20081757 Ver 1_Complete File_20081218

40

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
May 12, 2006
Tracy Walter
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1583 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1583
Dear Mr. Walter:
o?
??? v
IV4>PP 2
9?os ???o& ?DO6 !.."/
1
6R
This letter regards the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 45 on SR 1600 over Fishing Creek in
Warren County (TIP No. B-3921). The following is provided in accordance with section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
On January 24, 2005 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) concurred with the North
Carolina Department of Transportation's (NCDOT) determination that the proposed project may
affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the federally endangered dwarf wedgemussel
(Alasmidonta heterodon) and Tar River spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana). That concurrence
was based, in part, on NCDOT's commitment to implement several conservation measures.
Subsequently, NCDOT requested that the Service extend that concurrence to a new preferred
alternative that was not previously considered. The Service did extend the concurrence to that
new alternative in a letter dated February 17, 2006.
During May 8 and 10, 2006 telephone conversations between yourself and Service biologist
Gary Jordan, we became aware of new information regarding this project. Therefore, the Service
rescinds its previous concurrence that the proposed project may affect, biut is not likely to
adversely affect the dwarf wedgemussel and Tar River spinymussel. We rescind the concurrence
for the following reasons:.
• NCDOT stated that the Federal Highway Administration is not comfortable with one or
more of the previously agreed-upon conservation measures.
• NCDOT does not yet have advanced design information for its new preferred alternative.
• The project let date has been pushed out to at least April 2008 and possibly to 2011, thus
requiring updated information to be considered closer to the actual construction time.
The Service recommends that section 7 be revisited after additional design information is
available and, in the case that the let date is pushed out to 2011, closer in time to the future let
date. Based on current information, we do not foresee the need for a formal section 7
consultation, but some conservation measures will be required in order for the Service to concur
with a "may affect, not likely to adversely affect" determination. We are willing to renegotiate
the conservation measures, but we ask that NCDOT conduct a thorough review of proposed
conservation measures prior to agreeing to a final set of measures. Of late, there have been a

number of projects where the Service provided section 7 concurrence, only to have to revisit the
issue because of later objections from NCDOT staff who did not have the opportunity to review
the conservation measures.
The mussel survey data used to review B-3921 dates to June 11, 2002. Normally this office
considers a mussel survey valid for two years. As discussed at an on-site meeting on April 28,
2004, NCDOT has stated its reluctance to conduct another mussel survey at this location due to
human health concerns associated with surveying potentially contaminated water from an
upstream water treatment plant. While this is a valid concern, we ask that NCDOT reassess this
issue at a later date to determine whether this safety concern is still valid. If it is possible to
conduct a new survey without endangering the health of the survey crew, we request that a new
survey be conducted at the project site.
If you have any questions regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at (919) 856-
4520 (Ext. 32).
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, USACE, Raleigh, NC
R;J,,55 RyhmfHrmTMsy, NCDWQ', Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
John Sullivan, FHwA, Raleigh, NC
Deanna Riffey, NCDOT - NEU, Raleigh, NC (fax copy)
PQ`M NT O United States Department of the Interior
?Q
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
` Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
4q
February 17, 2006
Walter
Carolina Department of Transportation
,ct Development and Environmental Analysis
3 Mail Service Center
Aeigh, North Carolina 27699-1583
)ear Mr. Walter:
This letter is in response to your letter of February 8, 2006 regarding the proposed replacement of
Bridge No. 45 on SR 1600 over Fishing Creek in Warren County (TIP No. B-3921): These
comments are provided in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973,
as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
On January 24, 2005 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) concurred with the North Carolina
Department of Transportation's determination that the proposed project may affect, but is not likely
to adversely affect the federally endangered dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) and Tar
spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana). That concurrence was based on a preferred alternative from a
list of three possible alternatives. Your recent letter states that a new alternative has been developed,
which involves replacing the bridge on existing alignment with an off-site detour. Provided that all
previously agreed-to conservation measures are adhered to, the Service extends our previous
concurrence to include this new alternative. We believe that the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of
the ESA have been satisfied for these species. 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.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions regarding
our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at [phone] (Ext. 32).
Ecolo
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, USACE, Raleigh, NC
Nicole Thomson, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
John Sullivan. FHwA, Raleigh, NC
Services Supervisor
01
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726
January 24, 2005
Philip Harris, III, P.E.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1598
Dear Mr. Harris:
This letter is in response to your letter of January 5, 2005 which provided the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) with the biological determination of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) that the replacement of Bridge No. 45 on SR 1600 over Fishing Creek
in Warren County (TIP No. B-3921) may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the federally
endangered dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) and Tar spinymussel (Elliptio
steinstansana). These comments are provided in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
According to information previously provided, a mussel survey was conducted at the project site
on June 11, 2002. Neither of the federally listed species was found; however, the Tar
spinymussel has been found 2.4 miles downstream of Bridge No. 45.
During an informal on-site meeting held on April 28, 2004, several conservation measures were
discussed and agreed upon by all parties. In attendance at that meeting were Gary Jordan
(Service biologist), staff from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and several
staff from NCDOT. The conservation measures discussed at that meeting have been
incorporated into the project design and are stated in the Biological Evaluation (BE) included
with your letter. All parties also agreed that no additional mussel survey would be required as
long as no channel work occurred. This agreement was due to human health concerns associated
with surveying potentially contaminated water from an upstream waste water treatment plant.
Based on the previous mussel survey results and the commitment to the conservation measures
stated in the BE, the Service concurs with your determination that the proposed bridge
replacement may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the dwarf wedgemussel and Tar
spinymussel. We believe that the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied.
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
l'
4A
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.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions
regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at [phone] (Ext. 32).
Services Supervisor
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, USACE, Raleigh, NC
Nicole Thomson, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC