20181192_Meeting Minutes_20110225

FW: Final 012011 TEAC Minutes Page 1 of 2
FW: Final 012011 TEAC Minutes
Wrenn, Brian
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 11:11 AM
To: Carrillo, Sonia
Attachments: 2011-2-23-Final Jan20 TEAC-l.pdf (53 KB)
Please scan and file the attached email and documents. thanks
Brian Wrenn
Transportation Permitting Unit, Supervisor
NC Division of Water Quality
[e-mail]
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27107-2241
336-771-4952 (Winston-Salem no
336-771-4631 (Fax)
or
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
919-807-6432
919-807-6494 (Fax)
-----Original Message-----
From: Kiersten Giugno [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 1:08 PM
To: [e-mail]; Gamber, Anne D; Johnson, Benjetta L; Wrenn, Brian; Ellis,
Bruce 0; Dagnino, Carla S; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
Chang, David S; Riffey, Deanna; Sykes, Dewayne L; Hall, Dolores;
[e-mail]; Lusk, Elizabeth L; [e-mail];
[e-mail]',, [e-mail]; Huang, Herman; Hart, Kevin;
[e-mail]; Brooks, Lonnie I; Clawson, Marshall W; Pair, Missy; Sandbeck,
Peter; Beauregard, Rachelle; Gledhill-earley, Renee; Roach, Renee B;
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; Gurganus, Stephen J (Steve)
- HEU; Houser, Anthony A; Wilson, Travis W.; Bowman, John W; [e-mail];
Barrett, William A
Cc: Keener, Donna; Harris, Jennifer; Burris, John D; Giugno, Kiersten R; Kristin
Maseman; Roy Bruce; Franklin, Spencer T; Dewitt, Steve
Subject: Final 012011 TEAC Minutes
All, attached is the final version of the minutes for the January 20, 2011 TEAC
meeting. These minutes incorporate all comments received on the draft version.
Also available for download on Constructware are the following documents:
1) Upgrade Existing LOS Figures (per action item from November 2010 TEAC meeting)
2) Hybrid LOS Figures (per action item from November 2010 TEAC meeting)
3) 2035 Build Toll Capacity Analysis (Red Corridor) Figures (per action item from
January 2011 TEAC meeting.
4) Southeast Extension Traffic Methodology Memo (per action item from January 2011
TEAC meeting)
Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns regarding these
documents.
https://mail.nc.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAADMSzLcd9 W 2TJHI4%2bm... 2/25/2011
FW: Final 012011 TEAC Minutes
Kiersten Giugno
Senior Transportation Planner
NCTA General Engineering Consultant
5400 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 400
Raleigh, NC 27612
Tel [phone]
Page 2 of 2
hnps://mail.nc.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAADMSzLcd9 W2TJH14%2bm... 2/25/2011
NORTH CAROLIIN'A,
' Turnpike A th®rity
l
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination
(TEAL) Meeting
MEETING MINUTES
Date: January 20, 2011
1:00 p.m. To 4:00 p.m.
NCTA Board Room
Project: STIP R-2721, R-2828, and R-2929-Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension
(Raleigh Outer Loop)
Triangle Expressway Extension Spotlight:
Attendees:
George Hoops, FHWA (via telephone)
Christopher Militscher, USEPA
Eric Alsmeyer, USACE
Gary Jordan, USFWS
Brian Wrenn, NCDWQ
Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Delores Hall, OSA (via telephone)
Doug Taylor, NCDOT-Roadway Design Unit
Michael Bright, NCDOT-Utilities
Herman Huang, NCDOT-PDEA HEU
Ronnie Williams, Mayor-Town of Garner
Hardin Watkins, Town of Garner
Chris Lukasina, CAMPO
David Joyner, NCTA
Steve DeWitt, NCTA
Jennifer Harris, NCTA
Kiersten Giugno, HNTB
Spencer Franklin, HNTB
John Burris, HNTB
Kevin Markham, ESI
Roy Bruce, Lochner
Kristin Maseman, Lochner
Doug Wheatley, Lochner
Steve Browder. Lochner
Jay Bissett, Mulkey
Wendee Smith, Mulkey
Tim Savidge, Catena Group
Russ Owen, Garner resident
Jeff Swain, Garner resident
Presentation Materials (Posted on TEAC website):
• Agenda
• Handout 7 - Public Involvement - November 2010 through January 2011
• Handout 8 - Red and Pink Corridor Elimination
• Red and Pink Corridor Elimination slideshow
Purpose:
Continue discussion of alternatives
General Discussion:
The following information was discussed at the meeting:
• Summary of Public Involvement (Handout 7): Lochner presented the summary of public
involvement activities between November 2010 and the present. Public involvement has
centered around two main issues. The first was presenting and receiving comments on the Tan
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting - 01/20/11
Page 2 of 6
corridor, an alternative added in the Phase II area to minimize impacts to the Randleigh Farm
property and to avoid three large communications towers. NCTA held a Public Informational
Meeting in December to solicit input on the Tan and Green corridors. NCTA has received nearly
300 public comments opposing the Tan corridor, mostly due to neighborhood impacts. Local
residents have also submitted a petition opposing the Tan corridor, signed by over 700 people.
