20021331 Ver 1_More Info Received_20020821

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
December 29, 1998
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-520
Attention: Ms. Stacy Baldwin, P.E.
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
)EE tk
Eua-?
Thank you for your letter of December 8, 1998, requesting information from the U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) for the purpose of evaluating the potential environmental impacts of the
following proposed bridge replacement projects:
'I1. B-3348, Hyde County, Bridge No. 54 on US 264 over Canal on Pamlico Sound;
2. B-3349, Hyde County, Bridge No. 32 on US 264 over Rose Bay Canal;
3. B-3442, Cumberland County, Bridge No. 224 on SR 1006 (Person Street) over Locks
Creek;
4. B-3443, Cumberland County, Bridge No. 219 on SR 1006 (Person Street) over the Cape
Fear River,
5. B-3445, Currituck County, Bridge No. 7 on NC 615 over northern canal between Back Bay
and Currituck Sound;
"`Ju
6. B-3524, Wake County, Bridge No. 259 on SR 1370 (Tryon Road) over Norfolk Southern
Railroad; and,
7. B-3537, Wayne County, Bridge No. 62 on NC 581 over the Little River.
This report provides scoping information and is provided in accordance with provisions of the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). This report also
serves as initial scoping comments to federal and state resource agencies for use in their
permitting and/or certification processes for these projects.
The mission of the Service is to provide leadership in the conservation, protection, and
enhancement of fish and wildlife, and their habitats, for the continuing benefit of all people. Due
to staffing limitations, we are unable to provide you with detailed site-specific comments at this
time. However, the following recommendations are provided to assist you in your planning
process and to facilitate a thorough and timely review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practical as outlined in Section 404 (b)(1) of the Clean Water Act Amendments
of 1977. In regard to avoidance and minimization of impacts, we recommend that proposed
highway projects be aligned along or adjacent to existing roadways, utility corridors, or previously
developed areas in order to minimize habitat fragmentation and encroachment. Areas exhibiting
high biodiversity or ecological value important to the watershed and/or region should be avoided.
Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use existing crossings and/or occur
on a structure wherever feasible. Where bridging is not feasible, culvert structures that maintain
natural water flows and hydraulic regimes without scouring, or impeding fish and wildlife passage,
should be employed. Highway shoulder and median widths should be reduced through wetland
areas. Roadway embankments and fill areas should be stabilized by using appropriate erosion
control devices and/or techniques. Wherever appropriate, construction in sensitive areas should
occur outside fish spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons.
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps of the appropriate 7.5 Minute Quadrangles for
each site should be consulted to determine if wetlands may be impacted by the respective projects.
However, while the NWI maps are useful for providing an overview of a given area, they should
not be relied upon in lieu of a detailed wetland delineation by trained personnel using an
acceptable wetland classification methodology.
We reserve the right to review any required federal or state permits that may be required for these
projects at the public notice stage. We may have no objection, provide recommendations for
modification of the project, or recommend denial. Therefore, it is important that resource agency
coordination occur early in the planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise
and minimize delays in project implementation:
In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the environmental documentation for each
project include the following in sufficient detail to facilitate a thorough review of the action:
A clearly defined purpose and need for each proposed project, including.a discussion of
the projects's independent utility,
2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered,
including the upgrading of existing bridges, new bridges on existing alignments, new
bridges on new alignments, and a "no action" alternative,
2
3. A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact areas that may be directly or indirectly affected;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U. S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted
by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, and/or draining. Acres of wetland impact should be
differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the '
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Wetland boundaries should be determined by using
the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps);
The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be
likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also
include the extent to which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to
natural resources, and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative adverse
effects;
6. Design features and/or construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize the fragmentation or direct loss of wildlife habitat value,
7. Design features, construction techniques, and/or any other mitigation measures which
would be employed at wetland crossings and stream channel relocations to avoid or
minimize impacts to waters of the United States; and,
8. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, we recommend that every effort be made to
identify compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a
detailed compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts.
Opportunities to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity, preferably via conservation
easement, should be explored at the outset.
The attached pages identify the federally-listed endangered, threatened, and candidate species that
are known to occur in the respective counties. Habitat requirements for any federally-listed
species that occur in the project impact areas should be compared with the available habitat at the
project site. If suitable habitat is present within the action area of the project, field surveys for the
species should be performed. Note that a listed species, the sensitive joint-vetch (Aeschynomene
virginica), is known to occur in the vicinity of bridges B-3348 and B-3349 in Hyde County.
Habitat for sensitive joint-vetch is a rare and specialized community known as a freshwater tidal
marsh. These communities are close enough to the coast to be influenced by tidal fluctuations,
yet far enough upstream to consist of fresh or only slightly brackish water.
Environmental documentation should include survey methodologies and results. In addition to
this guidance, the following information should be included in the document regarding protected
species:
A map and description of the specific area used in the analysis of direct, indirect, and
cumulative impacts;
2. A description of the biology and status of the listed species and the habitat of the species
that may be affected by the action, including the results of any onsite inspections;
3. An analysis of the "effects of the action" on the listed species and associated habitat
which includes consideration of
a. The environmental baseline which is an analysis of the effects of past and ongoing
human and natural factors leading to the current status of the species and its
habitat;
b. The impacts of past and present federal, state, and private activities in the project
area and cumulative impacts area;
C. The direct and indirect impacts of the proposed action. Indirect effects are those
that are caused by the proposed action and_are later in time, but are still
reasonably certain to occur;
d. The impacts of interrelated actions (those that are part of a larger action and
depend on the larger action for their justification) and interdependent actions
(those that have no independent utility apart from the action under consideration);
and,
The cumulative impacts of future state and private activities (not requiring federal
agency involvement) that will be considered as part of future Section 7
consultation;
4. A description of the manner in which the action may affect any listed species or
associated habitat including project proposals to reduce/eliminate adverse effects. Direct
mortality, injury, harassment, the loss of habitat, and/or the degradation of habitat are all
ways in which listed species may be adversely affected;
A summary of evaluation criteria to be used as a measure of potential effects. Criteria
may include post-project population size, long-term population viability, habitat quality,
and/or habitat quantity; and,
6. Based on evaluation criteria, a determination of whether the project is not likely to
adversely affect or may affect threatened and endangered species.
4

f
Candidate species are those plant and animal species for which the Service has sufficient
information on their biological status and threats to their survival to propose them as endangered
or threatened under the ESA. Although candidate species receive no statutory protection under
the ESA, Federal agencies are required to informally confer with the Service on actions likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of these species or that may destroy or modify proposed
critical habitat.
Federal species of concern (FSC) include those species for which the Service does not have
enough scientific information to support a listing proposal or species which do not warrant listing
at the present time. These species receive no statutory protection under the ESA, but could
become candidates in the future if additional scientific information becomes available indicating
that they are endangered or threatened. Formal listing places the species under the full protection
of the ESA, and necessitates a new survey if its status in the project area is unknown. Therefore,
it would be prudent for the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to avoid any
adverse impacts to candidate species or their habitat. The North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program should be contacted for information on species under state protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on `these projects. Please continue to advise
us during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding, these comments, please contact Tom
McCartney at 919-856-4520, ext. 32.
Sincerely,
?John M. He her
Ecological Services Supervisor
Enclosures
FWS/R4:TMcCartney:TM:12/28/98:919/856-4520 extension 32:\7-bridge.rep
cc:
Michael Bell, COE, Washington, NC
Eric Alsmeyer, COE, Raleigh, NC
Scott McLendon, COE, Wilmington, NC
David Cox, DNR, Creedmoor, NC
Cyndi Bell, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Nicholas Graf, FHWA, Raleigh, NC
Ted•Bisterfield, EPA, Atlanta, GA