and/or special concern species and resources must be resolved with the appropriatejurisdictional agency. In some cases, a permit or authorization from the jurisdictional agency may be needed ifadverse impacts to these species and habitats cannot be avoided. These agency determinations and responses are valid for two years (from the date of the review), and arebased on the project information that was provided, including the exact project location; the project type,description, and features; and any responses to questions that were generated during this search. If any of thefollowing change: 1) project location, 2) project size or configuration, 3) project type, or 4) responses to thequestions that were asked during the online review, the results of this review are not valid, and the review mustbe searched again via the PNDI Environmental Review Tool and resubmitted to the jurisdictional agencies. ThePNDI tool is a primary screening tool, and a desktop review may reveal more or fewer impacts than what is listedon this PNDI receipt. The jursidictional agencies strongly advise against conducting surveys for the specieslisted on the receipt prior to consultation with the agencies.

PA Game CommissionRESPONSE: No Impact is anticipated to threatened and endangered species and/or special concern species and resources.

PA Department of Conservation and Natural ResourcesRESPONSE: No Impact is anticipated to threatened and endangered species and/or special concern species and resources.

PA Fish and Boat CommissionRESPONSE: No Impact is anticipated to threatened and endangered species and/or special concern species and resources.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceRESPONSE:

Page 4 of 7


Information Request: Conduct a Bog Turtle Habitat (Phase 1) Survey in accordance with USFWS Guidelines for BogTurtle Surveys (April 2020). Evaluate all wetlands within 300 feet of the project area, which includes all areas that willbe impacted by earth disturbance or project features (e.g., roads, structures, utility lines, lawns, detention basins,staging areas, etc.). IF THE PHASE 1 SURVEY IS DONE BY A QUALIFIED BOG TURTLE SURVEYOR (see https://www.fws.gov/northeast/pafo/endangered/surveys.html): 1) Send positive results to USFWS for concurrence,along with a project description documenting how impacts will be avoided. OR, conduct a Phase 2 survey and sendPhase 1 and 2 results to USFWS for concurrence. 2) Send a courtesy copy of negative results to USFWS (label as"Negative Phase 1 Survey Results by Qualified Bog Turtle Surveyor: USFWS Courtesy Copy"). USFWS approval ofnegative results is not necessary when a qualified surveyor does the survey in full accordance with USFWS guidelines.IF THE PHASE 1 SURVEY IS NOT DONE BY A QUALIFIED SURVEYOR: Send ALL Phase 1 results to USFWS forconcurrence, and if potential habitat is found, also send a project description documenting how impacts will be avoided.As a qualified bog turtle surveyor, I _________________ (name) certify that I conducted a Phase 1 survey of allwetlands in and within 300 feet of the project area on ____________(date) and determined that bog turtle habitat isabsent.____________________________ (Signature)

Information Request: Due to the proximity of this project to a bald eagle nest, it is possible that project activities maydisturb bald eagles, which is a form of "take" under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and may require apermit. The Service has prepared a project screening form to help you determine which specific measures may benecessary to avoid disturbing bald eagles and their nests, based on the type and scope of your proposed project oractivity, and its distance from a bald eagle nest. Complete the "Bald Eagle Project Screening Form" (seehttps://www.fws.gov/northeast/ecologicalservices/pdf/eagle/NE_Bald-Eagle_Project-Screening-Form_rev20200416.pdf) and implement the measures identified on that form. Submit a copy of the completed Screening Form to theappropriate federal or state permitting agencies (e.g., PA DEP).

WHAT TO SEND TO JURISDICTIONAL AGENCIES If project information was requested by one or more of the agencies above, upload* or email* the followinginformation to the agency(s). Instructions for uploading project materials can be found here. This option provides theapplicant with the convenience of sending project materials to a single location accessible to all three state agencies.Alternatively, applicants may email or mail their project materials (see AGENCY CONTACT INFORMATION). Forprojects showing "Potential Impacts" with USFWS, please send project information to that agency by email [email protected] (preferred) or regular mail. Check-list of Minimum Materials to be submitted:____Project narrative with a description of the overall project, the work to be performed, current physical characteristicsof the site and acreage to be impacted.____A map with the project boundary and/or a basic site plan(particularly showing the relationship of the project to thephysical features such as wetlands, streams, ponds, rock outcrops, etc.)In addition to the materials listed above, USFWS REQUIRES the following____SIGNED copy of a Final Project Environmental Review Receipt The inclusion of the following information may expedite the review process.____Color photos keyed to the basic site plan (i.e. showing on the site plan where and in what direction each photowas taken and the date of the photos)____Information about the presence and location of wetlands in the project area, and how this was determined (e.g.,by a qualified wetlands biologist), if wetlands are present in the project area, provide project plans showing the locationof all project features, as well as wetlands and streams.

Page 5 of 7


4. DEP INFORMATIONThe Pa Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) requires that a signed copy of this receipt, along with anyrequired documentation from jurisdictional agencies concerning resolution of potential impacts, be submitted withapplications for permits requiring PNDI review. Two review options are available to permit applicants for handling PNDIcoordination in conjunction with DEP’s permit review process involving either T&E Species or species of specialconcern. Under sequential review, the permit applicant performs a PNDI screening and completes all coordination withthe appropriate jurisdictional agencies prior to submitting the permit application. The applicant will include with itsapplication, both a PNDI receipt and/or a clearance letter from the jurisdictional agency if the PNDI Receipt shows aPotential Impact to a species or the applicant chooses to obtain letters directly from the jurisdictional agencies. Underconcurrent review, DEP, where feasible, will allow technical review of the permit to occur concurrently with the T&Especies consultation with the jurisdictional agency. The applicant must still supply a copy of the PNDI Receipt with itspermit application. The PNDI Receipt should also be submitted to the appropriate agency according to directions onthe PNDI Receipt. The applicant and the jurisdictional agency will work together to resolve the potential impact(s). Seethe DEP PNDI policy at https://conservationexplorer.dcnr.pa.gov/content/resources.

Page 6 of 7


�� !""�� # ��#$ ��%�&#� �� #�� !""#'��()#�*��+,-./0123456/.7834/5� ��9:;<=>?@A-:BC=:DE��%�FGHIGHJHJ+JK+HK+L87� ��$� ��M;NAD;D2BO?=:P;DABO;OQ.=?DB:;DABORS=DT;OQ.=?DB:;DABORS=DT;OQ2:=;DABORB:S=DT;OQ1OU;OV=W=OD� ��( ��XJ,YF;V:=?��Z�[�\]̂=:O=_�%��̀a��Z�[�Mb534593/5c��+dYHHe+dYIIf�� $��Z�[�gM42hgM455ij�� kl�m�bCC=:g]?n]=U;OO;o\;V@;>;OO;j�� kl��p�M]ODAOqDBO2:==@o6A?UAOq2:==@��$ ��r+,+FYXFHRoLY,HJL+Y+��$ ��a��r+s++trL,FLu5RLYs+HtHI,LLd+uSH,g18.2M.1gb\3g($�� (v�� w��%�� '� �� %��x� ��(�� w��%�� '� �� %��x� ��('��y�� w��%�� '� �� %��x� ��l*�*'��j�� w��%�� '� �� %��x� ��(�� z��{��|�� Z��[ �� &��%�� $� ��̀� �� %�� *_�� |{�� |�� x� ��%�� $��*_�� $�� $� ��$�� $�� |��%��*

��$��}

�� !""�� # ��#$ ��%�&#� �� #�� !""#'��()#�*��

��$�+��,

�� !""�� # ��#$ ��%�&#� �� #�� !""#'��()#�*��

��$�"��+

�� !""�� # ��#$ ��%�&#� �� #�� !""#'��()#�*��+,-./0121344/056��$� ��%�� 7�� 8�� $� ��9� �� :� ��%�� $��*��8�� ;�� $��:�� :��:��*<��$�� =>?@ABCDEFCGH>DIJ� �� %K8�� :�� %�� 8��$��L�� M�� 8�� 8�� M�� N��%� �$�� $�� *��%�$��$��K� ��8OK� ��;�� $� ��8"K� ��8� PK ��N��%� ��&�� $�� %8�� %� ��8�� %��:�� $��7�� %<�� :�� $��*<�� $��8��&�� %�� %� ��%�� *<�� $��IEDCQR?G>A=@IH>R>@QIE��$�� %��$��*S-.>TH1CTT@II@CQU/6S306/V�� $� ��9� �� *S-WHX>DETHQECB1CQIHD=>E@CQ>QA0>EYD>?UHICYDZHIU/6S306/V�� $� ��9� �� *S-[@I\>QA]C>E1CTT@II@CQU/6S306/V�� $� ��9� �� *,̂6,[@I\>QA_@?A?@BH6HD=@ZHU/6S306/V��BHAHD>??G�� *<�� 8�� 9�� 7��$� ��(��J̀��*̀̀ P8��M�ab*�*�*�c"��N*� �N� ��*d��&�� 8�� ;��*<�� '��e�� '��e�� (�� *f,W/Sg0[3U4-5g30<�� 7�� J�7�K �N� ��$�� 8��$%�� N� �� $�� $ ��8:��:��%�� N� �$�� %*<%� ��%�� :�� $�� %��7�h�� %� ��$�� <i7�� *b�� N�� %8�� $�� %�� $�� :��$�� *<��%��%��8:�� 9� �� $��%�� :�� $��*b�� %8�7�8%�� :��8%��%�� %�� %��<i7��%�� $��*<��%�� *<��:��:�� $�� $�� *<�� $��%��%� &��$�� J�K*��7��99�� L�� *�� *��*$��9��9 �� *��$�P��c

�� !""�� # ��#$ ��%�&#� �� #�� !""#'��()#�*��+,-../0/12-3/24156-0/127�� %%�8�� $��*7�� $��*9�� 8��8�� $� ��$�� :�� $��$�� $��*�� $� ��;� �� <�� :�� $��;�$�� *'� ��&��%�� %�� :��8��(�� =� ��$�� $ ��>��=�?��$�>%%%*�� $�*��*��*��?*(��@�� %7�� 8�� 8�� =�*A,-BC2DED120-D0/24156-0/12F-.GHIJKLGMKNODNMPGJQIKRNMIMS2IKTJIU5GPNTJVGP9� ��'� �� :@��$�� W!!X� &�� :�Y9�<Z[[\=� �8� $:�(��![�Z[[\@��(�=� ��$��%]��*$�� ,̂_,4RP̀IMSaRUSUROG_GJQRVG��'��Y��@��$� ��!�� b��!��$�:�(�cZ!�@��#@��]�%�*$��Y'�<��F-4RP̀IMSdNIKDNLLRPPRNM��@�� [ [@*��$��$�� *:9��:�(�cZ\"@��(�'9�(�@�Y7�'e]��*$�� F-BILGDNLLRPPRNM9� ��f��=�8��X��$��@�� $��=�8�� \!!�@�� (��:=� �8� $:�(��!� � �@��(��g�#��]��*$��Y'�<��h,F51iCD0D120-D0/24156-0/12��##############################################################��;9��##############################################(�� ############################################################��:��:j��#######################################################��>#####?#########################'�<�>######?###################@��#############################################################k,DC50/4/D-0/12�� ())�� >��$� ��:� ��l�;��$� ��:� ��:��%� ��m��?�� :�� *��:�� :��:�l�� $� ��$��:� ��%� ��m��%� ��&�� $�� %��$�:��$ �� %*#######################################################################################��;� �� $�� $�[��[

09/25/2020

Paul FisherWHM Consulting, LLC

2525 Green Tech Drive Suite BState College, PA 16803

814 [email protected]

814 689-1557

APPENDIX G CULTURAL RESOURCE NOTICE


PROJECT REVIEW FORM Request to In ate SHPO Consulta on on

State and Federal Undertakings

SHPO USE ONLY DATE RECEIVED:

ER NUMBER:

SECTION A: PROJECT NAME & LOCATION

Is this a new YES NO OR

REV:

Project Name

Project Address

SECTION B: CONTACT INFORMATION & MAILING ADDRESS

SECTION C: PROJECT DESCRIPTION This project is located on: (check all that apply) State property Municipal property Private property

List all federal and state agencies and programs providing funds, permits, licenses.

Agency Type Project/Permit/Tracking Number (if applicable)

Proposed Work – A ach project descrip on, scope of work, site plans, and/or drawings

Project includes (check all that apply): Construc on Demoli on

Total acres of project area: Total acres of earth disturbance:

Are there any buildings or structures within the project area? Yes No

Rehabili on Disposi on

Approximate age of buildings: Does this project involve prop es listed in or eligible for the Na onal Register of Historic Places, or designated?

Yes No Unsure

A achments – Please include the following informa on with this form

Map –

Descrip on/Scope –

Site Plans/Drawings – Indicate

Photographs – igital photographs all buildings and structures keyed to a site pl

: DATE: ___________________

Phone

Fax

Email

Name

Company

Street/PO Box

City/State/Zip

County

City/State/ Zip

This is addi onal infor on for ER Number:

Municipality

Federal property

Agency/Program/Permit Name

SHPO (SHPO USE ONLY)

There are NO HISTORIC PROPERTIES

The project will have NO EFFECT on historic

The project will have NO ADVERSE EFFECTS on historic proper es:

Email

Name

SHPO REQUESTS ADDITIONAL INFORMAT

MS ED

2021-0391-095-A

Perin Farm Mitigation Site Northampton Plainfield

Green Meadow Lane (40.844867, -75.236872) Pen Argyl, PA 18072

Paul Fisher (814) 689-1650

WHM Consulting. LLC. (814) 689-1557

2525 Green Tech Drive Suite [email protected]

State College, PA 16803

✔

✔

27.0027.00

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

12/24/20

ed

2525 Green Tech Drive, Suite B State College, PA 16803 p: (814) 689-1650 f: (814) 689-1557 whmgroup.com WHM Consulting, Inc., A Member of The WHM Group sm

November 11, 2020

Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission Bureau for Historic Preservation 400 North Street, Second Floor Harrisburg, PA 17120-0093

RE: ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES CONSULTATION PERIN FARM MITIGATION PROJECT PLAINFIELD TOWNSHIP, NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

To Whom It May Concern,

WHM Consulting, Inc. (WHM) is currently performing an evaluation of a property located in Plainfield Township, Northampton County, Pennsylvania being pursued for use as mitigation/conservation. Earth disturbance associated with the mitigation project consists of the installation of trees and shrubs along stream banks and within existing wetlands. All the plantings will be dug by hand. No disturbance in uplands is proposed for this project. There are no buildings within the project area. The proposed conservation area is 27 acres, but the tree/shrub planting will only occur in existing wetlands totaling 12 acres or less.

As part of our evaluation, we are requesting your consultation to identify any potential archaeological or historical resources within the project area. We have enclosed the appropriate PaDEP Cultural Resource Notice form, Photopage, U.S.G.S Project Location Map, Soils Map, and Wetland Delineation Map for your reference and use.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. If you need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (814) 689-1650.

Sincerely, WHM Consulting, LLC

Paul Fisher Project Manager

PROJECT REVIEW FORM Request to Initiate SHPO Consultation on

State and Federal Undertakings

SHPO USE ONLY DATE RECEIVED:

ER NUMBER:

SECTION A: PROJECT NAME & LOCATION

Is this a new submittal? YES NO OR

Project Name

Project Address

SECTION B: CONTACT INFORMATION & MAILING ADDRESS

SECTION C: PROJECT DESCRIPTION This project is located on: (check all that apply) State property Munici

List all federal and state agencies and programs providing funds, permits, licenses.

