D R A F T BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION:

Prepared for:

Rover Pipeline LLC.

Prepared by:

Draft: November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION...... 1 1.1 Action Agency ...... 1 1.2 Purpose and Need ...... 1 1.3 Consultation History ...... 4 1.4 Analysis Summary ...... 6 1.5 Action Area ...... 6 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ...... 8 2.1 Project Location ...... 8 2.2 Pipeline Facilities ...... 10 2.2.1 Supply Laterals ...... 11 2.2.2 Mainlines ...... 12 2.3 Aboveground Facilities ...... 12 2.3.1 Compressor Stations ...... 12 2.3.2 Receipt and Delivery Meter Stations ...... 13 2.3.3 Tie-In Facilities ...... 14 2.3.4 Mainline Valves ...... 15 2.3.5 Launchers and Receivers ...... 15 2.4 Land Requirements ...... 15 2.4.1 Pipeline Facilities ...... 16 2.4.1.1 Construction Right-of-Way ...... 16 2.4.1.2 Additional Temporary Workspace ...... 19 2.4.1.3 Access Roads ...... 19 2.4.1.4 Contractor Yards ...... 19 2.4.1.5 Operations Easement...... 19 2.4.2 Aboveground Facilities ...... 19 2.5 Construction Schedule and Compliance Procedures ...... 20 2.5.1 Construction Schedule ...... 20 2.5.2 Compliance Assurance Measures ...... 20 2.6 Construction Procedures ...... 22 2.6.1 Pipeline Facilities ...... 22 2.6.1.1 Typical Upland Pipeline Construction Procedures ...... 22 2.6.1.2 Wetland Construction Procedures ...... 26 2.6.1.3 Waterbody Construction Procedures...... 27 2.6.1.4 Horizontal Bore and HDD Crossing Methods ...... 28 2.6.1.5 Road and Railroad Crossings ...... 30 2.6.1.6 Foreign Pipeline Crossings ...... 30 2.6.1.7 Agricultural Areas ...... 31 2.6.1.8 Other Construction Procedures ...... 31 2.6.2 Aboveground Facilities ...... 32 2.6.2.1 General Construction Procedures ...... 32 2.6.2.2 Foundations ...... 32 2.6.2.3 Equipment ...... 33 2.6.2.4 Launcher and Receiver Facilities ...... 33 2.6.2.5 Mainline Valves ...... 33 2.6.3 Restoration ...... 33 2.6.3.1 Pipeline Right-of-Way ...... 33 2.6.3.2 Aboveground Facilities ...... 34

ii Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

2.6.3.3 Access Roads ...... 34 2.6.3.4 Contractor Yards ...... 34 2.7 Operations and Maintenance Procedures ...... 35 2.7.1 Pipeline ...... 35 2.7.2 Aboveground Facilities ...... 36 2.7.2.1 Compressor Stations ...... 36 2.7.2.2 Meter Stations, Mainline Valves, and Tie-Ins ...... 36 2.8 Future Plans and Abandonment ...... 36 3.0 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ANALYSES ...... 37 3.1 Bats ...... 37 3.1.1 Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) ...... 37 3.1.1.1 Status and Distribution ...... 37 3.1.1.2 Natural History and Habitat Association ...... 39 3.1.2 Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) ...... 42 3.1.2.1 Status and Distribution ...... 42 3.1.2.2 Life History and Habitat Associations ...... 42 3.1.3 Historic Occurrence ...... 45 3.1.4 Potential Presence in the Action Area ...... 46 3.1.4.1 Potential Roost Trees ...... 46 3.1.4.2 Habitat Plot Data ...... 47 3.1.4.3 Portal Survey ...... 48 3.1.4.4 Mist Net Survey ...... 53 3.1.5 Impact Evaluation ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.1.5.1 Construction ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.1.5.2 Operations ...... 66 3.1.5.3 Conservation Measures ...... 66 3.1.6 Determination ...... 67 3.1.6.1 Effect on Critical Habitat ...... 67 3.1.6.2 Effect on the species ...... 67 3.2 Mussels ...... 67 3.2.1 Snuffbox Mussel (Epioblasma triquetra) ...... 67 3.2.1.1 Status and Distribution ...... 67 3.2.1.2 Natural History and Habitat Association ...... 69 3.2.2 Clubshell Mussel (Pleurobema clava) ...... 69 3.2.2.1 Status and Distribution ...... 69 3.2.2.2 Natural History and Habitat Association ...... 69 3.2.3 Fanshell (Cryptogenia stegaria) ...... 69 3.2.3.1 Status and Distribution ...... 69 3.2.3.2 Natural History and Habitat Association ...... 71 3.2.4 Sheepnose Mussel (Plethobasus cyphyus) ...... 71 3.2.4.1 Status and Distribution ...... 71 3.2.4.2 Natural History and Habitat Association ...... 71 3.2.5 Pink Mucket Pearly Mussel (Lampsilis abrupta) ...... 71 3.2.5.1 Status and Distribution ...... 71 3.2.5.2 Natural History and Habitat Association ...... 72 3.2.6 Rayed Bean (Villosa fabalis) ...... 73 3.2.6.1 Status and Distribution ...... 73 3.2.6.2 Natural History and Habitat Association ...... 73 3.2.7 Potential Presence in the Action Area ...... 73

iii Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

3.2.8 Impact Evaluation ...... 75 3.2.8.1 Construction ...... 75 3.2.8.2 Operations ...... 76 3.2.8.3 Conservation Measures ...... 77 3.2.9 Determination ...... 77 3.2.9.1 Effect on Critical Habitat ...... 77 3.2.9.2 Effect on the species ...... 78 3.3 Butterflies ...... 78 3.3.1 Mitchell’s Satyr Butterfly (Neonympha mitchelli mitchelli) ...... 78 3.3.1.1 Status and Distribution ...... 78 3.3.1.2 Natural History and Habitat Association ...... 78 3.3.2 Powershiek Skipperling (Oarisma powersheik) ...... 78 3.3.2.1 Status and Distribution ...... 78 3.3.2.2 Natural History and Habitat Association ...... 79 3.3.3 Potential Presence in the Action Area ...... 80 3.3.4 Impact Evaluation ...... 80 3.3.4.1 Construction ...... 80 3.3.4.2 Operations ...... 80 3.3.4.3 Conservation Measures ...... 80 3.3.5 Determination ...... 80 3.3.5.1 Effect on Critical Habitat ...... 81 3.3.5.2 Effect on the species ...... 81 3.4 Eastern Prairie Fringed Orchid (Platanthera leucophaea) ...... 81 3.4.1 Status and Distribution ...... 81 3.4.2 Natural History and Habitat Association ...... 82 3.4.3 Potential Presence in the Action Area ...... 83 3.4.4 Impact Evaluation ...... 83 3.4.4.1 Construction ...... 83 3.4.4.2 Operations ...... 83 3.4.4.3 Conservation Measures ...... 83 3.4.5 Determination ...... 83 3.4.5.1 Effect on Critical Habitat ...... 83 3.4.5.2 Effect on the Species ...... 83 4.0 CANDIDATE SPECIES ANALYSES ...... 84 4.1 Eastern Hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis alleganiensis) ...... 84 4.1.1 Status and Distribution ...... 84 4.1.2 Natural History and Habitat Association ...... 84 4.1.2.1 Potential Presence in the Action Area ...... 85 4.1.3 Impact Evaluation ...... 86 4.1.3.1 Construction ...... 86 4.1.3.2 Conservation Measures ...... 86 4.1.4 Determination ...... 86 4.1.4.1 Effect on Critical Habitat ...... 86 4.1.4.2 Effect on the Species ...... 86 4.2 Eastern Massasauga (Sistrurus catenatus) ...... 86 4.2.1 Status and Distribution ...... 86 4.2.2 Natural History and Habitat Association ...... 87 4.2.3 Potential Presence in the Action Area ...... 87 4.2.4 Impact Evaluation ...... 88

iv Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

4.2.4.1 Construction ...... 88 4.2.4.2 Operations ...... 88 4.2.4.3 Conservation Measures ...... 88 4.2.5 Determination ...... 88 4.2.5.1 Effect on Critical Habitat ...... 88 4.2.5.2 Effect on the Species ...... 88 5.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ...... 90 5.1 Minor Projects ...... 90 5.2 Major Projects ...... 90 5.2.1 Spectra Energy - NEXUS Project ...... 90 5.2.2 Spectra Energy - Ohio Pipeline Energy Network (OPEN) Project ...... 92 5.2.3 CGT - Leach XPress Project...... 92 5.2.4 Equitrans - Ohio Valley Connector Project ...... 92 5.2.5 ANR East Pipeline Project ...... 92 5.2.6 Kinder Morgan - UTOPIA ...... 92 5.2.7 Kinder Morgan - Utica Marcellus Texas Pipeline...... 93 5.2.8 Dominion - Supply Header Project ...... 93 5.2.9 Dominion - Atlantic Coast Pipeline Project ...... 93 5.2.10 Mountain Valley - MVP Project ...... 93 5.2.11 Moundsville Power, LLC - Combined-Cycle Power Plant Project ...... 93 5.2.12 Blackfork Wind Energy Project ...... 93 5.3 Water Resources and Wetlands ...... 94 5.4 Vegetation and Wildlife ...... 94 6.0 LITERATURE CITED ...... 96

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1. History of consultation with USFWS concerning the proposed Rover Pipeline Project...... 4 Table 1-2. Summary of species addressed and preliminary effects determinations ...... 6 Table 1-3. Land Use within the proposed limits of disturbance ...... 7 Table 2-1. Pipeline facilities ...... 10 Table 2-2. Compressor stations ...... 13 Table 2-3. Meter station facilities ...... 14 Table 2-4. Tie-In facilities ...... 14 Table 2-5. Summary of estimated construction and operation land requirements ...... 15 Table 3-1 Indiana and northern long-eared bat historic occurrence along the proposed Rover Pipeline in Ohio ...... 45 Table 3-2. Indiana and northern long-eared bat historic occurrence along the proposed Rover Pipeline in West Virginia ...... 46 Table 3-3. Potential roost trees by state and impact...... 47 Table 3-4. Indiana bat habitat summary ...... 47 Table 3-5. Northern long-eared bat habitat summary ...... 48 Table 3-6. Portal openings identified along the proposed Rover Pipeline...... 50 Table 3-7. Acoustic bat passes recorded at two portal openings along the Rover Pipeline in Marshall County, West Virginia ...... 52 Table 3-8. Acoustic bat passes recorded a portal openings along the Rover Pipeline in Belmont County, West Virginia ...... 52 Table 3-9. Emergence counts conducted at a portal openings along the Rover Pipeline in Belmont County, Ohio ...... 53

v Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

Table 3-10. Mist net survey level of effort conducted during the 2015 summer maternity season ...... 59 Table 3-11. Bats captured during the 2015 summer maternity season ...... 60 Table 3-12. Location of roost trees within or adjacent to the Rover Pipeline LOD ...... 62 Table 3-13. Location and reproductive status of extant fanshell populations...... 70 Table 3-14. Streams surveyed for listed mussel species ...... 74 Table 3-15. Extant populations of Powershiek skipperling in counties crossed by Rover Pipeline Project ...... 80

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1. Rover Pipeline Connections ...... 3 Figure 2-1. Rover Pipeline Project General Location Map ...... 9 Figure 3-1. Distribution of Indiana Bats in the United States (USFWS 2007 ...... 38 Figure 3-2. Life History Chronology of Indiana Bats...... 40 Figure 3-3. Distribution of Northern Long-eared Bats in the United States (USFWS 2014a) ...... 43 Figure 3-4. Life History Chronology of Northern Long-eared Bats ...... 44 Figure 3-5. Portal openings identified along the proposed Rover Pipeline Alignment ...... 49 Figure 3-6. Mist Net Locations (Sheet 1) ...... 54 Figure 3-6. Mist Net Locations (Sheet 2) ...... 55 Figure 3-6. Mist Net Locations (Sheet 3) ...... 56 Figure 3-6. Mist Net Locations (Sheet 4) ...... 57 Figure 3-6. Mist Net Locations (Sheet 5) ...... 58 Figure 3-7. Northern long-eared bat buffer areas...... 63 Figure 3-8. Snuffbox distribution by watershed (NatureServe 2014) ...... 68 Figure 3-9. Fanshell distribution by watershed (NatureServe 2014) ...... 70 Figure 3-10. Pink mucket distribution by watershed (NatureServe 2014) ...... 72 Figure 3-11. Powersheik Skipperling County Distribution (Selby 2005) ...... 79 Figure 3-12. Platanthera leucophaea county distribution...... 82 Figure 4-1. Eastern hellbender county distribution map proximal to the proposed Rover route (IUCN Red List, 2015)...... 84 Figure 5-1. Major projects proposed in the vicinity of the Rover Pipeline Project ...... 91

APPENDICES

Appendix A. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Topographic Maps

Appendix B. Rover Pipeline Project Tables Table B-1 Locations of Pipelines and Aboveground Facilities Table B-2 Locations Where Rover Pipelines will be Adjacent to Existing Rights-of-Way Table B-3 Permanent and Temporary Access Roads Table B-4 Contractor Yards Table B-5 Hydrostatic Test Water Source and Discharge Locations Table B-6 Proposed Horizontal Directional Drill (HDD) Locations

Appendix C. Typical Right-of-Way Configurations

Appendix D. Construction Plans Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan Rover Waterbody and Wetland Construction and Mitigation Procedures Spill Prevention and Response Procedures

vi Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

Horizontal Directional Drill Contingency Plan Agricultural Impact Mitigation Plans for Ohio and Michigan Winter Construction Plan Karst Mitigation Plan Blasting Plan Unanticipated Discoveries Plan for Paleontological Resources Procedures Guiding the Discovery of Unanticipated Cultural Resources and Human Remains Residential Access and Traffic Management Plan Environmental Complaint Resolution Procedures

Appendix E. Habitat Survey Data Table E-1 Potential Roost Trees Table E-2 Habitat Plot Summary

Appendix F. Representative Portal Opening Photographs

Appendix G. Mist Net Survey Data Table G-1 Demographic data for bats captured during the 2015 maternity season along the Berne Lateral, Monroe and Noble counties, Ohio. Table G-2 Demographic data for bats captured during the 2015 maternity season along the Burgettstown Lateral, Carroll and Jefferson counties, Ohio; Washington County, Pennsylvania; and Hancock County, West Virginia. Table G-3 Demographic data for bats captured during the 2015 maternity season along the Cadiz Lateral, Harrison County, Ohio. Table G-4 Demographic data for bats captured during the 2015 maternity season along the Clarington Lateral, Belmont, Harrison, and Monroe counties, Ohio. Table G-5 Demographic data for bats captured during the 2015 maternity season along Mainlines A and B, Ashland, Carroll, Crawford, Defiance, Hancock, Henry, Richland, Seneca, Stark, Tuscarawas, Wayne, and Wood counties, Ohio. Table G-6 Demographic data for bats captured during the 2015 maternity season along the Market Segment, Defiance, Fulton, and Henry counties, Ohio.; and Lenawee, Washtenaw, and Livingston counties, Michigan. Table G-7 Demographic data for bats captured during the 2015 maternity season along the Seneca Lateral, Monroe and Noble counties, Ohio. Table G-8 Demographic data for bats captured during the 2015 maternity season along Supply Connectors A and B, Carroll and Harrison counties, Ohio. Table G-9 Morphometric data for listed bat species captured during the 2015 summer maternity season Table G-10 Northern long-eared bat roost trees and associated emergence count data collected during the 2015 summer maternity season. Appendix H. Representative Northern Long-Eared Bat Capture Photographs

Appendix I. Northern Long-Eared Bat Roost Tree Datasheets

Appendix J. Representative Northern Long-Eared Bat Roost Tree Photographs

Appendix K. Northern Long-Eared Bat Emergence Count Datasheets

Appendix L Mist Net Capture Sites and Roost Tree Maps

vii Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AIM agricultural impact mitigation ATWS additional temporary work space API American Petroleum Institute ASME American Society for Mechanical Engineers BE Biological Evaluation bcf/d billion cubic feet per day BO Biological Opinion BMP best management practices CFR Code of Federal Regulations cm centimeters dbh diameter at breast height ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973 FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission HDD horizontal directional drill hp horse power HUC Hydrologic Unit Code ITP Incidental Take Permit km kilometers LOD limits of disturbance m meters m2 square meters MLV mainline valve mm millimeters MP milepost NDE non-destructive examination NGA Natural Gas Act NREPA Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act ODNR Ohio Department of Natural Resources PFBC Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission PRT potential roost tree SCADA supervisory control and data acquisition SPR spill prevention and response T&E Threatened and Endangered UNT un-named tributary USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USDOI U.S. Department of the Interior USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation USEIA U.S. Energy Information Agency USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey WNS white nose syndrome WVDNR West Virginia Department of Natural Resources

viii Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This Biological Evaluation (BE) has been prepared pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA) and Federal (50 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 402.12) to evaluate potential effects of the proposed action described herein on federally listed species. This BE provides a comprehensive description of the proposed action, defines the action area, describes those species potentially impacted by the proposed action, and provides an analysis and determination of how the proposed actions may affect listed species and their habitats. As required, the best scientific and commercial information available was used to assess potential effects to species covered in this BE.

Rover Pipeline LLC (Rover) is seeking authorization from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) to construct, own, and operate the proposed Rover Pipeline Project (Project). The Rover Pipeline Project is a new natural gas pipeline system that will consist of approximately 712.9 miles of Supply Laterals and Mainlines, 10 compressor stations, and associated meter stations and other aboveground facilities that will be located in parts of West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan. The Project will include approximately 510.7 miles of proposed right- of-way, extending from the vicinity of New Milton, Doddridge County, West Virginia to the vicinity of Howell, Livingston County, Michigan, and will include approximately 202.2 miles of dual pipelines.

1.1 Action Agency

Under the NGA, the lead federal agency for the proposed action is the FERC.

1.2 Purpose and Need

The U.S. Energy Information Administration’s (USEIA) Annual Energy Outlook 2013 Early Release projects U.S. natural gas production to increase from 23.0 trillion cubic feet in 2011 to 33.1 trillion cubic feet in 2040, a 44 percent increase. Almost all of this increase in domestic natural gas production is due to projected growth in shale gas production, which grew from 7.8 trillion cubic feet in 2011 to 16.7 trillion cubic feet in 2014. The availability of increased quantities of shale gas is predicted to continue for the next 100 plus years, allowing U.S. consumers to rely upon and plan for low cost supplies of natural gas. According to the most current and relevant government and industry supply/consumption indexes (including the U.S. Department of Energy), the supply will continue to outpace domestic consumption for many years.

The Rover Pipeline Project originated as a result of discussions with producers who have active production and processing capacity as well as significant volumes of stranded gas in the Marcellus and Utica Shale areas of West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, and who desire to move their production to markets in the Gulf Coast, Midwest, Northeast, and into Canada for redelivery to both Canadian and US markets. Thus, the Project has been designed to enable the flow of natural gas from producer processing plants and interconnections in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio to interconnections with Energy Transfer Partners, L.P.’s existing Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line and other Midwest pipeline interconnects near Defiance, Ohio, as well as a direct connection with Vector Pipeline LP near Howell, Michigan. Vector provides interconnections to the local Michigan market through local distributors, storage facilities, and power plants, and provides further transportation into the Midwest, Eastern Canada, and Northeastern U.S. markets, including a connection with the gas trading hub located near Dawn, Canada.

The Project is a producer-driven pipeline project in which Marcellus and Utica producers have made long- term commitments for transportation capacity to move significant volumes of natural gas production to connections with interstate natural gas pipelines and storage facilities, as well as to major gas consuming

1 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

markets in the Gulf Coast, Midwest and Canadian regions. The hub facilities connected to the Project at Defiance and the Vector interconnect will facilitate the delivery of natural gas to high-demand centers in the U.S. and Canada, thus increasing the diversity of supply, and helping to moderate gas prices by replacing declining supplies from the Gulf Coast. Furthermore, the Project will benefit local Midwest gas consumers by providing access to a readily available, stable, and competitively-priced gas supply for local distribution companies connected to the Project.

The Project will have the capacity to transport 3.25 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) of natural gas. Rover held an open season that concluded on July 25, 2014 and executed binding precedent agreements with shippers representing 3.25 Bcf/d, which represents the total capacity of the new pipeline system. However, the Project was revised in January 2015 to terminate at a connection with Vector Pipeline L.P. (Vector) in Livingston, County, Michigan in order to maximize use of existing infrastructure and minimize impacts to the environment and landowners. As a result of the agreement with Vector, Rover currently has 0.15 Bcf/d of capacity available on the proposed system, although Rover fully expects the available capacity will be subscribed quickly.

As a result of these precedent agreements, the Project has been designed to accumulate natural gas supplies at receipt points that are accessible to the producers’ processing plants, and to deliver these volumes to connections with interstate natural gas pipelines and storage facilities at the hubs at Defiance, as well as interconnects with Michigan natural gas utilities. The receipt points are defined by the compressor stations and receipt meters located at or near the beginning of each of the Supply Laterals. The delivery points are defined by the interconnecting pipeline systems located near Defiance and the Vector interconnect near Howell, Michigan. The new infrastructure will give shippers the option of storage, selling gas in the local Canadian market, selling gas back into Michigan market, or selling gas to U.S. Northeast markets via the TransCanada pipeline interconnections at Niagara Falls, Grand Island, Waddington, or other interconnects to the east. In addition, Rover will have bidirectional meter stations at the proposed Clarington Station, and delivery meters at the Rockies Express Pipeline (REX) and Columbia Gas Transmission (CGT) interconnects. These interconnects will allow access to the East Coast, Gulf Coast, and Chicago markets.

Approximately 78 percent of the natural gas moved through the Project will be delivered to customers on the U.S. segments of the pipeline, including multiple take-off points in Michigan and Ohio, or other interstate pipelines, including local distribution company gas systems serving customers throughout the states (see Figure 1-1 for a map of the Project connections). As described above, the Project will connect stranded Marcellus and Utica Shale gas to all markets in the U.S.

The new source will offset the reduction in available gas supply from traditional supply areas (the Rocky Mountain Region, Texas Panhandle, Oklahoma, Kansas, and the Gulf of Mexico) that historically have served Ohio and Michigan as well as other regions of the U.S. Historic supplies from the Gulf of Mexico alone are down approximately 46 percent over the last five years. Ohio is the 8th largest consumer and Michigan is the 9th largest consumer of natural gas in the U.S.; whereas, Ohio is the 19th largest producer and Michigan is the 17th largest producer, making both states net importers of natural gas to meet their supply needs for commercial and residential consumption.

2 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

Figure 1-1. Rover Pipeline Connections

In summary, the Project will provide: • new take-away infrastructure for stranded Marcellus/Utica shale gas; • new infrastructure for Midwest markets to provide a reliable and nearby source of competitively priced natural gas supplies to replace declining supplies from the Gulf Coast and other historic production regions of the U.S.; • new infrastructure to move natural gas to local utilities and storage in Ohio and Michigan, to the Midwest Hub for Midwest and Gulf Coast markets, to the Dawn Hub for Canadian and U.S. Northeast markets, as well as the East Coast and other markets listed above from the bidirectional and delivery meters in the Supply Laterals; • new infrastructure to the Dawn Hub that will provide shippers with the option of storage, or selling gas in the local Canadian market, selling gas back into Michigan market, or selling gas to U.S. Northeast markets; • long and short term economic benefits within the Project area via increased consumption of goods and services resulting from construction and operation of the Project;

3 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

• short-term job creation via construction jobs and service jobs to support the construction workforce; • long-term job creation via permanent jobs to operate the new pipeline system; and • long-term tax benefit to communities and state via ad valorem taxes.

The USEIA collects, analyzes, and disseminates independent and impartial energy information to promote sound policymaking, efficient markets, and public understanding of energy and its interaction with the economy and the environment (USEIA, 2015). According to data provided by the USEIA’s Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS), the 2009 natural gas consumption in the Midwest Region for a 1,500 to 1,999 square foot home averaged 87.2 million British thermal units (Btu) per household or 238,904.11 Btu per day broken down over a 365-day year. The Rover Pipeline Project will provide 3.25 Bcf/day in capacity. Given the 2009 RECS data, this would supply enough natural gas to meet the demands of approximately 14,011,897 homes.

1.3 Consultation History

This BE was developed in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Office of the Secretary. The history of consultation is provided in Table 1-1.

Table 1-1. History of consultation with USFWS concerning the proposed Rover Pipeline Project. Date Subject Rover notified USFWS, Ecological Field Offices in West Virginia, 25 June 2014 Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan of the proposed Project. Rover received comments from the West Virginia Field Office, Elkins, West 17 July 2014 Virginia. Rover received comments from the Ecological Services Office, Columbus, 23 July 2014 Ohio. Rover submitted an updated Project description with the USFWS, Ecological 26 August 2015 Field Offices in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan Rover received comments from the Ecological Services Office, Columbus, 11 September 2014 Ohio on the updated Project description. 20 November 2014 Rover met with the USFWS, Minneapolis, Minnesota Regional Office. USFWS, Regional Office, Bloomington, Minnesota submitted a letter to FERC agreeing to participate as a cooperating agency with FERC in the 13 November 2014 development of the Environmental Impact Statement and appointing USFWS Region 3 Regional Office as the lead for the agency. 18 December 2014 USDOI, Office of the Secretary provided comments on the Project to FERC Rover submitted its Draft Biological Evaluation addressing federal species that 4 March 2015 may be affected by the Project USDOI, Office of the Secretary provided comments on the Biological 30 March 2015 Evaluation for the Project to FERC Rover met with FERC, and representatives of the USFWS Ecological Field 15 April 2015 Offices at the USFWS Columbus, Ohio Ecological Services Office. Rover met with FERC, and USFWS, Columbus, Ohio Ecological Services 13 May 2015 Office. Rover met with USFWS, Bloomington, Minnesota Regional Office, via 3 June 2015 conference call.

4 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

Table 1-1. History of consultation with USFWS concerning the proposed Rover Pipeline Project.

Date Subject Rover submitted an updated Draft Biological Evaluation with results of species surveys conducted for federally listed species, including the Indiana 29 September 2015 bat and northern long-eared bat, mussels, hellbender, and eastern massasauga. Also included was tabular data on the results of Indiana bat and northern long- eared bat habitat surveys.

5 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

1.4 Analysis Summary

This BE addresses potential effects of the proposed action on 12 federally listed species per the latest round of comments on the Project received from the USDOI, Office of the Secretary. Additionally, the eastern hellbender (Cryptobranchus a. alleganiensis), a state-endangered species in Ohio, is currently being evaluated for federal candidate status. Table 1-2 summarizes covered species and the preliminary effects determinations for each. To facilitate review of this document, species groups (i.e. bats, mussels, and butterflies) are discussed together to the greatest extent practicable in the following sections.

Table 1-2. Summary of species addressed and preliminary effects determinations Federal Findings Common Name Scientific Name Status1 Summary2 Mammals Indiana bat Myotis sodalist E NLAA Northern long-eared bat Myotis septentrionalis T NLAA Mussels Snuffbox mussel Epioblasma triquetra E No Effect Clubshell mussel Pleurobema clava E No Effect Fanshell mussel Cyprogenia stegaria E No Effect Sheepnose mussel Plethobasus cyphyus E No Effect Pink mucket pearlymussel Lampsilis abrupta E No Effect Rayed Bean Villosa fabalis E No Effect Butterflies Mitchell’s satyr Neonympha mitchelli mitchelli E No Effect Powershiek skipperling Oarisma powersheik E No Effect Plants Eastern Prairie Fringed Orchid Platathera leucophaea T No Effect Reptiles Eastern Massasauga Sistrurus catenatus C3 NLAA Eastern Hellbender Cryptobranchus a. alleganiensis SE No Effect 1 E = Endangered, T = Threatened, C = Candidate, SE = State Endangered / currently being considered for candidate status 2 NLAA = May affect, not likely to adversely affect. 3 On September 30, 2015, the USFWS proposed to list the eastern massasauga rattlesnake as a threatened species.

1.5 Action Area

The action area for activities considered in this BE encompasses 9,595.9 acres within the proposed Limits of Disturbance (LOD). For all covered species addressed in this BE, with the exception of bats, direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to these species are addressed within the proposed LOD. Of the 9,505.9 acres within the LOD, 5,309.2 acres (55 percent) are currently used for agricultural production, 3,009.1 acres (31 percent) are currently forested, 901.7 acres (9 percent) are open lands not used for agriculture, and the remaining 393.86 acres (5 percent) include additional land uses. All land use within the proposed LOD is provided in Table 1-3.

6 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

Table 1-3. Land Use within the proposed limits of disturbance

Land Use Acres Percentage Deciduous / evergreen forest 3,009.1 31 Agriculture 5,309.2 55 Open lands (not in agriculture) 901.7 9 Roads and impervious surface 299.96 3 Other (residential, or mixed use) 57.9 1 Open water 18.0 < 0 Total 9,595.9 100 LOD includes the pipeline temporary construction and permanent right-of-way, additional temporary work space, temporary and permanent access roads, and contractor yards. Source: Rover, July 2015.

For the listed bat species addressed in this BE, the action area includes the LOD, as described above, as well as a 1.5-mile buffer on each side of the proposed centerline. The extent to which the action area buffer extends beyond the proposed LOD is based upon the recommended buffer distance used by USFWS to delineate known habitat for northern long-eared bats. Within this larger action area, an additional 380,927.7 acres are currently forested and provide habitat that is potentially suitable for use by roosting and/or foraging bats. Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to covered bat species are address within this larger action area.

7 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

2.1 Project Location

The Project is a new pipeline system and entails all new facilities. All receipt and delivery points, and pipeline and compression facilities, are designed to meet contractual requirements. No upgrades or expansion of existing facilities are being considered at this time. The Project consists of the following components and facilities:

• Supply Laterals: o eight supply laterals consisting of approximately 201.2 miles of 24-, 30-, 36-, and 42-inch- diameter pipeline in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, o two parallel supply laterals, each consisting of approximately 18.6 miles (for a total of approximately 37.2 miles) of 42-inch-diameter pipeline (Supply Connector Lines A and Line B) in Ohio, o approximately 72,645 horsepower (hp) at six new compressor stations to be located in Doddridge and Marshall counties, West Virginia; Washington County, Pennsylvania; and Noble, Monroe, and Harrison counties, Ohio, and o two new delivery, 11 new receipt, and two bidirectional meter stations on the Supply Laterals.

• Mainlines A and B: o approximately 190.9 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline (Mainline A) in Ohio, o approximately 183.6 miles of parallel 42-inch-diameter pipeline (Mainline B) in Ohio, o approximately 114,945 hp at three new compressor stations to be located in Carroll, Wayne, and Crawford counties, Ohio, and o two new delivery meter stations in Defiance County, Ohio.

• Market Segment: o approximately 100.0 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline in Ohio and Michigan, o approximately 25,830 hp at one new compressor station to be located in Defiance County, Ohio, and o two new delivery meter stations in Washtenaw and Livingston counties, Michigan.

A general location map of the Project facilities is shown on Figure 2-1. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map excerpts are included in Appendix A. The pipeline and aboveground facilities are described in the following sections and summarized on Table B-1 in Appendix B.

8 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

Figure 2-1. Rover Pipeline Project General Location Map

9 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

2.2 Pipeline Facilities

Table 2-1 lists the Project pipelines. The pipelines will be operated at a maximum allowable operating pressure of 1,440 pounds per square inch gauge.