On December 8, 2010, the Wake County Board of Commissioners sent a letter to NCTA asking
that NCTA remove the Tan corridor from consideration. On January 5, 2011, the Raleigh City
Council voted to send a letter asking NCTA to remove the Tan corridor from further consideration
and to seek other alternative routes.
The second main issue in recent public involvement has been strong opposition to the Red and
Pink corridors. In November, over 1,000 local residents attended a public meeting organized by
Town of Garner to discuss the Red corridor. Attendees overwhelmingly expressed strong
opposition to the Red corridor. In December, several hundred local residents attended a public
meeting organized by the Springfield Baptist Church to address potential impacts of the Red and
Pink corridors to church-owned property. Garner residents have submitted a petition signed by
356 people opposing the Red corridor. Springfield Baptist Church has submitted a petition signed
by 1,086 people, and letters from 970 individuals, opposing the Red and Pink corridors. To date,
NCTA has also received several hundred e-mail comments, letters, and telephone hotline
comments opposing the Red corridor and several hundred comments opposing the Pink corridor.
Garner's State Legislative delegation also submitted a letter asking for the Red and Pink corridors
to be eliminated.
Lochner stated that the Town of Garner asked NCTA to look at another potential corridor that
would follow 1-40 north from the Orange protected corridor, but would turn eastward south of
White Oak Road to avoid the Greenfield South Business Park and Springfield Baptist Church
area. This was shown on maps as the Forest Green corridor. This corridor has not yet been
presented to the general public.
• Draft Alternatives Report: Lochner explained that the Draft Alternatives Report is still being
reviewed but is anticipated to be distributed to the agencies within a month.
Corridor Elimination Discussion (Handout 8): Lochner presented a slideshow summarizing the
development and evaluation of project alternatives to date. Following the November TEAC
meeting, the Blue, Purple and Yellow corridors were eliminated from further study, the Pink
corridor was modified to connect to the Orange protected corridor, and the Tan and 1-40 corridors
were added. Since then, the Forest Green corridor was developed, as described in the previous
discussion. USAGE asked what advantage the Forest Green corridor would provide over the
Green corridor and NCTA explained that it would create an alignment following a portion of 1-40
but avoiding the Greenfield South Business Park area farther north. It would also shift a portion
of the 1-40 interchange area out of the immediate vicinity of Swift Creek. USFWS stated that the
Forest Green would not offer an avoidance or minimization option for Dwarf wedgemussel
impacts. ,
Catena provided a brief summary of recent Dwarf wedgemussel surveys. Biologists found three
mussel species in Swift Creek between Lake Benson and Lake Wheeler, but none were rare
species. Downstream of Lake Benson, biologists have found five Dwarf wedgemussel
individuals. USFWS stressed that this number is representative and does not mean there are
only five Dwarf wedgemussel individuals in this part of Swift Creek. In 2007 surveys in this area,
biologists found seven individuals; in 2001 and 2002, they found one or two individuals. This
suggests that the species is still reproducing in this part of Swift Creek, but does not provide
enough information to make conclusions about long-term viability of the species.
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting - 01/20/11
Page 3 of 6
Only one mussel was found in Mahler's Creek, a tributary of Swift Creek downstream of Lake
Benson, but it was not a rare species. Current conditions in Mahler's Creek make it poor quality
habitat for the Dwarf wedgemussel.
