20181192_WRC Comments_20110520

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commis
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DENR
FROM: Travis Wilson, Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: March 16, 2010
SUBJECT: Response to the start of study notification from the N. C. Turnpike
Authority regarding fish and wildlife concerns for the proposed Southern
and Eastern Wake Expressway, Wake and Johnston Counties, North
Carolina. TIP Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829, SCH Project No. 10-
0283
This memorandum responds to a request for our concerns regarding impacts on
fish and wildlife resources resulting from the subject project. Biologists on the staff of
the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the proposed
improvements. Our comments are provided in accordance with certain provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
NCTA is proposing to construct a multilane facility on new location. We have
review the project study area and identified multiple resources that should be considered
for avoidance and minimization during the planning of this project. Potential impacts
include new crossings of Swift Creek, Middle Creek and the Neuse River. Our records
indicate the following state and federal listed species are located in these drainages:
Alasmidonta heterodon
Alasmidonta undulata
Elliptio lanceolata
Elliptio roanokensis
Fusconaia masoni
Lampsilis radiata
Strophitus undulatus
Villosa constricts
Noturus furiostis
Dwarf Wedgemussel
Triangle Floater
Yellow Lance
Roanoke Slabshell
Atlantic Pigtoe
Eastern Lampmussel
Creeper
Notched Rainbow
Carolina Madtom
Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
Memo
March 16, 2010
The Neuse River at this location is also designated as an Anadromous Fish Spawning
Area as well as an Inland Primary Nursery Area.
Furthermore we will reiterate the benefits of utilizing the NEPAJ404 Merger
Process for the planning and development of this project. The Merger process is the
product of years of interagency coordination that has resulted in a valuable method for
progressing transportation projects through planning by outlining expectations for the
level of information and feedback provided by all parties at specific points in the process.
Having participated in both the Section 6002 and Merger processes, the Merger process
presents a consistent and predictable platform for decision making and documentation.
However to help further facilitate document preparation and the review process, our
general informational needs are outlined below:
1. Description of fishery and wildlife resources within the project area,
including a listing of federally or state designated threatened, endangered,
or special concern species. Potential borrow areas to be used for project
construction should be included in the inventories. A listing of designated
plant species can be developed through consultation with:
NC Natural Heritage Program
Dept. of Environment & Natural Resources
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1601.
WWW.ncnhp.org
and,
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. O. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the project. The need for
channelizing or relocating portions of streams crossed and the extent of
such activities.
Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted by the project.
Wetland acreages should include all project-related areas that may undergo
hydrologic change as a result of ditching, other drainage, or filling for
project construction. Wetland identification may be accomplished through
coordination with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). If the COE
is not consulted, the person delineating wetlands should be identified and
criteria listed.
4. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland wildlife habitat impacted by the
proposed project. Potential borrow sites should be included.
5. The extent to which the project will result in loss, degradation, or
fragmentation of wildlife habitat (wetlands or uplands).
6. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or compensating for direct and indirect
degradation in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses.
Memo Page 3 March 16, 2010
7. A cumulative impact assessment section which analyzes the environmental
effects of highway construction and quantifies the contribution of this
individual project to environmental degradation.
8. A discussion of the probable impacts on natural resources which will result
from secondary development facilitated by the improved road access.
9. If construction of this facility is to be coordinated with other state, municipal,
or private development projects, a description of these projects should be
included in the environmental document, and all project sponsors should
be identified.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages for this
project. If we can further assist your office, please contact me at [phone].
cc: Gary Jordan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
Rob Ridings, DWQ, Raleigh
Eric Alsmeyer, USACE, Raleigh
Chris Militscher, EPA