Table 2-1. Pipeline facilities

Pipeline Approximate Pipeline Segment County, State Diameter (in) Length (mi)

Supply Laterals: Doddridge, Tyler, and Wetzel, WV 35.7 Sherwood Lateral 36 Monroe, OH 18.3 CGT Lateral 24 Doddridge, WV 5.7 Seneca Lateral 42 Noble and Monroe, OH 25.7 Berne Lateral 24 Noble and Monroe, OH 4.2 Clarington Lateral 42 Monroe, Belmont, and Harrison, OH 32.8 Marshall, WV 12.5 Majorsville Lateral 24 Belmont, OH 11.2 Cadiz Lateral 30 Harrison, OH 3.4 Supply Connector Line A1 18.6 42 Harrison and Carroll, OH Supply Connector Line B1 18.6 Washington, PA 10.1 Burgettstown Lateral 36 Hancock, WV 5.5 Jefferson and Carroll, OH 36.1 Supply Laterals Subtotal 238.4 Mainlines: Mainline A1 Carroll, Tuscarawas, Stark, Wayne, Ashland, 190.9 42 Richland, Crawford, Seneca, Hancock, Wood, Henry, and Defiance, OH Mainline B1 183.6 Defiance, Henry, and Fulton, OH 27.8 Market Segment 42 Lenawee, Washtenaw, and Livingston, MI 72.2 Mainlines Subtotal 474.5 PROJECT TOTAL 712.9 1 Supply Connector Lines A and B, and Mainlines A and B, will be installed approximately 20 feet apart.

To the extent practicable, the Project pipelines will be constructed parallel and adjacent to other existing pipelines or utility lines, or in remote areas, on primarily agricultural land, to reduce the potential interaction between the proposed pipeline and the public. Based on current design, approximately 24 percent of the total length of the new pipelines will be parallel or adjacent to existing rights-of-way (e.g., pipelines, electric transmission lines, roadways, etc.) and approximately 55 percent will be within agricultural land (see Table 1-3). Table B-2 in Appendix B lists the locations where the Rover pipelines will be installed adjacent (or parallel) to other existing pipeline or power line rights-of-way, the operator, and the types of permanent rights-of-way where known. Rover is currently working with the adjacent utilities to utilize their existing, adjacent easements for temporary spoil storage during construction.

10 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

2.2.1 Supply Laterals

Sherwood Lateral The Sherwood Lateral consists of construction of approximately 54.0 miles of 36-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline commencing at the Sherwood Compressor Station in Doddridge County, West Virginia and extending in a generally northerly direction to the Sherwood Tie-In and the interconnect with the Seneca Lateral at milepost (MP) 16.6 in Monroe County, Ohio.

CGT Lateral The CGT Lateral consists of construction of approximately 5.7 miles of 24-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline commencing at the CGT Tie-In at the interconnect with the Sherwood Lateral just north of the Sherwood Compressor Station in Doddridge County, West Virginia and extending in a generally northeasterly direction to the CGT Delivery Meter Station and the interconnect with CGT.

Seneca Lateral The Seneca Lateral consists of construction of approximately 25.7 miles of 42-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline commencing at the Seneca Compressor Station in Noble County, Ohio and extending east to the Clarington Compressor Station and the interconnect with the Clarington Lateral in Monroe County, Ohio.

Berne Lateral The Berne Lateral consists of construction of approximately 4.2 miles of 24-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline commencing at the Berne Receipt Meter Station in Monroe County, Ohio and extending northwesterly to the Seneca Compressor Station in Noble County, Ohio.

Clarington Lateral The Clarington Lateral consists of construction of approximately 32.8 miles of 42-inch-diameternatural gas pipeline commencing at the Clarington Compressor Station (and the interconnect with the Seneca Lateral) in Monroe County, Ohio, and extending in a generally northerly direction, and terminating at the Cadiz Tie- In and the interconnect with the Cadiz Lateral and Supply Connector Lines A and B in Harrison County, Ohio.

Majorsville Lateral The Majorsville Lateral consists of construction of approximately 23.7 miles of 24-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline commencing at the Majorsville Receipt Meter Station in Marshall County, West Virginia and extending west to the Majorsville Tie-In at the interconnect with the Clarington Lateral (Clarington Lateral MP 11.7) in Belmont County, Ohio.

Cadiz Lateral The Cadiz Lateral consists of approximately 3.4 miles of 30-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline commencing at the Cadiz Compressor Station in Harrison County, Ohio and extending west to the Cadiz Tie-In and the interconnects with the Clarington and Supply Connector Lines A and B at Clarington Lateral MP 32.6.

Supply Connector Lines A and B The Supply Connector Lines A and B consist of approximately 18.6 miles of dual 42-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline (for a total of approximately 37.2 miles) commencing at the Cadiz Tie-In in Harrison County, Ohio and extending north to Mainline Compressor Station 1 and the interconnection with Mainlines A and B in Carroll County, Ohio. Supply Connector Lines A and B will be installed adjacent to each other and approximately 20 feet apart.

11 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

Burgettstown Lateral The Burgettstown Lateral consists of construction of approximately 51.7 miles of 36-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline commencing at the Burgettstown Compressor Station in Washington County, Pennsylvania and extending west through Hancock County, West Virginia and into Ohio. The Burgettstown Lateral terminates at Mainline Compressor Station 1 and the interconnection with the Supply Connector Lines A and B in Carroll County, Ohio.

2.2.2 Mainlines

Mainlines A and B Mainline A consists of construction of approximately 190.9 miles of 42-inch diameter natural gas pipeline. Mainline B consists of construction of a second 42-inch diameter pipeline that will be located 20 feet from Mainline A for approximately 183.6 miles. Mainlines A and B originate at the Mainline Compressor Station 1 at the intersection of the Mainlines with Supply Connector Lines A and B in Carroll County, Ohio. Mainline A terminates at the Defiance Compressor Station in Defiance County, Ohio. Mainline B terminates approximately 7.3 miles east of the Defiance Compressor Station in Defiance County, Ohio at the Mainline B Tie-in located at Mainline MP 202.1. The MPs for Mainlines A and B begin at 18.6, continuing from the Supply Connector Lines A and B, which are within the Supply Lateral Segment of the Project.

Market Segment The Market Segment includes construction of approximately 100.0 miles of 42-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline commencing at the Defiance Compressor Station, and the end of the Mainline A, in Defiance County, Ohio, extending north through Michigan, and terminating at the Vector Meter Station and the existing Vector Pipeline in Livingston, County, Michigan.

2.3 Aboveground Facilities

Aboveground facilities for the Project consist of the compressor stations, receipt and delivery meter stations, tie-in sites, and mainline valves (MLV).

2.3.1 Compressor Stations

Rover proposes to construct six new compressor stations on the Supply Laterals, three new compressor stations on the Mainlines A and B, and one new compressor station on the Market Segment. The compressor stations are listed on Table 2-2 by milepost (MP). Their general location is shown on Figure 2-1 and on the USGS topo maps provided in Appendix A.

Facilities at each compressor station site will include natural gas-fired compressors, a compressor building with acoustic mitigation if required, an office/control/utility building, a storage/maintenance building, gas and utility piping, separators, gas coolers or heaters (at some locations), safety equipment, an emergency generator, landscaping, and parking areas.

12 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

Table 2-2. Compressor stations

Compressor Township/ Nameplate Pipeline Segment MP County, State Station Nearest Town Rating (hp)

Supply Laterals: Sherwood Sherwood Lateral MP 0.0 Beech Doddridge, WV 14,205 Seneca Seneca Lateral MP 0.0 Marion Noble, OH 18,940 Clarington Clarington Lateral MP 0.0 Switzerland Monroe, OH 11,245 Majorsville Majorsville Lateral MP 0.0 Dallas Marshall, WV 7,100 Cadiz Cadiz Lateral MP 0.0 Cadiz Harrison, OH 15,980 Burgettstown Burgettstown Lateral MP 0.0 Smith Washington, PA 5,175 Supply Laterals Subtotal 72,645 Mainlines: Mainline 1 Mainline A/B MP 18.9 Orange Carroll, OH 42,190 Mainline 2 Mainline A/B MP 77.5 Plain Wayne, OH 38,745 Mainline 3 Mainline A/B MP 128.0 Chatfield Crawford, OH 34,010 Mainline Subtotal 114,945 Defiance Market Segment MP 0.0 Tiffin Defiance, OH 25,830 PROJECT TOTAL 213,420

2.3.2 Receipt and Delivery Meter Stations

Meter stations will be installed at the pipeline interconnections to measure the receipt or delivery of natural gas. The locations for the 11 receipt, six delivery, and two bidirectional meter stations are listed by MP in Table 2-3. The bidirectional meter stations will allow for metering of flow for either receipt into the Rover Pipeline or delivery back into the interconnecting facilities. The CGT Delivery, Hall Receipt, Gulfport Receipt, Berne Receipt, and Majorsville Receipt Meter Stations on the Supply Laterals, and the ANR, Consumers Energy and Vector Delivery Meter Stations will be located on individual sites. All other meter stations will be located within the new compressor station sites.

Typical equipment installed at each meter station includes a supply line, ultrasonic meter skid(s), pressure and flow control regulator skid(s), a check valve, a positive shut-in valve, gas chromatograph and quality samplers, a valve with actuator to which gas quality monitors shall be connected, filter/separation facilities plus tank and containment, over-pressure protection, gas heaters (if required), a data acquisition system, building(s), electrical power, above ground piping, and fencing. Meter run piping and components will be located outside the receipt or delivery meter building. Electrical power will be provided for building cooling, lighting, ventilation, and control equipment. A small satellite dish may be installed for Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA). The satellite dish will have a diameter of approximately four feet and will be mounted on a pole approximately five feet in height. Telephone or cellular service also will be required for voice communications and SCADA backup.

13 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

Table 2-3. Meter station facilities

Township/ Meter Station Pipeline Segment MP County, State Nearest Town

Supply Laterals: Sherwood Receipt 1 Sherwood Lateral MP 0.0 Beech Doddridge, WV CGT Delivery CGT Lateral MP 5.7 Beech Doddridge, WV Seneca Receipt 1 Seneca Lateral MP 0.0 Marion Noble, OH REX Delivery1 Seneca Lateral MP 0.0 Marion Noble, OH Hall Receipt Seneca Lateral MP 3.7 Summerfield Monroe, OH Gulfport Receipt Seneca Lateral MP 21.9 Switzerland Monroe, OH Berne Receipt Berne Lateral MP 0.0 Franklin Monroe, OH Clarington Receipt/Bidirectional 1,2 Clarington Lateral MP 0.4 Switzerland Monroe, OH Majorsville Receipt Majorsville Lateral MP 0.0 Dallas Marshall, WV Cadiz Receipt 1, 3 Cadiz Lateral MP 0.0 Cadiz Harrison, OH Burgettstown Receipt 1 Burgettstown Lateral MP 0.0 Smith Washington, PA Mainlines: ANR Delivery Mainline A MP 208.9 Tiffin Defiance, OH PEPL Delivery 1 Mainline A MP 209.3 Tiffin Defiance, OH Consumers Energy Delivery Market Segment MP 75.0 Lima Washtenaw, MI Vector Delivery Market Segment MP 100.0 Handy Livingston, MI 1 Meter station will be located within the associated compressor station. 2 Two receipt meters and two bidirectional meters will be installed at the Clarington Compressor Station. 3 Two receipt meters will be installed at the Cadiz Compressor Station.

2.3.3 Tie-In Facilities

There are five tie-in sites at pipeline interconnections that are located outside of the compressor or meter station sites as listed in Table 2-4. Each tie-in site includes MLVs, and receiver and/or launcher.

Table 2-4. Tie-In facilities

Township/ Tie-In Facility Pipeline Segment MP County, State Nearest Town

Supply Laterals: CGT Tie-In (CGT/Sherwood Laterals) Sherwood Lateral MP 0.2 Beech Doddridge, WV Sherwood Tie-In (Sherwood/ Seneca Laterals) Seneca Lateral MP 16.7 Sunsbury Monroe, OH Majorsville Tie-In (Majorsville/Clarington Clarington Lateral MP 11.8 Smith Belmont, OH Laterals) Cadiz Tie-In (Cadiz/Clarington Laterals and Cadiz Lateral MP 3.4 Cadiz Harrison, OH Supply Connector Lines A and B) Mainlines: Mainline B (tie-in with Mainline A) Mainline A MP 202.1 Tiffin Defiance, OH

14 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

2.3.4 Mainline Valves

MLVs are installed at intermediate locations along the Project and at the beginning and end of each pipeline segment, as required to meet operational needs and the design requirements specified by the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) in 49 CFR § 192.179(a) – Transmission Line Valves. MLVs will be installed within the permanent pipeline right-of-way, or at the compressor or meter station sites, and will most likely be buried with only the valve operators and blowoffs extending above the ground surface. To the extent practicable, the MLVs are located near existing roads to enable easy access from public roadways and reduce the requirement for construction of new access roads. Each MLV will be contained within a fenced, gated, and locked area.

2.3.5 Launchers and Receivers

A launcher will be installed at the beginning of each pipeline segment and a receiver at the end of each pipeline segment (or vice versa) to accommodate in-line inspection tools (smart pigs) for the periodic internal inspection of the pipeline during operations. Similar to the MLVs, the launchers and receivers will be installed within the Tie-In Sites or at the compressor or meter station sites. The launcher/receiver will extend the pipeline aboveground to facilitate the insertion/removal of the in-line inspection tools.

2.4 Land Requirements

Construction and operation of the Supply Laterals, Mainlines A and B, and Market Segment will require acquisition of construction work areas consisting of the temporary construction right-of-way, Additional Temporary Work Space (ATWS), access roads from public roadways to the construction work areas, and temporary contractor yards. Following construction, all construction work areas will be restored and revegetated. Rover will retain a 50-foot-wide permanent easement for operation of a single pipeline and a 60-foot-wide permanent easement for operation of Mainlines A and B and Supply Connector Lines A and B. Table 2-5 summarizes land requirements for construction and operation of the Project components.

Table 2-5. Summary of estimated construction and operation land requirements

Construction 1 Operation 2 Facility State (acres) (acres) Supply Laterals: Pipelines WV, PA, OH 3,520.16 1,348.73 Aboveground Facilities: WV, PA, OH 181.37 84.68 Access Roads WV, PA, OH 112.74 11.09 Contractor Yards WV, PA, OH 313.51 0.00 Supply Laterals Subtotal 4,127.78 1,444.50 Mainlines: Mainlines A and B OH 3,330.15 1,367.04 Aboveground Facilities: OH 92.69 49.85 Access Roads OH 3.73 2.14 Contractor Yards OH 218.12 0.00 Mainlines Subtotal 3,644.69 1,419.03

15 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

Table 2-5. Summary of estimated construction and operation land requirements

Construction 1 Operation 2 Facility State (acres) (acres) Market Segment OH, MI 1,716.18 605.09 Aboveground Facilities: OH, MI 35.36 28.53 Access Roads OH, MI 12.89 3.41 Contractor Yards OH, MI 59.03 0.00 Market Segment Subtotal 1,823.46 637.03 PROJECT TOTAL 9,595.93 3,500.56

1 The construction work area includes the construction right-of-way, which varies from 75 to 150 feet, and ATWS where required. See Sections 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 for description of land requirements for construction. 2 Permanent right-of-way is 60 feet for two pipelines (Mainlines A and B and Supply Connector Lines A and B) and 50 feet for a single pipeline.

2.4.1 Pipeline Facilities

Installation of the pipeline will be accomplished along the construction right-of-way as a moving assembly line as described in Section 2.6. The following sections describe the various components of the construction work areas and land that will be maintained for operation of the Project.

2.4.1.1 Construction Right-of-Way

Typical right-of-way cross-sections for construction in uplands, agricultural land, and wetlands for locations where one pipeline or dual pipelines will be installed is provided in Appendix C.

Rover is proposing to use a construction right-of-way width that will provide for safe working conditions and efficient pipe installation for the 24-, 30-, 36-, and 42-inch-diameter pipe, as well as locations where dual 42-inch-diameter pipelines will be installed, while also protecting sensitive environmental resources. The dimensions of Rover’s typical construction rights-of-way are based on the following considerations:

• Trench Depth: o Trench depths are dependent on the size of pipe and the minimum cover requirements. Trench depths for the 24-inch pipelines in upland areas, where 36 inches of cover is maintained, are a minimum of 60 inches (5 feet) in depth. Pipeline diameters of 30, 36, and 42 inches would each require an incremental and additional 6 inches respectively, whereby a 42-inch pipe with 36 inches of cover would require a 6.5-foot-deep trench at a minimum. o A minimum of 48 inches of cover will be maintained in agricultural land, adding an additional foot of depth to all trenches excavated in agricultural areas. o Pipeline depth under roads and streams would be 60 inches (5 feet), adding two feet of additional depth to all trenches excavated through streams or roads that are open cut or leading up to a bore hole of a stream or road that will be bored. o Trenches in rocky soils would require approximately 6 inches of additional depth in order to add a layer of soil to pad the pipeline and avoid disturbance of the pipe coating by the rocks.

16 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

o In areas of saturated soils, trench depths may be increased to maintain the required cover over the pipeline where the addition of set-on or saddle-bag type weights are required to maintain negative buoyancy. o Maximum depths of 15 feet or greater are possible at foreign line crossings, areas with drain tile, locations where bell holes are required to accommodate tie-ins between pipe segments, etc. • Trench Widths: o Trench widths are primarily dependent upon the depth of the trench and the cohesive ability of the soils to comply with the Occupational Safety & Health Administration Standard Number 1926.650. Standard Number 1926.650 requires the walls of a trench to be more gradually sloped and/or terraced in less cohesive soils, which results in a wider trench than in more cohesive soils. o A 5-foot-deep trench, which is the minimum possible trench depth for the Project pipelines as described above, would result in a minimum width of approximately 14 feet. o Trench widths would be wider as the depth of the trench increases for larger diameter pipe, with typical widths of 20 to 25 feet for 30-, 36-, or 42-inch-diameter pipe. o Trench widths are also anticipated to be wider in wetland soils, especially within saturated wetlands, due to reduced cohesion of soils. o Maximum widths of 45 feet are possible at bore locations, where the trench would need to be deep and wide enough to accommodate the bore equipment and account for the safety of the personnel operating the equipment. o Storage for trench spoil and topsoil will require between 30 and 60 feet (depending on the width and depth of the trench and topsoil stripping) to prevent sloughing of the spoil back into the trench and maintain safe work areas for construction workers. In environmentally sensitive areas, spoil can be placed in nearby ATWS to reduce right-of-way width requirements. • Construction Work Area – The equipment work area typically will require approximately 65 feet for efficient and safe pipe installation and to accommodate: o The large equipment used to install 30-, 36-, and 42-inch-diameter pipe – A 583 or 594-sized sideboom used to maneuver and install the pipe requires a minimum of about 25 feet of right- of-way to accommodate the partially extended counterweight needed to offset the 80-foot-long, 30-, 36-, or 42-inch-diameter pipe joints. o Automatic Welding – Rover will use state of the art welding processes to weld the larger diameter pipe joints together before lowering the pipe into the trench. This involves use of portable shelters, commonly referred to as “sheds” or “shacks,” that are leapfrogged down the right-of-way by sidebooms during mainline welding operations. The standard width of these sheds is between 10 and 12 feet, not including maneuvering room for the sideboom to move the sheds down the right-of-way. o A travel lane – The travel lane is essential for efficient pipeline construction and allows equipment and support crews to pass around construction activities and to provide ingress and egress for safety personnel and equipment in the event of an accident. During pipe laying activities, the travel lane allows sidebooms to leapfrog along the right-of-way, allowing for longer segments of pipe to be installed. For short distances and in environmentally sensitive

17 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

areas, the travel lane can be reduced, although ATWS is often required outside of the sensitive areas for pipe makeup and/or spoil storage.

The construction right-of-way width and temporary land requirements for installation of the Supply Laterals, Mainlines A and B, and Market Segment will differ according to the type of terrain encountered, construction methods that will be used, and environmental sensitivity of the land being crossed. The typical right-of-way cross-sections are provided in Appendix C. Based on its construction experience involving the installation of 24-, 30-, 36-, and 42-inch-diameter pipe, and evaluation of the environmental sensitivity of the land being crossed, Rover is proposing use of the following typical construction right-of-way widths:

• Single Pipeline – 24-inch (Berne, CGT, and Majorsville Laterals): o 100 feet in agricultural land (i.e., full right-of-way topsoil segregation) o 75 feet in upland areas, and non-forested and forested wetland areas o 75 feet plus 25 feet of ATWS in areas of side slope • Single Pipeline – 30-inch (Cadiz Lateral), 36-inch (Burgettstown and Sherwood Laterals), and 42- inch (Seneca and Clarington Laterals, and Market Segment): o 150 feet in agricultural land (i.e., full right-of-way topsoil segregation) o 125 feet in upland areas (i.e., non-sensitive environmental areas where adequate workspace is available to expedite construction and install long sections of pipe) o 125 feet plus 25 feet of ATWS in areas of side slope o 100 feet in non-forested wetland areas o 75 feet in forested wetland areas • Dual Pipelines – 42-inch (Supply Connector Lines A and B, and Mainlines A and B): o 150 feet in agricultural land (i.e., full right-of-way topsoil segregation) o 135 feet in upland areas (i.e., non-sensitive environmental areas where adequate workspace is available to expedite construction and install long sections of pipe) o 135 feet plus 15 feet of ATWS in areas of side slope o 120 feet in non-forested wetlands o 95 feet in forested wetlands where soil conditions are stable.

The Supply Laterals, Mainlines A and B, and Market Segment will be installed parallel or adjacent to other pipeline or electric transmission lines to the extent feasible. Generally, the Rover pipelines will be installed approximately 40-50 feet from the existing pipeline or transmission line structure and the permanent easements for the Rover pipelines and existing utility line will abut each other. The temporary construction right-of-way may overlap existing pipeline and electric transmission rights-of-way, where approved by the utility, while providing a safe separation distance between the Rover pipelines and existing pipelines and/or utility lines.

Dual pipelines, including the Supply Connector Lines A and B and Mainlines A and B, will be installed at a separation distance of approximately 20 feet.

18 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

2.4.1.2 Additional Temporary Workspace

ATWS will be required where an obstacle prevents the normal placement of spoil and the placement of pipe sections immediately adjacent to the pipe trench (for example, at a waterbody crossing or road crossing), where additional volumes of spoil will be generated in areas where a reduced right-of-way is being used (for example, at wetland crossings), or where additional construction operations will be performed (for example, at Horizontal Directional Drills [HDDs]).

ATWS typically will be required on both sides of road, railroad, wetland, and waterbody crossings, at truck turnarounds, at hydrostatic test water withdrawal pump locations, at pipe tie-ins, at HDD entry and exit points, at foreign pipeline or other utility crossings, and for staging and fabrication of drag sections. The size and configuration of each ATWS is unique and dependent upon the existing conditions at each work location (e.g., available or accessible space, the presence of buildings and other structures, crossing angle, crossing depth, length of crossing, terrain, or the presence of trees or sensitive habitat).

2.4.1.3 Access Roads

Access roads are used to transport construction workers, equipment and materials to the construction work area from public interstate, state and county highways/roads. These access roads include private roads and/or two-tracks that may require minor modification or improvement to safely support the expected loads associated with the movement of construction equipment and materials to and from the public roadways to the construction right-of-way. Modifications or improvements to these access roads may include grading or other minor maintenance to prevent rutting during use, placement of additional gravel or crushed stone on the existing surface, enlargement to accommodate the pipeline equipment, such as stringing trucks, and/or installation of board or timber mats that will be removed upon completion of construction. See Appendix B, Table B-3 for access road locations, length, and existing surface condition.

2.4.1.4 Contractor Yards

Contractor storage yards are needed for various uses, such as stockpiling pipe, fabricating concrete weights and piping assemblies, staging construction operations, storing construction materials, parking equipment, and for temporary construction offices. Depending upon the condition of these yards and their current use, some surface grading, drainage improvements, placement of surface materials (i.e., crushed rock), and creation of internal roadways may be required. To the extent feasible and available, Rover will lease yards that have been previously disturbed for other industrial purposes or during construction of other projects. Proposed contractor yards are listed on Table B-4 in Appendix B. No trees will be cleared and any wetlands or streams within the boundaries will be protected.

2.4.1.5 Operations Easement

Following construction of the Supply Laterals, Mainlines A and B, and Market Segment, Rover will retain 50 to 60 feet of the construction right-of-way as a permanent easement to allow for inspection and maintenance of the pipeline during operation. Rover will retain a permanent easement of 50 feet where one pipeline will be installed and 60 feet where dual pipelines will be installed.

2.4.2 Aboveground Facilities

Rover will purchase land for construction and operation of the 10 compressor stations and eight meter stations that are not located within the compressor stations. The compressor and meter stations will be located on land adjacent to the pipelines that is large enough to accommodate station facilities. The MLVs

19 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation and launchers/receivers will be located within the permanent easement for the pipeline or at the tie-in, compressor or meter station sites.

2.5 Construction Schedule and Compliance Procedures

2.5.1 Construction Schedule

Rover plans to commence construction in the first quarter 2016, pending receipt of all applicable permits and clearances. Mainlines A and B, Supply Connector Lines A and B, and the Seneca, Berne, Clarington, Cadiz, and Burgettstown Laterals and the Market Segment are scheduled to be in-service in December 2016. The Sherwood, CGT, and Majorsville Laterals are scheduled to begin construction in November 2016 and be in-service no later than June 2017.

Rover will install the pipeline using multiple construction spreads, and smaller work crews for the HDDs, meter stations, MLVs, and launchers/receivers. Separate construction crews will complete work at the new compressor stations. The order in which each facility will be constructed may vary, depending upon the capabilities of each contractor, available workforce, and optimized construction logistics.

2.5.2 Compliance Assurance Measures

To ensure that construction of the Project facilities will comply with mitigation measures identified in Rover’s applications and supporting documentation, the FERC’s environmental conditions, and the requirements of other federal and state permitting agencies, Rover will include, whenever appropriate, environmental requirements in its construction drawings and specifications. To solicit accurate bids for pipeline construction, Rover will provide these specifications and advance versions of the Construction Drawing Package to qualified prospective pipeline contractors. Contractors selected to perform work on the Project will receive copies of specifications and a Construction Drawing Package containing pipeline and aboveground facility drawings designated as being approved for construction.

For those mitigation measures that address pre-construction surveys and clearances, Rover will include pertinent correspondence documenting compliance with these mitigation measures in the Construction Drawing Package. For those mitigation measures that address permit conditions from federal, state, and local agencies, Rover will include copies of permits and related drawings in the Construction Drawing Package. For those mitigation measures that, in part, address post-construction requirements, Rover will include instructions and documentation that will be provided to operating personnel following the completion of construction. These maintenance instructions will include copies of pertinent permits with particular reference to long-term permit conditions and reporting requirements.

Rover will require the selected contractors to install the proposed facilities according to Rover’s standard specifications, the Construction Drawing Package, and the terms of a negotiated contract. To support the application of proper field construction methods, Rover will comply with the project-specific Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan (Rover Plan) and Waterbody and Wetland Construction and Mitigation Procedures (Rover Procedures) to address the site-specific conditions in the Project area. The Rover Procedures are based on the FERC’s 2013 Procedures, and include best management practices to be implemented before, during, and after construction to minimize impacts on uplands, wetlands, and surface waters. Any deviations from, or additions to, the FERC Procedures have been identified for FERC approval prior to implementation.

Appendix D includes the following plans that Rover will implement during construction of the Project:

20 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

• Rovers Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan (Rover Plan) to support the application of proper field construction methods in upland areas; • Rover Waterbody and Wetland Construction and Mitigation Procedures (Rover Procedures) to support the application of proper field construction methods in wetlands and waterbodies, including project-specific exceptions for which Rover is requesting authorization from the FERC; • Spill Prevention and Response Procedures (SPR Procedures) that provides procedures for hazardous materials transportation, handling, storage, spill prevention, and spill response; • Horizontal Directional Drill Contingency Plan (HDD Plan) that provides procedures to be followed during HDD operations to minimize the potential for release of drilling fluids, containment and cleanup of inadvertent releases of drilling fluids should they occur, and steps that will be followed if the HDD cannot be completed as planned; • Agricultural Impact Mitigation Plans (AIM Plans) for Ohio and Michigan that contain measures that will be implemented at a minimum during construction through agricultural fields; • Winter Construction Plan that specifies erosion control and stabilization measures that will be implemented in areas during winter construction and where the construction work areas are not fully restored and revegetated prior to winter; • Karst Mitigation Plan to address procedures to be employed in karst areas; • Blasting Plan to address general procedures to be employed should blasting be required; • Unanticipated Discoveries Plan for Paleontological Resources in the event that unanticipated paleontological resources are encountered; • Procedures Guiding the Discovery of Unanticipated Cultural Resources and Human Remains in the event that unanticipated cultural resources or human remains are encountered during construction; • Residential Access and Traffic Management Plan to be employed during construction; and • Environmental Complaint Resolution Procedures so that landowners and stakeholders may report environmental complaints or concerns, and a process for resolving these concerns;

Rover will conduct environmental training sessions for all Rover construction management and contractor personnel prior to and during the pipeline installation. While this training will focus on implementation of best management practices contained in the plans, it will also include instructions on construction work area limits, permit requirements, and other mitigation measures, including those for federally listed species, as appropriate.

Rover will employ full-time Environmental Inspectors, including Agricultural Inspectors, for each construction spread for the duration of Project construction. One Lead Environmental Inspector will be assigned to each spread, and one Chief Environmental Inspector will be assigned to the entire Project. All Environmental Inspectors will report to Rover’s Environmental Compliance Manager. The Environmental Inspectors will have duties consistent with those contained in Paragraph II.B. (Responsibilities of Environmental Inspectors) of the Rover Plan, including ensuring compliance with environmental conditions attached to any certificate issued by the FERC for the Project, Project environmental designs and specifications, and environmental conditions attached to other permits or authorizations. Rover will provide training for its Environmental Inspectors regarding proper field implementation of the Rover Plan and Rover Procedures, hazardous materials management, and other mitigation measures included in Appendix D.

For purposes of quality assurance and compliance with mitigation measures, other applicable regulatory requirements, and Rover specifications, Rover also will be represented on each construction spread by a Chief Construction Inspector, and one or more Craft Inspectors. Rover’s Engineering and Project Management departments will be responsible for designing and constructing the facilities in compliance

21 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

with regulatory and non-regulatory requirements and agreements. The Construction Site Manager will address any issues of noncompliance with mitigation measures or other regulatory requirements. If technical or management assistance is required, the Chief Inspector will request assistance from the appropriate Rover department or division. Rover’s Operations Department will be responsible for long- term Project maintenance and regulatory compliance.

Rover will also fund a third-party environmental compliance monitoring program that will be managed by the FERC. The overall objective of the compliance monitoring program will be to: assess environmental compliance during construction to achieve a high level of compliance; assist the FERC staff in screening and processing requests for variances during construction; and create and maintain a database of daily reports documenting compliance. Final details regarding staffing and implementation of the compliance monitoring program will be developed in consultation with the FERC prior to the commencement of construction and as part of the initial Implementation Plan documenting how Rover will comply with mitigation measures identified in the Order that may be issued by the FERC for the Project.