Agency Type Project/P

Proposed Work – Attach project description, scope of work, site plans, and/or drawin

Project includes (check all that apply): Construction Demolition

Total acres of project area: Total acres of earth disturbance:

Are there any buildings or structures within the project area? Yes No ApproxDoes this project involve properties listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, or locally designated? Inventory here: https://gis.penndot.gov/crgis

Yes No Unsure

Attachments – Please include the followingPlease email this form and pdf attachments to:

[email protected]

Map – 7.5’ USGS quad, streetmap, or parcel ma

Description/Scope of Work– Narrative dedisturbance and previous land use, and any poten

Site Plans/Drawings – Indicate location andand past and present land use

Photographs – Digital photographs of all buildingsexterior changes are proposed to buildings more than 5

DIVISION CHIEF, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: __________________________________________________

Phone

Fax

Email

Name

Company

Street/PO Box

City/State/Zip

County

City/State/ Zip

This is additional information for ER Numbe

Federal property

Agency/Program/Permit Name

SHPO RESPONSE (SHPO USE ONLY)

There are NO HISTORIC PROPERTIES in the Area of Potential Effect

The project will have NO EFFECT on historic properties

The project will have NO ADVERSE EFFECTS on historic properties:

DATE DUE:

Reviewers: _______/_______

HRSF: ______

Email c

Name _____

Key Number

SHPO REQUESTS ADDI

____________________________

Please be sure to save the Project Review Form so that it remains a digital document and retains its function as a fillable pdf. Do not print the form

and scan as a pdf.

REV: 07/2020

pal property Private property

ermit/Tracking Number (if applicable)

gs

Rehabilitation Disposition

imate age of buildings:

information with this form

p showing the project's Area of Potential Effect

scription of the project, including any ground tial to impact historic resources

age of buildings, any proposed improvements,

and structures keyed to a site plan. If demolition or 0 years old, please also include Abbreviated HRSF

____ DATE: _______________________

r:

Municipality

SHPO REVIEWER: ______________

c:

_________________________________

________________________________

TIONAL INFORMATION (see attached)

_______________ Key# _____________

https://www.phmc.pa.gov/Preservation/About/Documents/HRSF_Abbreviated_Fillable_Form.pdf


2525 Green Tech Drive, Suite B State College, PA 16803 p: (814) 689-1650 f: (814) 689-1557 whmgroup.com WHM Consulting, Inc., A Member of The WHM Group sm

December 15, 2015

Pennsylvania Bureau for Historic Preservation Commonwealth Keystone Bldg. 2nd Floor 400 North St. Harrisburg, PA 17120 RE: UPDATE FILE NO. ER 2015-2103-079-A

GRAJEWSKI PROPERTY WETLAND/STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT HUNTINGDON TOWNSHIP, LUZURNE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

Dear Mr. McLearen A response letter from your office dated May 13, 2015 indicated a need for a Phase I Survey. Since the initial submittal, the scope of the project has changed and now will result in no upland disturbance. The entire project will take place within existing delineated wetlands, as outlined on the attached maps. The scope of the project will now only involve hand planting of trees and shrubs within wetlands. Earth disturbance is not proposed within the upland areas. Based on the overall nature of the updated scope of work (wetland plantings), we are requesting a re-evaluation to determine if the proposed project activities could adversely affect archeological resources, and the need to conduct a Phase I Archeological Survey, as indicated in the May 13, 2015 correspondence letter. To assist you in the re-evaluation, the following items have been included: the initial PHMC response letter, Conservation Area / Wetland Mitigation Map, Wetland Delineation Map, and Photographic Documentation. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. If you need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (814) 689-1650.

Sincerely,

WHM Consulting, Inc. Kevin Clark Project Manager

Enclosures: Initial PHMC Response Letter

Photographic Documentation Wetland Delineation Map Conservation Area/ Wetland Mitigation Map

INITIAL PHMC RESPONSE LETTER

APPENDIX H PAST PERFORMANCE HISTORY, RESUMES & PROJECT PROFILES

PROJECT NAME USACE PERMIT # DEP PERMIT # USACE DISTRICTDEED

RESTRICTION DATE

MITIGATION ACREAGE MITIGATION TYPE

PERFORMANCE STANDARD MET / IN

COMPLIANCE

FINANCIAL ASSURANCES

REQUIRED

BALD EAGLE WETLANDCENAB-OP-RPA-02-02087-12 CENAB-

OP-RPA-04-01670-12E14-427 E14-465

BALTIMORE USACE - PA 16-Nov-10 52.78WETLAND CREATION

WETLAND ENHANCEMENT WETLAND PRESERVATION

MET YES

1.02 `4.55 WETLAND ENHANCEMENT

2.67 WETLAND CREATION

1.69 WETLAND RESTORATION0.22 WETLAND ENHANCEMENT0.48 RIPARIAN BUFFER

FRYMIRE GATHERING PIPELINE CENAB-OP-RPA-2011-00410-P05 E4129-078 BALTIMORE USACE - PA 22-Dec-11 5.07 WETLAND ENHANCEMENT IN COMPLIANCE NO0.76 WETLAND ENHANCEMENT0.46 RIPARIAN BUFFER

1.17 WETLAND ENHANCEMENT

2.20 RIPARIAN BUFFER1.11 WETLAND ENHANCEMENT2.64 RIPARIAN BUFFER0.01 WETLAND CREATION




0.15 RIPARIAN BUFFERPOLOVITCH EAST TO JERAULD &

TAYLOR PIPELINECENAB-OP-RPA-2010-02810-P13 E5829-034 BALTIMORE USACE - PA 15-Dec-11 0.48 WETLAND ENHANCEMENT IN COMPLIANCE NO

2,154 LINEAR FT STREAM RESTORATION

6.03 RIPARIAN BUFFER


1.20 RIPARIAN BUFFER3.10 RIPARIAN BUFFER2.50 WETLAND ENHANCEMENT1.35 RIPARIAN BUFFER0.10 WETLAND ENHANCEMENT0.50 RIPARIAN BUFFER1.65 WETLAND ENHANCEMENT

UNIT 9 GATHERING LINE CENAB-OP-RPA-2012-00368 E0829-066 BALTIMORE USACE - PA 16-Sep-13 0.75 WETLAND ENHANCEMENT IN COMPLIANCE NO0.25 RIPARIAN BUFFER0.15 WETLAND CREATION

WHM PERFORMANCE HISTORY

CENAB-OP2010-0281 0-P 13GARRISION PIPELINE & POLOVITCH

EW

NOIN COMPLIANCE31-Jul-13

NO

BALTIMORE USACE - PA 16-Sep-13 IN COMPLIANCE NO

UNIT 4 GATHERING LINE CENAB-OP-RPA-2012-00368-P09

16-Sep-13 IN COMPLIANCE

TGP SOUTH SALES PIPELINE

NO

CANTON PIPELINE CENAB-OP-RPA-2012-01107E4129-037 E5929-030 E0829-039

BALTIMORE USACE - PA 10-Sep-12 MET NO


22-Dec-11 IN COMPLIANCE NO

BARTO TAP SYSTEM PIPELINE NAB-2011-00177-P05

GP-07-0824 GP-12-028

TUNKHANNOCK VIADUCT - WYOMING PIPELINE

CENAB-OP-2010-02810-P13 E6629-003 BALTIMORE USACE - PA 15-Dec-11 MET

BALTIMORE USACE - PA 4-Dec-12

E4129-075

SALT RUN TO WALLIS RUN_SCHRINERTO WEST

LATERAL_NEVIN SMITH TO ANNA SMITH GATHERING

CENAB-OP-RPA-2011-00410 CENAB-OP-RPA-2011-00411

E4129-039 E4129-057

22-Dec-11BALTIMORE USACE - PA

WARRENSVILLE WEST LATERAL CENAB-OP-RPA-20 11-00410-05 E4129-020

BALTIMORE USACE - PA

9-Mar-12 MET

NO

BALTIMORE USACE - PAGP05-08-29-13-026 GP07-08-29-13-006 GP08-08-29-13-024

CENAB-OP-RPA-2011-1923BRADFORD WEST COMPRESSOR

STATION #2

BALTIMORE USACE - PA 22-Dec-11 IN COMPLIANCE NO

IN COMPLIANCE NO

IN COMPLIANCE NO

USG ANCILLARY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT

CENAB-OP-RPA-2007-1215-P05 E47-087 BALTIMORE USACE - PA

BONNELL TO ROGERS PIPELINE CENAB-OP-RPA-2011-00411-05 E4129-056 BALTIMORE USACE - PA 22-Dec-11

SALT RUN PIPELINE CENAB-OP-RPA-2011-00410-05

WHITE COMPRESSOR STATION CANAB-OP-RPA-2012-00368-P09

GP05-66-29-11-11 GP07-66-29-11-03 GP08-66-29-11-10

NO

U GATHERING CENAB-OP-RPA-2012-00368-P09 E0829-061 BALTIMORE USACE - PA

GP08-41-09-503 E4129-013

BALTIMORE USACE - PA 4-Dec-12 IN COMPLIANCE

IN COMPLIANCE NO

E0829-058 BALTIMORE USACE - PA 16-Sep-13 IN COMPLIANCE NO

CENAB-OP-RPA-2012-00368-P09 E0829-055

WHM Consulting, Inc. 1M:\WHM CONSULTING\PROJECTS\WILLIAMS-18-186 (Leidy South Project)\MITIGATION\Appendix S4 – 3 Compensatory Offsite Mitigation Plan\Past Performance History

August 2019

PROJECT NAME USACE PERMIT # DEP PERMIT # USACE DISTRICTDEED

RESTRICTION DATE

MITIGATION ACREAGE MITIGATION TYPE

PERFORMANCE STANDARD MET / IN

COMPLIANCE

FINANCIAL ASSURANCES

REQUIRED

WHM PERFORMANCE HISTORY

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT CENAB-OP-RPA-2012-01099-05 E41-629 BALTIMORE USACE - PA 9-Mar-12 0.15 WETLAND ENHANCEMENT IN COMPLIANCE NONW1 GATHERING LINE CENAB-OP-RPA-2011-01795 E5829-049 BALTIMORE USACE - PA 24-Oct-13 0.60 WETLAND ENHANCEMENT IN COMPLIANCE NO

VARGO COMPRESSOR STATION CENAB-OP-RPA-2011-00410 E4129-080 BALTIMORE USACE - PA 22-Dec-11 0.90 WETLAND CREATION IN COMPLIANCE NO

0.72 WETLAND ENHANCEMENT0.80 RIPARIAN BUFFER0.98 WETLAND ENHANCEMENT3.03 RIPARIAN BUFFER0.20 WETLAND ENHANCEMENT0.05 WETLAND CREATION1.30 RIPARIAN BUFFER

AUBURN LINE EXTENSION PROJECT CENAB-OP-RPA-2011-03756E4029-003 E6629-015

BALTIMORE USACE - PA 31-Jul-13 3.39 WETLAND ENHANCEMENT IN COMPLIANCE NO

TEAM 2014 CENAB-OP-RPA-2013-1374-P12 - BALTIMORE USACE - PA 14-May-14 4.68 WETLAND ENHANCEMENT IN COMPLIANCE NO

CANTON PIPELINE MAJOR MODIFICATION

CENAB-OP-RPA-2012-01107-P05E4129-037 E5929-030 E0829-039

BALTIMORE USACE - PA 17-Jul-14 9.00 WETLAND CREATION IN COMPLIANCE NO

0.18 WETLAND CREATION0.66 WETLAND ENHANCEMENT0.35 RIPARIAN BUFFER

UNION DALE LATERAL PROJECT CENAB-OP-RPA-2013-01861-P25 - BALTIMORE USACE - PA 24-Oct-13 0.21 WETLAND ENHANCEMENT IN COMPLIANCE NOEMERALD LONGWALL MINE

PANEL D2 PROJECT2014-0283

GP113014205 GP083014208

PITTSBURGH USACE - PA 29-Aug-14 0.31 WETLAND CREATION IN COMPLIANCE NO

AUBURN LOOP LINE CENAB-OP-RPA-2010-03756-P25 - BALTIMORE USACE - PA 24-Oct-13 0.33 WETLAND ENHANCEMENT IN COMPLIANCE NO

BIRCHARD PIPELINE CENAB-OP-RPA-2009-01676-P25 E5829-091 BALTIMORE USACE - PA 24-Oct-13 0.36 WETLAND ENHANCEMENT IN COMPLIANCE NO

LEIDY SOUTHEAST EXPANSION CENAB-OP-RPA-2013-01107-05E4129-037E5929-030

PHILADELPHIA USACE - PA 20-May-15 15.20 WETLAND ENHANCEMENT IN COMPLIANCE NO

IN COMPLIANCE NOHEMLOCK LATERAL CENAB-OP-RPA-2013-00806-05 - BALTIMORE USACE - PA 17-Jul-14

S7 CROSSING CENAB-OP-RPA-2012-01107E4129-037 E5929-030 E0829-039


22-Dec-11BALTIMORE USACE - PAE4129-019CENAB-OP-RPA-20 11-00410-05WARRENSVILLE NORTH EXTENSION

CENAB-OP-RPA-2012-00561-05 BALTIMORE USACE - PA 31-Dec-12 IN COMPLIANCE NO

NO

E4129-052 E5729-038

IN COMPLIANCE

CHESAPEAKE ABLE LATERAL PIPELINE

WHM Consulting, Inc. 2M:\WHM CONSULTING\PROJECTS\WILLIAMS-18-186 (Leidy South Project)\MITIGATION\Appendix S4 – 3 Compensatory Offsite Mitigation Plan\Past Performance History

August 2019

PROJECT PROFILE

BALD EAGLE WETLAND MITIGATION SITE CENTRE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

Few issues have polarized the business community and environmentalists more than the balance between development and protecting wetlands. WHM has developed a highly innovative approach that creates new wetlands while allowing projects to move ahead. An example is the Bald Eagle Wetland Mitigation Site, the first of its kind in Pennsylvania. Although avoidance of wetland damage is a goal in highway construction, some impact is unavoidable. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation hired WHM to provide mitigation for such situations. We utilize a non-traditional methodology, assembling a team to handle everything at no risk to the client. We find a site, purchase the property, acquire the permits, deal with regulatory agencies and construct replacement wetlands – all at a per-acre fixed cost. Through careful field and desktop evaluations, followed by numerous discussions with property owners, WHM located several potential properties in the Bald Eagle Valley in Centre County, Pa. These properties were selected based on their ability to create wetlands as determined by an examination of hydrology and soils, as well as other environmental and non-environmental factors. Larger contiguous properties create a more diverse habitat than smaller unwanted parcels. Properties that retained a high possibility of success were ranked for acquisition. After clearances were issued and sites were selected, WHM began to create a design for the Bald Eagle project based on the overall shape of the landscape and the development of a hydrologic water budget. The concept was presented to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, and other state and local agencies. The final design was based on input from each of these agencies, and then used to obtain regulatory approvals necessary for the construction of wetlands. As the project progressed, a series of construction drawings was developed, resulting in a final, detailed design illustrating phased construction activities, erosion control practices and a complete planting and re-vegetation schedule. As part of the regulatory permits and approvals, WHM developed a monitoring plan to ensure long-term site maintenance and success. Funding for the project includes provisions for ongoing and long-term management of the wetlands by a non-profit organization. In 2010, a search ensued for a suitable not-for-profit organization for the perpetual care and use of the property. WHM began discussions with the Wildlife for Everyone Endowment Foundation (WFEEF) and determined their goals to support to enhance wildlife habitat, scientific research and education; land preservation; and the development of youth programs would be a great fit as a steward of the property and the habitat into the future. In 2011, WHM donated more than 135 acres of land along Bald Eagle Creek, and a $50,000 maintenance fund for the property to WFEEF. Upon acquisition of the recreational property, WFEEF dedicated the land to an honorary board member and former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge. The Governor Tom Ridge Wetland Preserve has provided PennDOT with 50 acres of wetland mitigation credits. In addition, wetland preservation, restoration and upland habitat are part of this project. Based on past wetland construction costs for highway projects, the client stands to save considerable money. Rather than utilizing traditional methods of contracting with multiple entities and managing multiple contracts without guarantee of success, WHM provides a single “family” to ensure success.