General natural resource habitat quality in Swift Creek between Lake Benson and Lake Wheeler
is quite good; the area is largely forested.
Lochner then showed the Town of Garner's "Visual Letter to the North Carolina Turnpike
Authority", a roughly 15-minute video explaining local officials' and residents' concerns about the
Red corridor. After the video, Lochner summarized the key disadvantages of the Red corridor
and Pink corridor and explained the reasons why NCTA recommends eliminating these two
corridors as they are not reasonable corridor for detailed study in the EIS.
USFWS stated that it has no legal authority to tell NCTA not to eliminate the Red or Pink
corridors. However, USFWS could not go on record agreeing with the Orange protected corridor
as the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternatives (LEDPA) based on the
information currently available. The recovery plan for the Dwarf wedgemussel, adopted in the
early 1990s, requires a viable population of the species in Swift Creek. USFWS has to make
judgments based on this goal. Unless we uncover information demonstrating that Swift Creek
does not contain viable habitat that will promote the long-term survival of the species, the
agency's decisions must err on the side of protecting the species and its habitat. This lack of
information could push the USFWS towards a Jeopardy Opinion. It is imperative that the right
questions be identified and answers found.
USFWS has applied for federal funding to do detailed studies of Dwarf wedgemussel viability in
Swift Creek. These studies would include: 1) provide an accounting (compliance/success) of
existing conservation measures in the Swift Creek watershed; 2) evaluate the effectiveness of
existing conservation measures; 3) determine habitat and mussel population viability in Swift
Creek. If the application for funding is denied, then the USFWS may ask the NCTA to fund the
studies. NCTA is interested in further discussions with USFWS about these studies
If the Dwarf wedgemussel population is found not to be viable, but habitat is found to be viable,
USFWS would consider captive propagation as a mitigation technique. The technology for this
has already been developed at Virginia Tech.
USAGE asked whether any monitoring has been done on the effectiveness of Dwarf
wedgemussel impact mitigation for the Clayton Bypass project. USFWS replied that it was not
aware of any recent monitoring efforts, although Johnston County did do some monitoring in the
past.
USAGE asked whether USFWS would need to wait until Section 7 consultation is complete to be
able to support the protected corridor as the project LEDPA. USFWS replied that since the
project is not going through the merger process, it does not have to provide concurrence on
LEDPA. USFWS also stated that the Section 7 process can't be completed until after a LEDPA is
selected. NCTA remarked that on the Monroe Bypass project, it selected a tentative LEDPA to
be finalized pending the conclusion of Section 7 consultation.
USEPA remarked that much of the analysis presented today would be the kind of information that
would typically be included in the Draft EIS and that typically, agencies wouldn't be asked to
consider elimination of all but one alternative until the Draft EIS is published. USEPA also
pointed out that it could be problematic from a 404 Permit standpoint to eliminate the Red corridor
prior to preparing the Draft EIS since it would have lower wetlands impacts than the protected
corridor. USEPA stressed that it would have concerns about NEPA compliance if the Red
corridor is eliminated at this point.
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting - 01/20/11
Page 4 of 6
NCTA explained that, due to its impacts and lack of public support, construction of the project in
the Red corridor would have extreme difficulty being funded and likely never be built. NCTA also
stressed that the community and economic impacts of waiting until 2012 to eliminate the Red
corridor are highly significant.
USACE stated that it is concerned about eliminating the Red corridor at this point because it has
the smallest amount of wetland and stream impacts. It could be difficult to issue a 404 Permit for
the project knowing that this alternative was eliminated before it could be studied in detail for
inclusion in the Draft EIS.
USEPA emphasized the need for stormwater controls at each crossing of Swift Creek (Red and
Orange) to avoid potential contamination by a hazardous spill. This is an issue for water quality
related the critical watershed area along the Red corridor and related to endangered species
along the Orange corridor.
NCTA asked whether USACE would oppose elimination of the Pink corridor, too. USACE
explained that it might not oppose eliminating it if the Red corridor remained under consideration.
USFWS stressed that federal agencies must fully comply with all applicable laws, statutes,
policies, procedures, etc., and are under constant risk of being sued for not doing so.
