HomeMy WebLinkAbout20140957 Ver 2_Attachment 22_USFWS Letter to FERC_20170818Attachment 22
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
West Virginia Field Office
694 Beverly Pike
Elkins, West Virginia 26241
June 2, 2016
Ms. Kimberly Bose, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Washington, DC 20426
Re: Dominion Transmission, Inc., Atlantic Coast Pipeline Project, North Carolina, Virginia,
West Virginia; Docket Number CPI5-554-000(FWS File #2015-I-0832)
Dear Ms. Bose:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) West Virginia (WVFO), Virginia (VAFO), and
Raleigh Field Offices (RFO) met with Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC (Atlantic) on May 5, 2016,
to discuss project updates and the upcoming field season for the proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline
(ACP) project. Due to the project's proposed timeline, there is only one field season left before
construction is scheduled to begin. In an effort to help the project proponent meet the desired
timeline and provide the best conservation benefit to listed resources, the Service provided
further clarification and recommendations for the upcoming field season with regard to bats,
aquatic species, and migratory birds. These recommendations, based on conversations had during
our May 5, 2016, meeting, are outlined below. These comments are provided pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) (87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), the Bald and
Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) (16 U.S.C. 668-668c, as amended), and the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act (MBIA) (16 U.S.C. 703-712).
Federally listed bats
In West Virginia: In early discussions with Atlantic regarding the ACP in September 2014, and
July 2015, the WVFO, in coordination with the U.S. Forest Service and the West Virginia
Division of Natural Resources, recommended that Atlantic survey all alternative routes for the
federally listed Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), Virginia big -eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii
virginianus), and northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis)(NLEB) and other listed
species and sensitive resources prior to selecting a preferred alternative. Survey results would
help the project proponent determine the least damaging practicable alternative to avoid adverse
impacts to sensitive environmental areas. Despite this recommendation, Atlantic chose to only
perform environmental surveys on their preferred alternative (MNF2) during the 2015 field
season.
Ms. Kimberly Bose 2
June 2, 2016
The proposed preferred ACP route and MNF5 alternative were surveyed acoustically for bats at
85 sites and mist netting efforts were conducted at 23 sites between June 13 and August 14,
2015. None of these sites were located within known -use habitat buffer areas for either species.
Neither Indiana nor Virginia big -eared bats were detected acoustically or captured in mist nets
during survey efforts. NLEB were detected or captured at a total of 8 sites. Positive acoustic
detections for NLEB were received at four sites, two in Lewis County and one each in Upshur
and Randolph Counties. NLEB were also captured at four mist net sites, one in Randolph County
and three in Pocahontas County. The bat captured in Randolph County was tracked to two roost
trees over a seven day period.
In addition to summer survey efforts for listed bats, Atlantic has committed to completing
pedestrian surveys of the line through areas with karst and/or past mining activity to search for
potential portals that may serve as hibernacula for bats. Atlantic has also committed to pedestrian
--surveys -of fhrougli n-uset areo colle�a at on tYie �untity anzlzjuYityzs�
roosting habitat and potential roost trees. At this writing, completed survey results for these
pedestrian surveys have not been received by the WVFO.
The MNF2 alternative through Randolph and Pocahontas Counties has undergone a major
reroute since the 2015 survey season. The new preferred alternative route is south of the original
proposed preferred alternative and is known as GWNF6. No surveys for the federally listed bats
or other environmental resources have been completed along this new proposed alternative.
Summer surveys and pedestrian surveys for portals and for roosting habitat will need to be
completed for the new preferred alternative; these surveys are proposed to be completed during
the 2016 field season.
In addition to these surveys, the WVFO highly recommends that a geologic and hydrologic
analysis be completed along the study corridor in areas that travel through karst for the new
alternative as the new proposed route travels through a very karst-rich area. These studies should
take place to determine how construction and operation of the proposed project may impact karst
areas. Data gathered from these studies will aid in the development of avoidance and
minimization measures and contingency plans for spills or leaks so that in the event of these
accidents occurring, they may be controlled quickly before adverse impacts to karst environments
and the water table can occur. If the studies find that construction and/or operation of the
proposed project will have an adverse impact on karst environments, the WVFO recommends
avoiding those areas. If avoidance is infeasible, some minimization measures that could be
considered are: lining the trench through these areas in a manner that prevents potential leaks
from traveling further into karst areas, performing scheduled pressure testing annually, and
installing sensors that can provide an alarm if a leak or spill occurs.
Despite the major change in route alternative through West Virginia as detailed above, the
project proponent still intends to keep to the original timeline for the project and is proposing to
begin construction next spring/summer. Keeping to this proposed aggressive timeline will result
in the clearing of potential and known roosting and foraging habitats for Indiana bats and NLEB
during the months when these bats are present on the landscape (as opposed to the winter months
when the bats are in hibemacula), significantly increasing adverse effects to these species.