PROJECT PROFILE

WETLAND REMEDIATION PROJECT MONTOUR COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

WHM Solutions, Inc. (WHM) was retained by an undisclosed client to provide sufficient compensation to offset impacts incurred by a site improvement project. Due to insufficient compensation of replacement acreage at an existing mitigation site, the client contracted WHM to develop additional compensation within an appropraite geographic service area or watershed. WHM was responsible for the execution of the deed restriction on the property, the permitted design, construction, and monitoring of the project. WHM completed a desktop analysis within an appropriate geographic service area to determine potential locations to offset water resource impacts resultant of the project. The site selection process focused on the location of the existing water resource impacts which span throughout the watershed, and a conducive location to offset the impacts. Potential sites or leads were initially reviewed through a GIS desktop analysis outlining: aerial photography, LiDAR topographic contour data, floodplain boundaries, and hydric soils. Based on the desktop review, landowners with suitable properties were contacted to determine interest of conducting a mitigation project on their property. Several landowners with favorable properties were contacted throughout the site selection process. Ultimately due to site suitability, landowner cooperation, and an onsite field meeting with the USACE, a farm located in Montour County was selected as an appropriate site to conduct wetland remediation measures. The design of the wetland restoration and wetland creation consisted of increasing and expanding functions of the existing bottomland wetland located to the south of the mitigation area. The purpose of the remediation project was to provide additional compensation and the creation of a functional wetland system. The design incorporated expansion of the bottomland forest wetland with shallow vegetated open-water components to create and enhance habitat for amphibians, waterfowl, wading birds, and migratory songbird species. The design provided random clumped distribution of tree plantings positioned on graded low hummocks or mounds where the tree collars will be above typical standing water elevations early in the growing season. Trees were also planted along the perimeter of the site to act as screening/buffer for the wetlands. The open-water flightway was paralleled by emergent and scrub/shrub fringe to enhance diversity and mimic natural oxbow features in the watershed. The result of the project has provided a native wetland community and riparian buffer that fit naturally into the landscape. The site is self-sustaining with no financial assurances or long-term management needs due to the relative nature of the project, selection of an appropriate site for mitigation activities, and the past performance of WHM in fulfilling mitigation requirements. The deed restriction on the property provides long-term assurance that after performance standards are met, the mitigation area will be maintained in a natural state.

BEFORE

DURING

AFTER

PROJECT PROFILE

MOORE FARM WETLAND MITIGATION SITE LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

WHM Solutions, Inc. (WHM) offers comprehensive solutions to difficult environmental problems, steamlining the business endeavors of our clients while preserving our country’s environmental assests. From permitting to design to erosion and settlement controls, we handle every aspect of the mitigation process and present it in one fixed-rate, turnkey package. An undisclosed midstream company contracted WHM to develop compensation for several proposed natural gas pipeline projects in north central Pennsylvania that would result in wetland damage. WHM was responsible for the execution of the deed restriction on the property, for acquiring all necessary permits and dealing with regulatory agencies, and for the design, construction, and monitoring of the project. WHM completed a desktop analysis within the appropriate geographic service area to determine potential locations. These sites were initially reviewed through a GIS desktop analysis outlining: aerial photography, LiDAR topographic contour data, floodplain boundaries, hydric soils, and tax parcel data. Landowners with suitable property to conduct mitigation activities were contacted and several landowners with favorable properties were approached throughout the site selection process. Ultimately, due to site suitability, landowner cooperation, and the non-attaining status of the waters, a farm located in Piatt Township, Lycoming County was chosen to accomplish compensatory mitigation for the proposed project impacts. The design of the mitigation site consists of wetland enhancement and the installation of a forested riparian buffer. The mitigation area is a contiguous land feature that will be expanded by future projects leading to an overall benefit to functions and values. The work plan will enhance functions of the existing wetland which is in a degraded state due to the current land use as a cattle pasture, resulting in considerable nutrient inputs. The purpose of the project is to offset function and value losses resulting from impacts associated with the proposed pipeline project. The design will incorporate wetland and stream fencing to remove cattle from the areas proposed for mitigation. It will include a meandering flightway to create and enhance habitat for waterfowl, wading birds, and migratory songbird species. The flightway will be paralleled by an emergent and scrub/shrub fringe. The vegetative design of the site will incorporate a diverse planting plan consisting of herbaceous seeding followed by a clumped distribution of tree and shrub plantings. Once the mitigation areas are established, increased nutrient and sediment sequestering will be provided within the areas resulting in an improvement of water quality and habitat enhancement. The result of the project has provided 11.82 acres of native wetland community and 6.58 acres of forested riparian buffer that fit naturally into the landscape. The site is self-sustaining with no financial assurances or long-term management needs due to the relative nature of the project, selection of an appropriate site for mitigation activities, and the past performance of WHM in fulfilling mitigation requirements. The deed restriction on the property provides long-term assurance that after performance standards are met, the mitigation area will be maintained in a natural state. WHM’s design-built and innovative approach to wetland mitigation proves that development in the natural gas industry doesn’t have to come at the risk of our aquatic resources or at the hassle of our clients working towards the future of the energy industry.

BEFORE

DURING

AFTER

PROJECT PROFILE

SPADINE FARM MITIGATION SITE WYOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

WHM Solutions, Inc. (WHM) has a design-built and highly innovative approach to wetland mitigation that allows our clients to move projects forward without compromising the condition of our natural resources.WHM is unique in that everything from permitting, to design, to monitoring, and more is handled through one company. An undisclosed midstream company retained WHM to provide compensatory mitigation projects for several pipeline projects that caused functional conversion and permanent wetland impacts in the Upper Susquehanna – Tunkhannock Subbasin. WHM completed a desktop analysis to determine geographically appropriate location sites. These sites were initially reviewed through a GIS desktop analysis outlining: aerial photography, LiDAR topographic contour data, floodplain boundaries, hydric soils, and tax parcel data. Landowners with suitable property to conduct mitigation activities were contacted and several landowners with favorable properties were approached throughout the site selection process. Ultimately, due to site suitability, landowner cooperation, and previous mitigation activities already occurring on portions of this property, a farm located in Nicholson Township, Wyoming County was selected as an appropriate site to conduct mitigation measures. The design for the 6.78 acre wetland enhancement and 1.14 acre wetland creation consists of increasing and expanding functions of the adjacent existing wetland which is in a degraded state due to current and past agricultural use. The design will incorporate minor grading in the wetland creation area and a diverse planting plan to expand function and value of the adjacent existing mitigation areas. The vegetative design of the site is intended to jump start or supplement naturally occurring succession (volunteer species) ensuing from the change in land use type as a result of installation of cattle exclusion fencing. The planting plan will consist of a clumped distribution of monocultural blocks of trees and shrubs within portions of the wetland system. A 0.15 acre forested riparian buffer will be installed along the spring fed channel which flows into an Unnamed Tributary to Tunkhannock Creek. The area will be planted with a forested riparian buffer to create a stable ecosystem adjacent to the water's edge, provide soil/water contact area to facilitate nutrient buffering processes, provide shade to moderate and stabilize water temperature encouraging the production of beneficial algal forms and to contribute necessary detritus and large woody debris to the stream ecosystem. The result of the project provides 7.72 acres of native wetland community and .15 acres of forested riparian buffer that fit naturally into the landscape. The site is self-sustaining with no financial assurances or long-term management needs due to the relative nature of the project, selection of an appropriate site for mitigation activities, and the past performance of WHM in fulfilling mitigation requirements. The deed restriction on the property provides long-term assurance that after performance standards are met, the mitigation area will be maintained in a natural state.

AFTER

DURING

BEFORE

PROJECT PROFILE

TAYLOR PROPERTY WETLAND MITIGATION SITE TIOGA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

Natural gas development is one of the fastest growing industries in our country and the new infrastructure necessary to keep production moving forward sometimes begets an unavoidable impact on our aquatic resources. WHM Solutions, Inc. (WHM) offers an all-encompassing remediation solution, handling every aspect of the mitigation process from design to landowner relations to permitting. An undisclosed midstream company contracted WHM to develop compensation for a new natural gas pipeline project that resulted in significant temporary and converstion impacts to wetlands and channels crossed by the pipeline. WHM was responsible for the execution of the deed restriction on the property, for acquiring all necessary permits and dealing with regulatory agencies, and for the design, construction, and monitoring of the project. WHM completed a desktop analysis within watersheds proposed to be impacted by the project. These sites were initially reviewed through a GIS desktop analysis outlining: aerial photography, LiDAR topographic contour data, floodplain boundaries, hydric soils, and tax parcel data. Landowners with suitable property to conduct mitigation activities were contacted and several landowners with favorable properties were approached throughout the site selection process. Ultimately, due to site suitability, landowner cooperation, and the degraded state of the waters onsite, a farm located in Liberty Township, Tioga County within the Little Elk Run watershed was chosen to accomplish compensatory mitigation for the proposed impacts. The design of the mitigation site consists of a wetland creation area and the installation of a forested riparian buffer. The mitigation area is a contiguous land feature that will lead to an overall benefit to functions and values in Little Elk Run and the Antes-Lycoming Creeks watershed. The work plan will establish a forested riparian buffer and additional wetland acreage adjacent to Little Elk Run to increase functions and values of the existing condition of the water resources which is in a degraded state due to the current land use as a cattle pasture, resulting in considerable nutrient inputs. The design will incorporate the removal of cattle from the areas proposed for mitigation. The vegetative design of the site will incorporate a diverse planting plan consisting of herbaceous seeding in the wetland creation area and a clumped distribution of tree and shrub plantings. Once the mitigation areas are established, increased nutrient and sediment sequestering will be provided within the areas resulting in an improvement of water quality and habitat enhancement. The result of the project created 2,364 square feet, or 0.05 acres, of wetland by taking the area out of an active cattle pasture and reverting to functional forested wetland habitat. It has also provided 1.2 acres of forested riparian buffer along Little Elk Run. The site is self-sustaining with no financial assurances or long-term management needs due to the relative nature of the project, selection of an appropriate site for mitigation activities, and the past performance of WHM in fulfilling mitigation requirements. The deed restriction on the property provides long-term assurance that after performance standards are met, the mitigation area will be maintained in a natural state.

BEFORE

DURING

AFTER

Ryan Nelson, PWS, Senior Project Manager

Mr. Nelson is a Professional Wetland Scientist (PWS) certified by the Society of Wetland Scientists (SWS) that manages the design, permitting, and construction of stream and wetland restoration projects and land development projects for WHM. He has experience dealing with water encroachment permitting, erosion and sediment control, wetland delineations, stream assessments, GIS Analysis and Mapping, and Project Management. He has continuously gained skills through his academic and work experience in various environmental projects dealing with water quality, land development, aquatic resource mitigation and restoration, and currently oversees a variety of development projects. Mr. Nelson has been professionally trained by Wildland Hydrology in Rosgen’s Natural Channel Design and is certified in Levels I, II and III - “Applied Fluvial Geomorphology”, “River Morphology & Applications”, and “River Assessment & Monitoring.


Environmental Project Management • Oversee permitting of development projects, including pipelines, wind power

generation, landfills and aquatic resource mitigation/restoration; • Environmental Permitting for the PA DEP and U.S. Army Corp of Engineers

including, but not limited to NPDES, E&S Plans, Joint Permits, and General Permits;

• Threatened & Endangered Species and Cultural Resource consultation for land development projects, including state and federally sensitive resources; and

• Client and regulatory liaison for projects involving land development and environmental restoration.

Wetland and Stream Projects • Collected and analyzed data associated with stream restoration projects including,

Stream Profile and Cross section data, bar sampling, pebble counts, and bathymetric data;

• Construction oversight of multiple stream restoration projects involving channel stabilization and rebuild;

• Performed wetland and stream delineations in PA, OH, and WV; and • Performed wetland monitoring and maintenance on mitigation wetland sites. Mapping and Surveying • Used GIS software for compiling field collected data, land use data, tabular data,

and other data to produce figures for analysis and to calculate statistics of various environmental projects;

• Utilized GPS units for surveying various points and boundaries for mapping purposes, including wetland delineations;

• AutoCAD mapping for various projects, including stream restoration and wetland mitigation projects, utilizing field collected data and other associated data;

• Use of survey equipment and AutoCAD Software in characterizing pre and post construction conditions for mapping and design purposes on various projects including stream stabilization, wetland mitigation, and other aquatic resource related projects.

Biological Surveys • Completed and managed studies for the USFWS, DCNR, PGC, and the PFBC for

rare, threatened, endangered, and species of special concern within the purview of all the above agencies.

Conferences and Seminars • Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Environmental Seminar, Marcellus

Shale Coalition, State College, PA - May 2017 • Southern Gas Association (SGA) “Technical Conference on Environmental

Permitting & Construction” Dallas, TX Feb. 22-24, 2017 • FERC Environmental Review and Compliance for Natural Gas Facilities Seminar -

Tampa, Florida – Dec 2015 • Seminar for Hardwood Forest Reforestation on Abandoned Mine Sites. Ebensburg,

Pennsylvania, June 2007

Education

▪ B.S., Environmental Resource Management, with minors in Watershed/Water Resources and Environmental Soil Science, The Pennsylvania State University, 2008

Certifications

▪ Professional Wetland Scientist (PWS) PWS Seal # 2412


▪ ESCGP-2 to ESCGP-3: New PA DEP Reviewer Process and Permit Implementation Seminar; Marcellus Shale Coalition; December 13, 2017

▪ PADEP Technical Workshops - Prepare for The New Aquatic Resource Condition Assessments (Ch. 105) – June 2017

▪ PADEP MS4 Workshop, Harrisburg PA – Sept. 2016

▪ PHMSA’s Proposed Rules for Natural Gas, Kinetic Pittsburgh, PA – Aug. 2016

▪ PA Marcellus Shale Coalition, PASPGP-5 Training, Hershey PA July 2016

▪ Identification of Wetland Wildflowers,

Swamp School, LLC – June 2016

▪ "River Assessment & Monitoring" May 9-19, 2016 at the National Conservation

Training Center Shepherdstown, WV

▪ Chapter 102/NPDES Training for Consultants and Engineers held by Clinton and Centre County Conservations Districts and PADEP – March 2016 – State

College, PA

▪ PA DEP ESCGP-2 Training July 10, 2013 State College, PA

▪ Erosion & Sediment (E&S) Manual Training (Northampton Co.) by the PACD in conjunction PADEP August 20, 2012

▪ "Functional Assessment as the Basis for Mitigation of Wetland Impacts - Overview and Discussion", State College, PA – M.N. Gilbert Environmental April 2011

▪ PaDEP—Technical Review of the revised Chapter 102 Regulations, Harrisburg, PA,

February 2011.

▪ Natural Channel Design Review Methodology: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service National Conservation Training Center, Shepherdstown, WV October 2010

▪ “Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual”: PAPSS, DCNR Bureau of Forestry, Loyalsock State Forest Resource Mgt Center, Laporte, PA April 2010

▪ Stream Restoration: Elements of Design Workshop II University Park, PA. August 2008

Kevin M. Clark (PWS) Senior Project Manager / Office Manager

Kevin Clark is a Professional Wetland Scientist that has extensive experience with wetland delineation and evaluation, permitting, mitigation design, and the preparation of environmental compliance documents in accordance with national, state, and local criteria and guidelines. Mr. Clark has extensive experience in obtaining NPDES (Chapter 102) and Water Obstruction and Encroachment (Chapter 105 / Section 404) permits including associated field survey and managing turn-key wetland and stream mitigation projects. Mr. Clark serves as liaison in the collaborative design process, bringing together clients, engineers, ecologists and regulatory agencies to optimize proposed development.

Education

• Bachelor of Arts, Division of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Environmental Studies, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, December 2006.

Professional Certifications

• Professional Wetlands Scientist (PWS), License Number: 2285, November 2012 Society of Wetland Scientists Professional Certification Program, Inc.


• Project Management of land development projects requiring local, state (Chapter 102, 105 & 401) and federal (Section 404) permit authorizations with an emphasis large linear projects, energy related infrastructure, landfills, abandoned mine restoration, and wetland/stream mitigation;

• Served as client and regulatory liaison for projects involving land development and environmental restoration;

• Completed and managed small to large scale delineations throughout the in PA, OH, WV, and MD in accordance with 1987 USACE Wetland Delineation Manual and applicable regional supplements;

• Completing Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Index (PNDI) Environmental Reviews including management of time-sensitive threatened and endangered species;

• Oversaw subconsultants performance and reviewed reports for archeological surveys, Phase I Environmental Site Assessments, threatened and endangered species, and post-construction stormwater management design;

• Completed Environmental Assessments for projects with water resource impacts; • Proficient in providing detailed mapping and design drawings utilizing AutoCAD and

ArcGIS software; • Responsible for property acquisition, design, permitting, cost estimates, construction,

and post-construction monitoring for over 20 water resource mitigation projects; and • Prepared bids and proposals for variety of development projects.

Health and Safety Certifications / Trainings

• OSHA 40-Hour HAZWOPER Training & 8-Hour Refresher – December 2019 • Safeland Training – June 2017 and September 2016 • Adult First Aid/CPR– American Heart Association, Pennsylvania – December 2018

Professional Trainings

▪ 2020 NPDES Workshop – Monroe & Pike County Conservation Districts - Feb 2020

▪ Southern Gas Association (SGA) Technical Conference on Environmental Permitting & Construction, Savannah, GA – Feb 2020

▪ PADEP Technical Workshops - Prepare for The New Aquatic Resource Condition Assessments (Ch. 105) – June 2017

▪ Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Environmental Seminar, Marcellus Shale Coalition, State College, PA – May 2017

▪ PASPGP-5 Training, Marcellus Shale Coalition, Hershey PA – July 2016

▪ National Mitigation & Ecosystem Banking Conference, Fort Worth, TX – May 2016

▪ Chapter 102/NPDES Training Centre & Clinton County Conservation Districts – March 2016

▪ FERC “Environmental Review and Compliance for Natural Gas Facilities Seminar” Tampa, Florida – Dec 2015

▪ SWS Mid-Atlantic Chapter Wetland Mitigation, Restoration and Ecology State College, PA – April 2014

▪ PADEP ESCGP-2 Permit Training, State College, PA – July 2013

▪ Planning Hydrology, Vegetation, and Soils for Constructed Wetlands – The Wetland Training Institute; State College, PA – Sept 2012

▪ Erosion & Sediment (E&S) Manual Training (Northampton Co) by the PACD in conjunction PADEP – August 2012

▪ Primary Headwater Habitat Assessment Training – West Woods Metro Park, Geauga County, Ohio – May 2012

▪ Functional Assessment as the Basis for Mitigation of Wetland Impacts State College, PA – M N Gilbert Environmental – April 2011

▪ PaDEP—Technical Review of the revised Chapter 102 Regulations, Penn Tech Campus, Williamsport, PA – Dec 2010

▪ “Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual”: PAPSS, DCNR Bureau of Forestry, Laporte, PA – April 2010

▪ Department of Environmental Protection “Regulatory Requirements Seminar for Marcellus Shale”; Harrisburg, PA – March 2010

▪ Wetland Delineator Training, Institute for Wetland & Environmental Education & Research, Inc, Tiner and Veneman, Albany, New York – July 2008






















Education


Certifications

























D. Josh Lincoln, President

D. Josh Lincoln, provided overall management direction and strategic leadership to the WHM Group, and it’s subsideries WHM Solutions and WHM Consulting. Mr. Lincoln has over

17 years of experience providing professional environmental and natural resource consulting services to private, industrial and institutional landowners; nonprofit organizations, and all levels of government. He has implemented eclectic blends of regulatory strategies and restoration practices to support land development, energy, transportation, mining, solid waste, and community infrastructure. Technical proficiencies include resource assessment, impact analysis, permitting and compliance, ground and surface water quality, ecosystem restoration design, environmental monitoring, watershed assessments, stream monitoring, stream design, wetland delineation, and construction management. Mr. Lincoln’s diverse background in this field allows him to provide turnkey services for environmental resource projects.


Wetland Projects • Managed wetland investigation teams for large site development projects

throughout the Mid-Atlantic. • Permitting of development projects involving regulated water resources, e.g., landfill

expansions, interstate road alignments, wind farms, and residential developments. • Selection and design of wetland replacement sites. • Manager of wetland replacement construction projects. • Operator of wetland replacement construction projects. • Manager of landfill wetland mitigation projects.

Stream Restoration

• Watershed data collection for assessment of stream and watershed conditions to develop restoration plans.

• Design and permitting of streambank stabilization projects. • Grant writing to fund projects for local and non-profit organizations. • Watershed data collection for assessment of stream and watershed conditions to

develop restoration plans (site survey, pebble counts, velocity profiles, bar samples, identification of bankfull geomorphic features).

• Development of regional curves, and collection of reference reach data for stream restoration projects.

• Construction permit applications and project coordination for stream restoration projects.

• Responsible for federal, state, and local permit applications. • Construction supervision and coordination. • Budget monitoring for Stream restoration projects. • Monitored stream bank erosion rates and calculated sedimented loading curves for

several watersheds in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland, New York and North Carolina.

• Developed regression relations for bankfull stream characteristics based on drainage area used for natural channel design.

• Selected and surveyed reference reach streams to develop natural channel design criteria based on bankfull stage channel dimensions.

• Designer of several miles of stream restoration projects using natural channel design methods in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, New York, Maryland, and West Virginia.

• Manager of several miles of stream restoration projects. • Operator of heavy equipment to construct cross rock vanes and j-hooks vanes

structures for stream restoration projects.

Watershed Management

• Manager of several watershed assessments conducted throughout Pennsylvania. The projects included developing GIS data bases that inventoried assessments results.

• Developed watershed management plans for nonprofit watershed groups. • Manager of wind farm permitting projects. • Prepared grants for non-profits watershed groups.

Education

▪ B.S., Environmental Resource Management, The Pennsylvania State University, 1998

Health & Safety Certifications & Training

▪ ISN – 02053273

▪ First Aid/CPR; Emergency Care & Safety Institute - May 2012


▪ “Applied Fluvial Geomorphology”, Canaan Valley Institute, WV - 2000

▪ “River Morphology and Applications” Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO - 2000

▪ “Macroinvertebrate Monitoring for North Carolina Stream Restoration”, Raleigh, NC - 2001

▪ “River Assessment and Monitoring”, Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO -2001

▪ “River Restoration and Natural Channel Design”, Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO - 2002

▪ “AutoCAD use for Stream Restoration and Monitoring”, The North Carolina State University, University Park, PA - 2005

▪ “Overview of Wetland Delineations Protocols and the Interim Regional Supplement to the USACE Delineation Manual”, State College, PA – April 2011

▪ “Natural Channel Design Review Methodology” – U.S. Department of the Interior Learning Portal

Conferences and Seminars

▪ Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Environmental Seminar, Marcellus Shale Coalition, State College, PA – May 2017

▪ The SGA Technical Conference on Environmental Permitting & Construction Hyatt Regency, Austin, TX – February 17-19, 2014

▪ Mid-Atlantic Stream Restoration Conference, Baltimore, MD – 2013

▪ Federal Energy Commission “Environmental Review and Compliance for Natural Gas Facilities Seminar”, San Antonio, TX – 2013

▪ SGA FERC Environmental Permitting & Construction Compliance Workshop, Houston, TX – 2013

▪ SGA FERC Environmental Permitting & Construction Compliance Workshop, New Orleans, LA – 2012

▪ SGA FERC Environmental Permitting & Construction Compliance Workshop, San Antonio, TX – 2011

▪ Mid-Atlantic Stream Restoration Conference, Flinstone, MD - 2011

APPENDIX S4-4 INVASIVE SPECIES MANAGEMENT PLAN


INVASIVE SPECIES MANAGEMENT PLAN

REGIONAL ENERGY ACCESS EXPANSION

March 2021


REGIONAL ENERGY ACCESS EXPANSION INVASIVE SPECIES MANAGEMENT PLAN

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 OVERVIEW OF NOXIOUS WEED, INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES, AND FOREST DISEASE ............ 1-1

1.2 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................. 1-2

1.3 APPLICABLE INVASIVE PLANT LAWS AND TARGET SPECIES FOR SURVEYS ....................... 1-2

1.4 APPLICABLE QUARANTINE REGULATIONS ........................................................................ 1-4

2 EXISTING CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 INVASIVE PLANT BASELINE INVENTORY SURVEYS ............................................................. 2-1

2.2 SURVEY RESULTS ............................................................................................................ 2-2

3 INVASIVE SPECIES MANAGEMENT ..................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 MEASURES TO PREVENT THE INTRODUCTION AND SPREAD OF INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES

DURING CONSTRUCTION .................................................................................................. 3-1

3.2 MEASURES TO CONTROL SPREAD OF INVASIVE INSECTS AND FOREST DISEASE ................. 3-3

3.3 POST-CONSTRUCTION MONITORING AND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES .................................. 3-3

4 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 4-1

APPENDICES

Appendix A Target Invasive Plant Lists

Appendix B Invasive Plant Survey Results


ii

LIST OF TABLES

Table A-1 Pennsylvania Noxious Weeds .................................................................................. A-1

Table A-2 DCNR Invasive Plant List ......................................................................................... A-3

Table A-3 New Jersey Non-Indigenous Plants ......................................................................... A-7

Table A-4 New Jersey Invasive Plants ..................................................................................... A-8

Table A-5 Maryland Noxious Weeds ...................................................................................... A-13

Table A-6 Maryland Invasive Plants ....................................................................................... A-13

Table B-1 Invasive Plant Species Identified at the Regional Energy Lateral Pipeline .............. B-1

Table B-2 Invasive Plant Species Identified at the Effort Loop Pipeline ................................... B-3

Table B-3 Invasive Plant Species Identified at Pennsylvania Aboveground Facilities .............. B-3

Table B-4 Invasive Plant Species Identified in New Jersey ...................................................... B-4

Table B-5 Invasive Plant Species Identified in Maryland .......................................................... B-4


iii

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ALB Asian long-horned beetle

APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CSSM Cherry Scallop Moth

EI Environmental Inspector

ER Environmental Report

HWA Hemlock Woolly Adelgid

FERC or Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

MD Maryland

NJ New Jersey

PA Pennsylvania

PADCNR Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources

Plan Invasive Species Management Plan

Project Regional Energy Access Expansion

ROW right-of-way

SPB Southern Pine Beetle

SLF Spotted Lanternfly

TCD Thousand Cankers Disease

Transco Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC

Transco Plan Project-specific Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan

Transco Procedures Project-specific Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

USDA United States Department of Agriculture


iv



1-1

1 INTRODUCTION

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (Transco) has prepared this Invasive

Species Management Plan (Plan) for the Regional Energy Access Expansion (Project) to

minimize the spread of noxious and invasive plant species and forest disease/pests within the

rights-of-way (ROWs), additional temporary workspaces, and at aboveground facilities located in

Pennsylvania (PA), New Jersey (NJ), and Maryland (MD). This Plan also addresses

post-construction restoration and noxious and invasive species monitoring, as required by state

and federal regulatory agencies.

1.1 OVERVIEW OF NOXIOUS WEED, INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES, AND FOREST DISEASE

Federal Invasive Species Executive Order 13112 defines an invasive plant as “an alien

species whose introduction causes, or is likely to cause, economic or environmental harm or harm

to human health” (64 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 6183 [1999]). Noxious weeds are

typically a subset of invasive plants that are designated by a federal, state, or county government

as injurious to public health, recreation, or natural and economic resources such as agriculture,

surface waters, wildlife, or property (Sheley et al. 1999; PA Invasive Species Council 2009). For

the purposes of this Plan, the term “invasive plant” is used to encompass noxious weeds and non-

noxious invasive plants. The term “noxious weed” is used when referring to those plants

specifically defined and regulated as noxious under federal or state law.

Invasive plants can reduce native plant diversity by competing for resources, including

light, water, and minerals (Swearingen et al. 2010). They may alter soil conditions by secreting

chemicals that inhibit seed germination or growth of other plants and may disrupt nutrient cycling

and soil characteristics in invaded areas by changing the amount, composition, or rate of decay

of leaf litter. Additionally, invasive plants that are closely related to native species may hybridize

with their native relatives, reducing genetic diversity and altering certain native genotypes.

Invasive species can also cause changes in native habitat structure and food availability, which

can affect other organisms and their behaviors, including the breeding success of bird species

and continued persistence of native plants that serve as food sources (Sarver et al. 2008). Thus,

invasive plant communities are generally limited in diversity and tend to have lower habitat value

than native vegetation communities (Swearingen et al. 2010). Some invasive species recruit

rapidly and, if not adequately controlled, can quickly dominate a landscape. Disturbed areas,

such as pipeline and other utility ROWs that have been cleared for construction, are susceptible


1-2

to invasion as they provide optimum conditions for the translocation of invasive seeds and

propagules (PA Department of Conservation and Natural Resources [PADCNR] 2011).

Many forest diseases affecting the native tree species found throughout the Project are

caused or spread by invasive insect species. Forest disease can be spread along the ROW or

even off-site by moving the insect or pathogen (i.e., fungi spores). Insect larva can also be spread

when they are present within infected woody material. The movement of firewood is a significant

vector for transmission of forest disease. As such, PA has regulations preventing the movement

of firewood and other woody materials, primarily in the form of quarantines.

1.2 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this Plan is to prescribe methods to prevent, mitigate, and control the

spread of invasive species and forest disease spread during construction and operation of the

Project. The specific objectives of this Plan are to: (1) provide guidance and measures to control

invasive plant species within disturbed areas to the extent that the habitat functions of wetlands

and uplands are not compromised; (2) reduce the dominance of invasive plants during the first

three years following construction and over long-term operations; and (3) prevent the spread of

forest disease. This Plan outlines best management practices to control the spread of invasive

plants and forest disease, specifically by preventing transport of propagules from infested work

areas to non-infested work areas during construction.

Transco will oversee contractor compliance with the methods outlined herein during

construction and restoration of the Project. Contractors will be trained on the requirements of this

Plan during mandatory pre-construction environmental training.

1.3 Applicable Invasive Plant Laws and Target Species for Surveys

Executive Order 13112 established the National Invasive Species Council, which

maintains a list of noxious weeds under the Noxious Weeds Regulations, Section 360.200, of the

CFR. In addition, PA, NJ, and MD possess state-specific lists of noxious weeds (Appendix A).

State-specific invasive plant regulations are summarized in the following subsections.

1.3.1 Pennsylvania

1.3.1.1 Pennsylvania Noxious Weeds

The PA Department of Agriculture is responsible for maintaining the state’s noxious weed

list under the Noxious Weed Control Law (PA Code, Title 7, Chapter 110). Table A-1 in Appendix

A includes the state noxious weed list.


1-3

1.3.1.2 Pennsylvania Invasive Plants

Under Executive Order 2017-07, the Governor’s Invasive Species Council of PA

developed a state invasive species management plan (PA Invasive Species Council 2009). PA

maintains a database of invasive species, including those that are not part of the noxious weed

control list; however, these species are not subject to state regulation (PADCNR n.d.). Table A-

2 in Appendix A includes the PADCNR database of invasive species.

1.3.2 New Jersey

1.3.2.1 New Jersey Noxious Weeds

The NJ Department of Environmental Protection’s NJ Invasive Species Council published

a report that includes fact sheets of the non-indigenous plant species considered most harmful to

NJ’s ecosystems. Table A-3 includes the species listed in this report.

1.3.2.2 New Jersey Invasive Plants

The NJ Invasive Species Strike Team developed a list of invasive species in NJ. The list

includes target and watch species. Table A-4 includes the list of invasive species.

1.3.3 Maryland

1.3.3.1 Maryland Noxious Weeds

The MD Department of Agriculture developed a Weed Control Program, which enforces

the MD Weed Control Law and assists landowners with managing noxious weeds on all land

types. Table A-5 lists the noxious weeds in MD.

1.3.3.2 Maryland Invasive Plants

The MD Department of Agriculture developed a list of state invasive species. The list also

includes species that are currently under assessment as becoming invasive within the state.

Table A-6 includes the invasive species identified by the MD Department of Agriculture.

1.4 APPLICABLE QUARANTINE REGULATIONS

Many invasive insects and diseases impact native trees in PA, NJ, and MD. Tree-clearing

has the potential to spread invasive insects and/or diseases to uninfested areas. The following

sections discuss invasive insects and diseases that are known to occur within PA, NJ, and MD

counties that are crossed by the Project, in addition to potential impacts the Project may have on

the spread of these species and diseases.


1-4

1.4.1 Pennsylvania

The majority of forest clearing will be performed within two counties in PA (Luzerne and

Monroe Counties) which may host several invasive insect pests that feed on native trees.

Numerous agencies and organizations, such as the United States Department of Agriculture

(USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), PADCNR, and PA Invasive Species

Council, have identified these species as significant threats to the state’s timber industry and

native forests. These agencies have enacted programs to regulate, monitor, and control these

pests. Ten of these invasive insect species and/or diseases are known to occur in the PA counties

crossed by the Project, as described below.

