Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20191658 Ver 2_Hellbender Moratorium concerns_20200313Wanucha, Dave From: Beckwith, Loretta A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Loretta.A.Beckwith@usace.army.miI> Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 10:45 AM To: Wanucha, Dave Cc: Matthews, Monte K CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Jones, M Scott (Scott) CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Ellwanger, Claire F; Chambers, Marla J; Williams, Lori A Subject: [External] RE: Bridge 8 Ashe Co Hellbender Moratorium concerns CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to report.spam@nc.gov<maiIto: report.spam@nc.gov> Hi Dave, Thanks for the background information. I also talked to Steve K. earlier. For the overall issue - as I understand it, because the thought was that the Eastern Hellbender (Hellbender) would be federally listed, moratoria and/or survey requirements were considered during the planning process for a number of projects. NCDOT voluntarily agreed so that they wouldn't have to (1) start the planning process over once the Hellbender was federally listed, or (2) stop construction so that the lead federal agency could conduct consultation on the newly listed species. The USACE noted that NCDOT was voluntarily agreeing to these items and that the USACE was not requiring them to do so (i.e., because the Hellbender was not federally listed). Since that time, the USFWS has determined that the Hellbender will NOT be federally listed. For this project (Bridge 8 in Ashe County) - the USACE did not special condition the verification letter to require any survey (or similar activities) or moratorium for the Hellbender because NCDOT did not commit to it in the PCN/project description, it is not federally listed, and the USACE does not have an agreement with another agency for this species (as we do with the WRC for trout). If it were federally listed, we would have either (1) determined "no effect", or (2) if "no effect" wasn't appropriate, we would have consulted with the USFWS in accordance with Section 7(a)(2). Because the Hellbender is not federally listed, the USACE considers NCDOT's compliance with a moratorium for this species, and/or a survey, as voluntary. The WRC did submit an email dated January 15, 2020, which noted: "For this Ashe Co. project, we appreciate the commitment to use Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds, which will provide some protection for the Eastern Hellbender that occur in the project vicinity. Rock lifting and other disturbance of the river bottom should be avoided during the hellbender moratorium of August 15 to November 15 to provide protection during the nesting season. No trout moratorium is recommended. We request that NCDOT coordinate with us regarding the construction schedule, especially the installation of the causeway, so surveys and possibly hellbender relocations can occur before causeway construction. We also appreciate any assistance NCDOT can provide in those efforts." We did condition the verification letter to require Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds because (1) it is a recommendation from the WRC (under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act) that is within our area of jurisdiction and (2) NCDOT committed to this in the PCN/project description. However, because the Hellbender is not federally listed, NCDOT did not voluntarily commit to the moratorium or notification in the PCN/description of work, and the USACE does not have an agreement with another agency for this species, we did not condition the verification letter re the above referenced moratorium, nor did we condition the verification letter regarding coordinating the construction schedule with WRC for the same reason. While we always encourage permittees to avoid or reduce impacts to species, we cannot require them to (i.e., special condition) under our regulations unless certain circumstances are present - e.g., the subject species is federally listed and there may be an effect to that species and consultation with the USFWS results in certain conditions; federally designated critical habitat would be affected and consultation with the USFWS results in certain conditions; we have an agreement with an agency, such as the WRC, re certain species (e.g., trout); the permittee commits in the PCN to conduct work a specific way or in a specific manner; etc. I haven't spoken to them directly, but I'm under the impression that the Division would be happy to coordinate their construction schedule with WRC so that certain activities, such as relocations, can occur, assuming that WRC can make itself available, but that will have to be worked out without the USACE. Hopefully what I've written above makes sense. Just let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Lori Lori Beckwith Regulatory Project Manager U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District Asheville Regulatory Field Office 828-271-7980, ext. 4223 -----Original Message ----- From: Wanucha, Dave <dave.wanucha@ncdenr.gov> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2020 12:47 PM To: Beckwith, Loretta A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Loretta.A.Beckwith@usace.army.mil>; Ellwanger, Claire <claire_ellwanger@fws.gov>; Chambers, Marla J <marla.chambers@ncwildlife.org>; Williams, Lori A <Lori.Williams@ncwildlife.org> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Bridge 8 Ashe Co Hellbender Moratorium concerns Hey Lori, We are honoring WRC's request for a Hellbender moratorium on this bridge project (see attached). However, I am told that DOT does not intend to honor it and plans to elevate above Phi Harris. Some background: WRC, FWS and Corps worked together on a bridge project over the Little R. in Alleghany Co. (Bridge 21) where Hellbenders occurred and agreed to allow work within the moratorium as long as surveys for search and relocation were conducted prior to stream disturbances. Steve K. was involved with that one (Feb 2019). All was going well until it stormed, raising river levels, which prevented search and relocation efforts. DOT could not postpone operations any longer so all agreed they could proceed. I believe this was also during the timeframe that the Hellbender was under consideration for endangered or threatened status. So I suppose if push comes to shove, we may settle for a similar agreement with this bridge. Any thoughts? Marla, Lori and Claire, Do you all have any concerns with proceeding with this one as we did per the Bridge project in Alleghany Co over the Little River? Thanks for your help on this one. Dave W. Division of Water Resources 401 & Buffer Transportation Permitting NC Department of Envirionmental Quality 336-776-9703 office 336-403-5655 mobile Dave.Wanucha@ncdenr.gov NC DEQ Winston Salem Regional Office 450 West Hanes Mill Road, Suite 300 Winston Salem, NC 27106