20110136 Ver 1_Other Agency Comments_20060530

S3
United. Mates Department of the Interior s
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726 ' p
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636 -3726
May 30, 2006
Richard Spencer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402 -1890
Dear Mr. Spencer:
ViA
This letter is in response to your request for cornments on Public Notice (PN) ID No. 1998-
02180, dated May 5, 2006. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has
applied for a Department of the Army (DA) permit to impact waters of the United States in order
to widen NC 211 fi-om NC 73 at West End to the traffic circle in Pinehurst, Moore County, North
Carolina (TIP No. R- 2812). These comments are provided 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 amel -ded (16 U.S.C. 1531 - 1543).
According to information provided in the PN, the NCDOT proposes to widen approximately 7.2
miles of NC 211 to a four -lane, median divided facility. Two typical section alternatives are
being considered — Alternative 1 with curb and gutter, and Alternative 2 with grassed shoulders.
The Service has been actively involved in the NEPA /404 Merger Process for this project. We
will continue to participate and provide detailed comments through that process. However, we
offer the following preliminary comments.
The Service has been involved in informal consultation with NCDOT regarding the federally
endangered red - cockaded woodpecker (RCW)(Picoides borealis). Five RCW cluster partitions
overlap the project area (two active, one recently inactive, and two long inactive). The Service
previously provided section 7 concurrence (via letter dated August 25, 2004) with NCDOT's
determination that the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the RCW. This
concurrence was based on the review of a revised biological assessment provided by Dr. J.H
Carter III & Associates, Inc. and dated August 6, 2004. In that biological assessment, a typical
120 feet wide right-of-way was assumed for conducting the foraging habitat analysis. The PN
states that Alternative 2 with grassed shoulders will require approximately 150 feet of right-of-
way. Therefore, if Alternative 2 is selected as the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable
Alternative (LEDPA), the biological assessment will not have accounted for all possible foraging
habitat removals for the RCW. Alternative 1 with curb and gutter would not pose this problem.
Although the Service generally prefers grassed shoulders to curb and gutter, we strongly prefer
curb and gutter ( Alternative 1) for this project to reduce the number of pine trees removed that

occur within active and inactive RCW cluster partitions. Of the two active clusters of RCW in
the project area, SOPI 50 (near the traffic circle in Pinehurst) has the least amount of foraging
habitat available and is approaching the level of take. Although neither Alternative I nor 2 will
reach the level of take, Alternative 2 would reduce the available foraging habitat to a level nearer
the take threshold.
Again, the Service strongly prefers curb and gutter throughout the entire project, but at a
minimum, within the foraging habitat boundary of cluster SOPI 50, which extends approximately
one half mile west from the traffic circle. Because of the dynamic nature of RCW clusters, and
given the fact that one of the currently inactive clusters could become active again, -the NCDOT
should conduct new RCW surveys and foraging habitat analysis after the LEDPA is selected and
prior to project let. NCDOT should coordinate with the Service to determine the most suitable
timeframe for additional survey work.
Table I in the PN lists a summary of impacts. The table lists 12.2 acres and 8.1 acres of forest
impacts for Alternatives I and 2, respectively, These numbers seem counterintuitive and appear
to be reversed. If not reversed, an explanation should be provided.
The Service will provide additional detailed comments at the upcoming Concurrence Point 3
meeting. We appreciate the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions
regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at [phone], ext. 32.
Ecological services Supervisor
cc: Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Polly Lespinasse, NCDWQ, Mooresville, NC
John Sullivan, FHwA, Raleigh, NC
Eli-no Vance, NCDOT, Raleigh, NC