U-3309A

n
United States Department of the I nteno
D CE
DEC, 6
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE f
Raleigh Field Once
Post Office Box 33726 ? UtlOS GefiGUA
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726 ?
UAU)Y SECTION
i
RECEIvIED
December 3, 2002
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe
Environmental Management Director
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
DEC 13 2002
EnVronmcnU, gc nc Bran
This letter is in response to your request for comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) on the potential environmental impacts of the proposed widening of SR 2028 to a four-
lane divided facility from Cornwallis Road to east of NC 147 in Durham County, North Carolina
(TIP No. U-3309A). These comments provide scoping information in accordance with
provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
Recent aerial photography of the land along SR 2028 in the project area shows a highly-
dissected, semi-forested environment with much commercial development. The areas
immediately adjacent to the existing roadsides consist of forest fragments. An unnamed tributary
to Northeast Creek runs roughly parallel to a portion of SR 2028 on the north side. It is unclear
as to whether this tributary would be impacted by the project, although it appears no crossings
will be required. The National Wetlands Inventory map for the Southeast Durham U.S.
Geological Survey Quadrangle indicates palustrine shrub/scrub and forested wetlands along this
tributary immediately adjacent to the north side of the existing road. However, while NWI maps
are useful for providing an overview of a given area, they should not be relied upon in lieu of a
detailed determination and delineation by trained personnel.
The Service recommends the following general conservation measures to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts to fish and wildlife resources:
1. The road widening should be designed in such a way as to avoid and minimize impacts to
the unnamed tributary of Northeast Creek and its associated wetlands. Highway shoulder
and median widths should be reduced through wetland areas;
2. If unavoidable wetland or stream impacts are proposed, every effort should be made to
identify compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a
detailed compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland and stream
impacts. Opportunities to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity via conservation
L
easements, land trusts or by other means should be explored at the outset;
3. Wherever appropriate, construction in sensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning
and migratory bird nesting seasons. In waterways that may serve as travel corridors for
fish, in-water work should be avoided during moratorium periods associated with
migration, spawning and sensitive pre-adult life stages;
4. Best Management Practices (BMP) for Protection of Surface Waters should be
implemented;
5. Impacts to upland forest should be avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
possible; and,
6. Activities within designated riparian buffers should be avoided or minimized.
There are three federally protected species in Durham County: the bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus), Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii) and smooth coneflower (Echinacea
laevigata). Although the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database does not
indicate any known occurrences of these species near the project vicinity, use of the NCNHP
data should not be substituted for actual field surveys if suitable habitat occurs near the project
site. Information about the habitats in which these species is often found is provided on our web
site, htth://en(l:uit,,,cred.fivs.,uov. All survey documentation must include survey methodologies
and results.
We reserve the right to review any federal permits that may be required for this project, at the
public notice stage. Therefore, it is important that resource agency coordination occur early in
the planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise and minimize delays in
project implementation. In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the
environmental documentation for this project include the following in sufficient detail to
facilitate a thorough review of the action:
1. A clearly defined and detailed purpose and need for the proposed project, supported by
tabular data, if available, and including a discussion of the project's independent utility;
2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered,
including the upgrading of existing roads and a "no action" alternative;
3. A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact area that may be directly or indirectly affected;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted
by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should
be differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Wetland boundaries should be determined by using
the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers;
5. The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be
likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also
include the extent to which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to
natural resources, and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative adverse
effects;
6. Design features and construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize the fragmentation or direct loss of wildlife habitat;
7. Design features, construction techniques, or any other mitigation measures which would
be employed at wetland crossings and stream channel relocations to avoid or
minimize impacts to waters of the United States; and,
8. If unavoidable wetland or stream impacts are proposed, project planning should include a
. detailed compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting the unavoidable impacts.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please continue to advise us
during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding our response, please contact Mr.
Gary Jordan at [phone] (Ext. 32).
Sincerely,
Garland B. Pardue, Ph.D.
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, USACE, Raleigh, NC
z-Jo1m Hennessy, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
David Cox, NCWRC, Northside, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC