HomeMy WebLinkAbout20160770 Ver 1_Bridge 33 part 2_20160811 (2)
Wrenn, Brian L
From:Jordan, Gary <gary_jordan@fws.gov>
Sent:Thursday, August 11, 2016 2:40 PM
To:Thomson, Nicole J
Cc:David.E.Bailey2@usace.army.mil; Wrenn, Brian L; Wilson, Travis W.; 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
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
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: 919-856-4520 x.32
Email: gary_jordan@fws.gov
On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Thomson, Nicole J <njthomson2@ncdot.gov> wrote:
Nicole J. Thomson
Division Environmental Supervisor Assistant
Division Environmental Office
919-754-7806 Mobile
Njthomson2@ncdot.gov
1
PO Box 14996
Greensboro, NC 27415-4996
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
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" <jhemphill@ncdot.gov>
To: "Parker, Jerry A" <jparker@ncdot.gov>
Cc: "Gray, Jared S" <jgray@ncdot.gov>, "Powers, Tim" <tpowers@ncdot.gov>
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
2
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,
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.
3