Ms. Kimberly Bose
June 2, 2016
Construction activities performed during the warmer months will likely result in adverse impacts
to listed bat species and will thus result in the project entering formal consultation for these
species.
In anticipation of formal consultation, the WVFO recommends that Atlantic complete summer
survey efforts (either acoustics or mist netting) through both potential and known -use areas for
bats along the GWNF6 alternative. If acoustics are performed, phase II mist netting should be
completed in areas with confirmed positive acoustic detection of listed bats as per the 2016
Rangewide Indiana Bat Summer Survey Guidelines. If federally listed bats are captured during
phase II netting efforts, the bats should be tracked for the life of the transmitter and emergence
counts of located roost trees should be conducted. The WVFO also recommends that data be
gathered on foraging habits of listed bats in the project area. Airplanes are the most effective way
to track bats in remote areas like those traversed by the proposed project. Results of the surveys
- -- and assessments lined a ove are needed36-adequately assess poteritial-effects on this projecCto - -----
listed species and ensure that adverse effects are avoided and minimized. Therefore, these results
should be provided before formal consultation is initiated or completed.
In Virginia: In early discussions the VAFO recommended surveys for potential hibernacula
within the action area of the proposed pipeline route and where tree removal will occur. Acoustic
surveys occurred at 355 sites in Virginia from May 23 through August 13, 2015. A total of 355
acoustic sites were surveyed along the proposed route at that time, and 30 were found to have
likely presence for the Indiana bat and/or the NLEB. Since the time of the survey, the pipeline
has undergone a re-route. Follow up mist -net surveys are schedule for summer of 2016 to follow-
up in areas of a positive acoustic detections and to cover the sections of the new alignment not
surveyed in 2015. The VAFO will provide specific recommendations once we have the survey
results.
The most recent alignment, revs 0, runs within 5 miles of both Indiana bat and NLEB
hibernacula. Indiana bat and NLEB hibernacula that may be adversely impacted are: Arbegast
Saltpetre, Bacon, Breathing, Buddy Penleys, Canoe, Church Mountain, Clarks, Clover Hollow,
Coon, Crossroads, Cudjos Cavern, Gully, Hamilton, Higginbotham No. 1, Hupmans Saltpeter,
Kelly, Little Mountain, Mountain Grove Saltpetre, Newberry -Bane, Paul Penleys, Porter's,
Repass Saltpetre, Rocky Hollow, Rufe Caldwell Shires Saltpetre, Starr Chapel, Staunton
Aquaduct, Stonley, Tawneys, Vamer's, Witheros, and Witting's. We recommend that Atlantic
provide specific project details about the activities that will occur in these segments so that we
can determine if these activities may disturb or disrupt hibernating bats, alter the physical
entrance, or environment when bats are not present. Coordination with the VAFO and Wil
Omdorff, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Karst Protection Coordinator, is
recommended to identify activities that will not impact the hibernacula and route alternatives that
will avoid or minimize impacts.
Federally listed aquatic species
In North Carolina: In early discussions, multiple emails, and their March 25, 2015, letter to
Atlantic's consultants, the RFO expressed concerns with the proposed route and proposed
crossing methods of several streams in North Carolina, specifically due to the presence of the
Ms. Kimberly Bose 4
June 2, 2016
federally listed dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) and Tar River spinymussel (Elliptio
steinstansana), as well as six at -risk species that the Service has been petitioned to list (Atlantic
pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni), yellow lance (Elliptio lanceolata), green floater (Lasmigona
subviridis), Carolina madtom (Noturus furiosus), Neuse River waterdog (Necturus lewisi) and
the Chowanoke crayfish (Orconectes virginiensis). These streams include Rocky Swamp, Fishing
Creek, Swift Creek, Tar River, Little River, and Buffalo Creek. Of the four currently known
populations of Tar River Spinymussel, this project, as currently proposed, will adversely impact
three of them. First and foremost, the RFO would like the route to avoid these sensitive areas. If
avoidance is not feasible, the RFO has requested that these streams be crossed in ways that
maintain natural forested buffers to keep the integrity of the stream bank and not impact the
stream bed.
At the time of this writing, Atlantic has re-routed the project to avoid Buffalo Creek, but the
route wilrgtill adverselyimp-a-cl-t cherig y sensi lve s—creams—Attantic hagprapusud surveys
and salvage operations to occur prior to construction, however due to the difficulty of locating
mussels buried under the surface, this may provide minimal benefit and it does not address the
long term impacts from the change in streamside buffer condition, nor does it address the
instability of the stream banks. Relocation is not considered an avoidance measure. While it does
aid in avoidance of some project impacts to the species, it is still considered "take" of the
species, which will require formal consultation.
