The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20140957 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