20221175 Ver 1_20220815_ltr_USFWS_NCDOT_Bridge780233_20220831

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh ES Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
August 15, 2022
Jerry Parker
NC Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 14996
Greensboro, North Carolina 27415-4996
Dear Mr. Parker:
U.S.
FISH & WILDL7 FE
SERVICE
� o=
This letter is in response to your letter of August 10, 2022 which provided the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) with the biological conclusion of the North Carolina Department of Transportation
that the geotechnical boring associated with the future removal of Bridge No. 233 on SR 1964 over
the Dan River in Rockingham County may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the federally
endangered Roanoke Logperch (Percina rex), federally endangered James Spinymussel (Parvaspina
collina), and the federally threatened Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni). The following response is
provided in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C.1531-1543).
According to the information provided, fish and mussel surveys were conducted at the project site on
June 21, 2022. The surveys extended from 400 meters downstream to 100 meters upstream of the
bridge crossing. One Roanoke Logperch was observed at the downstream extent of the survey. No
James Spinymussels or Atlantic Pigtoes were observed, and the common Eastern Elliptio (Elliptio
complanata) was the only native mussel species observed. Based on survey results and other
available information, the Service concurs with your conclusion that the proposed action may affect,
but is not likely to adversely affect the James Spinymussel and Atlantic Pigtoe. Although a Roanoke
Logperch was observed, due to the very limited scope of the action and the high mobility of the
species, the Service concurs with your conclusion that the proposed action may affect, but is not
likely to adversely affect the Roanoke Logperch.
We believe that the requirements of Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied for the
geotechnical boring action. It is understood that the future bridge removal will likely require a
separate formal Section 7 consultation. We remind you that obligations under Section 7 consultation
must be reconsidered if. (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect
listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered in this review; (2) this action is
subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; or (3) a new species is
listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected by this identified action. If you have any
questions regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
GARYDigitallysigned by GARYJORDAN
J O R D A N Date: 2022.08.11011:39:23-04'00'
for Pete Benjamin
Field Supervisor

Electronic copy:
David Bailey, USACE, Wake Forest, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Liz Workman, Three Oaks Engineering, Raleigh, NC
Jim Mason, Three Oaks Engineering, Raleigh, NC