2.6 Construction Procedures

2.6.1 Pipeline Facilities

Construction of the Project will follow industry-accepted practices and procedures, as further described below. Generally, construction of the Project pipelines will follow a set of sequential operations. In this typical pipeline construction scenario, the construction spread proceeds along the pipeline right-of-way in one continuous operation. The entire process will be coordinated in such a manner as to minimize the total time a tract of land is disturbed and therefore exposed to erosion and temporarily precluded from normal use.

To minimize the impacts of construction disturbance, Rover will implement the Rover Plan and Rover Procedures as approved by the FERC. The following sections provide descriptions of activities along a typical construction spread, as well as other specialized construction methods that will be used to install the pipeline at waterbody, road, and railroad crossings, and in wetland, residential, and agricultural areas.

Described below are the activities associated with conventional construction for large-diameter pipelines. Where dual 42-inch-diameter pipelines will be installed, clearing and grading will be conducted for both pipelines in a single pass. Installation of the pipelines will be slightly staggered, where one pipeline will be assembled and installed from stringing through backfill and rough cleanup, and then the second pipeline will be installed in a similar manner through the area directly afterward. Final restoration and cleanup will be completed following installation of both pipelines. The dual pipelines may be installed concurrently in areas requiring specialized crews, such as road/railroad crossings, foreign pipeline crossings, congested residential areas, HDD crossings, and other bored crossings. A description of dual pipeline installation during certain construction activities is included below where applicable.

2.6.1.1 Typical Upland Pipeline Construction Procedures

Surveying The initial step in preparing the right-of-way for construction is the civil survey. Affected landowners will be contacted and requested to permit Rover agents to enter property prior to surveying and staking of the centerline and workspaces for construction. Arrangements will be made at this time with the landowner for management of livestock during construction. This may involve fencing off the construction work areas, relocating the livestock to other pastures, or boarding the animals at offsite locations.

22 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

The civil survey crew will stake the outside limits of the construction right-of-way, the centerline location of the pipeline, drainage centerlines and elevations, highway and railroad crossings, and any temporary extra workspace, such as lay down areas or at stream crossings. The “One Call” system of each state will be contacted to allow state and local utility operators to verify and mark all underground utilities (e.g., cables, conduits, and pipelines) located within the construction work areas. To further minimize the potential for damage to buried facilities, field instrumentation and/or test pits excavated using “soft digging” techniques (such as excavation by hand) will be used to locate utilities.

Clearing and Grading Following surveying, the right-of-way will be cleared. Large obstacles such as trees, rocks, brush, and logs will be removed. Trees will be felled by hand or mechanical means. Areas disturbed during tree cutting operations will be stabilized as necessary in accordance with Rover’s Winter Construction Plan (see Appendix D). When construction begins, timber and other vegetation debris may be chipped for use as erosion-control mulch, burned, sold, or otherwise disposed of in accordance with applicable state and local regulations, and landowner easement agreements. Where allowable, burning will be conducted in such a manner as to minimize the fire hazard and prevent heat damage to surrounding vegetation. Fences will be cut and braced along the right-of-way, and temporary gates will be installed to control livestock and limit public access.

The right-of-way will then be graded where necessary to create a reasonably level working surface to allow safe passage of construction equipment and materials, and for operation of pipe fabrication and installation equipment. During the grading operation, temporary flume pipes will be installed as necessary to maintain surface drainage. Temporary erosion control measures, such as silt fencing and interceptor dikes, will be installed during topsoil and subsoil removal. Topsoil will be removed from the trenchline in all areas, and will be removed from the full right-of-way in agricultural land, as described in Section 2.6.1.7 below. Conserved topsoil will typically be stockpiled along one side of the right-of-way, allowing the other side to be used for access, material transport, and pipe assembly. In areas where dual pipelines will be installed, the full width of the right-of-way will be cleared and graded prior to construction of the first pipeline.

Trenching To bury the pipeline underground, it will be necessary to excavate a trench. The trench will be excavated with a trenching machine, a track-mounted backhoe, or similar equipment. Generally, the trench bottom will be excavated at least 12 inches wider than the diameter of the pipe. The sides of the trench will be sloped with the top of the trench up to 20 feet across, or more, depending upon the stability of the native soils. The trench will be excavated to a sufficient depth to allow a minimum of 3 feet of soil cover between the top of the pipe and the final land surface after backfilling. Additional cover will be provided at crossings of waterbodies, agricultural lands, roads, and railroads. Excavated soil will typically be stockpiled along the trench (the “spoil” side) and away from the construction traffic and pipe assembly area (the “working” side). Where the pipeline is adjacent to an existing pipeline, the spoil will be placed on the same side of the trench as the existing pipeline. No working equipment will operate over the active pipeline. When trenching near foreign buried utilities, soft digging methods (hand excavation or an excavator bucket without teeth or side cutters) will be used to fully excavate any foreign line (see Section 2.6.1.6). In areas where dual pipelines will be installed, trenching for each pipeline will be staggered, where only one trench will be excavated at a time at any particular location, and the first pipe will be installed and backfilled prior to the second trench being excavated.

23 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

Stringing Steel pipe will be procured in nominal 40-foot, 60-foot, and 80-foot lengths, or “joints,” protected with an epoxy coating applied at the factory or at a coating yard (the beveled ends will be left uncoated for welding) and shipped to strategically located materials storage areas, or “pipeyards.” The individual joints may be transported to the right-of-way by truck and placed along the excavated trench in a single, continuous line, easily accessible to the construction personnel on the working side of the trench, typically opposite the spoil side. This will allow the subsequent lineup and welding operations to proceed efficiently. At stream crossings, the amount of pipe required to span the stream will be stockpiled in temporary extra workspaces on one or both banks of the stream. In areas where dual pipelines will be installed, stringing of each line will be staggered, where only one pipeline will be strung at a time at any particular location, and the first pipe will be installed and backfilled prior to the second pipeline being strung.

Pipe Bending The pipe will be delivered to the job site in straight joints. While some induction bends may be used, some bending of pipe will be required to allow the pipeline to follow natural grade changes and direction changes of the right-of-way. Prior to welding, selected joints will be bent in the field by track-mounted hydraulic bending machines.

Pipe Assembly and Welding Following stringing and bending, the joints of pipe will be placed on temporary supports, adjacent to the trench. Rover will use state of the art welding processes to join multiple pipe joints together, and tie-in welds where needed at road, railroad, stream or wetland crossings. The pipe joints will be carefully aligned and welded together using multiple passes for a full penetration weld. Only qualified welders will be allowed to perform the welding. Welders and welding procedures will be qualified according to applicable American Society for Mechanical Engineers (ASME), API, and 49 CFR Part 192 Standards.

Non-Destructive Examination and Weld Repair To ensure that the assembled pipe will meet or exceed the design strength requirements, 100 percent of the pipeline girth welds will be visually inspected and tested for integrity using non-destructive examination (NDE) methods such as radiography (X-ray) or ultrasound, in accordance with API standards. Welds displaying unacceptable slag inclusions, void spaces, or other defects will be repaired or cut out and re- welded.

Coating Field Welds, Inspection, and Repair Following welding, the previously uncoated ends of the pipe at the joints will be cleaned and epoxy coated in accordance with Rover’s specifications. The coating on the completed pipe section will be inspected and any damaged areas will be repaired.

Pipe Lowering The completed section of pipe will be lifted off the temporary supports and lowered into the trench by side- boom tractors or equivalent equipment. Prior to lowering the pipe, the trench will be inspected to ensure that it is free of rocks and other debris that could damage the pipe or the coating, and that the trench and pipe configurations are compatible, and then the pipe will be lowered-in. In rocky areas, if the bottom is not smooth, a layer of soil may be placed on the bottom of the trench to protect the pipe. Concrete set-on or saddle-bag type weights will be used if required for negative buoyancy in areas of saturated soils.

24 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

Padding and Backfilling After the pipe is lowered into the trench, the trench will be backfilled. Previously excavated materials will be pushed back into the trench using bladed equipment or backhoes. Where the previously excavated material contains large rocks or other materials that could damage the pipe or coating, the subsoil will be sifted to remove any rock greater than 1 inch from the padding material, or clean fill and/or protective coating (rock shield) will be placed around the pipe prior to backfilling. Segregated topsoil, where applicable, will be placed after backfilling the trench with subsoil. Following backfilling in agricultural land, grassland, and open land, or in specified areas, a small crown may be left in certain areas if requested by a landowner to account for any future soil settling that might occur. Excess soil will only be distributed in upland areas evenly on the right-of-way, while maintaining existing contours.

A caliper pig run will be completed after backfill to ensure there are no dents or damage to the pipe as a result of the construction and backfill process.

Hydrostatic Test and Final Tie-In Following backfilling of the trench, the pipeline will be hydrostatically tested in a manner that meets or exceeds the requirements of 49 CFR Part 192 to ensure that it is capable of safely operating at the design pressure. Proposed sources, potential water quantities, and discharge locations for hydrostatic test water are provided in Appendix B, Table B-5. Test segments of the pipeline will be capped and filled with water. Surface water used for testing will be drawn through a screened intake in accordance with the Rover Procedures. The water in the pipe will be pressurized and held for a minimum of 8 hours in accordance with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration requirements identified in 49 CFR Part 192. Any loss of pressure that cannot be attributed to other factors, such as temperature changes, will be investigated. Any leaks detected will be repaired and the segment will be retested. In areas where dual pipelines will be installed, the pipelines will be hydrostatically tested at separate times.

Upon completion of the test, the water may be pumped to the next pipe segment for testing, or the water may be discharged. The test water will be discharged at a rate not exceeding 2,000 gallons per minute through an energy-dissipating device in compliance with the Rover Procedures and any state-specific requirements included in the applicable state discharge permits. Once a segment of pipe has been successfully tested and dried, the test cap and manifold will be removed, and the pipe will be connected to the remainder of the pipeline.

Test water will contact only new pipe, and no chemicals will be added. No desiccant or chemical additives will be used to dry the pipe. Rover will implement applicable requirements of the Rover Procedures regarding hydrostatic testing, as well as any specifications listed in individual state permits. Unless expressly permitted or approved, there will be no direct discharge into state-designated exceptional value waters or scenic rivers.

Cleanup and Restoration Post-construction restoration activities will be undertaken in accordance with the applicable measures in the Rover Plan and Rover Procedures, other permit or agency requirements, and requirements in the landowner easement agreements. After a segment of pipe has been installed, backfilled, and successfully tested, the right-of-way, ATWS, and other disturbed areas will be finish-graded, and the construction debris will be disposed of properly. The surface of the right-of-way disturbed by construction activities will be graded to match original contours and to be compatible with surrounding drainage patterns, except at those locations where permanent changes in drainage will be required to prevent erosion, scour, and possible exposure of the pipeline. Segregated topsoil will be returned to its original horizon, unless otherwise

25 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

requested by the landowner. In areas where dual pipelines will be installed, topsoil will be segregated and stored through construction of the second pipeline, before being returned to the right-of-way. It is Rover’s intention to let no more than 20 days pass between backfilling of the first pipe and beginning construction on the second pipe.

Temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control measures, including silt fencing, diversion terraces, and vegetation, will be installed at that time. Private and public property, such as fences, gates, driveways, and roads, which has been disturbed by the pipeline construction, will be restored to original or better condition.

2.6.1.2 Wetland Construction Procedures

Rover has considered minimizing potential impacts to wetlands during selection of its proposed route and will avoid or minimize wetland crossings to the extent practicable. Where wetlands cannot be avoided, crossings of jurisdictional wetlands will be done in accordance with federal and state permits and approvals, and the Rover Procedures, including any deviations requested by Rover and approved by the FERC. In areas where dual pipelines will be constructed, each pipeline will be constructed in wetland areas in accordance with the Rover Procedures.

Operation of construction equipment in wetlands will be limited to that needed to clear the right-of-way, dig the trench, fabricate the pipe, install the pipe, backfill the trench, and restore the right-of-way. Rover will segregate the topsoil over the trench up to 12 inches in depth in wetlands where hydrologic conditions permit this practice. Segregated topsoil will be placed in the trench following subsoil backfilling. In accordance with the Rover Procedures, fuel will not be stored within 100 feet of wetlands or other waterbodies unless otherwise approved by the FERC or the Environmental Inspector. Restoration and monitoring of wetland crossings will be conducted in accordance with the Rover Procedures to ensure successful wetland revegetation.

Unsaturated Wetland Crossings In crossing unsaturated wetlands (wetlands without standing water or saturated soils), construction will be similar to the typical upland construction described above, with additional measures to protect wetland resources. If normal construction equipment begins to rut or would result in mixing of wetland topsoil and subsoil, low ground pressure equipment will be used, or temporary board or timber equipment mats will be installed to allow passage of equipment with minimal disturbance of the surface and vegetation. Trees will be cut to grade, but stumps will only be removed from the trenchline and from the working side where necessary for safety. Topsoil over the pipe trench will be segregated from subsoils. A vegetation buffer zone may be left between the wetland and the upland construction areas, except for the pipe trench and travel lane and as site-specific conditions warrant. Erosion control measures such as silt fences, interceptor dikes, and straw/hay bale structures will be installed and maintained to minimize sedimentation into off- right-of-way areas. Trench plugs will be installed where necessary to prevent the unintentional draining of water from the wetland. Upon completion of construction, the right-of-way will be restored and a 10-foot- wide strip centered on the pipeline will be maintained in an herbaceous state.

Saturated Wetland Crossings Saturated wetlands include those with standing water at the time of construction. Topsoil segregation will not be practical in saturated wetlands. Equipment mats or timber mats will be used to facilitate equipment movement through and work within the wetland. Otherwise, construction will be similar to that described above for unsaturated wetlands

26 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

2.6.1.3 Waterbody Construction Procedures

Rover will follow the Rover Procedures to limit water quality and aquatic resource impacts during and following construction. Construction activities will be scheduled so that the pipeline trench is excavated as close to pipe laying activities as possible. In accordance with the Rover Procedures and where the pipeline will not be installed using HDD, the duration of construction across perennial waterbodies will be limited to 48 hours (24 hours to cross the waterbody and 24 hours for restoration) across minor waterbodies (10 feet wide or less) and intermediate waterbodies (between 10 and 100 feet wide). Banks will be returned to as near to pre-construction conditions as possible within 24 hours of completion of each open-cut crossing. Any deviations in timing that would result in extended crossing durations will be identified in advance by Rover and notification made to FERC with site-specific justification. In areas where dual pipelines will be constructed, each pipeline will be constructed in waterbodies in accordance with the Rover Procedures.

Construction methods at waterbody crossings will vary with the characteristics of the waterbody encountered, and will be performed consistent with applicable permits and authorizations. Pipe will be installed to provide a minimum of 5 feet of cover from the waterbody bottom to the top of the pipeline. The bottom of the pipeline trench will be excavated to a width of at least 12 inches greater than the diameter of the pipe or to a greater width to allow proper backfill beneath and along the sides of the pipeline.

Trench spoil will be placed on the bank above the high water mark for use as backfill. Excavated spoil that is stockpiled in the construction right-of-way will be at least 10 feet from the stream bank or in approved ATWS, and will be surrounded by sediment control devices to prevent sediment from returning to the waterbody.

Where the pipeline is prefabricated for installation across the waterbody, the pipeline segment will be long enough to extend for a minimum of 10 feet past the high banks on each side of the waterbody before raising in elevation to the normal trench level. The pipeline may be weighted with buoyancy concrete control weights, saddle bag type weights and/or screw anchors to obtain sufficient negative buoyancy of the pipeline. All adjacent pipelines will be protected as necessary.

Normal backfill cover requirements will be met and backfill compacted so that it will be equal to or above that of the adjacent undisturbed areas. Ditch plugs of crushed stone, sandbags, or dry soil may also be used to keep backfill from sloughing in toward the center of the waterbody. All waterbody banks will be restored to as close to the original grade as possible, while preventing long-term erosion. All erosion control materials or other materials used for the crossing will be removed from the waterbody, and excavated material not required for backfill will be removed and disposed of at an upland site.

Rover will use the open-cut crossing method where appropriate. Dry-ditch waterbody crossing methods (i.e., dam and pump and flume) will be used where feasible depending upon the actual conditions encountered at the time of construction or where required by federal or state agencies. Major waterbodies (i.e., those greater than 100 feet wide), navigable waters, or sensitive waterbodies identified by federal and state agencies, will be crossed using HDD. The proposed crossing method for each waterbody will be provided in future submittals.

Open-Cut Crossing Method An open-cut waterbody crossing will use methods similar to conventional upland open-cut trenching. The open-cut construction method will involve excavation of the pipeline trench across the waterbody, installation of a prefabricated segment of pipe, and backfilling of the trench with native material. No effort will be made to isolate the stream flow from the construction activities. Depending upon the width of the

27 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

crossing and the reach of the excavating equipment, excavation and backfilling of the trench will generally be accomplished using backhoes or other excavation equipment operating from one or both banks of the waterbody. If necessary for reach, the equipment may operate within the waterbody. Equipment in the waterbody will be limited to that needed to complete the crossing. All other construction equipment will cross the waterbody using equipment bridges, unless otherwise allowed by the Rover Procedures for minor waterbody crossings.

In areas where man-made drainages have been created to facilitate agriculture practices (e.g., field or pasture drains), these drainage features will be rerouted or temporarily blocked during trenching to prevent downstream or off right-of-way sedimentation of natural waterbodies. These man-made crossings will be completed as part of mainline construction. For intermittent or ephemeral crossings, pipe will be strung and welded along the trench line. Trench plugs will remain on either side of the crossing or flumes will be installed to maintain water flow during rain events. When the welded pipe string is ready for installation, the trench plugs or flumes will be removed temporarily to allow the pipe to be placed in the trench, the trench will be backfilled, and the banks restored.

Dam and Pump Crossing Method The dam and pump method involves installation of temporary dams upstream and downstream of the waterbody crossing. The temporary dams typically will be constructed using sandbags and plastic sheeting. Following dam installation, appropriately sized pumps will be used to dewater and transport the stream flow around the construction work area and trench. Intake screens will be installed at the pump inlets to prevent entrainment of aquatic life, and energy dissipating devices will be installed at the pump discharge point to minimize erosion and stream bed scour. Trench excavation and pipeline installation will then commence through the dewatered portion of the waterbody channel. Following completion of pipeline installation, backfill of the trench, and restoration of stream banks, the temporary dams will be removed, and flow through the construction work area will be restored. This method is generally only appropriate for those waterbody crossings where pumps can adequately transfer the stream flow volume around the work area and there are no concerns about the passage of sensitive species. Where this method is used, Rover will ensure its contractor has redundant pump(s) available on location.

Flume Crossing Method The flume crossing method is similar to a dam and pump, and will consist of temporarily directing the flow of water through one or more flume pipes placed over the area to be excavated. This method allows excavation of the pipe trench across the waterbody completely underneath the flume pipes without disruption of water flow in the stream. Stream flow will be diverted through the flumes by constructing two bulkheads, using sand bags or plastic dams, to direct the stream flow through the flume pipes. Following completion of pipeline installation, backfill of the trench, and restoration of stream banks, the bulkheads and flume pipes will be removed. This crossing method generally minimizes the duration of downstream turbidity by allowing excavation of the pipeline trench under relatively dry conditions.

2.6.1.4 Horizontal Bore and HDD Crossing Methods

Horizontal bore and HDD are trenchless crossing methods that may be used for crossings under roads, railroads, sensitive resources, and waterbodies. In areas where dual pipelines will be installed, each pipeline will be installed by bore or HDD separately.

28 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

Horizontal Bore Method To complete a horizontal bore, two pits will be excavated, one on each side of the feature to be bored. A boring machine will be lowered into one pit, and a horizontal hole is bored to a diameter approximately two inches larger than the diameter of the pipe (or casing, if required) at the depth of the pipeline installation. The pipeline section and/or casing will be pushed through the bore to the opposite pit. If additional pipeline sections are required to span the length of the bore, they will be welded to the first section of the pipeline in the bore pit before being pushed through the bore.

Because the horizontal bore method involves pits on each side of the feature, this method is primarily used for crossings of roads or railroads. However, adjacent waterbodies or wetlands will typically be included within the length of the bore. Some elevated or channelized waterbodies, such as irrigation ditches, may also be successfully bored, depending upon the groundwater level in the area.

HDD HDD has been in use since the 1980’s as a means to install pipelines under major roadways, and under rivers and at shore approaches to eliminate pipeline exposure from erosion and scour and eliminate impacts to water quality from construction activities that would otherwise occur within the waterbody. Pipelines up to 60 inches in diameter have been successfully installed using this method. The length of pipeline that can be installed by HDD depends upon underlying soil and rock conditions, pipe diameters, and available technology and equipment sizes. An HDD may not be appropriate for every site condition encountered.

HDD involves drilling a pilot hole along a prescribed path and then enlarging that hole using reaming tools to achieve a hole large enough to accommodate the pipe. The reaming tools are attached to the drill string at the exit point of the pilot hole and then rotated and drawn back to the drilling rig, thus progressively enlarging the pilot hole with each pass. During this process, drilling fluid consisting of bentonite clay and water is maintained in drilling pits within the construction work area and will be continuously pumped into the hole to remove cuttings and maintain the integrity of the hole between the HDD entry and exit points. Once the hole has been sufficiently enlarged, a prefabricated segment of pipe will be attached behind the reaming tool on the exit side of the crossing and pulled back through the drill hole to the drill rig, completing the crossing.

There is the potential for an inadvertent release of drilling mud (frac-out) during execution of an HDD. To minimize the potential for a frac-out, Rover construction personnel and the contractor will conduct visual and pedestrian inspections along the drill path and will continuously monitor drilling mud pressures and return flows. In accordance with the HDD Plan, Rover’s contractor will take immediate action to control any inadvertent releases. Depending on the amount of fluid released and its location, these actions include containing the release with containment structures if a large volume is released, cleaning up the affected area, and making adjustments to the composition of the drilling fluid to minimize or prevent recurrence.

Because it is necessary to prefabricate a section of pipe above ground that is equal to the length of the HDD, additional workspace beyond the HDD temporary work area may be needed. Where the HDD and the abutting portion of the right-of-way are in or near parallel alignment, the pull section will be pre-fabricated within the construction right-of-way and no extra workspace will be required for the pull section. If the abutting right-of-way is not aligned with the HDD, an extra workspace (sometimes referred to as a “false right-of-way”) will be required.

An access path up to 10 feet wide within the permanent right-of-way between the HDD entry and exit points may be used for access to a water source or as a travel lane. Disturbance will be limited to surface impacts only. This access path will be used to set up pumps for obtaining water for the drilling process and/or for

29 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

hydrostatic testing of the pipeline on the banks of the waterbody and to lay the water pipe from the waterbody to the drilling operation or the pipe. Disturbance of these areas will be limited to foot traffic and the occasional truck, all-terrain vehicle, or backhoe to move pumps and water piping in and out.

A global positioning satellite drill head is sometimes used, which transmits the location of the drill head back through the stem to the operator to maintain the hole along the prescribed path. Other technology uses electric-grid guide wires (or Tru-Tracker wires) that are hand-laid across the land surface and along the pipeline centerline to help guide the drill bit along the predetermined HDD path. The Tru-Tracker wires must be located parallel to the centerline, but are offset, and must typically be placed outside of the permanent right-of-way in order to triangulate the location of the drill head. In thickly vegetated areas, some vegetation may be trimmed using hand tools to allow placement of these electric-grid guide wires. Ground and vegetation disturbance will be minimal and no trees over 3 inches diameter at breast height will be cut for guide wire installation.

The locations where HDDs are proposed are listed in Appendix B, Table B-6. If the HDD should fail at the proposed location, the HDD entry/exit points will be re-evaluated and relocated to an adjacent area, and the HDD will be attempted again as described in Rover’s HDD Contingency Plan in Appendix D.

2.6.1.5 Road and Railroad Crossings

Traffic on major roads and railroads will be maintained during installation of the pipe by use of horizontal bore or HDD. The pipeline will be installed at a depth of at least 5 feet below a road surface and at least 10 feet below the rail of a railroad, and will be designed to withstand anticipated external loadings. At points of access to the right-of-way from hard-surfaced roads, a stone pad will be installed as a construction entrance to control dirt tracking onto the highway.

An open cut will be used where a bore or HDD is not feasible and the open cut is approved, and for crossings of private roads. Where an open cut is required, two weeks advance notice will be given to area residences and local authorities prior to the cutting of the specific roadway. Traffic control measures and road signage will be installed in accordance with all permit requirements. Provisions will be made as necessary for temporary detours or other measures to maintain access and safe traffic flow during construction.

2.6.1.6 Foreign Pipeline Crossings

The Project pipelines will cross under foreign pipelines and gathering lines. Generally, the Project pipelines will be installed under most existing foreign pipelines. This will require careful excavation around and under the foreign pipeline using equipment and hand-held tools, and supporting the foreign pipeline as necessary to allow the Project pipeline to be slipped under the foreign pipeline. The larger spoil volumes from increased excavation depths at these pipeline crossings and the preference not to place spoil or construction equipment over existing pipelines will require additional temporary workspace at most crossings. Precautions will be taken to ensure that the existing pipelines are positively identified, not damaged, and the pipeline crossing area is safe during construction. These precautions include:

• contacting One Call to locate all known pipelines and utilities; • locating the precise location of the existing pipelines prior to excavation using a hand-held magnetometer and/or by probing; • scanning the edges of the right-of-way prior to grading with Passive Inductive Locating equipment to insure that no unknown foreign pipelines cross into the construction work area;

30 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

• notifying operators of the existing pipelines of proposed construction and providing the companies with the opportunity to be present during work around their pipelines; • avoiding mechanized excavation within 3 feet of existing pipelines and completing excavations by hand shoveling; • keeping construction equipment and spoil piles away from the existing pipeline centerline, to the extent practicable; • temporarily supporting existing pipelines for the length of the span exposed by the crossing excavation; • inspecting existing pipelines before and after pipe installation to ensure there is no damage to the existing pipelines or coatings that could compromise integrity; • installing test leads on both lines for future monitoring of cathodic protection systems; • maintaining the minimum separation distance between the existing and proposed pipeline as specified by the USDOT; and • following safety requirements of the foreign pipeline crossing operator.

In the event of accidental damage to a foreign pipeline during construction, Rover will coordinate with the foreign pipeline operator to implement appropriate measures for maintaining the structural integrity of both pipelines and minimizing undesirable effects to human health and the environment.

2.6.1.7 Agricultural Areas

Rover will conserve topsoil in actively cultivated and rotated cropland, and improved pastureland, and in other areas at the specific request of the landowner or land management agency. In compliance with the Rover Plan and the AIM Plans, topsoil will be segregated in agricultural areas where the topsoil is greater than 12 inches deep, or more based upon landowner agreements. Where topsoil is less than 12 inches deep, the actual depth of the topsoil will be determined by visual inspection, and the entire topsoil layer will be removed and segregated. Topsoil segregation will be performed in consultation with the landowner, and may include the entire construction right-of-way or the ditch plus spoil side.

Rover has assumed, and is committed to using, full right-of-way topsoil segregation in all agricultural areas and temporarily stockpiling all topsoil in a separate windrow on the construction right-of-way. Rover will install the pipe at a minimum depth of 4 feet to accommodate deep tilling (e.g., using parabolic plows), and will maintain and repair existing water or drainage tile systems that are prevalent in the Project area. Rock will not be used as upper backfill in rotated or permanent cropland. Rover is currently consulting with state agricultural agencies, independent consultants, land improvement and drainage tile contractors, and landowners to develop plans for repair of drainage tile systems that will be affected by construction and will provide these plans in subsequent submittals. A 150-foot-wide construction right-of-way will be used to accommodate full right-of-way topsoil segregation, the added pipeline depth, and allow for restoration of water supply and drainage systems. Some ATWS will be required, primarily to stage HDD crossings or for areas where landowner agreements require deep topsoil segregation, resulting in excess topsoil storage requirements.

2.6.1.8 Other Construction Procedures

Certain conditions that may be encountered will require the use of special construction techniques, as further described below.

31 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

Blasting If bedrock is encountered and requires removal, several conventional (non-explosive) techniques are available, including conventional excavation with a backhoe, ripping with a dozer followed by backhoe excavation, or hammering with a pointed backhoe attachment followed by backhoe excavation. Rover does not anticipate the use of blasting for the Project.

Rugged Terrain In areas with steep side slopes, ATWS may be needed to grade slopes to accommodate pipe bending limitations. In these areas, slopes will be cut down and, after the pipeline is installed, returned to their original contours during right-of-way restoration. In areas where the pipeline crosses laterally across the face of a slope, cut-and-fill grading may be required to establish a safe, flat work surface to install the pipeline.

Trench Dewatering In most cases, trench dewatering will be limited to the removal of storm water collected in the pipe trench. In uplands, storm water will typically be removed from the trench prior to lowering the pipe into place. The storm water will be pumped from the trench to a well vegetated area down-gradient of the trench and through a sediment filter. The trench will be dewatered in a manner that will not cause erosion and will not result in heavily silt-laden water flowing into any waterbody or wetland. The storm water will be discharged to an energy dissipation/filtration dewatering device, such as a hay bale structure or filter bag. The dewatering structure will be removed as soon as possible after completion of the dewatering activities. Trench plugs will be used where necessary to separate the upland trench from adjacent wetlands or waterbodies to prevent the inadvertent draining of the wetland or diversion of water from the waterbody into the pipe trench.

2.6.2 Aboveground Facilities

Typical construction activities associated with the installation of the aboveground facilities are summarized below. No special construction methods will be required for the installation of the aboveground facilities.

2.6.2.1 General Construction Procedures

Construction activities and storage of construction materials and equipment will be confined within the compressor station and meter interconnect site boundaries or at one of the approved contractor yards. Debris and wastes generated from construction will be disposed of as appropriate and all surface areas disturbed will be restored in a timely manner. The aboveground facilities will be constructed in accordance with Rover construction standards and specifications as more generally described in the paragraphs that follow.

2.6.2.2 Foundations

Excavation will be performed as necessary to accommodate the new reinforced concrete foundations for the new compressors, launching and receiving facilities, metering equipment, and buildings. Subsurface friction piles may be required to support the foundations, depending upon the bearing capacity of the underlying soils and anticipated equipment loads. Forms will be set, rebar installed, and the concrete poured and cured in accordance with applicable industry standards. Backfill will be compacted in place, and excess soil will be used elsewhere or distributed around the site to improve grade.

32 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

2.6.2.3 Equipment

The compression, piping, and other equipment will be shipped to the site by truck. The equipment will be offloaded using cranes, front-end loaders, or both. The equipment will then be positioned on the foundations, leveled, grouted where necessary, and secured with anchor bolts. All non-threaded piping associated with the aboveground facilities will be welded, except where connected to flanged components. All welders and welding procedures will be qualified in accordance with API standards. All welds in large- diameter gas piping systems will be examined using radiography, ultrasound, or other approved NDE methods to ensure compliance with code requirements.

All aboveground piping surfaces will be cleaned and painted in accordance with Rover construction specifications. All paint inspection and cleanup will be conducted in accordance with federal and/or regulatory requirements and best engineering practices.

2.6.2.4 Launcher and Receiver Facilities

Launcher and receiver facilities will consist of a section of aboveground piping that will be designed to accommodate the in-line inspection tools (smart pigs) that will be placed into the pipe for periodic internal inspections of the pipeline during operations.

2.6.2.5 Mainline Valves

The MLVs will be located within the permanent pipeline easement and at the new compressor station sites, meter and tie-in sites in accordance with USDOT safety requirements. The installation of the MLVs will meet the same standards and requirements established for the construction of the compressor stations and the pipeline. MLVs will be located as close to existing roads as possible to minimize impact to property and to provide easy access for Rover operations and maintenance personnel. All MLV sites will be fenced, gated, and locked.