The RFO is also concerned about the timing of in -water work relative to potential adverse
impacts to listed aquatic species as well as potential adverse impacts to commercially and
recreationally important anadromous and catadromous fish species. The RFO has asked for
restrictions of in -water work that may occur downstream of the first dam on any stream with a
diadromous fish run, specifically for no work to occur between February 15 and June 30 of any
year. The RFO has not yet received proposed dates for in -water work from Atlantic; there is
some level of concern that Atlantic may propose to work during the February 15 - June 30 time
period as Atlantic has proposed to perform vegetation removal during critical times for bats
which they were also asked to avoid.
The RFO has also expressed concerns about the right-of-way providing easy access for off road
vehicles (ORV) and has asked Atlantic to describe how they would prevent this access and how
they would monitor (and enforce) habitat destruction from potential ORV impacts. In other
nearby areas, ORVs utilize rights-of-way to ride through streams as well as upstream and
downstream within them. This not only affects streambank stability, but also damages in -stream
habitats and directly impacts aquatic organisms which may be run over and crushed by ORV
tires.
Additionally, proposed water withdrawals from the streams and return of this water to the
streams following project uses has the potential to impinge or entrain aquatic organisms,
introduce harmful substances into the streams, and impact instream flows.
In Virginia: The VAFO has recommended that an alternatives analysis be conducted to avoid any
streams that have been identified as suitable habitat or have known occurrences of the federally
Ms. Kimberly Bose
June 2, 2016
listed Roanoke logperch (Percina rex). If the final route of the pipeline crosses suitable or known
habitat for the Roanoke logperch, the VAFO recommended that Atlantic provide an alternatives
analysis that demonstrates that the proposed crossing method is the least environmentally
damaging alternative. If the crossing is proposed to be drilled or bored beneath the stream, results
of a geotechnical analysis and the estimated risk of an inadvertent return occurrence at the
location should be provided.
Migratory birds
The Service provided additional recommendations on the Migratory Bird Plan dated September
2015. Specifically, we recommended that the Migratory Bird Plan be revised to include all
applicable nationwide standard conservation measures. These measures are available at:
�l{i'�;:r ;{tY§i i4Wn €,iJb`t€[7�t Sf{aP-;n}rd3 pc�€-S��ii,.�a€�k �1ls.ii ('Ii�.th.>lTt41C�t S€�l161<L t�i„0335e.i"t ak M�Il€il>G19EiicS.}Xj;l�.
Follow the recommendations included in the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines for
bald eagle nests that occur within '/z mile of the action area. If avoidance and minimization
measures cannot be implemented and disturbance may occur, a permit may be necessary and
further coordination is recommended.
Conclusion
The proposed aggressive timeline for completion of this project and the project's proposed route
through multiple biologically sensitive environments poses many potential adverse impacts to
federally listed species. The Service has worked closely with Atlantic since 2014 to provide
recommendations and survey guidelines for listed species and trust resources to help the project
proponent to identify the least damaging practicable alternative for the proposed pipeline route to
listed species and their habitats. However, the project proponent's failure to comply with and
follow past recommendations provided by the Service has contributed to delays in the project's
timeline. Additionally, failure to follow our recommendations has increased the potential for
adverse effects to listed species and other trust resources.
A thorough analysis of all potential alternatives including surveys for federally listed species
should be completed prior to the development of an environmental impact statement. The results
of these survey efforts will help determine the least damaging practicable alternative for the
proposed project so that adverse impacts to federally listed species and other trust resources are
avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Additionally, the results from survey
efforts will aid in the development of conservation measures for the project and will also aid in
the development of an incidental take statement for unavoidable adverse impacts to federally
listed species. Until surveys have been completed, the Service cannot concur that the proposed
project will not have adverse impacts on listed species.
Close coordination will assist in assuring that the project avoids and minimizes adverse impacts
to federally listed species and other trust resources to the maximum extent practicable. For
questions, please contact the appropriate field office contact at the following:
Ms. Kimberly Bose 6
June 2, 2016
John Ellis Kimberly Smith Liz Stout
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh Field Office Virginia Field Office West Virginia Field Office
551 Pylon Drive 6669 Short Lane 694 Beverly Pike
Raleigh, NC 27606 Gloucester, VA 23061 Elkins, WV 26241
919-856-4520 804-824-2410 304-636-6586
John—Ellis@fws.gov Kimberly_Smith@fws.gov Elizabeth Stoutgfws.gov
The Service looks forward to continuing to work with the FERC and Atlantic to avoid and
minimize adverse impacts to federally listed species and their habitats which may occur along the
proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline project.
Sincerely,
John E. Schmidt
Field Supervisor