There was some discussion about whether there may be other alternatives in the project study
area that would meet the needs of NEPA while avoiding such major community impacts. The
project team has not been able to identify any other alternatives that would avoid these impacts
and despite extensive community involvement, there have been no suggestions from the public
for new alternatives. Agency representatives were asked if they knew of any other potential
alternatives NCTA should consider, but no such alternatives were.suggested. It is possible that
the Improve Existing Alternative, which would widen 1-40, I-440 and US 64/US 264 Bypass up to
twelve lanes, could be reintroduced into consideration. It was eliminated at the November TEAC
meeting because of concerns about its feasibility and its ability to meet the project's traffic needs.
USFWS mentioned that it is more concerned with the indirect and cumulative effects of the
project on loss of habitat than on direct impacts on the Dwarf wedgemussel.
NCDWQ stated that in the past, agencies have accepted letters of commitment as proof that
agreed-upon mitigation strategies will be implemented. NCDWQ now requires stronger proof
through enactment of local ordinances.
NCDWQ also questioned whether there was any relative advantage to the new Forest Green
corridor. Lochner explained that this option would shift a portion of the 1-40 interchange out of the
Swift Creek area. USFWS did not feel that this shift would offer much advantage from a habitat
impact standpoint. Each agency representative agreed that the Forest Green corridor and the I-
40 corridor, which would connect the protected corridor to the Red corridor, should be eliminated
from further consideration.
USACE requested a detailed explanation of the how the traffic analysis information shown in
Handout 8 (comparing traffic volumes on project segments along the Red or Pink corridors and
the protected corridor) was derived. There was also interest in more information about impacts of
various alternatives on the existing roadway network. NCTA will provide this information.
As long as another option for minimizing Dwarf wedgemussel impacts is studied in detail, the
agencies could support elimination of the Pink corridor since it would require out of direction
travel, limiting it ability to meet the project's traffic needs.
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting,- 01/20/11
Page 5 of 6
Phase II (Eastern) Corridors: NCTA explained that in the time since the September public
informational meetings, it has learned of additional constraints in the Phase II (eastern) project
area. The project team has been exploring new and modified alternative alignments in this area.
Lochner reviewed these, describing the Tan corridor, Brown corridor and Teal corridor. The
Brown corridor would begin near the southern end of the Tan corridor, avoid Good Samaritan
Baptist Church (impacted by the Tan corridor), and follow the general alignment of Brownfield
Road, extending through sprayfields for a City of Raleigh water treatment plant and avoiding the
Preserve and Long Branch Farm neighborhood. The Teal corridor would connect the Green
corridor to the northern end of the Brown corridor.
USACE asked why the Tan corridor is still under consideration since the City of Raleigh has
asked that NCTA eliminate it. NCTA responded that Raleigh has asked NCTA to look at other
options besides the Tan corridor, but hasn't stated that the Green corridor should be selected.
There was some discussion about the three communications towers adjacent to the Green
corridor. One of the guying wires for one of these three towers is within the corridor. NCTA has
learned that the guying wire cannot be shifted without having to dismantle and relocate the tower.
It could cost $15 million to $20 million to move the tower and take at least five years to complete
permitting and construction prior to dismantling the current tower.
There was agency interest in further evaluation of the Brown corridor and elimination of the Tan
corridor. NCTA mentioned that if new corridors in the Phase II area, such as the Brown corridor,
are retained for further study, there will need to be public outreach to notify the community.
At the conclusion of the meeting Garner Mayor Ronnie Williams spoke about the enormous stress
the Garner community is under while it waits for the Red corridor to be eliminated.
Previous Action Items:
NCTA/Lochner will follow up with Delores Hall regarding Randleigh Farm property and adjacent
potential historic site. (Completed. NCDOT archaeologists have consulted with Dolores Hall;
NCDOT then provided information to NCTA/Lochneo
• Catena Group to survey Swift Creek above Lake Benson Dam and Mahler's Creek and review
existing survey data for White Oak Creek and Little Creek. They will coordinate scope, etc.
directly with Kevin Markham. (Completed)
• Lochner will eliminate the following corridors: blue, purple, yellow, grey, and options west of NC
55 Bypass (white). (Completed)
• NCTA will prepare a press release to publicize corridor eliminations; Lochner will develop an
accompanying email distribution list. (Completed)
• Lochner will explore the following corridor modifications/additions: orange-to-pink; orange-to
widen 1-40 (to 10 lanes)-to red. Lochner will prepare basic impacts information and summarize
major constraints. (Completed)
• NCTA will make traffic analysis for improve existing and hybrid options available to TEAC
members. (Completed)
• NCTA/Lochner will complete Draft Alternatives Development and Analysis Report ASAP (in
progress).
New Action Items:
• NCTA/Lochner will consider eliminating the Red and Tan corridors
• NCTA/Lochner will eliminate the Forest Green and Pink corridors
• NCTA will meet with USFWS and NCWRC to discuss Dwarf wedgemussel study needs and
approach to Section 7 consultation.
• HNTB will prepare more detailed explanation of traffic impacts of Red corridor, including effects
on existing roadway network.
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting - 01/20/11
Page 6 of 6
• NCTA/Lochner will continue to develop corridor options for Phase II of the project for future
discussion at a TEAC meeting
• NCTA/Lochner will distribute Draft Alternatives Development and Analysis Report ASAP.
Resolutions:
• None.
Next Steps:
• Complete Draft Alternatives Development and Analysis Report and circulate for agency review
and comment.
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting - 01/20/11
FW: USFWS Letter Re: NCTA Southeast Extension
FW: USFWS Letter Re: NCTA Southeast Extension
Wrenn, Brian
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 10:47 AM
To: Carrillo, Sonia '
Attachments: Harris Re mussel_022411.pdf (39 KB) ; USFWS Re mussel_021711.pdf (550 KB)
Sonia,
Please scan and file the attached email and documents. Thanks.
B
Brian Wrenn
Transportation Permitting Unit, Supervisor
NC Division of Water Quality
[e-mail]
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27107-2241
336-771-4952 (Winston-Salem no.)
336-771-4631(Fax)
or
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
919-807-6432
919-807-6494(Fax)
Page 1 of 2
n - aTz?
a - a-Z?
From: Giugno, Kiersten R
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 20112:33 PM
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Wrenn, Brian; Wilson, Travis W.; [e-mail];
Nichols, Rob B.; Ratcliffe, Judith
Cc: Harris, Jennifer
Subject: USFWS Letter Re: NCTA Southeast Extension
For your records, attached is a letter from NCTA in response to USFWS letter, dated February 17, 2011 (in which you all
were copied) regarding the Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension Project. If you have any questions regarding this
matter, please feel free to contact me.
Thank you,
Kiersten R. Giugno
Senior Transportation Planner
NCTA General Engineering Consultant
5400 Glenwood Ave., Suite 400
Raleigh, NC 27612
1578 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1578
Tel [phone]
hnps://mail.ne.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAADMSzLcd9 W2TJHI4n/o2bm... 2/25/2011
FW: USFWS Letter Re: NCTA Southeast Extension
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
Page 2 of 2
https://mail.nc. gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAADMSzLcd9 W 2TJHI4%2bm... 2/25/2011

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TtRNPIKE AvTHoRITY
BEVERLY E. PERDUE 1578 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, N.C. 27699-1578 EUGENE A. CONTI, JR.
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
February 24, 2011
Mr. Pete Benjamin, Field Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Dear Mr. Benjamin:
This letter acknowledges receipt of the letter dated February 17, 2011, prepared by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) regarding the Southern and Eastern Wake Expressway, currently referred to as
the Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension (STIP Numbers R-2721, R-2828, and R-2929).
We have reviewed the letter and understand the Service's concerns regarding potentially adverse effects
of the project on the federally endangered dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) within the Swift
Creek watershed (Neuse River basin). We understand that a Section 7 consultation is expected to be
initiated for this project by the Federal Highway Administration (FH WA), which will require the
preparation and submittal of a Biological Assessment, which in turn will be used by the Service to prepare
and issue a Biological Opinion. We further understand that the Service believes that additional data
developed and/or acquired to determine and support the Environmental Baseline of the species within this
watershed would expedite the Section 7 consultation and increase the probability of arriving at a sound
Biological Opinion for this species.