2.6.3 Restoration

Following construction of the Project, the areas disturbed by construction will be restored to their original condition and use, to the greatest extent practicable. All aboveground facilities will be fenced and converted to industrial use.

2.6.3.1 Pipeline Right-of-Way

Upon completion of pipeline installation, the surface of the right-of-way disturbed by construction activities will be graded to match original contours and to be compatible with surrounding drainage patterns, except at those locations where permanent changes in drainage will be required to prevent erosion, scour, and possible exposure of the pipeline. HDD entry and exit pits will be backfilled and the disturbed ground surface similarly graded. Segregated topsoil will be replaced, and soils that have been compacted by construction equipment traffic will be disked. Temporary and permanent erosion control measures will be installed at this time in accordance with the Rover Plan and the Rover Procedures.

Uplands In most upland locations, excluding actively cultivated cropland, an herbaceous vegetative cover will be re-established by seeding disturbed areas using seed mixes appropriate to the Project area as recommended by the local soil conservation districts, landowner, or land management agency. Depending upon the time

33 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

of year, a seasonal variety, such as ryegrass, may be used until a more permanent cover can be established. Steep slopes and stream banks may require erosion control fabric or revetments to prevent erosion until a vegetative cover is established. In accordance with the Rover Plan, revegetation success will be monitored, and reseeding, fertilizing, and other measures will be employed until a cover equivalent to approximately 80 percent of similar, adjacent areas is achieved. Temporary and interim erosion control measures will be removed once 80 percent cover is achieved.

Actively cultivated cropland may be left unseeded at the request of the landowner. Pasture will be reseeded with a similar species or mixture.

Residential and commercial lawns will be reseeded or sodded, depending upon the original grass variety. Shrubs and small trees on residential properties will be temporarily transplanted and replaced, where practicable. Forested areas will be allowed to recover within the temporary work areas.

Wetlands Original surface hydrology will be re-established in wetlands by backfilling the pipe trench and grading the surface with backhoes or similar equipment operating from the equipment mats, or low-ground-pressure tracked vehicles, depending upon the ambient water level, degree of soil saturation, and the bearing capacity of the soils. Segregated topsoil from the trench will be replaced in unsaturated wetlands. Roots and stumps will not be removed in the areas outside of the pipe trench during construction, unless required for safety, thus allowing the wetland to recover more rapidly. Generally, wetlands disturbed by construction will be allowed to revegetate naturally.

2.6.3.2 Aboveground Facilities

The areas inside the fence at the aboveground facilities most likely will be permanently converted to industrial use. Most areas in and around the buildings, meters, and associated piping and equipment will be covered with crushed rock (or equivalent) to minimize the amount of maintenance required. Roads and parking areas may be crushed rock, concrete, or asphalt. Other ground surfaces will be seeded with a grass that is compatible with the climate and easily maintained. Disturbed areas outside the fence will be restored as described above for the pipeline right-of-way.

2.6.3.3 Access Roads

Existing access roads that were modified and used during construction will be returned to original or better condition upon completion of Project construction. New temporary access roads constructed specifically for the Project will be removed, the surface graded to original contours, and the land restored to its original use in accordance with the Rover Plan and any permit requirements or landowner agreements. Permanent access roads will be maintained as required to facilitate access to the pipeline facilities and in compliance with any landowner and federal/state requirements.

2.6.3.4 Contractor Yards

Upon completion of construction, all temporary facilities (e.g., trailers, sheds, latrines, pipe racks, fencing, and gates) will be removed from the pipe storage and contractor yards. Unless otherwise requested by the landowner, each site will be graded to original contours and seeded if appropriate, so that the land is restored to its pre-construction condition.

34 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

2.7 Operations and Maintenance Procedures

Rover will operate and maintain the Project facilities in compliance with USDOT regulations set forth at 49 CFR Part 192, FERC's regulations at 18 CFR § 380.15, and maintenance provisions of the Rover Plan and the Rover Procedures.

2.7.1 Pipeline

Operational activities for the Project facilities will primarily consist of routine maintenance of the right-of- way, and inspection, repair, and cleaning of the pipeline. Periodic aerial and ground inspections by Rover personnel will be used to identify conditions requiring maintenance, including:

• soil erosion that may expose the pipe, • dead vegetation that may indicate a leak in the pipeline, • general conditions of vegetation cover and erosion control measures, • unauthorized encroachment on the right-of-way, such as buildings and other substantial structures, and • other conditions that could present a safety hazard or require preventive maintenance or repairs.

The cathodic protection system for the Rover pipelines will be monitored and inspected periodically to ensure proper and adequate corrosion protection. The Rover pipelines will be designed to allow the use of internal inspection technology (e.g., smart pigging) in compliance with Rover’s pipeline integrity management program. Appropriate responses to conditions observed during internal inspections will be taken as necessary.

In upland areas, Rover will maintain vegetation on the permanent right-of-way by mowing, cutting, and trimming, except in areas of actively cultivated cropland. Large brush and trees will be periodically removed near the pipeline.

In accordance with the Rover Procedures, Rover will not conduct vegetation maintenance over the full width of the permanent right-of-way in wetlands and will allow a riparian strip of at least 25 feet wide as measured from the waterbody’s mean high water mark to permanently revegetate. However, to facilitate periodic pipeline corrosion/leak surveys in these areas, a corridor centered on the pipeline and up to 10 feet wide where a single line will be installed may be maintained in an herbaceous state. In areas where dual pipelines will be installed, Rover is requesting permission in the Rover Procedures to maintain the 20 feet between the pipeline centerlines plus an additional 5 feet on the outside portion of the centerlines for a total of 30 feet. In addition, trees and shrubs that are located within 15 feet of the pipeline centerline(s) that have roots that could compromise the integrity of the pipeline coating may be cut and removed from the right- of-way.

In compliance with the Rover Plan, routine vegetation maintenance within the permanent easement will occur at a frequency necessary to maintain the 10-foot corridor in an herbaceous state; however, mowing and clearing activities will not occur between April 15 and August 1 of any year. Vegetation maintenance will not normally be required in agricultural or grazing areas.

In accordance with USDOT regulations, the pipeline facilities will be clearly marked at line-of-sight intervals and at crossings of roads, railroads, waterbodies, and other key points. The markers will clearly identify the presence of the pipeline and provide a toll-free telephone number and address where a company

35 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation representative can be reached 24 hours a day/7 days a week in the event of an emergency or prior to any excavation in the area of the pipeline by a third party. As part of its effort to prevent any third party damage to the pipeline, Rover will participate in the One Call systems in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan.

2.7.2 Aboveground Facilities

2.7.2.1 Compressor Stations

Rover will operate and maintain the proposed compressor stations in accordance with USDOT requirements and standard procedures designed to ensure the integrity and safe operation of the facilities and to maintain firm natural gas transportation service. In addition to on-site operation and maintenance activities, the compressor stations will be linked to a central control system through a SCADA system, which will monitor the pipeline system on a 24-hour basis. In accordance with USDOT requirements, Rover proposes to establish and follow routine maintenance and operations procedures to ensure that the stations operate safely. Standard Rover operations at compressor stations will include activities such as the calibration, maintenance, and inspection of equipment, as well as the monitoring of pressure, temperature, and vibration data, and traditional landscape maintenance such as mowing and the application of fertilizer, etc. Standard Rover operations will also include the periodic checking of safety and emergency equipment and cathodic protection systems.

2.7.2.2 Meter Stations, Mainline Valves, and Tie-Ins

Rover personnel will perform routine checks of the new receipt and delivery meter stations, including calibration of equipment and instrumentation, inspection of critical components, and scheduled and preventative maintenance of equipment. Safety equipment, such as pressure-relief devices, will be tested for proper operation. Corrective actions will be taken for any identified problems.

All interconnect sites will be equipped with relief valves or pressure-protection devices to protect piping from overpressure in the event that site or unit control systems fail. A telemetry system will notify local personnel and personnel at Rover’s gas control headquarters of the activation of safety systems and alarms. These personnel will then instruct maintenance personnel to investigate and take proper corrective actions.

2.8 Future Plans and Abandonment

Rover has no plans for future expansion. However, if market conditions change such that an expansion is justified, Rover will seek the appropriate authorization from the FERC and other federal, state, and local agencies.

The Project facilities are designed to last as long as needed with modern technology and proper maintenance. The life of the Project may be constrained or increased by other factors, such as gas supply and market needs, that are the major factors in determining the economic life of the Project. At the end of the useful life of the Project, Rover will obtain the necessary permission to abandon its facilities in accordance with regulations that exist at the time of abandonment and any landowner requirements.

36 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

3.0 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ANALYSES

3.1 Bats

3.1.1 Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis)

3.1.1.1 Status and Distribution

The Indiana bat was listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 - a precursor to the ESA - on 11 March 1967 (32 CFR 4001) as a result of a sharp population decline. Across the species range, the population (as recorded from counts in hibernacula) has declined dramatically since the late 1950s. In 1960, the Indiana bat population was estimated at more than 800,000 individuals. The most current total available as of August 2013, reflects surveys completed in early 2013, and estimates the population at 534,239 individuals, apparently rebounding moderately from a population low in 2001 of 451,554 (USFWS 2013a).

A pronounced decline in the Indiana bat population was observed from 2007 to 2011 in the northeastern US, where a nearly 70 percent decrease was documented. Much of this decline is thought to be the result of an ailment called "white-nose syndrome (WNS)." Bats suffering from WNS were first observed in New York in the winter of 2006-2007, and affected bats have now been observed in 26 states (Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin) and five Canadian Provinces (New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, and Quebec) (USFWS 2015a). Additionally, the fungus that causes WNS, Psueduogymnoacus destructans, has been documented in, Minnesota Mississippi and Oklahoma though no mortality has been observed to date (USFWS 2015a). WNS, named for the distinctive fungal growth on the muzzle, wings and tail membranes of infected individuals, is responsible for the death of greater than 5.7 million individuals in eastern North America (USFWS 2015a). Dramatic declines (e.g., 90 percent) in bat populations have been observed following detection of the fungus in a hibernaculum (USFWS 2015a).

The range of the Indiana bat spans much of the eastern half of the United States as shown on Figure 3-1. Over 70 percent of the species’ known population hibernates in only ten hibernacula (USFWS 2007). Priority I hibernacula contain or at some time since 1960 have contained more than 10,000 bats and are known from 16 states. Priority 2 hibernacula have contained from 1,000 to 10,000 bats; Priority 3 hibernacula from 50 to 1,000 bats; and Priority 4 have less than 50 (USFWS 2007). Priority 2, 3, and 4 hibernacula collectively are known from 25 states. Historically, the largest hibernating populations of Indiana bats occur in Indiana, Missouri, Kentucky, Illinois, and New York. Summer historical occurrences of Indiana bats are known from 23 states, including Pennsylvania (USFWS 2007).

37 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

Figure 3-1. Distribution of Indiana Bats in the United States (USFWS 2007

38 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

3.1.1.2 Natural History and Habitat Association

Indiana bats exhibit an annual cycle that includes winter hibernation, spring staging, spring migration, summer birth of young, fall migration, and fall swarming and mating, as illustrated in Figure 3-2. For approximately six months each year (from mid-October to mid-April), Indiana bats hibernate in caves or mines with stable temperatures below 10°C (Hall 1962, Henshaw 1965, Humphrey 1978, Myers 1964) preferably from approximately 4° to 8°C (Tuttle and Kennedy 2002). Comparison of occupied and unoccupied caves and mines found that Indiana bat hibernacula tend to have larger openings (9.7 square meters [m2] vs. 2.8 m2), larger cave passages (858.8 m vs. 131.6 m), and higher ceilings (13.2 m vs. 6.3 m) than unoccupied sites in Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia (Raesly and Gates 1987). Occupied hibernacula have stable temperatures typically below 10°C, above freezing, and generally from 3 to 7.2°C (Tuttle and Kennedy 1999). Warmer temperatures may increase metabolic rates and cause fat depletion during hibernation (Richter et al. 1993). Relative humidity for occupied hibernacula is typically between 70 and 100 percent (Hall 1962, Humphrey 1978, LaVal et al. 1976, Tuttle and Kennedy 1999). Preferred hibernacula also have noticeable airflow (Henshaw 1965). Hibernation facilitates survival during the winter when insect prey and water are unavailable. However, hibernation requires sufficient fat reserves to support metabolic processes until spring; events that interrupt hibernation and result in increased metabolic rates during periods of arousal therefore pose a substantial risk to hibernating bats (Thomas 1995a, Thomas 1995b, Thomas et al. 1990).

In spring, Indiana bats leave hibernacula over a two-month period, termed staging. During staging, bats emerging from hibernation roost in trees and forage near the hibernaculum. Timing of spring staging varies between sexes; females typically leave hibernacula between late March and early April while most males remain in hibernation (Cope and Humphrey 1977; Hobson and Holland 1995; LaVal and LaVal 1980). The importance of staging for Indiana bats is rarely addressed in the literature; however, foraging and other activity during staging may influence survival during migration.

From approximately mid-May through mid-August, Indiana bats occupy summer habitat. They gather (usually less than 100 individuals) in maternity roost trees, where they give birth and raise a single young each year (Barbour and Davis 1969; Whitaker and Hamilton 1998). Maternity colonies consist primarily of females and young (Humphrey et al. 1977) with most males roosting separately (Hall 1962). Male Indiana bats typically roost beneath bark or in cavities of trees, but tend to roost singly or in small groups (Thomson 1982). Indiana bats need a variety of roosts during summer to ensure persistence of the colony (USFWS 1996). Suitability of trees as Indiana bat roosts is determined by (1) tree condition (live or dead), (2) quantity of loose bark, (3) solar exposure and proximity to other trees, and (4) spatial relationship to water sources and foraging areas (USFWS 1996). Maternity colonies often use numerous (10 to 20) roost trees, including one to three primary roosts which are used by many adult females and young, and alternate roost trees which support fewer individuals and are used intermittently (Callahan et al. 1997). Females are philopatric and often use the same roosts in successive summers if the trees remain standing and retain exfoliating bark (Callahan et al. 1997; Gumbert et al. 2002; Gardner et al. 1991a; Kurta et al. 2002). A colony may use one to three primary roosts within a 1.5-kilometer (km; 0.9-mile) radius (Callahan et al. 1997).

39 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Winter Hibernation Winter Hibernation

Spring Emergence Fall Migration & Migration

Swarming

Summer Habitat Use

Young Born

Young Volant

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Figure 3-2. Life History Chronology of Indiana Bats.

40 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

Summer maternity habitat was originally thought to consist of mature trees in riparian or floodplain forests adjacent to small to medium-sized streams (Cope et al. 1974; Humphrey et al. 1977). However, recent studies have revealed that upland forest provides important maternity, roosting, and foraging habitat (Gardner et al. 1991b). Maternity roosts are often found under exfoliating bark or in crevices of trees with exposure to direct sunlight. Canopy cover around roost trees was found to be significantly lower than canopy cover around random trees in the forest (Callahan et al. 1997). These trees remain suitable for Indiana bat roosting for short time periods (Callahan et al. 1997) and recruitment of new roost trees is necessary for continued survival of the species. Available data is insufficient to clearly define suitable or optimal densities of roost trees within the home range of a maternity colony. Habitat with suitable roost trees no more than approximately 2.4 km (1.5 miles) apart may be minimally suitable; higher roost tree densities likely improve habitat suitability (Rommé et al. 1995).

Suitable summer habitat not only includes roosting habitat, but also foraging habitat. Indiana bats forage in a variety of habitats. Streams, with their associated floodplain forests, and impounded waters may be preferred foraging habitat for pregnant and lactating Indiana bats. Foraging activities of Indiana bats are concentrated from 2 to 30 m above the ground near the foliage of trees (Brack 1983; Humphrey et al. 1977). Indiana bats use stream corridors and forest openings as flight corridors from roosts to foraging areas and may travel from 2 to 5 km (1.2 to 3.1 miles) from the roost during foraging bouts (3D/I 1996; Gardner et al. 1991a; LaVal and LaVal 1980). Indiana bats apparently feed on similar prey regardless of habitat, geographic location, season, or sex and age of the bat (Belwood 1979; Brack 1983; Brack and LaVal 1985). Generally, they prey on insects belonging to terrestrial orders, e.g., moths (Lepidoptera) and beetles (Coleoptera). Insects characteristic of aquatic environments including flies (Diptera), caddisflies (Trichoptera), and stoneflies (Plecoptera) also are consumed (Belwood 1979; Brack 1983; Brack and LaVal 1985).

Autumn swarming occurs from approximately mid-August to September. During swarming, numerous bats fly in and out of cave entrances from dusk to dawn, while relatively few roost in caves during the day (Cope and Humphrey 1977). Roosts utilized by Indiana bats during swarming are similar to summer roosts and are located from 0.5 to 5.6 km (0.3 to 3.5 miles) from the hibernaculum (Gumbert 2001; Kiser and Elliot 1996; Kurta 2000; USFWS 2007). During swarming, bats may travel from 1.6 to 6.4 km (1.0 to 4.0 miles) from the hibernaculum during foraging bouts (Kiser and Elliot 1996; Rommé et al. 2002). Disturbances at swarming caves during autumn may adversely impact Indiana bat reproduction.

Forested habitat is essential to the survival of the Indiana bat. Indiana bats utilize forested areas as roosting and foraging habitat in the spring, summer, and fall. Forested corridors between summer colony sites and foraging habitat facilitate travel of Indiana bats. Murray and Kurta (2004) found that adult female Indiana bats used 13 different foraging areas located 0.3 to 2.6 miles from their day roost. These bats avoided open fields to travel along forested corridors, even though commuting distance was increased. Large-scale clear- cutting or other forms of extensive tree removal may eliminate Indiana bat maternity and foraging habitat, and remove corridors between caves and foraging habitat, leaving the bats vulnerable to predation. Removal of riparian forest may also result in degradation of water quality and elimination of prey species (USFWS 2007).

41 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

3.1.2 Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis)

3.1.2.1 Status and Distribution

The northern long-eared bat was proposed as endangered under the ESA on October 2, 2013. The final rule designating the northern long-eared bat as a threatened species was published on April 2, 2015, and the listing became effective on May 4, 2015. Currently, no definitive population estimate across the range of the northern long-eared bat exists. While recorded opportunistically during biannual counts of Indiana bat hibernacula, no effort has been made to systematically enumerate the species population across the range. However, drastic declines have been observed in the eastern portion of the species range. Turner et al. (2011) compared the most recent pre-WNS hibernacula counts to the most recent post-WNS counts for six caverniculous bat species from 30 hibernacula in five states. The northern long-eared bats experienced a 98 percent decline in these hibernacula. The USFWS conducted a similar analysis using data from 12 additional hibernacula in three additional states. The combined overall decline in hibernation count data from these eight states is approximately 99 percent (USFWS 2013b).

The range of the northern long-eared bat spans much of eastern and north central United States and all of the Canadian provinces west to eastern British Columbia and southern Yukon Territory (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993) (Figure 3-3). The species is patchily distributed through a majority of its range and was historically less common in the western and southern portions of the range (Amelon and Burhans 2006).

3.1.2.2 Life History and Habitat Associations

Northern long-eared bats exhibit an annual cycle that includes winter hibernation, spring staging, spring migration, summer birth of young, fall migration, and fall swarming and mating, as illustrated in Figure 3- 4. Hibernacula are generally large caves or mines with large passages and entrances (Raesly and Gates 1987), cool, stable temperatures between 0-9°C (Brack 2007, Caceres and Pybus 1997, Raesly and Gates 1987) with high humidity and no air currents (Caceres and Pybus 1997, Fitch and Shump 1979, Raesly and Gates 1987, Van Zyll de Jong 1985). Northern long-eared bats are often overlooked during hibernacula counts due to their propensity for roosting singly or in small groups in crevices and cracks in cave or mine walls with only the nose and ears exposed (Barbour and Davis 1969, Caceres and Pybus 1997, Caire et al. 1979, Griffin 1940, Van Zyll de Jong 1985, Whitaker and Mumford 2009). Similar to Indiana bats, events that interrupt hibernation and result in increased metabolic rates during periods of arousal pose a substantial risk to hibernating northern long-eared bats (Thomas 1995, Thomas et al. 1990)

In spring, Northern long-eared bats leave the hibernacula and roost in trees and forage near the hibernaculum in preparation for migration. The importance of staging for northern long-eared bats is not addressed in the literature; however, foraging and other activity during staging may influence survival during migration. Northern long-eared bats are not considered long distance migrants, but distances from hibernacula may range from 8 to 270 km (Griffin 1945, Nagorsen and Brigham 1993).

From approximately mid-May through mid-August, northern long-eared bats occupy summer habitat. Reproductively active females form maternity colonies consisting of 30-60 individuals (Foster and Kurta 1999, Lacki and Schwienjohann 2001, Menzel et al 2002, Perry and Thill 2007, Sasse and Perkins 1996) and give birth to a single pup each year (Barbour and Davis 1969). Parturition typically occurs in late May or early June (Caire et al 1979, Easterla 1968, Whitaker and Mumford 2009) and tends to be synchronous within the colony, with most of the births occurring around the same time (Krochmal and Sparks 2007).

42 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

Figure 3-3. Distribution of Northern Long-eared Bats in the United States (USFWS 2014a)

Northern long-eared bats appear to be somewhat opportunistic in roost selection and have been documented roosting under bark and in cavities or crevices of both live and dead trees (Sasse and Perkins 1996, Foster and Kurta 1999, Owens et al. 2005, Perry and Thill 2007), as well as anthropogenic structures (Amelon and Burhans 2006, Barbour and Davis 1969, Cope and Humphrey 1972, Mumford and Cope 1964, Timpone et al. 2010, Whitaker and Mumford 2009).

Northern long-eared bats exhibit a high degree of roost-switching, typically every 2-3 days (Carter and Feldhamer 2005, Foster and Kurta 1999, Owen et al 2002, Timpone et al. 2010). Suitable summer habitat not only includes roosting habitat, but also foraging habitat. Most foraging occurs from 1 to 3 meters off the ground, between the understory and canopy (Nagorson and Brigham 1993), with a preference for forested hillsides and ridges over riparian areas (Brack and Whitaker 2001, LaVal et al 1977), though foraging has been documented along roads and over water and forest clearings (Van Zyll de Jong 1985). Mean travel distances from occupied roosts to foraging areas range from 0.6 to 1.7 km (.37 to 1.1 miles), with a range of 0.07 to 4.8 km (0.04 to 3.0 miles) (Sasse and Perkins 1996, Timpone et al. 2010).

43 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Winter Hibernation Winter Hibernation

Fall Migration Spring Emergence & Migration Swarming

Summer Habitat Use

Young Born

Young Volant

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Figure 3-4. Life History Chronology of Northern Long-eared Bats

44 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

Fall migration and autumn swarming occurs from approximately mid-August to October (USFWS 2014). During swarming, numerous bats fly in and out of cave entrances from dusk to dawn, while relatively few roost in caves during the day (Cope and Humphrey 1977). No information regarding roost selection during swarming exists in the literature. Similar to the Indiana bat, swarming is likely important in the life history of Northern long-eared bats, as most mating occurs during this period, and foraging during swarming helps individuals accumulate fat reserves necessary to survive winter hibernation (Barbour and Davis 1969; Hall 1962; Thomson 1982). Disturbances at swarming caves during autumn may adversely impact Northern long-eared bat reproduction.

3.1.3 Historic Occurrence

The proposed Rover pipeline spans a total of 67.66 and 304.86 km located within buffer zones associated with historic occurrence records of Indiana and northern long-eared bats, respectively, in Ohio (Table 3.1), and 15.71 and 0.0 km, respectively, in West Virginia (Table 3.2). While the historic occurrence records may not occur within the project alignment, all areas of suitable habitat within a 5-mile buffer (Indiana bat) or 3-mile buffer (northern long-eared bat) associated with the record are considered to be occupied by the species. The proposed Rover alignment does not intersect buffer zones associated with historic occurrence records of Indiana or northern long-eared bats in Michigan and Pennsylvania.

Table 3-1 Indiana and northern long-eared bat historic occurrence along the proposed Rover Pipeline in Ohio

Historic MYSO Historic MYSE Pipeline Facility Total Length (km) Occurrence (km) 1 Occurrence (km) 2

Berne Lateral 6.75 3.80 3.80 Burgettstown Lateral 58.06 0 48.16 Cadiz Lateral 5.53 0 0 Clarington Lateral 52.12 0 19.59 Majorsville Lateral 18.13 0 17.92 Seneca Lateral 41.29 13.25 41.75 Sherwood Lateral 29.42 11.48 29.01 Supply Connector A and B 59.93 0 30.15 Mainlines A and B 26.29 39.13 114.48 Market Segment 44.69 0 0 Total 584.56 67.66 304.86 1 MYSO (Myotis sodalis) – linear kilometers of the proposed alignment where Indiana bats are considered present based upon historic occurrence records. 2 MYSE (Myotis septentrionalis) – linear kilometers of the proposed alignment where northern long- eared bats are considered present based upon historic occurrence records.

45 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

Table 3-2. Indiana and northern long-eared bat historic occurrence along the proposed Rover Pipeline in West Virginia Historic MYSO Historic MYSE Pipeline Facility Total Length (km) Occurrence (km) 1 Occurrence (km) 2

Burgettstown Lateral 8.78 0 0 Majorsville Lateral 20.20 0 0 Sherwood Lateral 57.43 15.71 0 CGT Lateral 9.14 0 0 Total 95.55 15.71 0 1 MYSO (Myotis 46odalist) – linear kilometers of the proposed alignment where Indiana bats are considered present based upon historic occurrence records. 2 MYSE (Myotis septentrionalis) – linear kilometers of the proposed alignment where northern long- eared bats are considered present based upon historic occurrence records.

3.1.4 Potential Presence in the Action Area

The entire proposed Project is located within the range of Indiana and northern long-eared bats. Bat habitat consists of a wide variety of land use where bats might roost, forage, and travel. Forested habitat may be interspersed with non-forested habitat such as wetlands and agricultural/residential land use (USFWS 2015b). Rover has conducted an extensive forested habitat assessment study spanning the length of Project alignment to identify suitable foraging and roosting habitat. Results of the habitat assessment are described in detail in Sections 3.1.4.1 and 3.1.4.2. Additionally, to address actual presence of these species within the proposed Project alignment, Rover conducted mist net surveys during the 2015 summer maternity season as described in Section 3.1.4.4.

3.1.4.1 Potential Roost Trees

The proposed alignment was systematically surveyed by qualified biologists in 2015 to enumerate the number of potential roost trees (PRTs) and to assess the quality and quantity of potentially suitable roosting habitat in the Project area. This data will be used to further elucidate the potential for listed bats to be present within the Project area. For the purposes of the field surveys, trees were considered potentially suitable if they possessed the following characteristics (USFWS 2015b):

• diameter at breast height (dbh) > 3 inches for northern long-eared bats or > 5 inches dbh for Indiana bats, • roosting structures (exfoliating bark, cracks, crevices, or cavities) that provide protection from the elements, and • free from vines or other obstructing vegetation that would preclude use by roosting bats.

Data were collected on all PRTs for the length of the proposed pipeline within a survey corridor approximately 225 feet wide, encompassing the construction work areas for the proposed pipeline (typically 125 feet) and a buffer of 50 feet on each side. All trees which exhibited suitable roosting characteristics, as described above, were geo-referenced and recorded. Characteristics such as tree species and diameter at breast height were recorded as well. A summary breakdown of PRTs by state and avoidance/impact is

46 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

provided in Table 3-3. Complete PRT survey results are provided in Appendix E, Table E-1. Of the 8,198 PRTs surveyed, approximately 40 percent will be avoided during clearing and construction.

Table 3-3. Potential roost trees by state and impact

State Impacted Avoided Total Michigan 426 469 895 Ohio 3,313 2001 5,314 Pennsylvania 131 101 232 West Virginia 1,021 736 1,757 Grand Total 4,891 3,307 8,198

3.1.4.2 Habitat Plot Data

The proposed alignment was systematically sampled by qualified biologists in 2015 to record and reflect forest conditions so that the quality and quantity of roosting, travel, and foraging Indiana and northern long- eared bat habitat can be assessed. At forest crossings where practicable, 30’ x 400’ plots were evaluated as to canopy and understory characteristics, average dbh, tree species, presence of known jurisdictional water resources, and suitability for Indiana and northern long-eared bat habitat.

Habitat plots were evaluated by the type of habitat they supported for particular bat species. As the Indiana bat has been surveyed and studied extensively since the 1970’s, much data exists for habitat specificity. Northern long-eared bats do not have as much data to support their particular habitat preferences, and as such, suitable habitat was documented coarsely as being present or not present.

A summary breakdown of habitat assessment data by state is provided in Tables 3-4 and 3-5 for Indiana bat and northern long-eared bat, respectively. Complete habitat assessment survey results are provided in Appendix E, Table E-2.

Table 3-4. Indiana bat habitat summary

Non-Maternity Maternity State Foraging Not Present Grand Total Roosting Roosting

Michigan 134 50 34 18 236 Ohio 301 154 105 77 637 Pennsylvania 13 3 3 7 26 West Virginia 44 48 5 20 117 Grand Total 492 255 147 122 1016

Of the 1016 plots surveyed, 894 plots (88 percent) contained suitable habitat for Indiana bat. The majority of those plots were suitable as foraging habitat, with non-maternity roosting habitat following. Non- maternity roosting habitat was defined as containing one or more trees > 5 inches dbh, exhibiting roosting characteristics. Maternity roosting habitat was defined as containing one or more trees >9 inches dbh, exhibiting roosting characteristics, and a sufficient degree of solar exposure. Plots were characterized as to the highest quality of habitat present; plots characterized as having Maternity Roosting habitat present were

47 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

also presumed to have Non-Maternity Roosting habitat and Foraging habitat. Plots characterized as having Non-Maternity Roosting habitat present were presumed to be suitable as Foraging habitat as well, but not Maternity Roosting habitat.

Table 3-5. Northern long-eared bat habitat summary

State Present Not Present Total Michigan 215 21 236 Ohio 564 73 637 Pennsylvania 22 4 26 West Virginia 97 20 117 Grand Total 898 118 1016

Of the 1016 plots surveyed, 898 plots (88 percent) contained suitable habitat for northern long-eared bat. As not enough peer-reviewed information exists at this time to make a distinction between foraging and roosting habitat blocks, all plots were denoted as to whether suitable habitat was present or not present.

3.1.4.3 Portal Survey

Portal Survey Methods Concurrent with the habitat surveys described above, the proposed alignment was systematically surveyed by qualified biologists in 2015 to identify cave and portal openings to address the potential for species presence within the Project alignment during the fall swarming, winter hibernation, and spring staging seasons. Identified openings were assessed for potential suitability for use by swarming, staging and/or hibernating bats. Pursuant to the 2012 Bat Survey Protocol for Assessing Use of Potential Hibernacula (USFWS 2012a), those openings meeting the following criteria were excluded from survey:

• There is only one horizontal opening, and it is less than 6 inches in diameter, and no or very little airflow is detected. • The opening is a vertical shaft less than 1 foot in diameter. • The passage continues less than 50 feet and terminates with no fissures that bats can access. (This assumes the passage is safe enough to enter, and has been thoroughly inspected.) • The mine is prone to flooding, collapsed shut and completely sealed, or otherwise inaccessible to bats. • It is a “new” opening, which has occurred recently (less than 1 year old) due to subsidence.

A total of four portal openings were identified along the proposed Rover alignment, three of which are potentially suitable for use by bats. Two portals were identified in Marshall County, West Virginia in the vicinity of MP 1.0 on the Majorsville Lateral, one portal was identified in Belmont County, Ohio in the vicinity of MP 4.8 on the Clarington Lateral, and one was identified near MP 34 in Wetzel County, West Virginia on the Sherwood Lateral (Table 3-6, Figure 3-5). The portal in Wetzel County, West Virginia met the above described criteria and is not considered suitable for use by hibernating bats and will not be addressed further in this document. Representative photographs of each portal opening are provided in Appendix F.

48 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

Figure 3-5. Portal openings identified along the proposed Rover Pipeline Alignment

49 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

Table 3-6. Portal openings identified along the proposed Rover Pipeline. Portal 1 Portal 2 Portal 3 Portal 4 State WV WV OH WV County Marshal Marshal Belmont Wetzel Pipeline segment Majorsville Majorsville Clarington Sherwood Opening type Mine shaft Mine shaft Mine shaft Rock shelter Opening height (ft.) 1 1.5 3 2.5 Opening width (ft.) 2.5 1 8 1.5 Orientation Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Slope (°) 0 5 5 Observed length (ft.) 10 10 100 + 3 Internal height (ft.) 1 1 5 0.7 Internal width (ft.) 2 2 10 0.5 Entrance stable? No Yes Yes Yes Evidence of collapse? Yes Yes Yes No Ceiling stable? No Yes Yes Yes Amount of airflow None None Slight None Airflow direction N/A N/A Out N/A Outside temperature (°F) 60 60 65 59 Internal temperature (°F) 60 60 65 57 Evidence of flooding No No Yes No Canopy closure (%) 80 80 50 30 Distance to water (ft.) 100 85 50 130 Evidence of foraging? No No No No Guano present No No No No Entrance obstructed by vegetation? No No No No Entrance obstructed by spider webs? No No No No Risk of predation Yes Yes Yes Yes Recommended for survey? Yes Yes Yes No

Surveys of the portals in West Virginia were conducted pursuant to the 2011 Draft Protocol for Assessing Abandoned Mines/Caves for Bat Use (USFWS 2011) and technical criteria outlined USFWS Northern Long-eared Bat Interim Conference and Planning Guidance (USFWS 2014b). Surveys began 30 minutes prior to sunset and continued for five hours. Surveys only occurred if temperatures were >50° F during the first two hours of survey and remained above 35° F until midnight. Surveys were not conducted during heavy rains or thunderstorms. Each portal was sampled with harp traps on two evenings for a total level of effort of 10 trap hours per portal. A harp trap was placed in front of each of the portals and exclusion netting was used to block the remainder of the portal opening. Harp traps were monitored on 20 minute intervals during the course of the survey. In addition to harp traps, biologists employed passive acoustic detectors to monitor bat activity during sampling. The detectors were placed 5 meters from each of the portal openings and directed towards the harp traps. The portals were sampled with acoustic detectors and harp traps on two

50 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

consecutive evenings, for a total level of effort of 10 trap hours. All field equipment was decontaminated pursuant to the National White-Nose Syndrome Decontamination Protocol (USFWS 2012b).

Surveys of the portal in Ohio were conducted pursuant to current guidance provided by the USFWS Ohio Field Office and ODNR and technical criteria outlined USFWS Northern Long-eared Bat Interim Conference and Planning Guidance (2014b). Surveys began 30 minutes prior to sunset and continued for five hours. Surveys only occurred if temperatures were >50° F during the first two hours of survey and remained above 35° F until midnight. Surveys were not conducted during heavy rains or thunderstorms. The portal was sampled using two acoustic detectors (one passive and one active) and visually monitored by a qualified biologist. The passive acoustic detector was placed at the entrance of the portal to record bats entering and exiting. The active detector was used to alert surveyors of bats flying near the portal. In addition to acoustic detectors, biologists used night vision equipment to assist in confirming the type and level of bat activity at the sampling site. The portal was sampled with acoustic detectors and night vision equipment on two evenings, for a total level of effort of 10 survey hours. Pursuant to current guidance, the two sampling events were separated by two weeks.

West Virginia Portal Survey Results

The two portals located along the Majorsville Lateral in Marshall County, West Virginia were sampled on 30 September and 1 October 2015. Weather conditions recorded during the survey were within acceptable temperature limits and no precipitation was encountered. No bats were encountered entering or exiting either of the portals during 10 trap hours of survey. A total of 45 and 220 bat passes were recorded at portals 1 and 2, respectively, for grand total of 265 bat passes recorded during the course of the survey. A breakdown of bat passes per hour at each of the portal for each night sampled is provided in Table 3-7.

Based on observed activity patterns and habitat arrangement, the recorded calls were likely from individuals foraging along the stream at the base of the bluff where both portals are located. Additionally, no bats were captured during harp trapping of either portal, increasing the probability that recorded calls were from bats foraging in the area and not bats attempting to enter or exit either portal. Bat activity commenced immediately after sunset with a high volume of calls being recorded. Detected bats were observed passing between the acoustic detector and the harp trap as they foraged along the stream corridor located directly in front of the portals and foraging in the adjacent open field. Bats use streams to for hydration at the start of each night and insect activity is concentrated along streams throughout the night. The uncluttered nature of the stream corridor and adjacent forest edge provide high quality foraging habitat.

Portals 1 and 2 are unlikely to support fall swarming activities or provide winter hibernation habitat because of their small size, low position on the slope, low stability (evidence of collapse), and lack of detectable airflow during survey efforts (Table 5). Additionally, the opening to Portal 1 was located at ground level and had a low ceiling, likely precluding bat use due to risk of predation

51 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

Table 3-7. Acoustic bat passes recorded at two portal openings along the Rover Pipeline in Marshall County, West Virginia Bat Passes per Hour Date Portal Start Time Total 1st Hour 2nd Hour 3rd Hour 4th Hour 5th Hour

9/30/2015 1 18:50 6 10 5 6 4 31 9/30/2015 2 18:50 46 23 8 2 2 81 10/01/2015 1 18:50 0 1 2 3 8 14 10/01/2015 2 18:50 29 19 25 28 38 139

Ohio Portal Survey Results

The portal located along the Clarington Lateral in Belmont County, Ohio was sampled on 24 September and 8 October 2015. Weather conditions recorded during the survey were within acceptable temperature limits and no precipitation was encountered. As described above, the survey included the deployment of passive and active acoustic detectors. A total of 11 and 18 bat passes were recorded by the passive and active detectors, respectively, for grand total of 29 bat passes recorded during the course of the survey. A breakdown of bat passes by detector for both nights of survey are provided in Table 3-8.

In addition surveying the portal opening with acoustic detectors, two biologists used night vision equipment to conduct emergence counts. On the night of 24 September three bats were seen entering the portal and three bats where seen exiting the portal (Table 3-9). No bats were observed entering or exiting the portal on the night of 8 October.

On the night of September 24, biologists observing bats foraging along the intermittent stream located approximately 100 feet south of the portal opening. Bats were also observed foraging along two logging roads that run parallel to the stream on either side of the valley. Most of these observations were made at the time of emergence, but activity was also noted later in the evening with the use of night vision equipment. On the night of October 8, biologists noted a sharp decline in bat activity at the site even though the weather conditions were relatively consistent between the two nights of survey. These observations along with acoustic and emergence count data could suggest that bats in this area had begun the transition from using their foraging areas and moved closer to their swarming areas. The lack of consistent bat activity between sampling events suggest this portal plays no role in fall swarming for bat in the area.

Table 3-8. Acoustic bat passes recorded a portal openings along the Rover Pipeline in Belmont County, West Virginia Bat Passes per Hour Date Detector Start Time Total 1st Hour 2nd Hour 3rd Hour 4th Hour 5th Hour 9/24/2015 Passive 19:00 0 0 4 3 4 11 9/24/2015 Active 19:00 0 2 5 3 6 16 10/8/2015 Passive 18:50 0 0 0 0 0 0 10/8/2015 Active 18:50 1 0 0 0 1 2

52 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

Table 3-9. Emergence counts conducted at a portal openings along the Rover Pipeline in Belmont County, Ohio Date Time Count Direction Comments 9/24/2015 21:25 1 Entering 9/24/2015 21:30 1 Exiting Believed to be the bat that entered at 21:25. 9/24/2015 22:40 1 Entering 9/24/2015 23:03 1 Exiting Believed to be the bat that entered at 22:40. 9/24/2015 23:13 1 Entering 9/24/2015 23:17 1 Exiting Believed to be the bat that entered at 23:13.

3.1.4.4 Mist Net Survey

Survey Methods To address species presence within the Project alignment during the summer maternity season, Rover conducted a mist net survey during the 2015 maternity season pursuant to the April 2015 Range-wide Indiana Bat Summer Survey Guidelines (Guidelines). The mist net survey was conducted along all pipeline segments for which clearing is scheduled to begin in spring/summer 2016, which excludes the Sherwood, CGT, and Majorsville laterals. The mist net surveys were conducted in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan. To determine the level of effort required to satisfy regulatory concerns, the Project alignment was divided into 1 kilometer (km) segments. Using aerial imagery, each segment was then assessed to determine the presence of potentially suitable habitat, as described above. Rover, in coordination with local USFWS Field Offices, identified a total of 435 km segments that required survey. This data was used to develop a study plan that included the proposed site locations and methods used to conduct the survey. The study plan was provided to, and subsequently approved by, applicable state agencies and by the local USFWS Field Offices in each of the states crossed by the Project Alignment.

A total of 435 mist net sites was established and surveyed along the Project alignment from 19 May – 30 July 2015 (Figure 3-6). Final site locations were selected by qualified bat biologists in the field and were based primarily on the extent of canopy cover and presence of an open flyway. Nets were deployed in areas that provided optimum chance of capturing foraging bats. Locations of each mist net site were recorded using Global Positioning System (GPS) technology and assigned a unique identifier. To the greatest extent practicable, mist nets were deployed such that canopy cover and vegetation created a funneling effect to facilitate the capture of foraging bats. Pursuant to the Guidelines, nets were opened at dusk and monitored every 10 minutes for a minimum of five hours.

Net sets consisted of two to three nets suspended between two poles. The nets were tiered and raised and lowered using a pulley system (Gardner et al 1989). Pursuant to the Guidelines, mist net sites in Pennsylvania and West Virginia consisted of three net sets per site, operated for two calendar nights, resulting in six net nights of survey per site, as both states are considered WNS impacted. In Ohio and Michigan, net sites consisted of two net sets operated for two calendar nights, resulting in four net nights of survey per site, as both states are considered non-WNS impacted. The total level of effort across the project area was 1,790 net nights of survey. A net night is defined as the operation of one net set for one night. A breakdown of survey effort in each state is provided in Table 3-10.

53 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

Figure 3-6. Mist Net Locations (Sheet 1)

54 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

Figure 3-6. Mist Net Locations (Sheet 2)

55 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

Figure 3-6. Mist Net Locations (Sheet 3)

56 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

Figure 3-6. Mist Net Locations (Sheet 4)

57 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

Figure 3-6. Mist Net Locations (Sheet 5)

58 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

Table 3-10. Mist net survey level of effort conducted during the 2015 summer maternity season

State Number of Sites Net Nights Michigan 88 352 Ohio 322 1288 Pennsylvania 17 102 West Virginia 8 48 Total 435 1,790

Upon capture, bats were removed from the nets, identified to species, weighed, measured, and released unharmed near the point of capture. The following data were recorded for each individual captured: species, age, reproductive condition, right forearm length (RFA), weight, time of capture, and WNS damage index score based upon Reichard and Kunz’s (2009) Wing Damage Index. All bats were identified to species based upon distinctive morphological characteristics (e.g. body size, hair color, ear length, tragus shape, presence/absence of a keeled calcar, etc.). Age was determined by the degree of epiphyseal – diaphysial fusion. Adult female bats were considered reproductive if they were pregnant (based upon palpation of the abdomen), or bore signs of nursing young (i.e. lack of hair surrounding the teats). Males were considered reproductive if the testes were descended into the scrotum.

To allow for radio telemetry studies, biologists attached radio transmitters to listed bats of sufficient size, up to a maximum of two individuals per site, with preference given to reproductive females and juveniles. To attach transmitters, hair between the scapulae was clipped, and the transmitter attached with a USFWS approved adhesive. Before attachment, transmitters were activated and the signal reception tested using a telemetry receiver and a Yagi antennae. Following transmitter attachment, the bat was released near the point of capture and monitored as long as possible to determine the direction of flight and to assure proper transmitter function.

Bats were tracked for a total of seven days with a minimum level of effort of four hours of searching per day. Radio tracking occurred from publically accessible roadways and from private property where survey access was granted, within three miles of the point of capture. Where possible, crews gathered the following data regarding roost trees: species, status (live/dead), roosting structure (bark, cavity, or crevice), percent exfoliating bark, average percent canopy cover adjacent to the roost. If accessible, the roost location was recorded using GPS technology.

Emergence counts were conducted on identified roost trees used by listed bats during the tracking period for a minimum of two nights at each tree. Pursuant to the Guidelines, emergence counts began approximately 30 minutes prior to dusk and continued for a least one hour, or until the roost was no longer visible without additional illumination.

Mist Net Results Mist net sites were placed in the best available habitat within each km segment requiring survey, as determined by USFWS approved surveyors in the field.

A total of 1510 bats, representing seven species, were captured at 435 sites along the Project alignment. The following species were captured: • big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus, n = 1,190; 78.8% of total capture),

59 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

• red bat (Lasiurus borealis, n = 191; 12.6%), • northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis, n = 91; 6.0%), • hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus, n = 15; 1.0%), • little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus, n = 12; 0.8%), • tri-colored bat (Perimyotis subflavus, n = 10; 0.7% ), and • silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivigans, n = 1; 0.1%)

A summary of all species captured in each state crossed by the Project alignment is provided in Table 3-11. Complete demographic data for all bats captured during the course of the survey are provided in Appendix G, Tables G-1 through G-8. A total of 91 northern long-eared bats were captured in the following 10 counties: Belmont, Carroll, Harrison, Jefferson, Monroe, Noble, Stark, Tuscarawas counties in Ohio; Washington County in Pennsylvania; and Hancock County in West Virginia. Pursuant to the USFWS and applicable state agency approved study plan, a total of 56 northern long-eared bats were fitted with radio transmitters and tracked. Morphometric data for listed captured species is provided in Appendix F, Table F-9. No Indiana bats were encountered during the course of the survey.

Table 3-11. Bats captured during the 2015 summer maternity season

Adult Female1 Juvenile2 Male3 Species P L PL NR F M TD NR UNK4 Total Michigan big brown (Eptesicus fuscus) 76 50 4 14 26 26 38 77 13 324 red (Lasiurus borealis) 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 9 hoary (Lasiurus cinereus) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 little brown (Myotis lucifugus) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Total – Michigan 82 50 4 14 26 26 38 80 15 335 Ohio big brown (Eptesicus fuscus) 33 187 149 32 82 97 84 107 31 802 red (Lasiurus borealis) 8 23 30 5 30 25 14 23 18 176 northern long-eared (Myotis septentrionalis) 3 12 11 8 14 9 7 23 0 87 hoary (Lasiurus cinereus) 0 5 0 2 1 3 1 1 1 14 little brown (Myotis lucifugus) 1 3 1 1 1 3 0 1 0 11 tri-colored (Perimyotis subflavus) 1 0 1 0 0 1 2 5 0 10 silver-haired (Lasionycteris noctivigans) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Total – Ohio 46 230 192 48 128 138 108 161 50 1101 Pennsylvania big brown (Eptesicus fuscus) 18 3 0 0 1 1 2 3 0 28 red (Lasiurus borealis) 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 northern long-eared (Myotis septentrionalis) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 3 Total – Pennsylvania 21 3 0 0 1 1 3 5 0 34

60 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

Table 3-11. Bats captured during the 2015 summer maternity season

Adult Female1 Juvenile2 Male3 Species P L PL NR F M TD NR UNK4 Total

West Virginia big brown (Eptesicus fuscus) 2 10 6 1 6 2 4 2 3 36 red (Lasiurus borealis) 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 northern long-eared (Myotis septentrionalis) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Total – West Virginia 2 10 7 1 6 2 7 2 3 40 GRAND TOTAL 151 293 203 63 161 167 156 248 68 1510 1 pregnant (P); lactating (L); post lactating (PL); non-reproductive (NR) 2 female (F); male (M) 3 testes descended (TD); non-reproductive (NR) 4 captured bat escaped from net or hand before morphometric data collection (UNK.)

Telemetry Results As described above, a total of 56 northern long-eared bats were outfitted with radio transmitters and radio telemetry studies were completed as described above. Of these 56 bats, 18 were never located during the tracking period despite extensive searching within 3 miles of the point of capture. The remaining 38 northern long-eared bats were tracked to at least one roost during the 7-day tracking period. These bats utilized at total of 69 unique roosts as listed in Appendix G, Table G-10. Field roost tree data sheets and representative photographs of the identified roost trees are provided in Appendices I and J, respectively.

The average distance to roost trees from the point of capture was 2,143 feet, with a range of 69 feet to 14,261 feet. Pursuant to the Guidelines, exit counts were conducted on identified roost trees where survey access was granted and ranged from 18 to 0 individuals. Complete exit count data for each of the identified roosts is provided in Appendix G, Table G-10. Field emergence datasheets are provided in Appendix K.

Of the identified roosts, only eight were located within, or immediately adjacent to, the proposed construction workspace (Table 3-12). These trees will be avoided either by reducing the proposed workspace to exclude them, or by rerouting around the trees. None of the identified roost trees will be affected by the proposed action and will remain available for use by roosting northern long-eared bats during subsequent maternity seasons. To determine occupied maternity habitat for the purposes of avoiding direct take during tree clearing activities, a subset of capture and roost tree data for juveniles and reproductive females was examined. Further discussion and rationale for this approach is provided in Section 3.1.5.1 below.

For the adult, reproductive females and juveniles, if these bats were successfully tracked to one or more roost trees, a 1.5-mile buffer was established following current USFWS guidance. If bats were a) not affixed with a transmitter due to low weight or surveyor’s professional judgement or b) a roost tree could not be located and c) no other bats were successfully tracked to a roost tree from that same capture site, a 3-mile buffer was established for that capture location. Twenty northern long-eared bats, of which 13 were juveniles, captured at fifteen different net sites, were given this 3-mile capture buffer as they were either not affixed with a transmitter or could not be successfully tracked to a roost tree. If any adult, non- reproductive female or adult male bat was successfully tracked to a roost tree, and, during the course of emergence surveys, more than one bat was seen emerging from that roost tree, then the tree was mapped

61 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

and buffered following current USFWS guidance, as it cannot be determined whether that roost tree housed reproductively active female or juvenile bats. Figure 3-7 depicts the general location of northern long-eared bat captures, the 1.5-mile buffer around tracked roost trees for each captured bat, and the 3-mile buffer around bat captures where no roost trees were identified. Appendix L includes maps of each bat captured and associated roost trees where applicable.

Table 3-12. Location of roost trees within or adjacent to the Rover Pipeline LOD Segment Roost Tract Comment RT-MCC-982-2 Seneca Lateral OH-MO-SCL-041.510 Inside TWS –TWS rerouted RT-MCC-982-3 Seneca Lateral RT-MCC-982-4 OH-MO-SCL-041.520 Outside of ATWS Seneca Lateral RT-AP8-216-3 OH-MO-SCL-115.000 Inside TWS – TWS rerouted Clarington Lateral RT-AP8-893-4 OH-BE-CC-114.000 Inside PE – PE rerouted Supply Connector RT-JA4-545-1 OH-HR-034.000 Inside PE – PE rerouted Burgettstown Lateral RT-AP9-271-1 OH-CA-HL-062.000 Inside TWS – TWS rerouted Burgettstown Lateral RT-AP9-271-2 OH-CA-HL-061.000 Inside PE – PE rerouted

TWS = Temporary construction work space ATWS = additional temporary workspace PE = permanent easement

3.1.5 Impact Evaluation

3.1.5.1 Construction

The purpose of this BE is to evaluate the potential effects the proposed action may have on listed species and to determine whether the species are likely to be adversely affected by the proposed action. Such effects are a function of several factors, including the nature and scope of the action; the type and severity of the impacts of the action on land, water, and vegetation resources making up bat habitat, and on the bats directly; and the extent to which conservation measures are incorporated into the action to avoid or minimize the impacts to the species that would otherwise occur.

Removal of trees useful for roosting bats or removal of trees providing foraging habitat has potential to affect Indiana and northern long-eared bats. The presence of suitable roost trees, particularly large diameter trees suitable for use by numerous females and their young in a maternity colony, is suspected as a limiting factor in Indiana bat summer habitat. Non-reproductive female and male Indiana bats utilize roosts in smaller and generally more common trees. Generally, the northern long-eared bat appears to be more opportunistic in terms of summer roost selection, but is comparable to the Indiana bat (Carter and Feldhamer 2005, Timpone et al. 2010). Because roost trees are an ephemeral resource, and Indiana bats are highly philopatric in regard to summer roost trees (Britzke et al. 2003, Brown and Brack 2003, Butchkoski and Hassinger 2002, Butchkoski and Turner 2006, Callahan 1993, Cope et al. 1974, Gardner et al. 1996, Harvey 2002, Humphrey et al. 1977; Kurta et al. 1996; Kurta and Murray 2002, Pruitt 1995; Timpone 2004, Whitaker and Gummer 2002; Whitaker et al. 2004), the presence of trees providing suitable roost habitat in proximity to existing roosts is important.

62 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

Figure 3-7. Northern long-eared bat buffer areas

63 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

Trees are also an important habitat component in the foraging activities of Indiana and northern long-eared bats. Indiana bats utilize tree cover when foraging or moving to foraging areas, even when use of tree cover in this manner requires travel distance in excess of that needed for travel across open areas (Murray and Kurta 2004). Indiana bats forage in upland forest and riparian woodland (Brady 1983) under closed canopies (Clark et al. 1987; Humphrey et al. 1977; LaVal et al. 1977; LaVal and LaVal 1980). Data indicates that mature forests are an important habitat type for foraging northern long-eared bats (Caceres and Pybus 1998), where foraging occurs 1-3 meters above the ground under forest canopy (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993) and on forested hillsides and slopes (Brack and Whitaker 2001, LaVal et al 1977). If suitable foraging habitat upon which Indiana and northern long-eared bats depend is removed, the potential exists for reduced foraging success.

Direct Effects Projects like the proposed Rover Pipeline Project, where construction will remove trees proximate to known, or potential, summer historic occurrences, can potentially affect bats through direct mortality. If construction activities remove trees inhabited by roosting bats during spring, summer, or autumn, these bats may suffer direct mortality. Such mortality has been previously documented in Cope et al. (1974) and Belwood (2002). Perhaps the worst case scenario is the removal of a maternity roost tree in which adult female and non-volant young are roosting. Less damaging would be mortality suffered by male or non- reproductive female bats roosting in a tree as it is cleared, in that these bats are likely to roost alone or in small groups and fewer bats are likely to be affected. Impacts to known roost trees will be avoided during the course of the proposed action, and will remain available to roosting bats in subsequent maternity seasons.

Rover will avoid clearing trees during the active season (1 April to 15 November in West Virginia and to 15 October in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan) for the entire length of the proposed route. As such, direct mortality to bats associated with summer habitat from the proposed action will be avoided and indirect effects to those individuals would be insignificant and discountable.

Indirect Effects Modification of forested habitat has the potential to beneficially or adversely affect foraging habitat and roosting habitat, leading to associated effects to listed bats using the site. Theoretically, removal of suitable roost trees and foraging habitat anywhere within the range of the Indiana and northern long-eared bat, even if completed during winter months when the bats are not present, may have the potential to indirectly affect the species. Tree-clearing may reduce foraging success. Indiana bats forage in and near upland and riparian woodland/forest (Humphrey et al. 1977, LaVal and LaVal 1980). Radio telemetry data shows Indiana bats are loyal to the same general foraging areas each night during the summer (Cope et al. 1974, Humphrey et al. 1977, Gardner et al. 1991a, 1991b; Murray and Kurta 2004; Sparks et al. 2005b). If foraging habitat utilized by listed bats is removed, they may be forced to locate new foraging areas nearby.

Some additional conservation measures will likely be required in addition to a monetary mitigation cost to offset habitat level impacts. These costs are unknown at this time and will be determined by the output of the USFWS formula using the field habitat plot data that was collected in 2015. Suggested additional conservation measures, which are dependent upon landowner permission, may include, but are not limited to:

• Girdling of trees on a 2:1 ratio for identified PRTs within the historic and newly-identified occurrence buffers where they overlap with the proposed Rover route.

64 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

• Erection of artificial roost structures at a rate of 5 per 1 km for “rocket”-type houses, or 1 per 1 km for Brandenbark or similar advanced structures within the historical and 2015 occurrence buffers as they overlaps with the proposed Rover route.

With additional conservation measures along with the avoidance and minimization measures proposed, a “May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect” determination would be appropriate.

Foraging Habitat As described above, Indiana bats most commonly forage in areas with deciduous trees. Areas with widely differing proportions of the landscape in forest cover are known to support maternity colonies that successfully raise young. For example, forest cover ranges from less than 10 percent to over 80 percent within four km of known Indiana bat roosts in Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, and Michigan (A. King, pers. comm., Callahan 1993, Gardner et al. 1991, Kurta et al. 2002). Similarly, data indicates that mature forests are an important habitat type for foraging northern long-eared bats (Caceres and Pybus 1998), where foraging occurs under forest canopy (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993) and on forested hillsides and slopes (Brack and Whitaker 2001, LaVal et al 1977).

The action area contains approximately 383,936.8 acres of forested habitat within 3 miles (1.5 miles either side of the centerline) that is potentially suitable for use by roosting and/or foraging Indiana and northern long-eared bats. The proposed action will result in the removal of 3,009.1 acres of habitat that is potentially suitable for use by foraging bats. These 3,009.1 acres represent only 0.78 percent (or less than 1 percent) of the available forested habitat within the action area that may potentially be suitable for use by foraging bats. If suitable foraging habitat upon which listed bats depend is removed, they may be forced to locate new foraging areas in nearby forests. In such cases, individuals may expend additional energy or may experience increased competition. The effect of this increased energy expenditure and competition may be entirely inconsequential to bats in good habitat or bats that are otherwise in good condition. However, if the habitat removal is substantial enough, and if the bats are in poor condition, and if inter- or intra-specific competition is intense, it is conceivable that bats in these conditions would have reduced survivability. This scenario is unlikely to occur as a result of the proposed action site given the small percentage of potentially suitable foraging habitat to be removed relative to the amount of potentially suitable habitat available in the immediate vicinity. Adverse effects to listed bats resulting from the removal of potentially suitable foraging habitat are not likely to occur because:

• The decrease in forest cover caused by project implementation is very small (0.78 percent) and there is sufficient forested habitat available adjacent to the areas where tree removal is proposed, and • Pre- and post-construction percent forest cover within the action area (40.54 and 40.23 percent, respectively) are well within the range of forest cover known to support maternity colonies.

As such, the potential for indirect adverse effects to foraging habitat as a result of the proposed action are insignificant and discountable.

Roosting Habitat As described above, the action area contains approximately 383,936.8 acres of forested habitat potentially suitable for use by roosting and/or foraging bats within 3 miles of the centerline. The proposed action will result in the removal of 3,009.1 acres of potentially suitable roosting habitat for northern long-eared bats. This figure may be an overestimate of potentially suitable roosting habitat for Indiana bats as a result of the species’ more restrictive roost selection. A total of 8,198 PRTs were identified within a 225-foot survey

65 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

corridor centered on the proposed Project centerline, of which 4,891 PRTs are located within the proposed LOD and will be removed as part of the proposed action. An assessment of the adjacent areas outside of survey corridor was not completed. However, based on field observation, the forested potions of the Rover alignment are representative of the forested portions of the adjacent action area as a whole. Using the 4,891 PRTs within the 3,009.1 acres of forested habitat in the Rover LOD and inferring across the 383,936.8 acres of forested habitat within 3 miles of the proposed Project centerline, there are 593,557 PRTs within adjacent areas. Using the number of PRTs within the adjacent action area as a whole, the removal of 4,981 trees represents 0.78 percent (or less than 1 percent) of the available PRTs within the action area as a whole.

Adverse effects to listed bats resulting from the removal of potentially suitable roosting habitat are not likely to occur because:

• The decrease in potentially suitable roosting habitat as a result of project implementation is very small within action area as a whole (0.78 percent), • pre- and post-construction percent forest cover within the action area (40.54 and 40.23 percent, respectively) are well within the range of forest cover known to support maternity colonies,

As such, the potential for indirect adverse effects to roosting habitat as a result of the proposed action are insignificant and discountable.

3.1.5.2 Operations

Routine operation of the proposed Project is not expected to affect Indiana or northern long-eared bats, or their habitat. Subsequent to construction, maintenance activities (i.e. vegetation management) along the permanent right-of-way will occur periodically to allow for visual inspection of the pipeline corridor. Due to the regular maintenance of the permanent right-of-way, tree saplings and/or shrubs to be removed will not be of sufficient size to provide roosting habitat for listed bat species.

3.1.5.3 Conservation Measures

Due to the fact that there are historic occurrences of Indiana and northern long-eared bats along the proposed alignment, Rover is committed to implementing the following conservation measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate for adverse effects to the species. Rover assumes that the following conservation measures will apply to both Indiana and northern long-eared bats.

• Subsequent to presence/probable absence surveys, Rover completed alignment and construction workspace modifications to avoid all known occupied roosts trees. Therefore, impacts to known roost trees identified during the 2015 mist net surveys will be avoided and will remain available to roosting bats in subsequent maternity seasons. No clearing outside of the USFWS approved seasonal window (Oct 15 to March 31) will occur for all project components. • To the greatest extent practicable, potential habitat removal in wetland and riparian habitats will be minimized. • Where possible, Project features will be collocated with previously disturbed or cleared areas.

66 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

• Operators, employees, and contractors working in areas of known or presumed Indiana or northern long-eared bat habitat will be educated on the biology of the bats, activities that may affect the bats, and measures to avoid or minimize these effects. • Rover will implement sediment and erosion control measures, ensure restoration of pre-existing topographic contours after any ground disturbance, and restore native vegetation upon completing work. • Areas that are temporarily impacted will be restored and monitored to ensure they are re-vegetated following construction. • Where landowner permission can be obtained, Rover will create roosting habitat in the vicinity of the project alignment by girdling of trees on a 2:1 ratio for identified PRTs within the 2015 occurrence buffers where they overlap with the proposed Rover alignment. • Where landowner permission can be obtained, Rover will install artificial roost structures at a rate of 5 per 1 km for “rocket”-type houses, or 1 per 1 km for Brandenbark or similar advanced structures within the 2015 occurrence buffers where they overlap the proposed Rover route.

3.1.6 Determination

3.1.6.1 Effect on Critical Habitat

The Project would not result in the destruction or adverse modification of federally designated critical habitat for the Indiana bat. No critical habitat has been designated for the northern long-eared bat at this time. Critical habitat designation for the northern long-eared bat is expected in April of 2017. As no hibernacula are known in the vicinity of the Project alignment, no impacts to potential critical habitat for the northern long-eared bat are expected.