Emerald Ash Borer

The emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis) is known to occur in every PA county

(PADCNR 2017). This small, metallic green beetle native to southeast Asia feeds exclusively on

ash trees (Fraxinus spp.). Since its first detection in Michigan in 2002, it has spread quickly

throughout the northeastern United States and southern Canada. Infestations cause crown

dieback, irregular branching, and bark and tissue damage (PADCNR n.d.(b)).

The USDA currently imposes a federal quarantine to limit the movement of potentially

infected ash wood into or out of contiguous quarantine areas, which include PA and most of the

northeastern and mid-Atlantic states (USDA 2019b). However, as the beetle has continued to

spread throughout the United States, the USDA has responded by proposing to lift the quarantine

so it may devote all available resources to managing the beetle (USDA 2019a). An internal state

quarantine in PA was lifted in 2011 following the beetle’s spread throughout the state (Pa.B.

2011a).

Gypsy Moth

Gypsy moths (Lymantria dispa) are known to occur in PA counties crossed by the Project,

including Luzerne, Monroe, and Northampton (PADCNR n.d.(c)). Caterpillars feed mainly on oak

trees but can infest numerous other tree species. Caterpillars feed heavily on the foliage, and

although it may take more than one year of defoliation before trees die, conifers may be killed

after a single season of defoliation (PADCNR n.d.(c)).

Federal and PA State regulations require that items potentially harboring gypsy moth life

stages (e.g., nursery stock, vehicles, forest products, and outdoor household items) be carefully

inspected prior to being moved from an infested area to an uninfested area (USDA 2017a).

Quarantine boundaries encompass all or portions of all northeastern states from Virginia to Maine,


1-5

plus West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, and several counties in Illinois (USDA

2017).

Hemlock Woolly Adelgid

The hemlock woolly adelgid (HWA) (Adelges tsugae) is a tiny insect related to aphids that

feeds on eastern hemlock trees in northeastern states. This insect is known to occur in all PA

counties crossed by the Project (PADCNR 2018). Newly hatched nymphs produce white, cottony

material that surrounds their bodies, and the presence of these woolly masses at the base of

hemlock needles is the main indicator of an infestation. The adelgids feed on a tree’s stored

starches and young twig tissue, weakening the tree (PADCNR n.d.(d)). To prevent further spread

of this pest, several states have enacted an external quarantine to prevent infected wood transport

into the state (VFPR 2019). PA does not employ a quarantine to control the HWA as it has spread

throughout the state and instead relies on a combination of biological, insecticide, silvicultural and

breeding controls to control the pest (PADCNR n.d.(d)). At the time of this Plan, a federal

quarantine has not been enacted (USDA 2019).

Sirex Woodwasp

The sirex woodwasp (Sirex noctilio) is known to occur in nine PA counties, including

Luzerne which is crossed by the Project (CERIS 2019). This small wasp is native to Europe, Asia,

and northern Africa, primarily feeds on pines, and has caused more than 80 percent mortality in

North American pine plantations where it occurs. The woodwasp is most commonly transported

through wooden shipping packaging (NYIS n.d.). To prevent further spread of this pest, some

states have enacted an external quarantine to prevent infected wood from transport into the state

(NCDACS 2008). At this time, PA has not enacted a quarantine or other specific control measure

related to the insect. Additionally, a federal quarantine has not been enacted (USDA 2019).

Asian Long-horned Beetle

The Asian long-horned beetle (ALB) (Anoplophora glabripennis) is a beetle native to

China. The beetle is not known to occur anywhere in the Project area in PA, however, it is known

to occur in NJ. The ALB was first recorded in New York in 1996 and has since been recorded in

NJ, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Illinois. The larvae of the ALB feed on the inner branches of many

hardwood species including maple, box elder, alder, elm, birch, poplar, and willow The impacts

of the larvae can result in the destruction of branches and eventually the entire tree (USDA 2016).


1-6

Due to the proximity to states with reported ALB, PA is actively working to prevent the

spread of the ALB into the state. PA encourages tree owners to inspect their trees for presence

of ALB (PADCNR 2020). PA also currently quarantines the import of any out-of-state firewood to

prevent the spread of invasive pests and diseases (Pa.B. 2010). Federal quarantine restrictions

are currently in place for areas of recorded ALB and are outlined in 7 CFR Section 301.51-3

(USDA 2019c).

Southern Pine Beetle

The Southern Pine Beetle (SPB) (Dendroctonus frontalis) is one of the most destructive

bark beetles of pines in the United States and Central America. It is native to the southeastern

United States, including PA. The SPB feeds on phloem in the inner bark of pine trees, which

girdles the trees. It also introduces blue-stain fungi to colonize xylem and block water flow within

the trees. To suppress and prevent infestations, the state removes infested host trees through

the cut-and-remove, cut-and-leave, cut-and-hand spray, and cut-and-burn treatments. Pine

stands are thinned to less than an 80-square-foot basal area, and pine trees are planted at least

20 feet apart in urban areas (PADCNR n.d.(e)). It is known to occur in several PA counties,

including York and Chester Counties. The compressor station modifications proposed in these

counties will not require tree clearing; therefore, no impact to potentially affected trees is

anticipated.

Cherry Scallop Shell Moth

The cherry scallop moth (CSSM) (Hydria prunivorata Ferguson) is native to PA. It feeds

on black cherry trees (Prunus serotina), which is an important commercial species in PA.

Populations periodically reach outbreak levels, however, populations crash after around three

seasons due to parasitism from a parasitoid wasp (PADCNR 2020). The CSSM is known to occur

in a few PA counties, including York County. The compressor station modifications proposed in

this county will not require tree clearing; therefore, no impact to potentially affected trees is

anticipated.

Spotted Lanternfly

The spotted lanternfly (SLF) (Lycorma delicatula) is a plant hopper native to China and

invasive in the United States. The SLF was first detected in Berks County, PA in 2014 (PDA

2019a) and has since spread to several southeastern counties including Luzerne, Monroe,

Northampton, York, and Chester within the Project area. The SLF favors the tree-of-heaven

(Alianthus altissima, an invasive species from Asia) as a food source; however, it will feed on a


1-7

wide variety plants ranging from crops to hardwood trees. The SLF sucks sap from plant stems

and branches which weakens the plant and leaves behind a sugary residue called honeydew.

The honeydew further damages the plant by attracting other insects and promoting the growth of

sooty mold. The SLF is also a hitchhiking pest that will lay eggs on nearly any flat surface, a trait

that allows the SLF to spread great distances when infested materials are transported (USDA

2018a).

The SLF is a relatively recent arrival in PA and the state is currently focused on controlling

the spread of the pest and eradicating identified populations (PDA 2019a). As such, an internal

quarantine exists for 26 counties including Luzerne, Monroe, Northampton, York, and Chester

counties in the Project area (Pa.B. 2018 and PDA 2020). The state quarantine restricts the

movement of the items listed below, requiring precautions and control measures, which are

described in Section 3.2:

• Any living stage of the SLF;

• Brush, bark, and other yard waste;

• Landscaping, remodeling or construction waste;

• Any tree parts including firewood of any species;

• Grapevines;

• Nursery stock;

• Crated materials; and

• Outdoor household articles.

There is currently no federal quarantine for the SLF (USDA 2019).

Thousand Cankers Disease

Thousand cankers disease (TCD) is known to occur in southeastern PA and has been

documented within Chester County, which is crossed by the Project (PDA 2020a). TCD is caused

by the combined activity of the walnut twig beetle (Pityophthorus juglandis) and a fungus

(Geosmithia morbida). TCD infects walnut trees when the walnut twig beetle burrows into the

bark of walnut trees (Juglans spp.), introducing the fungus. The fungus causes the formation of

cankers under the bark of the walnut, which restrict the movement of nutrients throughout the

tree. More cankers form as more beetles attack the tree, eventually preventing efficient nutrient

flow, killing the tree (PDA 2020a).


1-8

PA imposes an external quarantine restricting the import of walnut materials from TCD

impacted states as well as an internal quarantine restricting the export of walnut materials from

impacted counties. The internal quarantine covers Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery,

Philadelphia, and Lancaster Counties (PDA 2020a and Pa.B. 2011). There is currently no federal

regulation in place for TCD; however, the USDA’s APHIS does have regulations in place that

address the known TCD pathways (United States. Forest Service et al. 2011, USDA Forest

Service and PPQ 2020, USDA 2018). No tree clearing is required at the aboveground facilities

in these counties; therefore, no impact to potentially affected trees is anticipated.

Fabrella Needle Blight (Farlow)

Fabrella Needle Blight (Fabrella tsugae), also known as Farlow, is a fungal pathogen that

was first detected in Clearfield County in 1974. It has now been identified in many PA counties,

including Luzerne, Monroe, Northampton, and Chester which are crossed by the Project. Farlow

affects both overstory and understory trees. It causes needles to turn brown and drop off in late

summer, especially in the lower crown area. Damage is typically not significant, however, it can

lead to twig and branch dieback when combined with other stressors. To reduce damage, fallen

needles from around the tree are gathered and destroyed. During dormant periods following rain,

selectively thinning the branches from the lower crown aids in circulation and drying of foliage

(PADCNR n.d.(f)).

1.4.2 New Jersey

The majority of construction with permanent impacts will be performed in Gloucester

County, NJ. However, construction in this county will occur in previously-cleared areas and,

therefore, does not involve forest clearing. As a result, no impacts from potential spread of

invasive insect species and/or diseases are anticipated.

1.4.3 Maryland

One facility, Beaver Dam M&R Station, is existing and located in Baltimore County, MD.

No expansion to the permanent facility is proposed, and temporary workspace proposed outside

the existing station will be located in a cleared area. Therefore, no impacts from potential spread

of invasive insect species and/or diseases are anticipated.


2-1

2 EXISTING CONDITIONS

According to the United States Forest Service, the Project lies within four distinct

ecological provinces (Cleland et al. 2007). The northern portion of the Project is located in the

Northeastern Mixed Forest Province, Northern Glaciated Allegheny Plateau Section. Forestland

in this section is comprised of maple-beech-birch, oak-hickory, and aspen-birch communities

(Cleland et al.; McNab et al. 2007). The next portion of the Project is located in the Central

Appalachian Broadleaf Forest-Coniferous Forest-Meadow Province, Northern Ridge and Valley

Section. Land primarily consists of oak-hickory forest (Cleland et al. 2007; McNab et al. 2007).

The Project is also located in the Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province, Northern Appalachian

Piedmont Section. In the Northern Appalachian Piedmont Section, vegetation is a mixture of oak-

hickory and loblolly-shortleaf pine cover types (Cleland et al.; McNab et al. 2007). The southern

portion of the Project is located in the Outer Coastal Plain Mixed Forest Province, Northern

Atlantic Coastal Plain Section. Vegetation consists of oak-hickory, oak-pine, and loblolly-shortleaf

pine forest types (Cleland et al.; McNab et al. 2007).

The Project crosses multiple land use types, from human-altered landscapes, including

residential, agricultural, commercial, industrial, and transportation and utility corridors, to relatively

undisturbed natural landscapes, including forested uplands, open land, forested wetlands,

non-forested wetlands, and open water. Human-altered landscapes often create suitable

conditions for establishment of fast-growing invasive species that thrive in nutrient-poor soil. As

the Project area has been settled since Colonial times, even relatively undisturbed lands are likely

to be long-fallow agricultural fields or second- or third-growth forest, increasing the likelihood that

native vegetation has been altered and may host invasive species.

2.1 INVASIVE PLANT BASELINE INVENTORY SURVEYS

Transco is completing invasive plant baseline surveys in 2020 to determine the presence,

location and extent of invasive plant species within the Project area. Surveys generally covered

up to an approximately 300-foot-wide corridor centered on the proposed pipelines. The survey

area for access roads and aboveground facilities covered the proposed limits of disturbance.

Biologists used Global Positioning System units to inventory the locations of occurrences of

invasive plant species within the survey corridor. Preliminary species lists are provided in

Appendix A.

Field data collected in PA was further classified into two categories: low-density

populations (Tier I) and high-density populations (Tier Il). Tier I areas were defined as those


2-2

areas where the sum of all invasive plant species’ percent cover within the given area totaled less

than 50 percent. Tier Il areas were defined as those areas where the sum of all invasive plant

species’ percent cover within the given polygon totaled greater than or equal to 50 percent.

Biologists manually conducted a desktop review of the data collected in the field.

Locations documented in the field with numerous small individual populations of invasive plant

species were consolidated to represent larger Tier I areas of invasive plant species. These

consolidated areas were generated based on individual habitat features, such as contiguous

fields, forest blocks, or hedgerows. All species documented within each individual population

located within the consolidated area were combined into one species list for that area.

2.2 SURVEY RESULTS

2.2.1 Pennsylvania

The baseline invasive plant inventory field surveys conducted in 2020 confirmed that

non-native invasive plant species are present within the survey corridor along the proposed

Project alignment in PA. Summary results tables from the baseline surveys identify the milepost

and facility locations as well as Tier status as defined above of species documented during the

surveys (Appendix B).

2.2.2 New Jersey

The baseline invasive plant inventory field surveys conducted in 2020 confirmed that

non-native invasive plant species are present within the survey corridor around the proposed

Project facilities in NJ. Summary results tables from the baseline surveys identify the facility

locations as defined above of species documented during the surveys (Appendix B).

2.2.3 Maryland

The baseline invasive plant inventory field surveys conducted in 2020 found that

non-native invasive plant species are not present within the survey corridor around the proposed

Project facility in MD.


3-1

3 INVASIVE SPECIES MANAGEMENT

3.1 MEASURES TO PREVENT THE INTRODUCTION AND SPREAD OF INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES DURING CONSTRUCTION

Transco will perform the following measures to prevent the introduction and spread of

invasive plant species:

• Prior to construction, Transco will provide training to construction contractors and

inspection staff on the implementation of this Plan. In addition, the contractors will

be instructed to stay within approved access roads and designated workspace

areas, which will reduce the likelihood that invasive plants will be transported into

undisturbed locations.

• Sediment and erosion control measures will be installed, as required, to prevent

spoil from migrating into sensitive habitats during construction. These measures

will also help contain invasive plant propagules.

• Vehicles, equipment, and materials (including equipment mats) will be inspected

for remnant soils, vegetation, and debris and cleaned of these materials before

they are brought to the Project area, leave the construction ROW, or move to

another location along the construction ROW that is free of invasive species

populations.

• To prevent the spread of seeds, roots, or other viable plant materials, equipment

used in areas containing invasive plant species will be cleaned to be visibly free of

soil and vegetation debris. Cleaning procedures may consist of the following:

o In Tier I areas, equipment may be air washed or power-washed with clean

water (no soaps or chemicals) before moving from an area populated with

invasive species.

• In Tier II areas, equipment will be power-washed prior to exiting the Tier II area

only if the construction equipment is to enter an adjacent area within the next

1,000 linear feet along the construction ROW that is free of invasive plant

species. If the exit area is in or within 100 feet of a sensitive resource, an

elevated wash rack station may be installed and used for the washing of

construction vehicles. The proposed locations for equipment cleaning stations

have been established, as depicted in the tables in Appendix B. These are

based on locations where invasive species were identified during baseline

biological field surveys. Placement and implementation of the wash rack


3-2

stations shall be modified during construction if determined by the

environmental inspector (EI) and chief inspector that site conditions are not

conducive for this method of equipment cleaning. Wash water used for both

cleaning methods will not be discharged within 100 feet of a waterbody,

wetland, or storm water conveyance (e.g., ditch, catch basin).

• Where the use of water to wash invasive plant material from equipment is not

feasible due to seasonal weather conditions (e.g., ambient temperatures at or

below freezing), site constraints relative to slope, access, workspace

configurations or the site’s proximity to adjacent wetlands or waterbodies, an

alternative method will be implemented. In these locations Transco is proposing

the use of brushes and/or compressed air or power blowers to clean equipment of

dirt, seeds, roots, or other viable plant materials, before moving from an area

populated with invasive species.

• In some areas, topsoil segregation may be used. Wash racks will be used until

the topsoil is stripped. After the topsoil is stripped, the seed bank will be removed,

preventing equipment from coming in contact with and spreading invasive plant

species. Once the seedbank is removed, equipment will be able travel over the

area without needing to be washed. Wash racks will be utilized again once the

topsoil is replaced.

• Soil and plant material collected at the cleaning stations shall be disposed of in the

following manner:

o Evenly spread in upland locations (in the immediate vicinity of the cleaning

station) that has been documented on the Project mapping as populated with

invasive species as a preconstruction condition;

o Buried on-site within the pipeline trench (in the immediate vicinity of the

cleaning station) if deemed appropriate by the EI and chief inspector; or

o Collected and transported off-site to either a landfill-incinerator or a state-

approved disposal facility.

• In wetland areas where invasive plant species are present, timber matting on the

travel lane will be utilized. The use of timber mats will prevent equipment from

disturbing the seedbank and therefore from coming into with and spreading

invasive plant species present in the area. In these cases, wash racks would not

be necessary.


3-3

• If upland invasive species must be cut within the Project area during construction,

the slash will be used within the same construction area that is infested, provided

that no filling of any wetlands or adjacent areas will occur.

• The contractor and EIs will be responsible for ensuring that any imported fill

materials and straw bales used for erosion control or restoration are certified weed-

free.

• Following pipeline installation, the trench will be graded to pre-construction

contours or as otherwise specified in approved erosion and sediment control plans.

The area will then be reseeded with a weed-free seed mix, chosen in coordination

with applicable federal and state agencies, to facilitate the growth of native species

and minimize the establishment of invasive species.

3.2 MEASURES TO CONTROL SPREAD OF INVASIVE INSECTS AND FOREST DISEASE

Transco will perform the following measures to prevent the spread of invasive insects and

forest disease:

• Prior to construction, Transco will provide training to construction contractors and

inspection staff on the recognition of signs of invasive insect and/or forest disease.

• Contractors will notify EIs of any locations suspected of being infested with

invasive insect species or forest disease.

• Invasive insect or forest disease areas identified during construction will

immediately have additional air or wash stations added beyond the outermost

extent of the infestation and equipment will be cleaned using the cleaning

procedures listed in Section 3.1.

• Woody vegetation removed in areas identified as having invasive insects and/or

forest disease will be ground and disposed of in the same manner as soil and plant

material collected at the cleaning stations (see Section 3.1).

3.3 POST-CONSTRUCTION MONITORING AND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES

Invasive plant monitoring will occur concurrently with upland and wetland restoration

monitoring, as outlined in the Transco Plan and the Transco Procedures. Specifically, Transco

will conduct follow-up inspections of disturbed areas after the first and second growing seasons

(normally during months three to nine and months 15 to 21 after seeding, respectively) to

determine the success of revegetation in upland, agricultural, and residential areas. Monitoring

in wetland areas will be completed annually for the first three years after construction or until


3-4

wetland revegetation is successful. Additional monitoring (i.e., beyond three years) may be

required as needed or according to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

Certificate, United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) permit, and/or other state and

federal regulatory authorizations.

The following data will be collected during monitoring: invasive plant or insect species or

diseased tree and location; extent of infestation or infection; results of previous control measures

implemented, if any; and recommendations for further monitoring or control, if needed. The

results of invasive plant and insect species and diseased tree monitoring will be used to direct

adaptive management of these species and diseases. Subsequent herbicide applications and

other invasive plant or insect species or forest disease management methods will continue in

accordance with the Transco Plan and Transco Procedures.

For general invasive plant management and treatment measures, Transco plans to use a

foliar herbicide method to control invasive plant species populations along the proposed ROW

that exceed documented pre-construction levels. Herbicides will be applied according to

manufacturers’ printed recommendations and in accordance with applicable agency regulations

governing herbicide application. A qualified contractor will be consulted to determine the

appropriate method for the application of the approved herbicides and may suggest methods

other than foliar herbicide application.

In consultation with a state-certified applicator, the PA, NJ, and MD Invasive Species

Councils, and applicable regulating agency, Transco will identify the most effective herbicide to

use for each species and may modify methods to suit site conditions and results of previous

control measures. Herbicides will be reapplied as needed, based on monitoring results.

However, if herbicides are not approved by FERC and the USACE, then mechanical methods will

be used in lieu of herbicide applications. The following herbicides are under consideration for

use:

• Glyphosate – applied to foliage for control of invasive herbaceous (including

grasses) and woody plants; also used as a treatment on cut stumps to prevent

re-sprouting. Because this herbicide is non-selective, selective application

methods and seasonal timing will be used to prevent impacts on non-target

species.

• Triclopyr – applied to foliage for control of invasive, broadleaf herbaceous, and

woody plants; also used as a treatment on cut stumps to prevent re-sprouting or

as a basal bark application to kill woody plants.


3-5

• Clopyralid – applied to foliage for selective control of herbaceous and woody plants

belonging to certain taxonomic groups.

Herbicides will be stored, transported, handled, applied, and disposed of according to

applicable federal and state regulations. Regulated herbicides will be supervised and applied by

an applicator possessing a current license or certification. Herbicides will not be used during

weather conditions that would exacerbate impacts on non-target species (e.g., high wind,

precipitation, snow, and ice). Herbicides will be mixed off-site and greater than 200 feet from

open water, wetlands, or sensitive habitats. In accordance with the Project-specific Wetland and

Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures (Transco Procedures), herbicides will not be

used within 100 feet of a wetland or waterbody except as allowed by the appropriate land

management or state or federal agency. All herbicide applications will be performed in

accordance with product-specific instructions. Spill kits will be available during application, and

spills will be cleaned up immediately according to the Project-specific Construction Spill

Prevention and Response Procedures for Oil and Hazardous Materials. Herbicide contractors

will possess copies of Safety Data Sheets for each herbicide used.

If herbicide use is prohibited or restricted, mechanical (e.g., mowing) or manual methods

(e.g., hand-pulling) may be warranted. Invasive plants with long tap roots may be extracted with

a weed wrench, narrow spade, or other effective tool. Shallowly rooted specimens may be pulled

by hand or removed with appropriate hand tools. Native vegetation will be left intact to the extent

feasible during manual removal of invasive plants. Specific control methods may be identified in

consultation with the appropriate federal or state agencies during development of the

Project-specific wetland restoration plan.

On certified organic agricultural land, Transco will, to the extent feasible, implement

invasive species control methods consistent with the landowner’s or tenant’s Organic System

Plan. Prohibited substances will not be used in invasive species control on certified organic

agricultural land. In addition, Transco will not use prohibited substances to promote invasive

species control on land adjacent to certified organic agricultural land in a manner that would

potentially compromise the certified organic agricultural land. No certified organic agricultural

land has been identified to date on the Project.

4 REFERENCES

Center for Environmental and Research Information Systems (CERIS). Purdue University.

2019. “Survey Status of the Sirex Woodwasp – Sirex noctillo (2009-2018).” Available at

http://pest.ceris.purdue.edu/pests.php. Accessed July 27, 2020.

Cleland, D.T., J.A. Freeouf, J.E. Keys Jr., G.J. Nowacki, C. Carpenter, W.H. McNab. 2007.

Ecological Subregions: Sections and Subsections of the Conterminous United States

[1:3,500,000] [CD-ROM]. Sloan, A.M., cartog. Gen. Tech. Report WO-76. Washington,

D.C. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Available at

http://databasin.org/datasets/662c543156c14313b87d9b99b7a78221. Accessed July

20, 2020.

Invasive Species. 64 CFR 6183 (1999). Available at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-

1999-02-08/pdf/99-3184.pdf. Accessed August 17, 2020.

Maryland Department of Agriculture. 2015. “Maryland Noxious Weed ID.” Available at:

https://mda.maryland.gov/plants-pests/Documents/weed_brochure.pdf. Accessed July

27, 2020.

Maryland Department of Agriculture. n.d. “Invasive Plant List.” Available at:

https://mda.maryland.gov/plants-pests/Documents/Invasive-Plant-List-March-2020.pdf.

Accessed July 27, 2020.

McNab, W.H.; Cleland, D.T.; Freeouf, J.A; Keys, JR., J.E.; Nowacki. G.J; Carpenter, C.A.,

comps. 2007. Description of the ecological subregions: sections of the conterminous

United States [CD-ROM]. Gen. Tech. Report WO-76B. Washington, DC: United States

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 80 p. Available at

http://www.edc.uri.edu/atmt-

dss/report_forecast/landscape_dynamics/SectionDescriptions.pdf. Accessed July 20,

2020.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). 2004. “An Overview of Non-

Indigenous Plant Species in New Jersey.” Available at:

https://www.nj.gov/dep/njisc/pdf.htm. Accessed July 21, 2020.

http://pest.ceris.purdue.edu/pests.php

http://databasin.org/datasets/662c543156c14313b87d9b99b7a78221

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1999-02-08/pdf/99-3184.pdf

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1999-02-08/pdf/99-3184.pdf

https://mda.maryland.gov/plants-pests/Documents/weed_brochure.pdf

https://mda.maryland.gov/plants-pests/Documents/Invasive-Plant-List-March-2020.pdf

http://www.edc.uri.edu/atmt-dss/report_forecast/landscape_dynamics/SectionDescriptions.pdf

http://www.edc.uri.edu/atmt-dss/report_forecast/landscape_dynamics/SectionDescriptions.pdf

https://www.nj.gov/dep/njisc/pdf.htm

New Jersey Invasive Species Strike Team. 2018. 2018 Invasive Species List [Sorted by Taxa,

followed by Scientific Name].” Available at: https://www.fohvos.info/wp-

content/uploads/2019/01/2018_NJISST_Species_List_and_Control_Recommendations_

2018_04_30.pdf. Accessed July 27, 2020.

New York Invasive Species Information (NYIS). n.d. Sirex Woodwasp. Available at

http://nyis.info/invasive_species/sirex-woodwasp/. Accessed July 20, 2020.

North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (NCDACS). 2008. External

quarantine declared for Sirex wood wasp. Available at

http://www.ncagr.gov/paffairs/release/2008/7-08sirexquarantine.htm. Accessed July 20,

2020.

Pennsylvania Bulletin (Pa.B. 2010). Department of Agriculture. Order of Quarantine; Firewood.

40 Pa.B. 441. Available at https://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol40/40-3/108.html.

Accessed August 17, 2020.

__________. 2011. Order of Quarantine; Thousand Cankers Disease. 41 Pa.B. 4644.

Available at http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol41/41-35/1462.html. Accessed

August 17, 2020.

__________. 2011a. Department of Agriculture. Repeal of Quarantine; Emerald Ash Borer. 41

Pa.B. 1025. Available at https://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol41/41-9/330.html.


__________. 2018. Department of Agriculture. Order of Quarantine and Treatment; Spotted

Lanternfly. 48 Pa.B. 3094. Available at

https://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol48/48-21/825.html. Accessed August 17,

2020.

Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PDA). 2020. Spotted Lanternfly Quarantine Map.

Available at :

https://www.agriculture.pa.gov/Plants_Land_Water/PlantIndustry/Entomology/spotted_la

nternfly/quarantine/Documents/2020%20Quarantine.pdf. Accessed August 3, 2020.

__________. 2020a. Plant Health. Thousand Cankers Disease. Available at:

https://www.agriculture.pa.gov/Plants_Land_Water/PlantIndustry/plant-

health/TCD/Pages/default.aspx. Accessed August 3, 2020.

https://www.fohvos.info/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/2018_NJISST_Species_List_and_Control_Recommendations_2018_04_30.pdf



http://nyis.info/invasive_species/sirex-woodwasp/

http://www.ncagr.gov/paffairs/release/2008/7-08sirexquarantine.htm

https://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol40/40-3/108.html

http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol41/41-35/1462.html



https://www.agriculture.pa.gov/Plants_Land_Water/PlantIndustry/Entomology/spotted_lanternfly/quarantine/Documents/2020%20Quarantine.pdf

https://www.agriculture.pa.gov/Plants_Land_Water/PlantIndustry/Entomology/spotted_lanternfly/quarantine/Documents/2020%20Quarantine.pdf

https://www.agriculture.pa.gov/Plants_Land_Water/PlantIndustry/plant-health/TCD/Pages/default.aspx

https://www.agriculture.pa.gov/Plants_Land_Water/PlantIndustry/plant-health/TCD/Pages/default.aspx

__________. 2019a. Entomology. Spotted Lanternfly. Available at:

https://www.agriculture.pa.gov/Plants_Land_Water/PlantIndustry/Entomology/spotted_la

nternfly/Pages/default.aspx. Accessed August 3, 2020.

__________. n.d. “Noxious, Invasive and Poisonous Plant Program”. Available at:

https://www.agriculture.pa.gov/Plants_Land_Water/PlantIndustry/NIPPP/Pages/default.a

spx. Accessed August 17, 2020.

Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (PADCNR). 2011. Invasive

Species Management Plan (Working Document). January 2011. Available at:

http://elibrary.dcnr.pa.gov/GetDocument?docId=1737175&DocName=DCNR Invasive

Species Management Plan - FINAL.pdf. Accessed August 17, 2020.

__________. n.d. “Invasive Plants.” Available at:

https://www.dcnr.pa.gov/Conservation/WildPlants/InvasivePlants/Pages/default.aspx.


__________. n.d.(b). “Emerald Ash Borer”. Available at:

https://www.dcnr.pa.gov/Conservation/ForestsAndTrees/InsectsAndDiseases/EmeraldA

shBorer/Pages/default.aspx. Accessed August 17, 2020.

__________. n.d.(c) “Gypsy Moth”. Available at:

https://www.dcnr.pa.gov/Conservation/ForestsAndTrees/InsectsAndDiseases/GypsyMot

h/Pages/default.aspx. Accessed August 17, 2020.

__________. n.d.(d) “Forest Health Fact Sheet: Hemlock Woolly Adelgid.” Available at:

http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/cs/groups/public/documents/document/dcnr_007179.pdf.


__________. n.d.(e) “Southern Pine Beetle.” Available at:

http://elibrary.dcnr.pa.gov/GetDocument?docId=1743514&DocName=SPB%20factsheet

C.pdf. Accessed August 3, 2020.

__________. n.d.(f) “Forest Health Fact Sheet: Fabrella Needle Blight of Hemlock.” Available

at: http://elibrary.dcnr.pa.gov/GetDocument?docId=1738101&DocName=sf-

FrstHlthFactSheet-FabrellaNeedleBlight.pdf. Accessed August 3, 2020.

__________. n.d.(g) “DCNR Invasive Plant List”. Available at:

http://elibrary.dcnr.pa.gov/GetDocument?docId=2700788&DocName=dcnr_20033786


https://www.agriculture.pa.gov/Plants_Land_Water/PlantIndustry/Entomology/spotted_lanternfly/Pages/default.aspx

https://www.agriculture.pa.gov/Plants_Land_Water/PlantIndustry/Entomology/spotted_lanternfly/Pages/default.aspx

https://www.agriculture.pa.gov/Plants_Land_Water/PlantIndustry/NIPPP/Pages/default.aspx


http://elibrary.dcnr.pa.gov/GetDocument?docId=1737175&DocName=DCNR%20Invasive%20Species%20Management%20Plan%20-%20FINAL.pdf

http://elibrary.dcnr.pa.gov/GetDocument?docId=1737175&DocName=DCNR%20Invasive%20Species%20Management%20Plan%20-%20FINAL.pdf

https://www.dcnr.pa.gov/Conservation/WildPlants/InvasivePlants/Pages/default.aspx

https://www.dcnr.pa.gov/Conservation/ForestsAndTrees/InsectsAndDiseases/EmeraldAshBorer/Pages/default.aspx

https://www.dcnr.pa.gov/Conservation/ForestsAndTrees/InsectsAndDiseases/EmeraldAshBorer/Pages/default.aspx

https://www.dcnr.pa.gov/Conservation/ForestsAndTrees/InsectsAndDiseases/GypsyMoth/Pages/default.aspx

https://www.dcnr.pa.gov/Conservation/ForestsAndTrees/InsectsAndDiseases/GypsyMoth/Pages/default.aspx

http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/cs/groups/public/documents/document/dcnr_007179.pdf

http://elibrary.dcnr.pa.gov/GetDocument?docId=1743514&DocName=SPB%20factsheetC.pdf

http://elibrary.dcnr.pa.gov/GetDocument?docId=1743514&DocName=SPB%20factsheetC.pdf

http://elibrary.dcnr.pa.gov/GetDocument?docId=1738101&DocName=sf-FrstHlthFactSheet-FabrellaNeedleBlight.pdf

http://elibrary.dcnr.pa.gov/GetDocument?docId=1738101&DocName=sf-FrstHlthFactSheet-FabrellaNeedleBlight.pdf


__________. 2017. “Emerald Ash Borer Infestation in Pennsylvania”. Available at:

http://www.docs.dcnr.pa.gov/cs/groups/public/documents/document/dcnr_20033390.pdf.