The North Carolina Turnpike Authority is willing to consider the Service's request for funding the
additional studies recommended within the Swift Creek watershed. We look forward to meeting with the
Service on March 14 to discuss these additional studies for dwarf wedgemussel, as well as discuss how
the anticipated Section 7 consultation for this project will be affected by the presence within the
watershed of other aquatic species that have been recently petitioned for listing as threatened or
endangered.
Sincerely,

Jennifer Harris, P.E.
Director of Planning and Environmental Studies
cc: Mr. George Hoops, P.E., FHWA-Major Projects Engineer
Mr. Steve DeWitt, P.E., NCTA Chief Engineer
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS, Raleigh, NC
NORTH CAROLINA TURNPIKE AUTHORITY
TELEPHONE: [phone] FAX: [phone]
p4?gN OF JM
F
w y?
O p
p0
bgRC 3 10
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
February 17, 2011
- 5
F E B 2 1 2011
Steven D. Dewitt, P.E.
North Carolina Turnpike Authority
1578 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1578
Dear Mr. Dewitt:
This letter is in regard to the Southern and Eastern Wake Expressway (TIP Nos. R-2721, R-2828,
and R-2829). As you know, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has been very involved
in this project through the Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination meetings. At these
meetings, the Service has stated its concern regarding the likely adverse effects of the project on
the federally endangered.dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) within the Swift Creek
watershed (Meuse River basin)Sectmon.7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires
that all federal aci16:n agencies (or them designated non federal representatives), in consultation
with. the.. Service, insure that any action federally authorizedfimded,.or oarried;out by such
agencies is not likely to jeopardize the continued 'existence of any federally threatened or
endangered species. We anticipateghat a.formal Section.7 consultation will be required. The
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), as.the lead federal action agency, must initiate formal
Section 7 consultation by submitting to the Service an initiation package which includes a
Biological Assessment (BA). In return, the Service will conduct an analysis to determine if the
project will jeopardize the continued existence of the dwarf wedgemussel and issue a Biological
Opinion (BO). Given the fact that the 1993 Dwarf Wedgemussel Recovery Plan requires a
viable population in Swift Creek in order to recover the species, maintenance of a sustainable
dwarf wedgemussel population in the post-project Swift Creek watershed is vitally important.
We cannot understate the significance of this issue..
In addition to the normal information needs in developing the BA,,and BO (e.g. fully describing
and analyzing the direct, indirect and cumulative effects to the species), the Service must
determine the Environmental Baseline of the species. This section of the BO is an analysis of the
effects of past and ongoing human and natural factors leading to the current status of the species,
its habitat, and ecosystem within the action area. The Service believes there is a significant lack
of information for this critical component of the; BO, which will likely hamper our analysis.
L'
The ESA requires that the. action agency provide the best scientific and commercial data
ayazlableconcemmg the compact of the proposed project on the fisted species. Although ,
sigmScant mussel smmrvey data emusts, the Service believes WaY more holistic data regardiu'g. .
historical trends and.ongoing alterations ofhabitaf, water c]uahty, hydrograph, watershed; and
land use are either lacking or not readily available to the Service. We believe that if additional
data and information were developed and/or acquired, the Section 7 consultation will be
expedited, and the probability of arriving at sound and accurate conclusions increases. In lieu of
filling these data gaps, the Service will develop the BO with available information, but giving the
benefit of any doubts to the species.
In order to ensure that issues related to data gathering and information availability and analysis
do not impede the consultation process, the Service is requesting that the North Carolina
Turnpike Authority (NCTA) and/or the FHWA fund an additional study within the Swift Creek
watershed. This additional information would greatly assist in the development of the
environmental baseline, effects analysis, jeopardy analysis, incidental take statement (if a no
jeopardy opinion) and reasonable and prudent measures (if a no jeopardy opinion). We envision
a three part study which focuses on the Swift Creek watershed from the Lake Benson dam
downstream to its confluence with the Neuse River, but may include relevant data from upstream
of the Lake Benson dam if needed (e.g. to fully evaluate stressors).
The study components include:
1. Provide an accounting (compliance/success) of existing conservation measures in the
lower Swift Creek watershed. This would primarily be a "desktop" evaluation which
documents conservation/mitigation measures adopted for past projects and following up
to see if the measures were implemented and enforced. It would also document all other
environmental protections emplaced through legislation and local ordinances.
2. Evaluate the effectiveness of existing conservation measures and environmental
protections, with regard to the dwarf wedgemussel and other rare aquatic species. This
portion of the study could incorporate a modified version of an existing local watershed
planning process developed by the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program. It
includes the following phases:
a. Watershed characterization
i. Review existing watershed data
ii. Identify data gaps
iii. Identify preliminary stressors
b. Detailed assessment and modeling
i. Conduct water quality monitoring and field assessments based upon
identified data gaps
ii. GIS data development
iii. Stakeholder outreach
c. Watershed management plan and project atlas
i. Develop watershed recommendations to address identified stressors
(projects, planning and zoning recommendations, etc.)
ii. Develop project atlas that prioritizes projects based upon degree of
functional improvement and project feasibility
3. Determine mussel population and habitat viability. This would determine if the dwarf
wedgemussel population contains a sufficient number of reproducing adults to maintain
genetic variability and annual recruitment adequate to maintain a stable population. This
would also determine if aquatic habitat [both physical (e.g. substrate, hydrograph) and
chemical] is currently sufficient to support dwarf wedgemussels. It would determine
whether the conditions are stable, declining, or improving by assessing historic habitat
trends and projecting into the future what the habitat quality is likely to be (given future
development pressures in the watershed).
The proposed study will require both qualitative and quantitative data collection, be part field-
based and part academic in nature, involve multiple professional disciplines, and should lead to
logically defensible conclusions. Although best professional judgment maybe a component,
emphasis should be placed on acquiring and analyzing empirical data. The information derived
from this study can be used to enhance the quality of the BA and will be a critical component of
the BO.
If the Service issues a "No. Jeopardy" opinion, the action agency will be required to implement
Reasonable and Prudent Measures (RPM) in order to minimize the level of take of the species.
The information developed from the proposed study will help develop the RPM and the Terms
and Conditions for implementing them. Depending upon the information and conclusions
obtained, one possible RPM may involve captive propagation and augmentation/reintroduction
of the species within the Swift Creek watershed. We will further address this issue if the study
conclusions support it.
In addition to the aforementioned proposed study, the Service recommends, that the NCTA and
FHWA begin planning for the development of the BA, with special emphasis on the indirect and
cumulative effects of the project. Please note that indirect effects and cumulative effects are
defined differently in the ESA than from the National Environmental Policy Act. Under the
ESA, indirect effects are defined as "those effects that are caused by or will result from the
proposed action and are later in time, but are still reasonably certain to occur." Though indirect
effects can take many forms, of greatest concern are road-induced secondary development and
infrastructure with the accompanying degradation of water quality and increased sedimentation.
Under the ESA, cumulative effects are defined as "those effects of future State or private
activities, not involving Federal activities, that are reasonably certain to occur within the action
area of the Federal action subject to consultation." Cumulative effects maybe difficult to
distinguish from indirect effects.
One additional consideration is that the Service has recently been petitioned to list several other
aquatic species which occur within the Swift Creek watershed as threatened or endangered.
Although the Service has not yet completed the process to determine whether the species warrant
federal protection, it is a real possibility that one or more of these species could be listed prior to
the construction of this project. If so, Section 7 consultation wouldbe required for any newly
listed species. This should be monitored closely and considered during the planning of this
project.
Again, the Service is requesting that the NCTA and/or FHWA fund the aforementioned study.
We understand that it is the action agency's prerogative to either provide for the additional study
or not; however, the Service believes it is in the best interest of all parties to conduct the study
and to initiate it as soon as possible in order to ensure timely completion of the consultation
process. We believe that developing the BO without the additional,information would be very
difficult and require us to give the benefit of a doubt to the conservation of the species. We
would likely have to make several assumptions, which may not be favorable to the NCTA and
FHWA.
We look forward to the scheduled March 14 meeting to discuss these issues. If you have any
questions regarding this letter, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at [phone] (Ext. 32).
Field Supervisor
cc: George Hoops, FHWA, Raleigh, NC
Eric Alsmeyer, USACE, Wake Forest, NC
Brian Wrenn, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Rob.Nichols, NCWRC, Garner, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
Judy Ratcliffe, NCNHP, Raleigh, NC