3.1.6.2 Effect on the species

Given the magnitude of Project impacts over a large geographic area and the Project’s proximity to known Indiana and northern long-eared bat historic occurrence records, while taking into account survey results and project modifications to avoid and minimize potential impacts, the proposed action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect listed bat species.

3.2 Mussels

3.2.1 Snuffbox Mussel (Epioblasma triquetra)

3.2.1.1 Status and Distribution

The snuffbox was formally listed as endangered in 2012 as a result of range and population decline of at least 90 percent. Historically, the species was widespread and was known from 210 streams and lakes in 18 states and in Ontario Canada (USFWS 2012a). The species is currently known from only 79 streams in 14 states (Figure 3-8). Because multiple streams may comprise a single snuffbox population, the actual number of extant population is fewer than 79. With few exceptions, the extant populations are restricted to short stream reaches and are fragmented. Approximately 25 of the 79 streams where extant populations are considered to occur are represented by only one or two recent live or fresh dead specimens.

67 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

The extant populations of snuffbox have been categorized by Butler (2007) into three groups based upon population size, including general distribution, evidence of recent recruitment, and assessment of population viability:

• Stronghold population: distributed over a contiguous length of stream (>30 stream miles), ample evidence of recent recruitment, and considered viable, • Significant population: small and generally restricted, and limited recent recruitment and viability • Marginal population: very small and restricted distribution, no evidence of recent recruitment, questionable viability and may be on the verge of extirpation in the immediate future.

Of the current extant populations, seven populations are considered strongholds, 24 are considered significant, and 48 are considered marginal.

Figure 3-8. Snuffbox distribution by watershed (NatureServe 2014)

68 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

3.2.1.2 Natural History and Habitat Association

The life history of the snuffbox is similar to other bivalve mussels belonging to the Unionidae family. The life cycle of the snuffbox, like other unionoids includes an obligatory parasitic stage on fish. Microscopic larva (glochidia) are expelled from the female at maturity and must attach to the fins or gills of an appropriate fish host to complete development. Some species appear to use a single fish host while others, including the snuffbox, can transform on a variety of hosts (USFWS 2012a). Once transformation is complete, the juveniles spend the first few months foot (pedal) feeding on settled algae and detritus (Yeager et al. 1994). As adults, mussels are suspension feeders and spend their entire lives partially or completely submerged in the substrate (Murray and Leonard 1962).

The snuffbox occurs in small to medium sized creeks to larger rivers as well as lakes (Cummings and Mayer 1992, Parmalee and Bogan 1998). The species is typically found in areas of gravel and sand with occasional cobble and boulder in swift currents of riffles and shoals, or in wave –swept areas of lakes. With the exception of spawning and attempting to attract a fish host, individuals typically burrow deep within the substrate.

3.2.2 Clubshell Mussel (Pleurobema clava)

3.2.2.1 Status and Distribution

The clubshell mussel was listed as endangered in 1993, principally as a result of industrial waste and agricultural run-off, as well as extensive impoundments for navigation (USFWS 2013c). The clubshell is an Ohio River system species, and was historically recorded from most of the tributaries in Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio (USFWS 1994). The species has undergone a greater than 95 percent range reduction attributed to physical loss of habitat and degradation of water quality as a result of agriculture, stream channelization, impoundments, and stream bank clearing (USFWS 1993). Once widespread throughout much of the Ohio River basin, the species is currently known from only 12 streams (USFWS 1993).

3.2.2.2 Natural History and Habitat Association

While the specifics of the clubshell’s lifecycle are largely unknown, it is suspected that they exhibit characteristics typical of North American unionoid mussels. Like other unionoids, the clubshell requires a fish host to complete its lifecycle. In the laboratory, the striped shiner (Luxilus chrysocephalus), blackside darter (Percina maculata), central stoneroller (Campostoma anomalum) and logperch (Percina caprodes) have been identified as potential fish hosts for the species (O’Dee and Watters 2000). Similar to other North American unionoids, adult clubshells are sessile filter feeders (USFWS 1994).

Clubshells are typically found in clean, coarse sand and gravel in runs, often just downstream from riffles, where they bury themselves completely in the substrate, relying on water to percolate between sediment particles (USFWS 1994, Watters 1990).

3.2.3 Fanshell (Cryptogenia stegaria)

3.2.3.1 Status and Distribution

The fanshell was formally listed as endangered in 1990. Historically the species was widely distributed in the Cumberland, Ohio, Tennessee, and Wabash Rivers and their larger tributaries in Alabama, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia; known from at least 26

69 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

Rivers (Ahlsted 1986; Bates and Dennis, 1985; Cummings et.al 1987, 1988; Johnson 1980; Kentucky State Nature Preserve Commission 1980; Lauritsen 1987; Starns and Bogan 1988). Many of the historic populations were lost as a result of riverine habitat modifications including navigation projects and sand/gravel dredging. Currently, reproducing populations are thought to only occur in three rivers and remnant non-reproducing populations are known from eight additional rivers (Table 3-13, Figure 3-9, USFWS 1990).

Table 3-13. Location and reproductive status of extant fanshell populations.

Population Status River State County Reproducing Clinch River TN, VA Hancock (TN), Scott (VA) Non-reproducing Cumberland River TN Smith Non-reproducing East Fork White River IN Martin Reproducing Green River KY Hart, Edmonson Non-reproducing Kanawha River WV Fayette Reproducing Licking River KY Kenton, Campbell, Pendleton Non-reproducing Muskingum River OH Morgan, Washington Non-reproducing Tennessee River TN Hardin, Miegs, Rhea Non-reproducing Tippecanoe River IN Tippecanoe Non-reproducing Tygarts Creek KY Carter, Greenup Non-reproducing White River IL, IN White, Wabash (IL), Posey (IN)

Figure 3-9. Fanshell distribution by watershed (NatureServe 2014)

70 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

3.2.3.2 Natural History and Habitat Association

As a result of its rarity, the ecology of the species is largely unknown. The fanshell is thought to inhabit medium to large rivers, where it buries itself almost completely in deep water with moderate current (Bates and Dennis 1985, Gordon and Layzer 1989). Similar to other freshwater mussels, the fanshell likely feeds on diatoms, detritus, phytoplankton, and zooplankton (Churchill and Lewis 1924). Jones and Neves (2002) identified nine potential fish hosts including the: mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdi), banded sculpin (C. carolinae), greenside darter (Etheostoma blennioides), snubnose darter (E. simoterurn), banded darter (E. zonale), tangerine darter (Percina aurantiaca), blotchside logperch (Percina burtoni), logperch (P. caprodes), and Roanoke darter (P. roanoka). It is believed that the unique, clustered larva released by fanshell females resemble spiral worms to attract fish hosts.

3.2.4 Sheepnose Mussel (Plethobasus cyphyus)

3.2.4.1 Status and Distribution

The sheepnose was listed as endangered in 2012. Historically, the species occurred in the Cumberland, Mississippi, Ohio, and Tennessee River systems and their tributaries, totaling at least 76 streams (Butler 2002). Its distribution comprised portions of 14 States (Alabama, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin). Currently, the species is considered extant in 25 streams in the 14 states where it historically occurred. This represents a 67 percent reduction within its historical range and indicates that substantial population losses have occurred (USFWS 2012c). Many of the extant populations are disjunct, isolated, and appear to be declining. Given the compilation of current distribution, abundance, and status trend information, the sheepnose appears to exhibit a high level of imperilment (USFWS 2012c).

3.2.4.2 Natural History and Habitat Association

The general biology of the sheepnose is similar to that of other freshwater mussel species (Murray and Leonard 1962). Adult mussels are suspension feeders that spend nearly all of their lives buried in the substrate, filtering bacteria, detritus, microscopic animals and dissolved organic material from the water column (Christian et al. 2004, Nichols and Garling 2000, Silverman et al. 1997, Strayer et al. 2004). Like other freshwater mussel species, the sheepnose lifecycle includes an obligatory parasitic stage on a host organism, typically fish (USFWS 2012c). Little is known regarding the sheepnose’s host fish, but the sauger (Sander canadense) is a known host (Butler 2002).

The sheepnose is primarily a larger-stream species. It occurs primarily in shallow shoal habitats with moderate to swift currents over coarse sand and gravel (Oesch 1984). Habitats with sheepnose may also have mud, cobble, and boulders. Specimens in larger rivers may occur in deep runs (Parmalee and Bogan 1998).

3.2.5 Pink Mucket Pearly Mussel (Lampsilis abrupta)

3.2.5.1 Status and Distribution

The pink mucket pearly mussel was formally listed as endangered in 1976. Historically the species was known from 25 river systems and was widespread in distribution (Figure 3-10, USFWS 1985). Based upon these historic records, the species is strictly an Ohioan or Interior Basin species, found mainly in the Cumberland, Ohio, and Tennessee River basins with a few records from the Mississippi River drainage

71 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

(USFWS 1985). In 1990, the species was known from only 16 rivers and tributaries and is considered extirpated from Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania (Cummings and Mayer 1997, Matthews and Moseley 1990, NatureServe 2014, Watters 1993). The species has always been considered rare and was never collected in large numbers from any one site (USFWS 1985).

Figure 3-10. Pink mucket distribution by watershed (NatureServe 2014)

3.2.5.2 Natural History and Habitat Association

Specific life history characteristics of the pink mucket are largely unknown, but are probably similar to other freshwater mussel species (USFWS 1985). Males disperse sperm into the water column where it is dispersed by water currents. Females downstream then obtain the sperm during feeding and respiration (Stein 1971). The pink mucket is considered a long term brooder, with embryos developing over winter and glochidia released the following spring or summer (USFWS 1985). Fuller (1974) identified the sauger (Stizostedion canadense) and the freshwater drum (Aplodinotus grunniens) as host for the species. The largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), smallmouth bass (M. dolomieui), spotted bass (M. punctulatus) and walleye (S. vitreum) have been identified as suitable glochidial hosts (Barnhart et al. 1997).

72 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

The pink mucket occurs in medium to large rivers (20 meters wide or greater) in silt, sand, gravel, rubble, and boulder substrates (Buchanan 1980, Clarke 1982, Hickman 1937, Yokley 1972). The species is typically associated with fast flowing water at depths ranging from 0.5 – 8 meters (USFWS 1985).

3.2.6 Rayed Bean (Villosa fabalis)

3.2.6.1 Status and Distribution

The rayed bean was listed as endangered in 2014 as a result of a 73 percent reduction in the species range. Historically, the species was known to occur in 115 water bodies. Currently, the species is only known from 15 rivers and one lake (USFWS 2012b). In addition, the rayed bean as been extirpated from hundreds of miles of former habitat in the Maumee, Ohio, Tennessee, and Wabash River basins, and is considered extirpated from the states of Illinois, Kentucky, and Virginia (USFWS 2012b). With a few exception, the remaining rayed bean populations are disjunct, isolated and declining (West et al. 2000). These small population sizes and restricted historic occurrences in isolated stream reaches pose a threat to the species due to the negative genetic effects resulting from isolation (USFWS 2012b).

3.2.6.2 Natural History and Habitat Association

The life history of the rayed bean is similar to other bivalve mussels belonging to the Unionidae family. The life cycle of the rayed bean, like other unionoids includes an obligatory parasitic stage on fish. Microscopic larva (glochidia) are expelled from the female at maturity and must attach to the fins or gills of an appropriate fish host to complete development. Once transformation is complete, the juveniles spend the first few months foot (pedal) feeding on settled algae and detritus (Yeager et al. 1994). As adults, mussels are suspension feeders and spend their entire lives partially or completely submerged in the substrate (Murray and Leonard 1962). The only verified fish host for the rayed bean is the Tippecanoe darter (Etheostoma tippecanoe) (White et al. 1996). Additional host species are thought to include the greenside darter (E. blennioides), rainbow darter (E. caeruleum), mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdi), and largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) (Woolnough 2002).

Records of the rayed bean are typically known from smaller, headwater creeks, though records from larger rivers exist (Cummings and Mayer 1992, Parmalee and Bogan 1998). The species is typically found in or near shoals or riffle areas of streams or in shallow, wave-washed areas of glacial lakes where they are typically found buried among the roots of vegetation (Parmalee and Bogan 1998, West et al. 2000). Favored substrates include sand and gravel (USFWS 2012b).

3.2.7 Potential Presence in the Action Area

Based upon on-going coordination with the USFWS, the proposed Project alignment is located within 0.25 mile of Meathouse Fork, Middle Island Creek, and the Ohio River, in Doddridge and Tyler counties, West Virginia, which provide potentially suitable habitat for the snuffbox clubshell, fanshell, sheepnose, pink mucket pearly, and rayed bean mussels. Additionally, the snuffbox mussel is known to occur in the Portage River in Michigan, and the rayed bean mussel is known to occur in the River Raisin in Michigan (USFWS 2014).

Stream classifications, as described by the West Virginia Mussel Survey Protocols (WV Protocol) and the Ohio Mussel Survey Protocol (OH protocol) include:

• Group 1: High quality streams listed by the state as having potential habitat for mussels, where federally listed species (FLS) not expected.

73 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

• Group 2: Small to mid-sized streams, FLS expected. • Group 3: Large rivers, FLS not expected. • Group 4: Large rivers, FLS expected.

In addition, any streams with a surface drainage area greater than 10 square miles have the potential to contain mussel species. No stream classifications are available for the State of Michigan. No federal species were identified in streams in Pennsylvania.

A tiered approach was used for determining actual presence of listed mussel species within the proposed action area. The first tier of review consisted of a desktop level assessment of the stream crossings by a qualified malacologist to identify those streams large enough to support freshwater mussel species. The second tier of review involved an on-site, reconnaissance level survey conducted by qualified malacologists in accordance with the state protocols. A full mussel survey was then conducted if live or fresh dead mussels were located during the reconnaissance level survey or if stream depths precluded a reconnaissance survey. In West Virginia and Ohio, surveys extended 15 meters (50 feet) upstream and 15 meters (50 feet downstream of the area of direct impact. For Group 1 streams, surveys extended an additional 10 meters (33 feet) upstream and 25 meters (82 feet) downstream for a total distance of 65 meters (215 feet). No surveys were conducted in streams where the pipeline will be installed using an HDD.

In Ohio and West Virginia, all native freshwater mussels are protected and if all avoidance options are exhausted, must be relocated from the area of direct impacts and associated buffers as described in the appropriate protocol. Where state species were found, they were relocated to areas outside of the impact area during the 2015 surveys in accordance with state protocols. If federal species are found, a mussel relocation plan will be prepared and submitted for agency review prior to any relocation activities. No federally listed mussels were found in any of the streams surveyed.

Mussel surveys of the streams listed in Table 3-14 have been completed. No mussel surveys were completed within waterbodies where the pipeline will be installed using an HDD (e.g., Ohio River crossings, Middle Island Creek in West Virginia; Tuscarawas, Black Fork Mohican, Sandusky, and Maumee Rivers in Ohio; and the River Raisin and Portage River in Michigan).

Table 3-14. Streams surveyed for listed mussel species

Mussel Approx. Pipeline Facility Protocol Stream ID / Name MP Class 1

West Virginia Burgettstown Lateral 11.19 1 S3ES-HA-272 - North Fork Kings Creek Sherwood Lateral 1.02 1 S5ES-DO-164 - Buckeye Creek Sherwood Lateral 18.28 1 S2ES-TY-152 - Sancho Creek Sherwood Lateral 18.79 1 S4H-TY-282 - Sancho Creek Sherwood Lateral 19.01 1 S4H-TY-282 - Sancho Creek Majorsville Lateral 2.55 1 S1ES-MA-180 - Wheeling Creek Ohio - Berne Lateral 0.89 1 S9H-MO-123 - Clear Fork Little Muskingum

74 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

Table 3-14. Streams surveyed for listed mussel species

Mussel Approx. Pipeline Facility Protocol Stream ID / Name MP Class 1

Burgettstown Lateral 49.62 1 S2ES-CA-185 - Conotton Creek Mainlines A and B 24.29 Not Listed S1ES-TU-105 - Conotton Creek Mainlines A and B 26.83 Not Listed S4ES-TU-233 - Conotton Creek Mainlines A and B 29.19 Not Listed S4ES-TU-218 - Conotton Creek Mainlines A and B 79.16 1 S4H-WA-468 - Muddy Fork Mainlines A and B 84.13 1 S2H-AS-109 - Jerome Fork Mainlines A and B 109.07 1 S7H-RI-154 - Black Fork Mohican River Mainlines A and B 116.13 1 S7H-CR-158 - Broken Sword Creek Mainlines A and B 151.5 1 S1M-SE-129 - Wolf Creek Mainlines A and B 155.15 1 S3H-HA-140 - East Branch Portage River Mainlines A and B 162.47 1 S4H-WO-704 - South Branch Portage River Mainlines A and B 166.66 Not Listed S4H-WO-616 - Bull Creek Mainlines A and B 174.57 1 S4H-WO-412 - Rader Creek Mainlines A and B 175.22 1 S4H-WO-619 - Needles Creek Mainlines A and B 177.57 1 S4H-WO-624 - North Branch Portage River Mainlines A and B 183.2 Not Listed S8H-HE-155 - Hammer Creek Mainlines A and B 183.9 Not Listed S1M-HE-102 - Beaver Creek Mainlines A and B 192.43 Not Listed S8H-HE-135 - Lost Creek Mainlines A and B 194.94 Not Listed S8H-HE-133 - School Creek Market Segment 13.28 Not Listed S4H-FU-224 - Brush Creek Market Segment 21.77 Not Listed S4H-FU-218 - Old Bean Creek Sherwood Lateral 41.22 1 S4H-MO-275 - Witten Fork Sherwood Lateral 42.08 1 S4H-MO-273 - Witten Fork Sherwood Lateral 44.34 1 S2ES-MO-360 - Cranenest Fork Sherwood Lateral 48.5 1 S7H-MO-286 - Sunfish Creek Michigan Market Segment 58.3 NA S1K-WA-173 - Iron Creek 1 West Virginia and Ohio Classifications. All “Not Listed” streams have larger than 10 square miles of surface drainage at the proposed crossing. NA – Not applicable.

3.2.8 Impact Evaluation

3.2.8.1 Construction

If present, project activities as described above could directly impact freshwater mussels via physical effects to individuals and degradation of habitat and water quality. Mussel species are highly susceptible to water quality impacts relating to increased sedimentation. New construction activities that may impact mussel

75 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

species include: wet-ditch crossing activities, access road construction, grading, HDD, hydrostatic testing (withdrawal and discharge), regrading, fertilizer application, erosion control devices, herbaceous and woody vegetation clearing, stream bank contouring, installation and removal of stream crossing structures, trenching-related impacts, waste pits, minor spill events, in-stream stabilization, and vegetation disposal. These activities have the potential to adversely affect mussel species via: sedimentation, altered flow, chemical contaminants, entrapment, increase in water temperature, water level reduction, introduction of invasive species, crushing, and substrate compaction.

Entrapment from the withdrawal of water for hydrostatic testing poses a slight risk to juvenile mussels, gametes that are released into the water column during reproduction, and to glochidia, which could be entrapped if small host fish were sucked through or trapped during water withdrawal. It is expected that take will be very limited in terms of both amount and level of take with implementation of mandatory best management practices (BMPs). Water level reduction could impact clubshell occurring in smaller streams, particularly if withdrawal for hydrostatic testing were to occur during already low flow.

The most direct threat to mussels involves excavation for installing pipelines across inhabited streams. If present, this excavation could cause direct lethal take of mussels by crushing and excavating individuals and by causing lethal and sub-lethal (harassment and harm) sediment impacts to individuals downstream of the work area. New access road construction could have similar impacts to individuals if these access roads cross streams. In-channel construction (e.g., in-stream stabilization or bank contouring) could also take individuals and breeding of mussel species may result in adverse impacts, including reduced recruitment and population declines. Since mussels are benthic organisms, substrate compaction from an open cut crossing of a stream during installation of the pipeline, or from equipment crossing a stream during construction, can make habitat less suitable for both adult and juvenile mussels. Altered stream flow can change habitat and food availability. Similarly, burying habitat can fill the interstitial spaces in the gravels and preclude normal processes when adult mussels burrow into the substrate. This can be even more harmful to juvenile northern riffleshell that immediately burrow into the substrate after dropping from host fish. Many species bury themselves completely during the winter months and it is estimated that a varying percentage of a population can be buried at any time. The introduction of invasive species primarily involves the accidental introduction of zebra mussels or other harmful invasives into habitat previously not contaminated or contaminated at a low level with these invasives. Where habitat is suitable for large populations of zebra mussels (typically water with less flow like lakes or navigation pools in large rivers), zebra mussels have the potential to cause harm and mortality.

3.2.8.2 Operations

Operations activities may also have minimal impacts on listed mussel species. These impacts include vehicle operation during pipeline surveys, access road culvert replacement or access road maintenance, routine vegetative maintenance, and pipeline repairs or replacements that may require land disturbance, in- stream stabilization, selective tree clearing, or hydrostatic testing. These activities may result in a variety of stressors to listed mussels, including: sedimentation, chemical contaminants, increased water temperature, crushing, substrate compaction, altered flow, burying substrate, and introduction of invasive species.

These stressors, in turn, may negatively impact mussel species in a variety of ways. Sedimentation at levels that would be expected from operations activities would not be expected to significantly contribute to habitat degradation that could disrupt listed mussel biology or ecological relationships. However, chemical contaminants (fertilizers and herbicides) have some potential to cause harm or mortality to mussels, but more likely could affect algae and plankton that provide food for mussels and host fish and affect water

76 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

quality. The loss of riparian habitat reduces shade on the stream, potentially altering water temperature, and may also affect trophic function by reducing inputs into the stream from the overhanging trees.

3.2.8.3 Conservation Measures

The following conservation measures have been incorporated into the proposed design to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to listed mussel species resulting from the proposed action.

Construction: • HDD methods will be utilized to cross streams where federally listed mussels may occur. All HDD crossings will be conducted in accordance with approved frac-out avoidance and contingency plans. Where hydrostatic test water will be obtained from potentially occupied habitat, water withdrawals will not visibly lower the water level, and Rover will employ appropriately sized screens, appropriate withdrawal rates, and appropriate height from the substrate to minimize impacts to listed species. • Hydrostatic test water will be discharged in the following manner, in order of priority and preference: o Down gradient of occupied habitat unless precluded by location-specific circumstances (man-made structures, topography, other sensitive resources, etc.), o Into uplands >300 feet from occupied habitat unless precluded by location-specific circumstances (man-made structures, topography, other sensitive resources, etc.), and o As far from occupied habitat as practicable and utilizing additional sediment and water flow controls. • Equipment bridges will be removed as soon as practicable after construction is complete. • Equipment crossings of small streams will be constructed with culverts of sufficient size and number to minimize impacts to upstream and downstream flow and the streambed.

Operations: • Routine vegetation mowing or clearing adjacent to waterbodies will be limited 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. • Herbicides or pesticides will not be used within 100 feet of a waterbody except as allowed by appropriate agencies.

3.2.9 Determination

3.2.9.1 Effect on Critical Habitat

No critical habitat has been designated for the snuffbox, clubshell, fanshell, sheepnose, pink mucket pearly mussel, and rayed bean. As such, no adverse effects resulting from impacts to critical habitat will occur.

77 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

3.2.9.2 Effect on the species

As described above, 2015 surveys for listed mussel species are complete. No listed species were found. Adverse effects to listed species and their habitat as a result the proposed action are not expected. Based on negative survey results, the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect listed mussel species.

3.3 Butterflies

3.3.1 Mitchell’s Satyr Butterfly (Neonympha mitchelli mitchelli)

3.3.1.1 Status and Distribution

Mitchell’s satyr butterfly was granted short term protection under the ESA when the USFWS published an emergency rule to list the species as endangered in 1991. A final rule listing the species as endangered was published in 1992 (USFWS 1998). Greater than 30 populations were known to occur in Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, and New Jersey. Currently only 15 extant populations remain in Michigan and Indiana. The species is considered extirpated in Maryland, New Jersey, and Ohio (USFWS 1998). A total of 13 sites are known from Barry, Berrien, Cass, Jackson, Kalamazoo, St. Joseph, and Buren counties, Michigan and two sites are known from LaGrange and LaPorte counties, Indiana (USFWS 1998).

3.3.1.2 Natural History and Habitat Association

The two-week flight window, during which the adults mate, lay eggs and die, occurs between late June and mid-July, with peak flight during the first two weeks in July (USFWS 1998). Under captive conditions, the eggs hatch in 7 to 11 days and the larvae feed throughout the summer until reaching the fourth instar when they diapause and continue feeding the following spring (McAlpine 1960, USFWS 1997).

Although never observed in the wild, it is assumed that the host plant for the species is almost certainly sedges (Carex spp), with C. stricta the probable host species (McAlpine et al. 1960, Rogers et al. 1992, USFWS 1997). All historical and extant sites have an herbaceous component dominated by sedges, with scattered deciduous or coniferous species, typically tamarack (Larix laricina) or eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana). This structural component seems to be an important component of specific habitat requirements for the species (Badger 1958, McAlpine 1960, Pallister 1927, Rogers et al 1992).

3.3.2 Powershiek Skipperling (Oarisma powersheik)

3.3.2.1 Status and Distribution

The Powershiek skipperling was formally listed as endangered in 2014 as a result of a dramatic decline in the number of occupied sites. Historically, the species was known from eight states and one Canadian province: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Manitoba Canada (Blatchley 1891, Dodge 1872, Holzman 1972, McAlpine 1972, Nikola and Schlicht 2007, Royer and Marrone 1992, Selby 2010, USFWS 2014c, Westwood 2010). Once common throughout native prairie habitats, the species is considered present within a few native prairie remnants in two states and one Canadian province (Figure 3-11). It is considered extirpated in Illinois and Indiana and the species status in the remaining four states is uncertain at this time (USFWS 2014c).

78 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

Figure 3-11. Powersheik Skipperling County Distribution (Selby 2005)

3.3.2.2 Natural History and Habitat Association

The Powershiek skipperling has a single flight, with adults emerging in mid- to late June through late July (Cuthrell and Slaughter 2012). In Michigan, nectar species used by adults include black-eyed susan (Rudbeckia hirta), pale spike lobelia (Lobelia spicata) shrubby cinquefoil (Dasiphora fruitcosa), sticky tofieldia (Trantha glutinosa), northern bedstraw (Gallium boreale), joe-pye-weed (Eutrochium maculatum), Indian-hemp (Apocynum cannabinum), and white camas (Anticlea elegans) (Cuthrell and Slaughter 2012). Larvae emerge from the eggs 8-9 days following oviposition on the host plant. In Michigan, the powersheik skipperling occurs very locally within prairie fen habitats and is rarely found very far from prairie dropseed (Sporoblus heterolepis) or mat muhly (Muhlenbergia richardsonis). While not confirmed, the close association with these grasses suggests that they may be preferred host species in Michigan.

Habitat for the Powersheik skipperling includes wet to dry prairie, sedge meadows, moist meadows, prairie fens, and grassy lake and stream margins (USFWS 2014c). The disjunct population in Michigan has a fairly well defined habitat association. The current accepted name of the habitat type is prairie fen (USFWS 2014c). A prairie fen is a wetland community dominated by grasses, sedges, and other gamminoids that occurs on organic soil and marl and contains multiple, distinct vegetation zones, some of which contain prairie grasses and forbs (Kost et al. 2007).

79 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

3.3.3 Potential Presence in the Action Area

Mitchell’s satyr is considered extant at 16 sites in Michigan, including a site located in Washtenaw County (USFWS 2014d). The Mill Creek East Fen is located approximately 2.9 miles west of the proposed Rover pipeline alignment. The extant Mitchells satyr populations appear to function as sedentary units, with little to no ability to colonize unoccupied suitable habitat (USFWS 1992, 1998), Given the sedentary nature of the species and the distance from the only known extant population in the vicinity of the Project, it is unlikely that any individuals occur within the proposed action area.

The Powershiek skipperling is considered extant at 11 locations in 5 counties, including Lenawee, Livingston, and Washtenaw (Selby 2010). Of these 11 populations, 4 are located in counties crossed by the proposed alignment. A summary of recent (2005-2009) surveys for the species in these counties is provided in Table 3-15. The Powershiek skipperling is not known to disperse widely, with the maximum distance estimated to be 1 mile (1.6 km) across contiguous suitable habitat. (USFWS 2014c). While little is known of Powershiek skipperling dispersal, the species was evaluated with 291 other prairie butterfly species in Canada and is believed to have relatively low mobility (Cochrane and Delphey 2002, USFWS 2014c). Given the limited mobility of the Powershiek skipperling and the distance from known historic occurrences of the species, it is unlikely that the species is present within the action area.

Table 3-15. Extant populations of Powershiek skipperling in counties crossed by Rover Pipeline Project

County Site Last Observation Distance to Project (miles)

Lenawee Goose Creek Grasslands 2009 13.55 Livingston Bullard Lake 2007 17.02 Washtenaw Park Lyndon 2009 4.51 Washtenaw Snyder Lake 2007 4.99

3.3.4 Impact Evaluation

3.3.4.1 Construction

Given that neither Mitchell’s satyr nor the Powershiek skipperling is likely to occur within the proposed action area, impacts to the species are not expected as a result of construction activities.

3.3.4.2 Operations

Similar to construction, operations, as described above, are not expected to result in direct or indirect impacts to butterfly species.

3.3.4.3 Conservation Measures

Rover does not anticipate the butterfly species to occur within the proposed project.

3.3.5 Determination

80 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

3.3.5.1 Effect on Critical Habitat

No critical habitat has been designated for Mitchell’s satyr butterfly, and as such, no impacts to critical habitat will occur as a result of the proposed action.

All four extant populations of the Powershiek skipperling that occur within counties crossed by the proposed Project are located on designated critical habitat. The Goose Creek Grassland site in Lenawee County is designated as Michigan Unit 7. The Bullard site in Livingston County is designated as Michigan Unit 5. The Park Lyndon and Snyder Lake sites in Washtenaw County are part of Michigan Unit 6. As listed in Table 3-11, these sites are 13.55, 17.02, 4.51, and 4.99 miles away from the Project alignment, respectively. Given the distance from the Project alignment to these critical habitat units, no adverse modification of designated critical habitat is expected to occur as a result of the proposed action.

3.3.5.2 Effect on the species

Given that neither Mitchell’s satyr nor the Powershiek skipperling is likely to occur within the proposed action area, the proposed action as described will have no effect on these species.

3.4 Eastern Prairie Fringed Orchid (Platanthera leucophaea)

3.4.1 Status and Distribution

The USFWS listed the eastern prairie fringed orchid (EPFO) under the ESA as federally threatened in September 1989 (Bowles M. L., 1999). A formal recovery plan was written and formalized a decade later.

Additionally, the EPFO was listed under Ohio State Codes § 1518.01- 1518.99; 1531.25, and 1531.99 administered by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) and in Michigan under the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA) Act 451, Article III, Ch. 1 Endangered Species Section 324.36505, which is administered by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR).

In the United States, the EPFO’s historical range occurred from eastern Iowa and Oklahoma through Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, southern Michigan, northern Ohio, northwestern Pennsylvania and northwestern New York, with two disjunctive (Species List, 2015) populations in northern New Jersey and northeastern Maine. In Canada, the orchid is limited to southern Ontario and southwestern Quebec (Bowles M. L., 1999). It is estimated that the species experienced a roughly 70 percent decline from original county records. Currently, only 59 populations exist in 6 states. In Michigan, there are up to 12 populations in 16 recognized counties. Fewer than half of these populations receive formal protection. Fewer than 1200 individual plants were counted in 1990. Figure 3-12 shows county distribution for EPFOs (North American Vascular Flora, 2014) in Michigan and Ohio.

