20160770 Ver 1_Bridge 33 part 2_20160812

Carpenter,Kristi
From:Wilson, Travis W.
Sent:Friday, August 12, 2016 3:17 PM
To:Jordan, Gary; Thomson, Nicole J
Cc:[e-mail]; Wrenn, Brian L; Carpenter,Kristi; Powers, Tim; Parker,
Jerry A
Subject:RE: Bridge No. 33 on SR 2359 (Huffines Mill Road) over Huffines Mill Creek,
Rockingham Co. WBS No. 17BP.7.R.64 - part 2
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
I will echo USFWS comments. I do not object to the use of a bottomless culvert at this location, but in my coordination
with our fisheries biologist WRC recommends conducting a new survey for Roanoke logperch. As Gary stated the
records of this species have increased significantly in the Dan River drainage since this crossing was last surveyed 8 years
ago.

Travis W. Wilson
Eastern Region Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program

NC Wildlife Resources Commission
1718 Hwy 56 West
Creedmoor, NC 27522
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

ncwildlife.org

From: Jordan, Gary \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 2:40 PM
To: Thomson, Nicole J <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; Wrenn, Brian L <[e-mail]>; Wilson, Travis W.
<[e-mail]>; Carpenter,Kristi <[e-mail]>; Powers, Tim
<[e-mail]>; Parker, Jerry A <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bridge No. 33 on SR 2359 (Huffines Mill Road) over Huffines Mill Creek, Rockingham Co. WBS No.
17BP.7.R.64 - part 2

Nicole,

I haven't seen the site, but based on the provided information, I don't have any objections for replacing the
bridge with a culvert. However, your Section 7 analysis needs some work. First of all, the 2008 aquatic survey
is now 8 years old. As a general rule of thumb, mussel and fish surveys are good for about 2 years. The
1

Roanoke logperch has significantly increased its range in the last few years in the Dan River system. Also
regarding listed animal species, if habitat is present but a survey does not observe the species on a given day,
the appropriate biological conclusion would be May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect. This would
require Section 7 concurrence. For animal species, a "No Effect" conclusion is not appropriate if suitable
habitat is present. The animal may not have been in the study area the day of the survey or the surveyors may
have missed it. For plants, a "No Effect" is usually appropriate if a survey does not turn up the species (there
are some exceptions) because plants are not mobile like an animal species.

Gary Jordan

Fish and Wildlife Biologist
Liaison to NCDOT
US Fish and Wildlife Service

P.O. Box 33726

Raleigh, NC 27636-3726

Phone: [phone] x.32
Email: [e-mail]

On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Thomson, Nicole J <[e-mail]> wrote:

Nicole J. Thomson

Division Environmental Supervisor Assistant

Division Environmental Office

919-754-7806 Mobile

[e-mail]

PO Box 14996

Greensboro, NC 27415-4996

Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
2

North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Hemphill, Jeffrey L" <[e-mail]>
To: "Parker, Jerry A" <[e-mail]>
Cc: "Gray, Jared S" <[e-mail]>, "Powers, Tim" <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 17:09:14 +0000
Subject: RE: Bridge 33 Huffines Mill Rd Rockingham County
All
NES conducted a survey for smooth coneflower at Bridge 33 on Huffines Mill Road in Rockingham County on
August 2, 2016. Marginal roadside habitat exists on all four quadrants of the bridge but no specimens were
found. A known population of smooth coneflower at Penny’s Bend in Durham County was visited prior to the
survey. This population was past bloom but the deadheads and petals were clearly distinguishable for
identification purposes. The biological conclusion for smooth coneflower at the Bridge 33 site is No Effect;
Habitat Present.
Jeff

From: Parker, Jerry A
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2016 8:38 AM
To: Hemphill, Jeffrey L
Cc: Gray, Jared S; Powers, Tim

Subject: Bridge 33 Huffines Mill Rd Rockingham County

Jeff,

Thank you and Jared for going out to survey the Bridge 33 site on such short notice. I received Jared’s message
stating that smooth coneflower was not present at the site. Would you please send me a written statement to
that effect that I can place in our files. Thanks,
3

Jerry Parker

Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

4