__________. 2018. “Hemlock Wooly Adelgid Infestation in Pennsylvania”. Available at:

http://www.docs.dcnr.pa.gov/cs/groups/public/documents/document/dcnr_20033431.pdf.


__________. 2020. “Other Insects and Diseases”. Available at:

https://www.dcnr.pa.gov/Conservation/ForestsAndTrees/InsectsAndDiseases/OtherInse

ctsandDiseases/Pages/default.aspx. Accessed August 3, 2020

Pennsylvania Invasive Species Council. 2009. Invaders in the Commonwealth: Pennsylvania

Invasive Species Management Plan. May 2009. Available at:

http://www.invasivespeciescouncil.com/HomeHistory.aspx. Accessed August 17, 2020.

Sarver, M.J., A. Treher, L. Wilson, R. Naczi, and F.B. Kuehn. 2008. Mistaken Identity? Invasive

Plants and their Native Look-alikes: an Identification Guide for the Mid-Atlantic. Dover,

Delaware. Delaware Department of Agriculture and United States Department of

Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

Sheley, R., J. Petroff, M. Borman. 1999. Introduction to Biology and Management of Noxious

Rangeland Weeds, Corvallis, Oregon.

Swearingen, J., B. Slattery, K. Reshetiloff, and S. Zwicker. 2010. Plant Invaders of Mid-Atlantic

Natural Areas, 4th ed. National Park Service and United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

Washington, D.C. 168 pp. Available at:

https://www.invasive.org/alien/pubs/midatlantic/midatlantic.pdf. Accessed August 17,

2020.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2016. “The Asian Longhorned Beetle: An

Invasive Tree Pest.” Fact sheet. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Program

Aid No. 2182. Available at:

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/plant_health/2016/book-alb.pdf. Accessed

August 17, 2020.

__________. 2017. European Gypsy Moth North America Quarantine Map. Available at:

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/gypsy_moth/downloads/gypmot

h.pdf. Accessed August 17, 2020.

http://www.docs.dcnr.pa.gov/cs/groups/public/documents/document/dcnr_20033390.pdf

http://www.docs.dcnr.pa.gov/cs/groups/public/documents/document/dcnr_20033431.pdf

https://www.dcnr.pa.gov/Conservation/ForestsAndTrees/InsectsAndDiseases/OtherInsectsandDiseases/Pages/default.aspx

https://www.dcnr.pa.gov/Conservation/ForestsAndTrees/InsectsAndDiseases/OtherInsectsandDiseases/Pages/default.aspx

http://www.invasivespeciescouncil.com/HomeHistory.aspx

https://www.invasive.org/alien/pubs/midatlantic/midatlantic.pdf

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/plant_health/2016/book-alb.pdf.

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/gypsy_moth/downloads/gypmoth.pdf

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/gypsy_moth/downloads/gypmoth.pdf

__________. 2017a. “It’s the law: before moving, check for gypsy moths.” Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service. Program Aid No. 2147. Available at:

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/planthealth/plant-pest-and-disease-

programs/pests-and-diseases/gypsy-moth/gm-checklist. Accessed August 17, 2020.

__________. 2018. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). Thousand Cankers

Disease. Available at: https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/planthealth/plant-

pest-and-disease-programs/pests-and-diseases/thousand-cankers-disease/thousand-

cankers-disease. Accessed August 17, 2020.

__________. 2018a. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). Spotted Lanternfly.

Available at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/planthealth/plant-pest-and-

disease-programs/pests-and-diseases/sa_insects/slf. Accessed August 17, 2020.

__________. 2019. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). Plant Pests and

Diseases Program. Available at:


programs/pests-and-diseases. Accessed August 17, 2020.

__________. 2019a. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). Plant Pests and

Diseases Program. Emerald Ash Borer. Available at:


programs/pests-and-diseases/emerald-ash-borer/emerald-ash-borer. Accessed August

17, 2020.

__________. 2019b. Cooperative Emerald Ash Borer Project. Federal EAB Quarantine and

Authorized Transit Map. Available at:

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/emerald_ash_b/downloads/eab_

quarantine_map.pdf. Accessed August 17, 2020.

__________. 2019c. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). Plant Pests and

Disease Program. Asian Longhorned Beetle. Available at:


programs/pests-and-diseases/asian-longhorned-beetle/ct_asian_longhorned_beetle.


https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/planthealth/plant-pest-and-disease-programs/pests-and-diseases/gypsy-moth/gm-checklist

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/planthealth/plant-pest-and-disease-programs/pests-and-diseases/gypsy-moth/gm-checklist

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/planthealth/plant-pest-and-disease-programs/pests-and-diseases/thousand-cankers-disease/thousand-cankers-disease



https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/planthealth/plant-pest-and-disease-programs/pests-and-diseases/sa_insects/slf

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/planthealth/plant-pest-and-disease-programs/pests-and-diseases/sa_insects/slf

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/planthealth/plant-pest-and-disease-programs/pests-and-diseases

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/planthealth/plant-pest-and-disease-programs/pests-and-diseases

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/planthealth/plant-pest-and-disease-programs/pests-and-diseases/emerald-ash-borer/emerald-ash-borer

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/planthealth/plant-pest-and-disease-programs/pests-and-diseases/emerald-ash-borer/emerald-ash-borer

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/emerald_ash_b/downloads/eab_quarantine_map.pdf

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/emerald_ash_b/downloads/eab_quarantine_map.pdf

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/planthealth/plant-pest-and-disease-programs/pests-and-diseases/asian-longhorned-beetle/ct_asian_longhorned_beetle

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/planthealth/plant-pest-and-disease-programs/pests-and-diseases/asian-longhorned-beetle/ct_asian_longhorned_beetle

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA): Forest Service and Plant Protection and

Quarantine (PPQ). 2020. Thousand Cankers Disease Survey Guidelines for 2020.

Available at:

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/tcd/downloads/tcd-survey-

guidelines.pdf. Accessed August 17, 2020.

United States Forest Service, Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, National Association of

State Foresters, and the National Plant Board. 2011. National Response Framework for

Thousand Cankers Disease (TCD) on Walnut. Available at:

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/tcd/downloads/NationalRespon

seFramework.pdf Accessed August 17, 2020.

Vermont Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation (VFPR). 2019. Hemlock Wooly Adelgid

Quarantine. Available at: https://fpr.vermont.gov/hemlock-woolly-adelgid-wood-product-

considerations. Accessed August 17, 2020.

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/tcd/downloads/tcd-survey-guidelines.pdf

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/tcd/downloads/tcd-survey-guidelines.pdf

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/tcd/downloads/NationalResponseFramework.pdf



https://fpr.vermont.gov/hemlock-woolly-adelgid-wood-product-considerations

https://fpr.vermont.gov/hemlock-woolly-adelgid-wood-product-considerations



Invasive Plant Management Plan

Appendix A Target Invasive Plant Lists


March 2021


Table A-1

Pennsylvania Noxious Weeds

Common Name Scientific Name USDA Symbol

Class A Noxious Weeds

Giant hogweed Heracleum mantegazzianum HEMA17

Goatsrue Galega officinalis GAOF

Kudzu-vine Pueraria lobata PUMOL

Palmer amaranth Amaranthus palmeri AMPA

Waterhemp Amaranthus rudis AMTU

Tall waterhemp Amaranthus tuberculatus AMTU

Animated oat Avena sterilis AVST

Dodder Cuscuta spp. (Except for native species)

CUSCU

Hydrilla Hydrilla verticillata HYVE3

Broomrape Orobanche spp. (Except for native species)

OROBA

Wavyleaf basketgrass Oplismenus hirtellus OPHI

European frogbit Hydrocharis morsus-ranae HYMO6

European water chestnut Trapa natans TRNA

Water primrose Ludwigia grandiflora ssp. hexapetala LUGRH

Brazilian waterweed Egeria densa EGDE

Yellow floating heart Nymphoides peltata NYPE

Class B Noxious Weeds

Bull thistle or Spear thistle Cirsium arvense CIAR4

Canada Thistle Cirsium arvense CIAR4

Musk Thistle or Nodding Thistle Carduus nutans CANU4

Johnson Grass Sorghum halepense SOHA

Mile-a-Minute Persicaria perfoliata POPE10

Multiflora Rose Rosa multiflora ROMU

Purple Loosestrife Lythrum salicaria LYSA2

Shattercane Sorghum bicolor SOBID

Poison hemlock Conium maculatum COMA2

Tree-of-Heaven Ailanthus altissima AIAL

Parrot feather Myriophyllum aquaticum MYAQ2

Wild parsnip Pastinaca sativa (Except for non-wild cultivated varieties)

PASA2

Japanese knotweed Reynoutria japonica POCU6

Giant knotweed Reynoutria sachalinensis POSA4

Bohemian knotweed Reynoutria x bohemica REBO

Table A-1

Pennsylvania Noxious Weeds


Class C Noxious Weeds

Class C noxious weeds are any Federal noxious weeds listed on the Federal Noxious Weed List that

are not yet established in the Commonwealth and are not referenced above.

Water soldier Stratiotes aloides STAL6

Sources:

Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PDA). n.d. “Noxious, Invasive and Poisonous Plant Program”.

https://www.agriculture.pa.gov/Plants_Land_Water/PlantIndustry/NIPPP/Pages/default.aspx Available at:

Accessed on August 17, 2020.



Amur maple Acer ginnala ACGI

Japanese Maple Acer palmatum ACPA2

Norway maple Acer platanoides ACPL

Goutweed Aegopodium podagraria AEPO

Tree-of-heaven Ailanthus altissima AIAL

Chocolate vine Akebia quinata AKQU

Mimosa Albizia julibrissin ALIU

Garlic mustard Alliaria petiolata ALEP4

European black alder Alnus glutinosa ALGL2

Palmer Amaranth Amaranthus palmeri AMPA

Porcelain berry Ampelopsis glandulosa AMBR7

Wild chervil Anthriscus sylvestris ANSY

Japanese angelica tree Aralia elata AREL8

Mugwort Artemisia vulgaris ARDO3

Small carpetgrass Arthraxon hispidus ARHI3

Giant Reed Arundo donax ARDO4

Japanese barberry Berberis thunbergii BETH

European barberry Berberis vulgaris BEVU

Poverty brome Bromus sterilis BRST2

Cheatgrass Bromus tectorum BRTE

Paper mulberry Broussonetia papyrifera BRPA4

Butterfly bush Buddleja davidii BUDA2

Flowering Rush Butomus umbellatus BUUM

Carolina fanwort Cabomba caroliniana CACA

Narrowleaf bittercress Cardamine impatiens CAIM

Spiny Plumeless Thistle Carduus acanthoides CAAC

Musk thistle Carduus nutans CANU4

Oriental bittersweet Celastrus orbiculatus CEOR7

Brown knapweed Centaurea jacea CEJA

Black knapweed Centaurea nigra CENI2

Spotted knapweed Centaurea stoebe CEST8

Greater celandine Chelidonium majus CHMA2

Canada thistle Cirsium arvense CIAR4

Bull thistle Cirsium vulgare CIVU

Japanese Clematis Clematis terniflora CLTE4

Poison hemlock Conium maculatum COMA2

Jimsonweed Datura stramonium DAST

Table A-2 DCNR Invasive Plant List



Chinese Yam Dioscorea polystacha DIOP

Brazilian water-weed Egeria densa EDGE

Russian olive Elaeagnus angustifolia ELAN

Autumn olive Elaeagnus umbellata ELUM

Hairy willow herb Epilobium hirsutum EPHI

Smallflower hairy willow-herb Epilobium parviflorum EPPA5

Winged Euonymus Euonymus alatus EUAL13

Wintercreeper Euonymus fortunei EUFO5

Japanese knotweed Fallopia japonica FAJA2

Giant Knotweed Fallopia sachalinensis POSA4

Hybrid Knotweed Fallopia X bohemica POSA23

Lesser celandine Ficaria verna RAFI

Glossy buckthorn Frangula alnus RHFR

English ivy Hedera helix HEHE

Orange day-lily Hemerocallis fulva HEFU

Giant hogweed Heracleum mantegazzianum HEMA17

Dames rocket Hesperis matronalis HEMA3

Velvetgrass Holcus lanatus HOLA

Japanese hops Humulus japonicus HUJA

Hydrilla Hydrilla verticillata HYVE3

Common Frogbit Hydrocharis morsus-ranae HYMO6

Cogon Grass Imperata cylindrica IMCY

Yellow flag iris Iris pseudacorus IRPS

Golden Rain-Tree Koelreuteria paniculata KOPA

Shrubby bushclover Lespedeza bicolor LEBI2

Chinese bushclover Lespedeza cuneata LECU

Japanese privet Ligustrum japonicum LIJA

Border privet Ligustrum obtusifolium LIOB

Chinese privet Ligustrum sinense LISI

Common privet Ligustrum vulgare LIVU

Japanese honeysuckle Lonicera japonica LOJA

Amur honeysuckle Lonicera maackii LOMA6

Morrow’s honeysuckle Lonicera morrowii LOMO2

Beautiful honeysuckle Lonicera morrowii x bella LOBE

Sweet Breath Honeysuckle Lonicera fragrantissima LOFR

Standish honeysuckle Lonicera standishii LOST2

Tartarian honeysuckle Lonicera tatarica LOTA

Large Flower Primrose Willow High Ludwigia grandiflora ssp. Hexapetala LUGRH



Moneywort Lysimachia nummularia LYNU

Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria LYSA2

Japanese stiltgrass Microstegium vimineum MIVI

Chinese silvergrass Miscanthus sinensis MISI

White mulberry Morus alba MOAL

Parrot feather watermilfoil Myriophyllum aquaticum MYAQ2

Eurasian watermilfoil Myriophyllum spicatum MYSP2

Brittle Waternymph Najas minor NAMI

Starry Stonewort Nitellopsis obtusa STPE15

Yellow Floatingheart Nymphoides peltata NYPE

Wavyleaf basketgrass Oplismenus hirtellus OPHI

Japanese pachysandra Pachysandra terminalis PATE11

Wild parsnip Pastinaca sativa PASA2

Empress tree Paulownia tomentosa PATO2

Beefsteak plant Perilla frutescens PEFR4

Bristled knotweed Persicaria longiseta PELO10

Reed canary grass Phalaris arundinacea PHAR3

Amur corktree Phellodendron amurense PHAM2

Japanese corktree Phellodendron japonicum PHJA

Lavella corktree Phellodendron lavallei PHLA26

Common reed Phragmites australis PHAUA7

Golden bamboo Phyllostachys aurea PHAU8

Yellow Groove Bamboo Phyllostachys aureosulcata PHAU80

Giant Timber Bamboo Phyllostachys bambusoides PHBA80

Rough bluegrass Poa trivialis POYR2

Curly pondweed Potamogeton crispus POCR3

Callery pear Pyrus calleryana PYCA80

Sawtooth Oak Quercus acutissima QUAC80

Common buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica RHCA3

Jetbead Rhodotypos scandens RHSC3

Multiflora rose Rosa multiflora ROMU

Wineberry Rubus phoenicolasiun RUPH

Tall fescue Schedonorus arundinaceus SCAR7

Crown-vetch Securigera varia SEVA4

Shattercane Sorghum bicolor ssp. X. drummondii SOBID

Johnson Grass Sorghum halepense SOHA

Japanese Spiraea Spiraea japonica SPJA

Common Chickweed Stellaria media STME2



Bee-bee tree Tetradium daniellii TEDA

European water chestnut Trapa natans TRNA

Ravenna grass Tripidium ravennae TRRA2

Narrow-leaved cattail Typha angustifolia TYAN

Hybrid cattail Typha x glauca TYGL

Siberian elm Ulmus pumila ULPU

Linden viburnum Viburnum dilatatum VIDI80

Guelder Rose Viburnum opulus VIOPO

Doublefile viburnum Virburnum plicatum VIPL

Siebold viburnum Viburnum sieboldii VISI

Bigleaf periwinkle Vinca major VIMA

Common periwinkle Vinca minor VIMI2

Black swallow-wort Vincetoxicum nigrum VINI3

Pale Swallow-Wort Vincetoxicum rossicum VIRO9

Japanese wisteria Wisteria floribunda WIFL

Chinese wisteria Wisteria sinensis WISI

Source:

Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (PADCNR). n.d.(g) “DCNR Invasive Plant

List”. Available at: http://elibrary.dcnr.pa.gov/GetDocument?docId=2700788&DocName=dcnr_20033786

Accessed on August 17, 2020.