81 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

Figure 3-12. Platanthera leucophaea county distribution.

In Ohio, unlike Michigan, the estimated 316 plants have all become protected populations by the establishment of state forests or conservation lands (Bowles M. L., 1999). Threats to the EPFO are many; habitat destruction, fire suppression and woody vegetation succession, impacts to pollinator populations, non-native species, poaching, scientific collection, and lack of regulatory measures all contribute to withering populations (Bowles M. L., 1999) (Penskar & Higman, 2000).

3.4.2 Natural History and Habitat Association

The EPFO is one of more than two-hundred orchid species in North America. It can be field identified by its upright, leafy stem and flower cluster which often tops the surrounding sedges and grasses. The glabrous cauline leaves grow progressively larger toward the base of the stem and are 8 to 20 cm, elliptical to lanceolate in shape (Bowles M. L., 1999). The single cylindric flower spike usually has 5 to 40 pale creamy flowers, each subtended by a lanceolate bract (Bowles M. L., 1999). Each flower is characterized by a deeply 3-parted, fringed or ciliate lip (Voss & Reznicek, 2012) and an elongated (approximately 4 cm) spur (Braun, 1967).

Superficially, the EPFO can resemble two other orchid species; Platanthera blephariglottis and P. lacera, but can be distinguished by mature flowering characteristics. P. blephariglottis has no deeply divided lip (though still fringed) and thrives only in sphagnum bogs. P. lacera is more common and widespread, but can be distinguished by the significantly shorter nectar spurs and flower bracts and smaller ovaries and flowers. EPFOs bloom for approximately 7-10 days sometime between mid-June to mid-July, depending on latitude and local climatic conditions. Fruiting times vary as well, but generally occurs in August- September.

Even though populations are a fraction of historic numbers, the EPFO is not an especially picky species. The Recovery Plan classifies habitats by plant community, substrate, and physiographic region (Bowles M. L., 1999). Most populations in Ohio and Michigan exist in prairie and sedge meadow habitats, though there

82 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation are notable populations in sphagnum bogs as well. The EPFO occurs in a wide variety of habitats, but the common denominator is early grass and sedge dominant communities, as the EPFO requires full sun for growth and the development. The EPFO is documented to persist in a wide moisture gradient as well, from mesic prairie to lakeshore. The EPFO thrives in low competition, grass and sedge dominated communities, where natural processes such as seasonal flooding or disturbance maintains the early successional stages (Bowles M. L., 1983). The EPFO often blossoms just above the height of the surrounding vegetation, which likely makes it especially visible to the hawk moths that it relies upon for pollination (Bowles M. L., 1999) (Penskar & Higman, 2000).

3.4.3 Potential Presence in the Action Area

The Project lies within the historic range of the EPFO. In Michigan, there are 12 known populations in a number of recognized counties across the southeastern portion of the state as well as one disjunct population as the northern end of the lower peninsula. According to the USFWS Regional Office in East Lansing and the USFWS Columbus Field Office, EPFO may be present in the project area in Livingston and Washtenaw counties in Michigan and Wayne County in Ohio. Historic populations exist only in Wooster Township in Wayne County along the proposed project route. As mentioned above, the EPFO is strongly tied to habitat type and disturbance regime. Given the narrow preferences of the species, it is unlikely that there are any occurrences within the Project area as the Project does not cross any wet prairies, fens, or bogs.

3.4.4 Impact Evaluation

3.4.4.1 Construction

Construction activities, as described above, are not anticipated to impact the EPFO given that the project does not include suitable habitat.

3.4.4.2 Operations

Similar to construction, operations, as described above, are not expected to result in direct or indirect impacts to EPFO.

3.4.4.3 Conservation Measures

Rover does not anticipate EPFO to occur within the proposed project area.

3.4.5 Determination

3.4.5.1 Effect on Critical Habitat

No critical habitat has been designated for the EPFO, and as such, no impacts to critical habitat will occur as a result of the proposed action.

3.4.5.2 Effect on the Species

Given that the EPFO is not likely to occur within the proposed action area, the proposed action described above will have no effect on the species.

83 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

4.0 CANDIDATE SPECIES ANALYSES

4.1 Eastern Hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis alleganiensis)

4.1.1 Status and Distribution

The eastern hellbender is not federally listed; however, the eastern hellbender was listed as endangered under Ohio State Codes § 1518.01- 1518.99; 1531.25, and 1531.99 administered by the ODNR. Within the state, it has historically been found in nearly all of the major systems draining into the Ohio River

In West Virginia, the eastern hellbender is given a designation of Imperiled under West Virginia State Code §20-2-1, 20-2-1a, and 20-2-3 (Figure 4-1). This designation refers to species which are very vulnerable to extirpation from the state, usually compared to a threatened listing in other states. In Ohio, breeding populations are rare in the state and confined to only a handful of suitable rivers and creeks in the Ohio River basin, though it is thought to be extirpated in western Ohio (Lipps G. , 2012).

Figure 4-1. Eastern hellbender county distribution map proximal to the proposed Rover route (IUCN Red List, 2015).

4.1.2 Natural History and Habitat Association

The eastern hellbender is the largest amphibian and salamander in the state of Ohio, with individuals reaching 74 centimeters (30 inches) and 2.8 kilograms (~6 pounds). They are a completely aquatic salamander and prefer large, swift flowing streams with highly oxygenated water. They live in crevices under flat rocks on the bottoms of medium-sized streams and rivers. The biggest threat to their habitat is the siltation of the streams, but removal of rocks, channelization and damming of streams and intentional killing have contributed greatly to their decline. The increased sediment loads may destroy eggs and even reduce crayfish populations, which is the majority of their diet. Dam construction fragments the habitat of hellbenders as well as reducing water flow and the dissolved oxygen available in the water, affecting the

84 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation availability of habitat and their ability to breathe. Also contributing to the loss of habitat is agricultural runoff and acid mine drainage.

They are unlikely to be confused with any other salamander, except perhaps the mudpuppy (Necturus maculosus maculosus). Adult hellbenders do not have external gills, while mudpuppies retain them for life. Additionally, mudpuppies lack the characteristic wrinkled skin of hellbenders. Hellbender bodies are wrinkly-skinned and are flattened dorso-ventrally with folds of skin on its sides and has a keeled tail. The hellbender absorbs oxygen from the water through capillaries of its side frills (Mayasich, Grandmaison, & Phillips, 2003). The folds of the skin are used for respiration since the hellbender has no gills and the lungs are only used for buoyancy control. Hellbenders are covered in a mucus that is thought to aid in protecting them from abrasion and parasitic attack; they secrete a milky gelatinous slime when injured or grasped and these secretions have been shown to be lethal when injected into white mice, while not lethal if merely ingested (Pfingsten & Downs, 1989).

Hellbenders feed primarily on crayfish but have also been known to eat insects, snails, minnows and worms. Predators to hellbenders potentially include snapping turtles, watersnakes and large predatory fish, but usually only at larval and juvenile stages. Humans are one of the few predators adult hellbenders encounter. Hellbenders do not reach sexual maturity until 6 to 8 years and they can live 25-30 years. Many of the hellbenders populations only include old adults, suggesting problems with reproduction or larval survival, thus contributing to the drastic decline in recent years. Breeding takes place in late summer and hellbenders are more active and apt to be seen during this time. The males excavate a large nest chamber beneath a rock, the females deposit pearl-like strings of eggs and the male fertilizes them externally as they are being deposited. The breeding pair slowly sway the water within the nest during fertilization to ensure mixing of seminal fluid and eggs. The male remains in the nest cavity and guards the eggs until they hatch. The eggs hatch 68-75 days later, sometime in November. Very little is known about larval habits and survivorship, as very few are encountered in the field. It is likely that they either suffer high mortality (falling prey to fish and other predators) during the first years of life, or that they are utilizing some part of the aquatic habitat that makes them difficult to locate and document. Hellbenders undergo incomplete metamorphosis, with some juvenile characteristics retained into adulthood and some lost over time. There is no specific, discernible point at which one form gives way to another, instead metamorphosis is gradual (Pfingsten & Downs, 1989).

4.1.2.1 Potential Presence in the Action Area

West Virginia Department of Natural Resources (WVDNR) did not have any records within a one-mile radius of the action area, and therefore, presence is unlikely.

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) did not have any records proximal to the action area, and therefore, presence is unlikely.

Project correspondence with ODNR indicated that eastern hellbenders may be present in Captina Creek in Belmont County, Cross and Yellow Creeks in Jefferson County, Sugar Creek in Tuscarawas County, and the Clear Fork of the Mohican River in both Ashland and Richland counties. The USFWS also noted that eastern hellbenders are found in Witten Fork in Monroe County, Ohio.

85 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

4.1.3 Impact Evaluation

4.1.3.1 Construction

Of the creeks listed by ODNR and USFWS as having suitable habitat and known populations, the Rover pipeline crosses Captina Creek, where the eastern hellbender has been documented, and two crossings of Witten Fork, where the eastern hellbender may occur. None of the other noted streams are crossed by the Rover pipeline. Captina Creek will be crossed using an HDD, and no impacts are expected to the creek nor potential populations for eastern hellbenders contained within. Suitable habitat was not found at the two Witten Fork crossings as the streams were narrow at the crossing location and lacked an adequate forest buffer.

4.1.3.2 Conservation Measures

Captina Creek and Witten Fork are the only creeks crossed by the Rover pipeline where eastern hellbenders are known or thought to exist. An HDD will be used to install the pipeline under Captina Creek, and no impacts are expected to the creek nor potential populations for eastern hellbenders contained within Captina Creek. Habitat was found to be not suitable for the eastern hellbender at the two Witten Fork crossings.

4.1.4 Determination

4.1.4.1 Effect on Critical Habitat

No critical habitat has been designated for the eastern hellbender, and as such, no impacts to critical habitat will occur as a result of the proposed action.

4.1.4.2 Effect on the Species

Captina Creek and Witten Fork are the only known sites where eastern hellbenders are thought to exist along the proposed project route. Captina Creek will be crossed using an HDD, thus avoiding direct impact to the species. Habitat was not suitable at the pipeline crossings of Witten Fork. Given that the eastern hellbender is not likely to occur within the proposed action area in any other locations, the proposed action will have no effect on the species.

4.2 Eastern Massasauga (Sistrurus catenatus)

4.2.1 Status and Distribution

The eastern massasauga is currently listed as a candidate species by USFWS and is listed as endangered by the ODNR and the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC). It is listed as a species of special concern by the MDNR. It is not found in West Virginia.

On September 30, 2015, the USFWS proposed to list the eastern massasauga rattlesnake as a threatened species, but did not propose critical habitat for the species deeming it not prudent. The USFWS proposal in the September 30, 2015 Federal Register opens a 60-day public comment period, after which all available information will be considered before the USFWS determines whether to list the eastern massasauga under the ESA.

86 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

4.2.2 Natural History and Habitat Association

The eastern massasauga is one of two rattlesnakes and one of three venomous snakes native to Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania. It is a small, thick-bodied, medium sized pit viper that ranges in size from 30 to 36 inches long. The name massasauga comes from the Chippewa language and means “great river mouth” thus reflecting areas the snakes are known to occupy.

They live in shallow wetlands, wet prairies, sedge meadows and adjacent uplands in portions of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Ontario. They were once common across much of the lower Great Lakes basin but are now restricted to scattered and isolated populations. Natural succession of woody vegetation is a leading cause of recent habitat loss. They are also becoming rare due to wetland habitat loss throughout the Great Lakes region.

They spend the winter months hibernating in crayfish chimneys and other small mammal burrows, not in communal dens as do other species of venomous snakes. They may travel up to 1.6 miles or more between their winter and summer habitats. The eastern massasauga is a shy, sluggish snake. They mainly avoid confrontation and are not usually aggressive unless seriously harassed. The eastern massasauga is prey for larger snakes, such as racers and milk snakes, and can be killed by hawks, raccoons, herons and foxes, but by and large the greatest threat to their numbers is humans.

Being part of the pit viper group means they have enlarged, hollow fangs at the front of their mouth that are used to inject a modified saliva into their prey. The saliva is venomous and causes the slow paralysis and eventual heart failure. They eat mainly small mammals such as voles, mice and shrews, but they will sometimes take other snakes, frogs, birds or their eggs, and even insects. They usually strike their prey and then wait for them to die before eating them. If the prey are not likely to fight back, the eastern massasauga will eat them without using venom. Eastern massasaugas are important in controlling the rodent population in the areas they inhabit.

The eastern massasauga is characterized by an opening, (“pit”) between the eyes and nostril, elliptical pupils and a segmented rattle on the tail tip. The rattle that is heard is a series of loosely connected hollow button- like segments on the tail tip which are formed from thick scale material. When the tail is vibrated, a buzzing sound is produced that can warn away possible enemies. A new segment is added each time the snakes sheds its skin, replacing older ones that break off. It is a popular belief that the number of segments indicates the age of the snake, but this is untrue.

The young snakes take three to four years to reach maturity, and females produce relatively low numbers of offspring, typically every other year, contributing to their decreased numbers. The eastern massasauga are ovoviviparous, which means they give birth to live young rather than laying eggs externally, and the gestation time is approximately 3.5 months. The young remain in the birthplace for four to five days to grow and shed their skin for the first time. At that time, they leave and are on their own. Eastern massasauga can breed in spring or fall, and this can occur annually or biennially. The snakes that bear young every year will breed in spring have their young in late summer or early fall. If they are biennial breeders, then they will mate in autumn and bear their young the following summer.

4.2.3 Potential Presence in the Action Area

The project lies within the range of the eastern massasauga rattlesnake. The USFWS, Columbus-Ohio Field Office noted the potential for habitat to occur in Franklin and Wooster Townships in Wayne County, Ohio (USFWS 2015c). The USFWS, East Lansing Field Office noted multiple historic occurrences in the southwestern portion of Livingston County, Michigan, that were “close” to the Project area. In their review

87 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

of the Project alignment, the Michigan State University (Michigan Natural Features Inventory) noted one location (Portage Lake Fen in Section 3, T01S R04E) at the Washtenaw/Livingston county line.

Habitat surveys have been completed in Ohio in potential habitat near the Franklin/Wooster township line in Wayne County. While the habitat in the general area appeared suitable from aerial photography, the location crossed by the Rover pipelines has been disturbed over the past 15 years by flooding, draining, and row crops and is no longer suitable habitat for the species. The historical records of the eastern massasauga are all from a field about 4.5 miles southeast of the pipelines and no further surveys are recommended.

Habitat surveys were also conducted in September 2015 in Michigan in the vicinity of the Washtenaw/Livingston county line. Of the seven locations surveyed, four contain potential habitat for the eastern massasauga rattlesnake. Follow-up detection surveys were conducted at those four locations in October 2015 by a team of two to five biologists. Visual encounter surveys using meander transects were conducted within the pipeline right-of-way and adjacent high quality habitat areas within an approximate 400-foot-wide corridor to search for evidence of the eastern massasauga. The rattlesnake was not observed during these surveys although the sites appear suitable.

4.2.4 Impact Evaluation

4.2.4.1 Construction

All construction personnel will be trained in the identification of the eastern massasauga and in appropriate avoidance measures. Where potentially suitable habitat is found along the pipeline in Michigan, Rover will complete presence-absence surveys prior to construction to determine if the species is present. If present, a USFWS-approved herpetologist will survey the construction work areas each morning and will collect and relocate any individuals away from construction areas to suitable adjacent habitat. Silt fence will be installed and maintained along the construction work areas in suitable habitat to ensure the snake cannot return. This manual relocation will continue each morning prior to construction in and around identified suitable habitat.

4.2.4.2 Operations

4.2.4.3 Conservation Measures

Rover will continue to work with the USFWS Michigan and Ohio Field Offices to identify and implement appropriate conservation measures to be incorporated in the proposed action to avoid and minimize adverse effects to eastern massasaugas in occupied habitat.

4.2.5 Determination

4.2.5.1 Effect on Critical Habitat

No critical habitat has been designated for the eastern massasauga, and as such, no impacts to critical habitat will occur as a result of the proposed action.

4.2.5.2 Effect on the Species

As there are no known records of eastern massasaugas within the proposed pipeline corridor and any disturbed potential habitat will likely revert to pre-construction conditions, no direct impacts to the species are anticipated. Additionally, Rover will implement conservation measures during construction and assure

88 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation that any eastern massasaugas present within the impact area will not be adversely affected by construction efforts. Indirect effects will be likely minimal, if any. Therefore, the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect the eastern massasauga.

89 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

5.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Cumulative impacts may result when the environmental effects associated with a proposed Project are added to temporary (construction-related) or permanent (operations-related) impacts associated with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects. Although the individual impact of each separate project might not be significant, the additive or synergistic effects of multiple projects could be significant. The purpose of a cumulative impact analysis is to identify and describe potential cumulative impacts that could result from the construction and operation of the Project in conjunction with these other projects.

Other projects and proposed actions considered in this cumulative impact analysis may differ from the proposed Project in type, magnitude, and duration, but occur in or near the areas affected by the Project. Other projects included in this analysis are based on the likelihood of completion, and only recently completed projects, those with ongoing impacts, or those that are “reasonably foreseeable” future actions, are included. To be included in this analysis, an action must meet the following three criteria: 1) impact a resource area potentially affected by the proposed Project; 2) cause this impact within all, or part of, the proposed Project area; and 3) cause this impact within all, or part of, the time span for the potential impact from the proposed Project.

5.1 Minor Projects

Current and reasonably foreseeable future projects were identified from internet research of projects under review at federal and state agencies, and through contacts with county planning agencies in counties crossed by the Project. The majority of these projects are small in size and associated with oil and gas wells in Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania, and other miscellaneous small projects (e.g. sewer work, septic systems, areas of road work, etc.). Due to the small size of these projects, the potential for any substantial cumulative impact is very unlikely, and no cumulative impacts are assumed for this group.

5.2 Major Projects

There are several more substantial projects (referred to here as major projects), which due to their size and location, have some potential for cumulative impacts. These include nine proposed or planned pipeline projects (Spectra Energy’s NEXUS Gas Transmission [NEXUS] and Ohio Pipeline Energy Network [OPEN] projects, CGT’s Leach XPress project, Equitrans’ Ohio Valley Connector project, Mountain Valley Pipeline’s Mountain Valley Pipeline [MVP] project, ANR’s East Pipeline project, Kinder Morgan’s UTOPIA East and Utica Marcellus Texas Pipeline projects, Dominion’s Supply Header and Atlantic Coast Pipeline projects) and two electric generation projects (Moundsville Power, LLC - Combined-Cycle Power Plant, and the Blackfork Wind Energy project). Figure 5-1 shows the general location of each of these major projects with respect to Rover’s Project. The following is a description of these major projects:

5.2.1 Spectra Energy - NEXUS Project

The NEXUS project will originate in northeastern Ohio, and will include approximately 250 miles of large diameter gas pipeline capable of transporting at least 2 Bcf/d of natural gas. The pipeline will extend from receipt points in eastern Ohio to interconnects with the existing pipeline grid in southeastern Michigan. The project will utilize both existing and expansion capacity on the DTE Gas transportation system and the Vector pipeline system to access Michigan markets, Chicago, and the Dawn Hub. Although NEXUS has initiated the Pre-filing Process, it has not yet submitted draft resource reports and detailed information on project impacts is not available. Cumulative impacts are unlikely since the project is over 15 miles away from Rover at its closest point.

90 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

Figure 5-1. Major projects proposed in the vicinity of the Rover Pipeline Project

91 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

5.2.2 Spectra Energy - Ohio Pipeline Energy Network (OPEN) Project

The OPEN project will consist of approximately 76 miles of new 30-inch-diameter pipeline and associated pipeline support facilities in Ohio, including a new compressor station, capable of transporting 550,000 dekatherms per day. Also included are reverse flow modifications at existing compressor stations along Texas Eastern’s existing mainline in Ohio, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Louisiana. The Environmental Assessment (August 2014) for the project indicates total impact area of the OPEN project is approximately 1,563.6 acres. The distance of this project to the Rover Pipeline Project is variable and it crosses the Burgettstown and Majorsville Laterals.

5.2.3 CGT - Leach XPress Project

CGT’s Leach XPress Project will involve construction of approximately 127 miles of pipeline and two loops totaling 30 miles, abandonment of 27 miles of pipeline, three new compressor stations and modifications at two existing stations. The project will increase the capacity of CGT's, system by 1.5 Bcf/d and will move regional gas supplies to various markets, including interconnections with Columbia Gulf in Leach, Kentucky. This project parallels the Seneca Lateral for approximately 25 miles in Noble and Monroe Counties, Ohio, and thus would result in a wider disturbed area right-of-way and associated wetlands and other impacts.

5.2.4 Equitrans - Ohio Valley Connector Project

The Ohio Valley Connector project will involve approximately 50 miles of pipeline and two new compressor stations to transport approximately 900,000 dekatherms per day of natural gas produced in the central Appalachian Basin to interconnections with the Texas Eastern and Rockies Express pipelines. The northern terminus of Equitrans’ project is in vicinity of eastern end of the Seneca Lateral, and thus there could be potential for short term and localized cumulative impacts in this area.

5.2.5 ANR East Pipeline Project

The ANR East Pipeline project will include the construction of a new pipeline originating at the Cadiz Gas Plant in southeastern Ohio and terminating at the ANR Joliet Hub in Lake County, Indiana. The new build will consist of approximately 320 miles of large diameter pipeline, and up to 140,000 hp of compression. The distance of the ANR project to the Rover pipelines is variable. The ANR project would cross Rover’s Mainlines A and B in two locations and parallel Mainlines A and B in other locations. At the locations where the pipelines cross and parallel, there could be potential for small localized and short term cumulative impacts from the two projects.

5.2.6 Kinder Morgan - UTOPIA

The Kinder Morgan UTOPIA project is a 240-mile, 12-inch-diameter pipeline extending from Harrison County, Ohio, to Kinder Morgan’s Cochin Pipeline near Riga, Michigan, where the company would then move product eastward to Windsor, Ontario, Canada. UTOPIA would transport previously refined or fractionated natural gas liquids, including ethane and propane, with an initial capacity of 50,000 barrels per day (bpd), which is expandable to more than 75,000 bpd. The distance from the Rover Project is variable, and the Utopia project crosses Mainlines A and B in two locations.

92 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

5.2.7 Kinder Morgan - Utica Marcellus Texas Pipeline

The Kinder Morgan Utica Marcellus Texas Pipeline project involves the abandonment and conversion of over 1,000 miles of natural gas service, the construction of approximately 200 miles of new pipeline from Louisiana to Texas, and 155 miles of new laterals in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia. The pipeline, which will provide connectivity to major processing and fractionation hubs in the basin, will terminate in Mont Belvieu, Texas, and have a maximum design capacity of 375,000 bpd for transporting Y-grade natural gas liquids. A part of the Utica Marcellus Texas Pipeline project is in the same area as the Supply Laterals.

5.2.8 Dominion - Supply Header Project

Dominion’s Supply Header project will deliver up to 1.5 Bcf/d of natural gas from supply areas in West Virginia to demand areas in West Virginia, Virginia, and North Carolina. The project will impact 12,971.9 acres of land associated with 554.3 miles of natural gas transmission pipelines and associated aboveground facilities. Distance from the Rover Pipeline Project is variable.

5.2.9 Dominion - Atlantic Coast Pipeline Project

Dominion’s Atlantic Coast Pipeline project involves construction and operation of a 550-mile interstate natural gas pipeline extending from West Virginia, through Virginia and into eastern North Carolina to meet the region’s rapidly growing demand for natural gas. The pipeline has an estimated cost of between $4.5 billion and $5 billion, an initial capacity of 1.5 Bcf/d of natural gas per day, and a target in-service date of late 2018. Gas will be carried through a 42-inch-diameter pipe in West Virginia and Virginia, and a 36-inch-diameter pipe in North Carolina.

5.2.10 Mountain Valley - MVP Project

The Mountain Valley MVP project will involve construction of 286 miles of 36- to 42-inch-diameter pipeline to deliver gas from Equitrans’ mainline and sunrise transmission systems, and from gathering systems and natural gas production facilities located near the pipeline to the proposed tie-in point near the Transco Zone 5 compressor station 165. The project will cross 16 counties in West Virginia and will be near the Sherwood Lateral in Doddridge County, West Virginia.

5.2.11 Moundsville Power, LLC - Combined-Cycle Power Plant Project

The Moundsville Power, LLC project is a proposed combined cycle power plant located approximately 5.6 miles from the Rover Pipeline Project in Marshall County, West Virginia. Due to the distance away from Rover, cumulative impacts are unlikely, with the possible exception of air emissions. However, like Rover, other air emission sources will have to comply with the NAAQS, which are designed to protect the most sensitive populations from air pollution including cumulative air impacts.

5.2.12 Blackfork Wind Energy Project

The Blackfork Wind Energy Project consists of 91 wind turbines, each being 494 feet high, capable of generating 200 megawatts of power, and with a life span of 20 to 25 years. In addition to the turbines, the project includes access roads, electrical collection lines, a construction-staging area, concrete-batch plant, substation, and an operation and maintenance facility. The project is approximately 0.3 mile from the Rover Pipeline Project at its closest point and will take up approximately 14,800 acres in Richland County, Ohio.

93 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

5.3 Water Resources and Wetlands

The area assessed for water resources and wetlands generally included the hydrologic unit Hydrologic Unit Code 12 area within which both the Rover Pipeline Project and other projects are located. Construction of the Project facilities, including aboveground facilities, will result in temporary impacts to surface waters and wetlands. Rover has sited its pipeline route and aboveground facilities to avoid water resources and wetlands to the extent practicable.

Sediment loading could also occur due to runoff from construction activities near wetlands and waterbodies. These resources could also be affected by a spill of hazardous liquids or the excavation and dispersal of contaminated sediments during trenching. Rover will implement the Rover Procedures to minimize impacts on groundwater, surface waters, and wetlands and the SPR Procedures to reduce the potential for hazardous liquids spills. Each of the other project proponents will be required to implement best management practices to comply with applicable federal and state permit requirements. Rover, and each proponent for the other projects with wetland impacts, will be required by the terms and conditions of their respective Section 404 permits to provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts. Impacts on surface waters and wetlands resulting from construction will end shortly after the projects are completed and the work areas are restored and revegetated.

With respect to the major gas pipeline and energy generation projects noted above, these projects will affect water resources and wetlands at various waterbody and wetland crossings, but due to their distance from the proposed Project and the regulatory requirements related to protection of wetlands and waters, these projects are unlikely to result in any cumulative impacts to these resources. However, there are a few locations where both the proposed Project and another major project cross the same waterbodies or wetlands. In these locations, there could be very small, localized areas where wetland and waterbody impacts would overlap. At present there is limited detailed information on the location of other major projects and their impacts on wetland resources areas to quantify cumulative impacts. Where pipelines cross wetlands, FERC limits the area of disturbance, and thus in the limited number of areas where pipelines do cross each other, and to the extent they do cross in a wetland area, the disturbed area would be relatively small. Such cumulative impacts would amount to disturbing the same wetland area twice depending on the timing of the work. In all cases these areas of overlap (and all wetland areas affected) would be restored in accordance with the Rover Procedures.

The proposed Project would result in some conversion of forested wetlands to scrub-shrub wetland or emergent wetland within the permanent right-of-way. The other pipeline projects in the area are likely to result in the same types of vegetation conversion. Any impacts associated with forest conversion would be mitigated for in compliance with federal and state permit requirements at ratios greater than the actual conversion. Therefore, impacts on wetlands with respect to conversion of wetland vegetation type would be small and minimal cumulative impacts are expected.

5.4 Vegetation and Wildlife

The area assessed for vegetation and wildlife generally included the hydrologic unit Hydrologic Unit Code 12 area within which both the Rover Pipeline Project and other projects are located. When projects are constructed at or near the same time, the combination of construction activities could have a cumulative impact on vegetation and wildlife in the immediate area. Clearing and grading and other construction activities associated with the projects, including the Rover Pipeline Project, will result in the removal of vegetation, alteration of wildlife habitat, displacement of wildlife, and other secondary effects such as forest fragmentation and establishment of invasive plant species. Rover will implement best management practices contained in the Rover Plan and Procedures to reduce the potential for erosion, re-vegetate

94 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

disturbed areas, and control the spread of noxious weeds. Rover is consulting with the USFWS and state agencies to reduce or avoid impacts on federal and state listed endangered and threatened species through timing restrictions or special construction techniques, such as HDD. The other projects would be expected to complete similar consultations as part of the permitting process.

With respect to the major gas pipeline and energy generation projects noted above, these projects will affect vegetation and wildlife, and will result in forest clearing. Due to the separation between most projects and regulatory requirements related to protection of vegetation and wildlife, these projects are unlikely to result in any cumulative impacts in a localized area except where the few locations where these projects overlap. At present there is limited detailed information on the location of other major projects and their impacts on vegetation and wildlife to quantify cumulative impacts on these resources. However, where pipelines do cross each other, impacts to vegetation in the area of overlap will be fairly minimal. Such cumulative impacts to vegetation would amount to disturbing the same area of vegetation and or wildlife habitat twice depending on the timing of the work. In all cases these areas of overlap would be restored in accordance with the Rover Plan and Rover Procedures. Rover and other entities would be required to comply with the conditions of their permits and where regulated by the FERC would be required to follow the Rover Plan and Rover Procedures, which would minimize impacts to these resources and restore vegetation and wildlife habitat.

95 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

6.0 LITERATURE CITED

3D/I. 1996. Field studies for interim mitigation for impacts to Indiana bats at the Indianapolis International Airport in Marion County, Indiana. Unpublished report submitted to US Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, Indiana.

Ahlstedt, S.A. 1986. Cumberland Mollusk Conservation Program. Activity 1: Mussel Distribution Surveys. Tennessee Valley Authority, Norris, TN. 125 pp.

Amato, C. (2014, November 20). Petition to List the Eastern Hellbender as an Endangered Species in New York. Albany, NY: Earthjustice.

Amelon, S., and D. Burhans. 2006. Conservation assessment: Myotis septentrionalis (northern long-eared bat) in the eastern United States. Pages 69-82. In: Thompson, F.R., III, (ed.). Conservation assessments for five forest bat species in the eastern United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station, General Technical Report NC-260. St. Paul, Minnesota. 82 pp.

Amphibians & Reptiles. (2015, June). Retrieved from Michigan Department of Natural Resources: http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-10370_12145_12201---,00.html

Barbour, R.W. and W.H. Davis. 1969. Bats of America. University Press Kentucky, Lexington. 286 pp.

Barnhart, M.C., F.A. Riusech, and A.D. Roberts. 1997. Fish hosts of the federally endangered pink mucket, Lampsilis abrupta. Triannual Unionid Report, 13: 35.

Bates, J.M., and S.D. Dennis. Mussel Resource Survey - State of Tennessee. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Technical Report No. 85-4. 125 pp.

Belwood, J. 1979. Feeding Ecology of an Indiana Bat Community with Emphasis on the Endangered Indiana Bat, Myotis sodalis. M.S. Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville. 103 pp.

Belwood, J.J. 2002. Endangered bats in suburbia: observations and concerns for the future. Pp 193–198 in: The Indiana Bat: Biology and Management of an Endangered Species. A. Kurta and J. Kennedy (ed). Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas.