Table A-3 New Jersey Non-Indigenous Plants

Common Name Scientific Name

Norway maple Acer platanoides

Tree-of-Heaven Ailanthus altissima

Garlic mustard Alliaria petiolata

Porcelain berry Ampelopsis brevipedunculata

Japanese barberry Berberis thunbergii

Japanese sedge Carex kobomugi

Asian bittersweet Celastrus orbiculatus

Spotted knapweed Centarurea biebersteinii

Canadian thistle Cirsium arvense

Wild teasel Dipsacus fullonum

Autumn olive Elaegnus umbellata

Winged spindletree Eunymus alata

Chinese bush-clover Lespedeza cuneata

Japanese honeysuckle Lonicera japonica

Morrow’s bush honeysuckle Lonicera morrowii

Tartarian honeysuckle Lonicera tatarica

Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria

Yellow sweetclover Melilotus officinalis

Japanese stitltgrass Microstegium vimineum

Euasian water-milfoil Myriophyllum spactum

Japanese knotweed Polygonum cuspidatum

Mile-a-Minute Polygonum perfoliatum

Curly leaf pondweed Potamogeton crispus

Lesser celandine Ranunculus ficaria

Common buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica

Black locust Robinia pseudoacacia

Multiflora rose Rosa multiflora

Wineberry Rubus phoenicolasius Sources:

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 2004. “An Overview of Nonindigenous Plant Species in

New Jersey”. Available at: https://www.nj.gov/dep/njisc/InvasiveReport.pdf. Accessed on July 21, 2020.

https://www.nj.gov/dep/njisc/InvasiveReport.pdf

Table A-4

New Jersey Invasive Plants


European waterstarwort Callitriche stagnalis

Rock snot Didymosphenia geminata

Brazilian waterweed Egeria densa

Common water hyacinth Eichhomia crassipes

Mudmat Glossostigma cleistanthum

European frog-bit Hydrocharis morsus-ranae

European waterclover Marsilea quadrifoilia

Starry stonewort Nitellopsus petlata

Yellow floating heart Nympoides pellata

Water lettuce Pistia stratiotes

Water soldier Stratiotes aloides

Carolina fanwort Cabomba caroliniana

Hydrilla Hydrilla verticillate

Parrotfeather Myriophyllum aquaticum

Brittleleaf naiad Najas minor

Creeping waterprimrose Ludqigia peploides

Giant chickweed Myosoton aquaticum

European waterchestnut Trapa natans

Eurasian watermilfoil Myriophyllum spicatum

Watercress Nasturtium offiniale

Curly-leaved pondweed Potamogeton crispus

Wavyleaf basketgrass Oplismenus hirtellus

Weeping lovegrass Eragrostis curvula

Chinese silvergrass Miscanthus sinensis

Canarygrass Phalaris canariensis

Black fountain grass Pennisteum alopecuriodes

Black fountain grass Pennisetum setaceus

Hardy pampas grass Ripidum ravennae

Variable flatsedge Cyperus difformis

Japanese stiltgrass Microstegium vimineum

Reed canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea

Small carpetgrass Arthraxon hispidus

Common reed Phragmites australis

Annual wormwood Artemisia annua

Purple keman Corydalis incisa

Cuman ragweed Ambrosia psilostachya

Oldwoman Artemisia stelleriana

Table A-4



Giant hogweed Heracleum mantegazzianum

Ragged robin Lychnis flos-cuculi

Giant knotweed Fallopia sachalinensis

Kiss me over the garden gate Persicaria orientalis

Blue plantain lily Hosta ventricosa

Japanese sedge Carex kobomugi

Cutleaf teasel Dipsacus laciniatus

Largehead sedge Carex macrocephala

Poison-hemlock Conium maculatum

Beefsteakplant Perilla frutescens

Yellow iris Iris pseudacorus

Squill Scilla siberica

Blue-green sedge Carex flacca

Japanese chaff flower Achyranthes japonica

Italian arum Arum italicum

Blackberry lily Belamcanda chinensis

Japanese net-veined holly fern Cyrtomium falcatum

Hairy crabweed Fatoua villosa

Chameleon-plant Houttuynia cordata

Hispanic hyacinthoides Hyacinthoides hispanica

Yellow archangel Lamiastrum galeobdolon

Snowbell Leucojum aestivum

Jupiter’s distaff Salvia glutinosa

Purple stemmed dodder Cuscuta japonica

Scotch broom Cytisus scoparius

Sickleweed Falcaria vulgaris

Korean clover Kummerowia stipulacea

Java dropwort Oenanthe javanica

Water wheel plant Aldrovanda vesiculosa

Himalayan balsam Impatiens glandulifera

Marsh dayflower Murdannia keisak

Garlic mustard Alliaria petiolata

Narrowleaf bittercress Cadramine impatiens

Lesser celandine Ficaria verna

Sericea lespedeza Lespedeza cuneate

Mugwort Artemesia vulgaris

Spotted knapweed Centaurea stoebe ssp. Micranthos

Canada thistle Cirsium arvense

Table A-4



American sweetflag Acorus calamus

Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria

Common teasel Dipsacus fullonum

Japanese knotweed Fallopia japonica

Sweet breath of spring Lonicera fragrantissima

Dahurian buckthorn Rhamnus davurica

Japanese snowbell Styrax japonicus

Wayfaringtree Viburnum lantana

Japanese snowball Viburnum plicatum

Russian olive Elaegnus angustifolia

Bristly locust Robinia hispida

Himalaya blackberry Rubus armeniacus

Western thimbleberry Rubus parvifolius

Common barberry Berberis vulgaris

Five-leaf aralia Eleutherococcus sieboldianus

European spindletree Euonymus europaeus

California privet Ligustrum ovalifolium

Garden red current Ribes rubrum

Tea viburnum Viburnum setigerum

Butterflybush Buddleja davidii

Dog rose Rosa canina

Seaside rose Rosa rugosa

Cutleaf blackberry Rubus laciniatus

Guelder-rose Viburnum opulus

European buckthorn Rhamnum cathartica

Jetbread Rhodotypos scandens

Siebold’s arrowwood Viburnum sieboldii

Gray willow Salix cinerea

Large gray willow Salix atrocinerea

Indigobush Amorpha frticosa

Glossy buckthorn Frangula alnus

Orinetal photinia Photinia villosa

Beautybush Kolkwitzia amabilis

Wintergreen barberry Berberis julianae

Duetzia Deutzia scabra

Amur privet Ligustrum amurense

Beale’s barberry Mahonia bealei

Hardy orange Pncirus trifoliata

Table A-4



Chinese buckthorn Rhamnus utilis

Japanese spiraea Spiraea japonica

Thorny elaeagnus Elaeagnus pungens

Seaberry Hippophae rhamnoides

Holly Osmanthus Osmanthus heterophyllus

Mermorial rose Rosa wichuraiana


Winged burning bush Euonymus alatus

Border privet Ligustrum obtusifloim

European privet Ligustrum vulgare

Amur honeysuckle Lonicera morrowii

Tatarian honeysuckle Lonicera tatarica

Multiflora rose Rosa multiflora

Rubus phoenicolasius Wine raspberry

Linden viburnum Vibrunum dilatatum

Autumn olive Elaeagnus umbellata

Amur maple Acer ginnala

Paper mulberry Broussonetia papyrifera

Chinese elm Ulmus parvifolia

English elm Ulmus procera

Japanese zelkova Zelkova serrata

Castor aralia Kalopanax septemlobus

White poplar Populus alba

Sycamore maple Acer pseudoplantanus

Kousa dogwood Cornus kousa

Amur corktree Phellodendron amurense

Weeping HIgan cherry Prunus subhirtella var. pendula

Gray poplar Populus x canescens

Euopean black alder Alnus glutinosa

Japanese maple Acer palmatum

Siberian elm Ulmus pumila

Mimosa Albizia julibrissin

Japanese crabapple Malus toringo

Japanese angelica tree Aralia elata

Callery pear (Bradford pear) Pyrus calleryana

Kobus magnolia Magnolia kobus

Golden raintree Koelreuteria elegans

Chinese willow Salix matsudana

Table A-4



Chinese mulberry Morus autralis

Birchleaf pear Pyrus betulifolia

Norway maple Acer platanoides

Tree-of-heaven Ailanthus altissima

Black locust Robinia pseudoacaria

Italian woodbine Linceria caprifolium

Bukhara fleeceflower Polygonum balschuanicum

Hardy kiwi Actinidia arguta

Fragrant clematis Clematis flammula

Chinese yam Dioscorea plysacha

Chocolate Vine Akebia quinata

Black swallowwort Cyanchum louiseae

Pale swallowwort Cyanchum Rossicum

Boston ivy Parthenocissus tricuspidata

Kudzu Pueraria montana var. iobta

Winter creeper Euonymus fortunei

Japanese wisteria Wisteria floribunda

Porcelain-berry Amelopsis brevipenunculata

Japanese clematis Clematis terniflora

English ivy Hedera helix

Japanese hop Humulus japonicus

Chinese wisteria Wisteria sinensis

Oriental bittersweet Celastrus orbiculatus

Japanese honeysuckle Lonicera japonica

Mile-a-minute vine Persicaria perfoliata

Sources:

New Jersey Invasive Species Strike Team. 2018. 2018 Invasive Species List [Sorted by Taxa, followed by

Scientific Name].” Available at: https://www.fohvos.info/wp-

content/uploads/2019/01/2018_NJISST_Species_List_and_Control_Recommendations_2018_04_30.pdf.

Accessed on July 27, 2020.



Table A-5 Maryland Noxious Weeds


Plumeless thistle Carduus acanthoides

Musk thistle Carduus nutans

Canada thistle Cirsium arvense

Bull thistle Cirsium vulgare

Shattercane Sorghum bicolor

Johnsongrass Sorghum halepense

Sources:

Maryland Department of Agriculture. 2015. “Maryland Noxious Weed ID.” Available at: https://mda.maryland.gov/plants-pests/Documents/weed_brochure.pdf. Accessed on July 27, 2020.

Table A-6 Maryland Invasive Plants


Japanese angelica tree Aralia elata


Incised fumewort Corydalis incisa

Scotch broom Cytisus scoparius

Burning bush/winged euonymus Euonymus alatus

Wintercreeper Euonymus fortunei

Fig buttercup/lesser celandine Ficaria verna

Shining geranium Geranium lucidum

Yellow flag/pale yellow iris/water flag Iris pseudacorus

Border privet Ligustrum obtusifolium

Amur honeysuckle Lonicera maackii

Nandina/sacred bamboo Nandina domestica

Golden bamboo Phyllostachys aurea

Yellow groove bamboo Phyllostachys aureosulcata

Callery pear Pyrus calleryana

Bee bee tree Tetradium daniellii

Japanese wisteria Wisteria floribunda

Chinese wisteria Wisteria sinesis

Floribunda x sinensis hybrid Wisteria x formosa

Sources:

Maryland Department of Agriculture. n.d. “Invasive Plant List.” Available at: https://mda.maryland.gov/plants-

pests/Documents/Invasive-Plant-List-March-2020.pdf. Accessed on July 27, 2020.

https://mda.maryland.gov/plants-pests/Documents/weed_brochure.pdf





Invasive Plant Management Plan

Appendix B Invasive Plant Survey Results


March 2021


Milepost(s) / Area

Invasive Plant Species

Wetlands with Invasive Plant Species Present Low Density (Tier I) High Density (Tier II)

2.9 Purple loosestrife N/A W42-T1

5.9 Multiflora rose N/A W89-T2

AR-LU-028 Multiflora rose N/A W9-T3, W10-T13



6.6 – 6.7 Multiflora rose N/A W12-T13

AR-LU-027 Multiflora rose, bull thistle N/A W71-T1 (Multiflora rose)

12.6 Tree of heaven N/A N/A

13.7 Tree of heaver Japanese knotweed N/A

13.75 Poison hemlock, mile-a-minute

Japanese knotweed W76-T1 (Mile-a-minute)

13.85 N/A Japanese knotweed N/A

14 Poison hemlock N/A N/A


14.2 Poison hemlock N/A W4-T5

14.3 Multiflora rose N/A N/A



15.2 Japanese knotweed N/A N/A

15.35 Tree of heaven N/A N/A

15.45 Multiflora rose, Purple loosestrife

N/A W14-T1 (Purple loosestrife) W32-T2 (Multiflora rose)



18.4 Multiflora rose, Tree of heaven

N/A N/A



19.55 Poison hemlock N/A N/A










Table B-1 Invasive Plant Species Identified at the Regional Energy Lateral Pipeline

21.8 Multiflora rose Japanese knotweed W44-T3


22.1 Multiflora rose N/A WT2-T12

AR-LU-001 Multiflora rose N/A W80-T2

Milepost(s) / Area

Invasive Plant Species

Wetlands with Invasive Plant Species Present Low Density (Tier I) High Density (Tier II)



46.1

Multiflora rose, Japanese

knotweed N/A W1-T2


46.35 Multiflora rose N/A W3-T2 46.6 Multiflora rose N/A N/A

49.4 – 49.5 Multiflora rose N/A W1-T1





Facility Invasive Plant Species Wetlands with Invasive

Plant Species Present Low Density (Tier I) High Density (Tier II)

Compressor

Station 200

Multiflora rose N/A W66-T1

Mile-a-minute N/A W66-T1

Compressor

Station 515

Multiflora rose N/A N/A

Purple loosestrife N/A W5-T3

Hildebrandt Tie-in Multiflora rose N/A N/A

Mainline A

Regulator

Multiflora rose N/A W6-T10

a Invasive species were not observed at Compressor Station 195, Delaware River Regulator, Lower Mud Run

Meter Station, Carverton Tie-in, and Lower Demunds REL Tie-in.

Table B-2 Invasive Plant Species Identified at the Effort Loop Pipeline

Table B-3 Invasive Plant Species Identified at Pennsylvania Aboveground Facilitiesa

Facility Invasive Plant Species Wetlands with Invasive Plant Species Present

Compressor Station 201 Lonicera japonica Alliaria petiolata

201-W1/W2 (Lonicera japonica)

Compressor Station 505 Elaeagnus umbellate Elaegnus angustifolia Artemisia vulgaris Reynoutria japanoica Microstegium vimineum Phalaris arundinacea Persicaria perfoliate Rosa multiflora Phragmites australis Alliaria petiolata Lonicera japonica Celastrus orbiculatus

505-W1 (Elaegnus angustifolia, Rosa multiflora, Microstegium vimineum, Phalaris arundinacea)

505-W2 (Microstegium vimineum, Phalaris arundinacea)

505-W3 (Microstegium vimineum, Phalaris arundinacea)

Lawnside M&R Station Phragmites australis Reynoutria japonica

N/A

Station 210 Pooling Point Elaeagnus angustifloia Microstegium vimineum Rosa multiflora Phragmites australis Dipsacus fullonum

210-W1 (Microstegium vimineum)

Mt Laurel M&R Station Phragmites australis Reynoutria japonica

N/A

a Invasive species were not observed at Camden M&R Station. b No invasive species surveys were conducted at Compressor Station 207 due to workspaces being contained

within the existing fenceline in concrete/paved areas only. No ground disturbance is proposed.

Milepost(s) or

Facility

Invasive Plant Species Wetlands with Invasive

Plant Species Present Low Density (Tier I) High Density (Tier II)

Beaver Dam M&R

Station

N/A N/A N/A

a Invasive species were not observed at Beaver Dam M&R Station.

Table B-4 Invasive Plant Species Identified in New Jerseya, b

Table B-5 Invasive Plant Species Identified in Maryland