Blatchley, W.S. 1891. A catalogue of the butterflies known to occur in Indiana. Annual Report of the Indiana State Geologist 17:365-408.

Brack, V. 1983. The non-hibernating ecology of bats in Indiana, with emphasis on the endangered Indiana bat, Myotis sodalis. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Purdue University, W. Lafayette, Indiana. 280 pp.

Bowles, M. L. (1983). The tallgrass prairie orchids Platanthera leucophaea (Nutt.) Lindl. and Cypripedium candidum Muhl. ex Willd.: Some aspects of their status, biologiy, and ecology, and implications toward management. Natural Areas Journal, 3, 14-37.

Bowles, M. L. (1999). Eastern Paririe Fringed Orchid Platanthera leucophaea Recovery Plan. Fort Snelling, MN: USFWS. Retrieved May 4, 2015, from http://www.fws.gov/ecos/ajax/docs/recovery_plans/1999/990929.pdf

96 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

Brack, V., Jr. 2007. Temperatures and locations used by hibernating bats, including Myotis sodalis (Indiana Bat), in a limestone mine: Implications for conservation and management. Journal of Environmental Management 40:739–746.

Brack, V., Jr. and R. LaVal. 1985. Food habits of the Indiana bat in Missouri. Journal of Mammalogy 66: 308-315.

Brack, V., Jr.; Whitaker, J.O., Jr. 2001. Foods of the northern myotis, Myotis septentrionalis, from Missouri and Indiana, with notes on foraging. Acta Chiropterologica. 3: 203-210.

Braun, E. L. (1967). The Vascular Flora of Ohio, Volume 1-The Monocotyledoneae: Cattails to Orchids. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Press.

Briggler, J. T., & Ackerson, J. R. (2013). Construction and Use of Artificial Shelters to Supplement Habitat for Hellbenders (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis). Herpetological Review, 412-416.

Britzke, E., M. Harvey, and S. Loeb. 2003. Indiana bat, Myotis sodalis, maternity roosts in the southern United States. Southeastern Naturalist 2:235-42.

Brown, R.J. and V., Jr. Brack. 2003. A summer mist net survey for the federally endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) at the Newport Chemical Depot, Newport, Indiana. Report prepared for Newport Chemical Depot. 41 pp. In: USFWS. 2007. Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Draft Recovery Plan: First Revision. Fort Snelling, Minnesota. 258 pp.Browne, R., Reinsch, S., Robertson, H., Trudeau, V., & McGinnity, D. (2013). Novel Biotechnologies Prove Winners in Giant Salamander Conservation. Frog Log, 12-14.

Buchanan, A.C. 1980. Mussels (Naiades) of the Meramec River basin. Missouri Department of Conservation, Aquatic Series, Number 17. 68 pp.

Butchkoski, C. and J. Hassinger. 2002. Ecology of maternity colony roosting in a building. Pp 130-142 in A. Kurta and J. Kennedy (eds.). The Indiana Bat: Biology and Management of an Endangered Species. Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas.

Butchkoski, C.M. and G. Turner. 2006. Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) summer roost investigations. Project 06714 Annual Job Report. Pennsylvania Game Commission, Bureau of Wildlife Management, Research Division, Harrisburg, PA. 17 pp. In: USFWS. 2007. Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Draft Recovery Plan: First Revision. Fort Snelling, Minnesota. 258 pp.

Butler, R.S. 2002. Status Assessment Report for the sheepnose, Plethobasus cyphyus, occurring in the Mississippi River system (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regions 3, 4, and 5). Report prepared for the Ohio River Valley Ecosystem Team, Mollusk Subgroup. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville, NC. 60 pp. + appendices.

______. 2007. Status assessment report for the snuffbox, Epioblasma triquetra, a freshwater mussel occurring in the Mississippi and Great Lakes Basins. Prepared for the Ohio River Valley Ecosystem Team, Mollusc Subgroup. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville, NC. 90 pp.

Caceres, M.C., and M.J. Pybus. 1997. Status of the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Alberta. Alberta Environmental Protection, Wildlife Management Division, Wildlife Status Report No. 3, Edmonton, AB.

97 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

Caire, W., R.K. LaVal, M.L. LaVal, and R. Clawson. 1979. Notes on the ecology of Myotis Keenii (Chiroptera, Vespertilionidae) in Eastern Missouri. American Midland Naturalist 102: 404-407.

Callahan, E., R. Drobney, and R. Clawson. 1997. Selection of summer roosting sites by Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis) in Missouri. Journal of Mammalogy 78: 818–825.

Carter, T.C. and G.A. Feldhamer. 2005. Roost tree use by maternity colonies of Indiana bats and northern long-eared bats in southern Illinois. Forest Ecology and Management 219: 259–268.

Christian, A.D., B.N. Smith, D.J. Berg, J.C. Smoot, and R.H. Findlay. 2004. Trophic position and potential food sources of 2 species of unionid bivalves (Mollusca: Unionidae) in 2 small Ohio streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 23: 101-113.

Churchill, E.P., Jr., and S.I. Lewis. 1924. Food and feeding in freshwater mussels. Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Fisheries 39: 439-471.

Clark, B.K., J.B. Bowles, and B.S. Clark. 1987. Summer occurrence of the Indiana bat, Keen’s myotis, evening bat, silver-haired bat and eastern pipistrelle in Iowa. Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Science 94: 89-93.

Clarke, A.H. 1982. Survey of the freshwater mussels of the upper Kanawha River (RM 91-95), Fayette County, West Virginia, with special reference to Epioblasma torulosa (Rafinesque) and Lampsilis abrupta (Say). Unpublished report submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 45 pp.

Cochrane, J.F. and P. Delphey. 2002. Status assessment and conservation guidelines: Dakota skipper [Hesperia dacotae (Skinner)], (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae): Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, MN.

Conant, R., & Collins, J. T. (1998). A Peterson Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and Central North America (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Cope, J.B. and S.R. Humphrey. 1972. Reproduction of the bats Myotis keenii and Pipistrellus subflavus in Indiana. Bat Research News 13: 9-10.

Cope, J. and S. Humphrey. 1977. Spring and autumn swarming behavior in the Indiana bat, Myotis sodalis. Journal of Mammalogy 58: 93–95.

Cope, J.B., A.R. Richter, and R.S. Mills. 1974. A summer concentration of the Indiana bat, Myotis sodalis, in Wayne County, Indiana. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 83: 482-484.

Cummings, K.S., and C.A. Mayer. 1992. Field guide to freshwater mussels of the Midwest. Illinois Natural History Survey Manual 5. 194 pp.

Cummings, K.S. and C.A. Mayer. 1997. Distributional checklist and status of Illinois freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Unionacea). Pages 129-145. In: K.S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan, C.A. Mayer, and T.J. Naimo (eds.). Conservation and management of freshwater mussels II: initiatives for the future. Proceedings of a UMRCC Symposium, October 1995, St. Louis, Missouri. Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island, Illinois.

98 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

Cummings, K.S., C. A. Mayer, L. M. Page, and J. M. Berlocher. 1987. Survey of the Freshwater Mussels (Mollusca: Unionidae) of the Wabash River Drainage, Phase I: Lower Wabash and Tippecanoe Rivers. Technical Report 1987(5), Illinois State Natural History Survey Division. 60 pp + appendices.

Cuthrell, D.L. and B.S. Slaughter. 2012. Special animal abstract for Oarisma poweshiek (Poweshiek skipperling). Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, MI. 4 pp.

Dodge, G.M. 1872. A new Hesperian. Canadian Entomologist 4: 217-218

Easterla, D.A. 1968. Parturition of Keen's Myotis in Southwestern Missouri. Journal of Mammalogy 49: 770.

Eastern Hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis alleganiensis). (2015, June). Retrieved from Ohio Amphibians: http://ohioamphibians.com/salamanders/Hellbender.html

Eastern Hellbender. (2015, June). Retrieved from Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries: http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/hellbender/

Eastern hellbender Fact Sheet. (2015, June 17). Retrieved from New State Department of Environmental Conservation: http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7160.html

Fitch, J.H. and K.A. Shump, Jr. 1979. Myotis keenii. Mammalian Species, No. 121: 1-3.

Foster, R.W. and A. Kurta. 1999. Roosting ecology of the Northern bat (Myotis septentrionalis) and comparisons with the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). Journal of Mammalogy 80: 659-672.

Fuller, S. 1974. Clams and mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia). Pp. 215-273. In: C.W. Hart and S.L.H. Fuller (eds.). Pollution ecology of freshwater invertebrates. Academic Press, New York, New York. 359 pp.

Gardner, J. E., J. D. Garner, and J. E. Hofmann. 1989. A portable mist-netting system for capturing bats with emphasis on Myotis sodalis (Indiana bat). Bat Research News 30:1-8.

______. 1991a. Summer roost selection and roosting behavior of Myotis sodalis (Indiana bat) in Illinois. Unpublished report to Region 3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, MN. 56 pp.

______. 1991b. Summary of Myotis sodalis summer habitat studies in Illinois with recommendations for impact assessment. Unpublished report prepared for Indiana Bat and Gray Bat Recovery Team Meeting, Columbia, Missouri. 28 pp.

Gardner, J.E., J.E. Hofmann, and J. D. Garner. 1996. Summer distribution of the federally endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) in Illinois. Transactions of the Illinois State Academy of Science 89: 187-196.

Gordon, M., and J. Layzer. 1989. Mussels (Bivalvia: Unionoidea) of the Cumberland River: review of life histories and ecological relationships. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 89(15). 99 pp.

99 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

Griffin, D.R. 1940. Reviewed notes on the life histories of New England cave bats. Journal of Mammalogy 21: 181-187.

______. 1945. Travels of banded cave bats. Journal of Mammalogy 26: 15-23.

Gumbert, M. 2001. Seasonal roost tree use by Indiana bats in the Somerset Ranger District of the Daniel Boone National Forest, Kentucky. M.S. Thesis, Eastern Kentucky University, Richmond.

Gumbert, M., J. O'Keefe, and J. MacGregor. 2002. Roost fidelity in Kentucky. Pp. 143–152. In: A. Kurta and J. Kennedy (eds.). The Indiana Bat: Biology and Management of an Endangered Species. Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas.

Hall, J. 1962. A life history and taxonomic study of the Indiana bat, Myotis sodalis. Reading Public Museum and Art Gallery Publication 12: 1–68.Harding, J. (1997). Amphibians and Reptiles of the Great Lakes Region. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

Harvey, M.J. 2002. Status and ecology in the southern United States. Pp. 29-34. in A. Kurta and J. Kennedy (eds.). The Indiana bat: biology and management of an endangered species. Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas.

Henshaw, R.E. 1965. Physiology of hibernation and acclimatization in two species of bats (Myotis lucifugus) and (Myotis sodalis). Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Iowa, Iowa City. 143 pp.

Hickman, M.E. 1937. A contribution to the Mollusca of east Tennessee. Unpublished master’s thesis. Department of Zoology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. 165 pp.

Hobson, C. and J. Holland. 1995. Post-hibernation and foraging habitat of a male Indiana bat, Myotis sodalis (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae), in western Virginia. Brimleyana 23: 95- 101.

Holzman, R.W. 1972. Eastern range extension for Oarisma powesheik Parker (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae). The Great Lakes Entomologist 5: 111-114.

Humphrey, S.R. 1978. Status, winter habitat, and management of the endangered Indiana bat, Myotis sodalis. Florida Scientist 41: 65-76.

Humphrey, S.R., A.R. Richter, and J.B. Cope. 1977. Summer habitat and ecology of the endangered Indiana bat, Myotis sodalis. Journal of Mammalogy 58: 334–346.

Jones, J.W. and R.J. Neves. 2002. Life history and propagation of the endangered fanshell pearlymussel, Cyprogenia stegaria Rafinesque (Bivalvia:Unionidae). Journal of the North American Benthological Society 21: 76-88.

Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission. 1980. Cyprogenia stegaria (Rafinesque). Kentucky Natural Areas Plan - Appendix A. Frankfort, KY.

Kiser, J.D. and C.L. Elliott. 1996. Foraging habitat, food habits, and roost tree characteristics of the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) during autumn in Johnson County, Kentucky. Unpublished report submitted to the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, Frankfort, Kentucky. 65 pp.

100 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

Kost, M.A., D.A. Albert, J.G. Cohen, B.S. Slaughter, R.K. Schillo, C.R. Weber, and K.A. Chapman. 2007. Natural communities of Michigan: Classification and description. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Report Number 2007-21, Lansing, MI. 314 pp.

Krochmal, A. R. and D. W. Sparks. 2007. Timing of birth and estimation of age of juvenile Myotis septentrionalis and Myotis lucifugus in west-central Indiana. Journal of Mammalogy 88:649-656

Kurta, A. 2000. The bat community in northwestern Lower Michigan, with emphasis on the Indiana bat and eastern pipistrelle. Report submitted to United States Forest Service. Huron-Manistee National Forests, Cadillac, Michigan. 43 pp. In: USFWS. 2007. Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Draft Recovery Plan: First Revision. Fort Snelling, Minnesota. 258 pp.

Kurta, A. and S.W. Murray. 2002. Philopatry and migration of banded Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis) and effects of radio transmitters. Journal of Mammalogy 83: 585-589.

Kurta, A., K.J. Williams, and R. Mies. 1996. Ecological, behavioural, and thermal observations of a peripheral population of Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis). Pp. 102-117. In: R.M.R. Barclay and R. M. Brigham (eds.). Bats and Forests Symposium. Research Branch, British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Victoria, BC, Canada.

Kurta, A. and S.W. Murray. 2002. Philopatry and migration of banded Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis) and effects of radio transmitters. Journal of Mammalogy 83: 585-589.

Lacki, M.J. and J.H. Schwierjohann. 2001. Day-Roost Characteristics of northern bats in mixed mesophytic forest. The Journal of Wildlife Management 65: 482-488.

Lauritsen, D. 1981. The Nature Conservancy Element Stewardship Abstract: Cyprogenia stegaria. Unpublished report submitted to The Nature Conservancy, Midwest Regional Office, Minneapolis, MN. 4 pp.

LaVal, R.K. and M.L. LaVal. 1980. Ecological studies and management of Missouri bats, with emphasis on cave-dwelling species. Missouri Department of Conservation: Terrestrial Series 8: 1-53.

LaVal, R., R. Clawson, W. Caire, L. Wingate, and M. LaVal. 1976. An evaluation of the status of Myotine bats in the proposed Meramec Park Lake and Union Lake Project Areas, Missouri. Final Report submitted to the US Army Corps of Engineers. 136 pp.

LaVal, R., R. Clawson, M. LaVal, and W. Caire. 1977. Foraging behavior and nocturnal activity patterns of Missouri bats, with emphasis on the endangered species Myotis grisescens and Myotis sodalis. Journal of Mammalogy 58: 592-9.

Lipps, G. (2012, February 26). Eastern Hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis alleganiensis). Retrieved June 15, 2015, from Ohio Amphibians: http://ohioamphibians.com/salamanders/Hellbender.html

Lipps, G. J., & Pfingsten, R. A. (2010). Assessment and Conservation of Ohio Populations of the Eastern Hellbender. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife, Columbus, OH.

101 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

Mack, J. J. (2001). Ohio Rapid Assessment Method for Wetlands, Manual for Using Version 5.0. Ohio EPA Technical Bulletin Wetland/2001-1-1, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water, 401 Wetland Ecology Unit, Columbus, OH.

Matthews, J.R. and C.J. Moseley (eds.). 1990. The Official World Wildlife Fund Guide to Endangered Species of North America. Volume 1. Plants, Mammals. xxiii + pp 1-560 + 33 pp. appendix + 6 pp. glossary + 16 pp. index. Volume 2. Birds, Reptiles, Amphibians, Fishes, Mussels, Crustaceans, Snails, Insects, and Arachnids. xiii + pp. 561-1180. Beacham Publications, Inc., Washington, D.C. In: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1985. Recovery plan for the pink mucket pearly mussel Lampsilis abrupta (Say 1831). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlanta, Georgia. 47pp.

Mayasich, J., Grandmaison, D., & Phillips, C. (2003). Eastern Hellbender Status Assessment Report.

McAlpine, W.S. 1972. Observations on life history of Oarisma poweshiek (Parker) 1870. Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 11: 83-93

McAlpine, W.S., S.P. Hubbell, and T.F. Pliske. 1960. The distribution, habits, and life history of Euptychia mitchellii (Satyridae). Journal of the Lepidopterists Society 14: 209-226.

Menzel, M.A., S.F. Owen, W.M. Ford, J.W. Edwards, P.B. Wood, B.R.Chapman, and K.V. Miller. 2002. Roost tree selection by northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) maternity colonies in an industrial forest of the central Appalachian Mountains. Forest Ecology and Management 155: 107- 114.

Mumford R.E., and J.B. Cope. 1964. Distribution and status of the chiroptera of Indiana. American Midland Naturalist 72: 473-489.

Murray, H.D. and A.B. Leonard. 1962. Handbook of unionid mussels in Kansas. University of Kansas Museum of Natural History, Miscellaneous Publication 28. 184 pp.

Murray, S. and A. Kurta. 2004. Nocturnal activity of the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). Journal of Zoology, London 262: 1-10.

Myers, R.F. 1964. Ecology of three species of myotine bats in the Ozark Plateau. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Missouri, Columbia. 210 pp.

Nagorsen, D.W., and R.M. Brigham. 1993. The Mammals of British Columbia. 1. Bats. Royal British Columbia Museum, Victoria, and the University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver. pp. 164. In: USFWS. 2013. Proposed Rule: 12 Month Finding on a petition to list the eastern small-footed bat and the northern long-eared bat as endangered or threatened species; Listing the northern long-eared bat as an endangered species. Proposed Rule. Federal Register Volume 78, Number 191: 61045- 61080.

NatureServe. 2014. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. Accessed: February 3, 2015.

Nekola, J.C. and D.W. Schlicht. 2007. County distribution maps of Iowa butterflies and skippers. Iowa Lepidoptera Project, Center Point, IA.

102 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

Nichols, S.J., and D. Garling. 2000. Food-web dynamics and trophic-level interactions in a multi-species community of freshwater unionids. Canadian Journal of Zoology 78: 871-882.

O’Dee, S.H. & G.T. Watters. 2000. New or confirmed host identification for ten freshwater mussels. Pp. 77–82. In: R.A. Tankersley, D.I. Warmolts, G.T. Watters, B.J. Armitage, P.D. Johnson, & R.S. Butler (eds.). Proceedings of the Conservation, Captive Care, and Propagation of Freshwater Mussels Symposium. Ohio Biological Survey, Columbus.

Oesch, R.D. 1984. Missouri Naiads: A guide to the mussels of Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation. Jefferson City. 270 pp.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife. (n.d.). Hellbender-Cryptobranchus alleganiensis. Retrieved June 15, 2015, from ODNR Division of Wildlife: http://wildlife.ohiodnr.gov/species-and-habitats/species-guide-index/amphibians/hellbender

Owens, S.F., M.A. Menzel, W.M. Ford, J.W. Edwards, B.R. Chapman, K.V. Miller, and P.B. Wood. 2002. Roost tree selection by maternal colonies of Northern long-eared Myotis in an intensively managed forest. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report NE-292..

Pallister, J.C. 1927. Cissia mitchelli (French) found in Ohio with notes on its habits. Lepidoptera: Satyridae. Ohio Journal of Science 27: 203-204.

Penskar, M. R., & Higman, P. J. (2000). Special Plant Abstract for Platanthera leucophaea (eastern prairie fringed orchid). . Retrieved May 4, 2015, from Michigan Natural Features Inventory: http://mnfi.anr.msu.edu/abstracts/botany/Platanthera_leucophaea.pdf

Parmalee, P.W. and A.E. Bogan. 1998. The freshwater mussels of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. 328 pp.

Perry, R.W., and R.E. Thill. 2007. Roost selection by male and female northern long-eared bats in a pine- dominated landscape. Forest Ecology and Management 247: 220-226.Petranka, J. W. (1998). Salamanders of the United States and Canada. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Pfingsten, R. A., & Downs, F. L. (Eds.). (1989). Salamanders of Ohio. Columbus, OH: College of Biological Sciences, The Ohio State University.

Pruitt. L. 1995. Summary of Jefferson Proving Ground bat surveys: 1993-1995. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington Field Office, Bloomington, IN. 5 pp. In: USFWS. 2007. Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Draft Recovery Plan: First Revision. Fort Snelling, Minnesota. 258 pp.

Raesly R.L. and J.E Gates. 1987. Winter habitat selection by north temperate cave bats. American Midland Naturalist 118: 15-31.

Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species in West Virginia. (2015, June). Retrieved from West Virginia Department of Natural Resources: http://www.wvdnr.gov/Wildlife/RareSpecList.shtm

Reichard, J.D. and T.H. Kunz. White-Nose Syndrome inflicts lasting injuries to the wings of little brown Myotis (Myotis lucifugus). Acta Chiropterologica 11:457-464.

103 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

Richter A, S. Humphrey, J. Cope, and V. Brack Jr. 1993. Modified cave entrances: thermal effect on body mass and resulting decline of endangered Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis). Conservation Biology 7: 407-415.

Rogers, E., J.A. Shuey, A. Reznicek, D. Premo, J. Harding, B. Premo and T. Minzey. 1992. Ecological survey and evaluation of Blue Creek Fen for impacts of proposed road construction. Unpublished report submitted to Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, Michigan. 4lpp +appendices.

Rommé, R., K. Tyrell, and V. Brack, Jr. 1995. Literature summary and habitat suitability index model: components of summer habitat for the Indiana bat, Myotis sodalis. Unpublished report submitted to US Fish and Wildlife Service and Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Fish and Wildlife. 38 pp + appendices.

Rommé, R., A. Henry, R. King, T. Glueck, and K. Tyrell. 2002. Home range near hibernacula in spring and autumn. Pp. 153-158. In: A. Kurta and J. Kennedy (eds.). The Indiana Bat: Biology and Management of an Endangered Species. Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas.

Royer, R. A. and G. M. Marrone. 1992. Conservation status of the poweshiek skipper (Oarisma poweshiek) in North and South Dakota. Page 31 Unpublished Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO.

Sasse, D.B. and P.J. Pekins. 1996. Summer roosting ecology of northern long-eared bats (Myotis septentrionalis) in the White Mountain National Forest. Bats and Forests Symposium October 1995, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, p.91-101.

Selby, G. 2010. Status assessment update (2010): Poweshiek skipperling, Oarisma poweshiek (Parker) (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, MN.

Silverman, H., S.J. Nichols, J.S. Cherry, E. Achberger, J.W. Lynn, and T.H. Dietz. 1997. Clearance of laboratory-cultured bacteria by freshwater bivalves: difference between lentic and lotic unionids. Canadian Journal of Zoology 75: 1857-1866.

Starnes, L.B., and A.E. Bogan. 1988. The Mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidae) of Tennessee. American Malacological Bulletin 6: 19-37.

Strayer, D.L., J.A. Downing, W.R. Haag, T.L. King, J.B. Layzer, T.J. Newton, and S. J. Nichols. 2004. Changing perspectives on Pearly Mussels, North America's most imperiled organisms. Bioscience 54: 429-439.

Stein, C.B. 1971. Naiad life cycles: their significance in the conservation of the fauna. Pp 19-25. In: Rare and endangered mollusks (Naiads) of the U.S. USDOI (Fish and Wildlife Service), Region 3, Fort Snelling, Minnesota.

Thomas, D.W. 1995a. The physiological ecology of hibernation in vespertilionid bats. Symposia of the Zoological Society of London 67:233-244. In: USFWS. 2007. Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Draft Recovery Plan: First Revision. Fort Snelling, Minnesota. 258 pp.

104 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

______. 1995b. Hibernating bats are sensitive to nontactile human disturbance. Journal of Mammalogy, 76: 940-946.

Thomas, D.W., M. Dorais, and J.M. Bergeron. 1990. Winter energy budgets and cost of arousals for hibernating little brown bats, Myotis lucifugus. Journal of Mammalogy 71: 475-479.

Thomson, C. 1982. Myotis sodalis. Mammalian Species 163: 1–5.

Timpone, J.D. 2004. Roost-site selection of bats in Northeast Missouri with emphasis on the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). M.S. Thesis. Southwest Missouri State University, Springfield. 63 pp.

Timpone, J.C., Boyles, J.G., Murray, K.L., Aubrey, D.P., and L.W. Robbins. 2010. Overlap in roosting habits of Indiana Bats (Myotis sodalis) and northern bats (Myotis septentrionalis). American Midland Naturalist, 163: 115-123.

Turner, G.G., D.M. Reeder, and J.T.H. Coleman. 2011. A five-year assessment of mortality and geographic spread of white-nose syndrome in North American bats and a look to the future. Bat Research News 52: 13-27.

Tuttle, M.D. and J. Kennedy. 1999. Indiana bat hibernation roost evaluation: Phase II-- Results from the first annual cycle. Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas. 12pp + appendix.

Tuttle, M.D. and J. Kennedy. 2002. Thermal requirements during hibernation. Pp. 68-78. In: A. Kurta and J. Kennedy (eds.). The Indiana bat: biology and management of an endangered species. Bat Conservation International, Austin, TX.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1985. Recovery plan for the pink mucket pearly mussel Lampsilis abrupta (Say 1831). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlanta, Georgia. 47pp.

______. 1990. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Determination of the freshwater mussel, the fanshell as endangered. Final Rule. Federal Register Volume 55, Number 120: 25591- 25596.

______. 1992. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Determination endangered status for Mitchell’s satyr butterfly. Final Rule. Federal Register Volume 57, Number 98: 21564-21569.

______. 1993. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Determination of endangered status for the northern riffleshell mussel (Epioblasma torulosa rangiana) and the clubshell mussel (Pleurobema clava). Final Rule. Federal Register Volume 58, Number 13: 5638-5642.

______. 1994. Clubshell (Pleurobema clava) and Northern Riffleshell (Epioblasma torulosa rangiana) recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Hadley, Massachusetts. 68 pp.

______. 1996. Biological Opinion on the Master Plan and Ongoing Mission for the US Army Engineer Center and Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. Log No. 96-R3-CMFO-01.

______. 1998. Mitchell’s Satyr Butterfly (Neonympha mitchellii mitchelii) Recovery Plan. Ft. Snelling, Minnesota. 71 pp.

105 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

______. 2007. Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Draft Recovery Plan: First Revision. Fort Snelling, Minnesota. 258 pp.

______. 2011. Draft protocol for assessing abandoned mine/caves for bat use. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service West Virginia Field Office. 3 pp.

______. 2012a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Determination of endangered status for the rayed bean and snuffbox mussels throughout their ranges. Final Rule. Federal Register Volume 77, Number 30: 8631-8665.

______. 2012a. Bat survey protocol for assessing use of potential hibernacula. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2 pp.

______. 2012b. National White-Nose Syndrome decontamination protocol. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 5 pp.

______. 2012c. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Determination of endangered status for the sheepnose and spectaclecase mussels throughout their range. Final Rule. Federal Register Volume 77, Number 49: 14914-14949.

______. 2013a. 2013a Rangewide Population Estimate for the Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) by USFWS Region. Available: https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/inba/pdf/2013inbaPopEstimate26Aug2013.p df. Accessed on 12 January2015.

______. 2013b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: 12 Month finding on a petition to list the eastern small-footed bat and the northern lont-eared bat as endangered or threated species; Listing the northern long-eared bat as an endangered species. Proposed Rule. Federal Register Volume 78, Number 191: 61045-61080.

______. 2013c. Clubshell (Pleurobema clava) Fact Sheet. Available: https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/clams/clubs_fc.html. Accessed 2 February 2015.

______. 2014b. Northern long-eared bat range. Available: https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nlba/nlebRangeMaps.html. Accessed 15 January 2015.

______. 2014c. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Status for Dakota skipper and Powershiek skipperling. Final Rule. Federal Register Volume 79, Number 206: 63671-63748.

______. 2014d. Mitchell’s satyr butterfly (Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii) 5-yar review: summary and evaluation. East Lancing Field Office, East Lancing Michigan. 38 pp.

______. 2015a. White Nose Syndrome: North America’s Response to the Devastating Bat Disease. Available: http://www.whitenosesyndrome.org/. Accessed on 1 August 2015.

106 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

______. 2015b. Range-wide Indiana bat summer survey guidance. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 9 pp. + appendices.

______. (2015c). Associate Plant Species List for the Eastern Prairie Fringed Orchid in Northeast Illinois. Retrieved May 8, 2015, from www.fws.gov: http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/section7/s7process/plants/epfo_associates.html

______. (n.d.). Eastern Hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis alleganiensis). Retrieved June 15, 2015, from Environmental Conservation Online System: http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=D043 van Zyll de Jong, C.G. 1985. Handbook of Canadian mammals. National Museums of Canada, Ottawa, Canada. pp. 116-120. In: USFWS. 2013. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: 12 Month Finding on a petition to list the eastern small-footed bat and the northern long-eared bat as endangered or threatened species; Listing the northern long-eared bat as an endangered species. Proposed Rule. Federal Register Volume 78, Number 191: 61045-61080.

Watters, G.T. 1990. 1990 Survey of the unionids of the Big Darby Creek system. Final Report submitted to The Nature Conservancy. 229 pp.

______. 1993. A Guide to the Freshwater Mussels of Ohio. Revised Edition prepared for The Division of Wildlife, Ohio Department of Natural Resources. 106 pp.

West, E.L., J.L. Metcalfe-Smith, and S.K. Staton. 2000. Status of the rayed bean, Villosa fabalis (Bivalvia: Unionidae), in Ontario and Canada. Canadian Field-Naturalist 114: 248- 258.

Westwood, R. 2010. Survey for Poweshiek Skipperling, Oarisma poweshiek, in the region of the Tall Grass Prairie Preserve in south eastern Manitoba 2010. The Nature Conservancy of Canada, Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Whitaker, J.O., Jr. and C.L. Gummer. 2002. Bats of Camp Atterbury, with emphasis on roosting of Indiana Myotis and evening bats. 2002. Report for the Military Department of Indiana. 51 pp plus appendices. In: USFWS. 2007. Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Draft Recovery Plan: First Revision. Fort Snelling, Minnesota. 258 pp.

Whitaker, J. and W. Hamilton. 1998. Mammals of the eastern United States. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York. 583 pp.

Whitaker, J.O., Jr.. and R.E. Mumford. 2009. Northern Myotis. P. 207-214. In: Mammals of Indiana. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana. 352 pp.

Whitaker, J.O., Jr., D.W. Sparks, and V. Brack, Jr. 2004. Bats of the Indianapolis International Airport Area, 1991-2001. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 113: 151-161.

White, L.R., B.A. McPheron, and J.R. Stauffer. 1996. Molecular genetic identification tools for the unionids of French Creek, Pennsylvania. Malacologia 33: 181-202.

Woolnough, D.A. 2002. Life history of endangered freshwater mussels of the Sydenham River, southwestern Ontario, Canada. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario.

107 Draft November 2015

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Biological Evaluation

Yeager, M.M., D.S. Cherry, and R.J. Neves. 1994. Feeding and burrowing behaviors of juvenile rainbow mussels Villosa iris (Bivalvia:Unoinidae). Journal of the North American Benthological Society 13: 217-222.

Yokley, P., Jr. 1972. Freshwater mussel ecology, Kentucky Lake, Tennessee. Unpublished report submitted to the Tennessee Game and Fish Commission. 133 pp.

Voss, E. G., & Reznicek, A. A. (2012). Field Manual of Michigan Flora. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

108 Draft November 2015