20211241 Ver 1_21-333_NCDOT_Informal_5 Bridge Replacement Improvement B-3186 B-5898_HaywoodCo_FINAL (1)_20210919

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street Suite B
Asheville, North Carolina 28801

July 26, 2021

Dave McHenry
NCDOT Division 14 Environmental Officer
253 Webster Road
Sylva, North Carolina 28779
[e-mail]

Subject: Informal Consultation and Conference Report for the Replacement or Improvement of
Five Bridges on US 23 / US 74 in Haywood County, North Carolina

Dear Mr. McHenry:

On June 11, 2021, we received (via e-mail) your letter requesting an informal consultation on the
subject project. We have reviewed the information that you presented along with responses to
our questions sent on June 21, 22, 23 and July 19, 2021, and the following letter is provided in
accordance with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.§ 4321 et
seq.); the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661 - 667e); the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 703); and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 - 1543) (Act).

Project Description
According to the information provided, the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) is proposing to replace bridges 155 and 158 on US 23/74 over Richland Creek and
bridge 168 on US 23/74 over US 19 and widen bridges 107 and 110 on US 23/74 over a rail line
as part of the combined TIP No. B-3186/B-5898 project in Haywood County. The primary
purpose of the project is to replace deteriorating bridges. However, the intersection of the
primary routes here will also be reconfigured, and lanes added, to improve the flow and safety of
merging traffic in conjunction with bridge reconstruction. Alternative reconfigurations are still
being evaluated, which could ultimately include elimination of bridge 168 in favor of a tunnel,
however, the bridge replacements over Richland Creek and widenings over the rail line will
remain the same among alternatives. A temporary metal bridge will be constructed on the
upstream side of the paired Richland Creek bridges to provide a detour during construction.

Most construction will be confined to the existing right-of-ways. The demolition and
replacement of the bridges will require intermittent and short-term percussive activities such as
cutting, drilling, hammering, and jack-hammering to remove old bridge decks and supports as
well as installation of new guardrail posts. Percussive activities will not occur at night. Existing
permanent lighting will be replaced, but new lighting is not currently proposed. Replacement
lights may be of different brightness and type (e.g. LED) than current lighting. The only existing
Mr. McHenry - NCDOT

2

lighting near Richland Creek is 0.6 miles away. There is also existing lighting closer to Lake
Junaluska but it will not be replaced.

The project will require tree removal within the interchange medians and areas adjacent to the
roadways to allow for construction access, grading, and crane movements. Removal of an
estimated 500 trees (3’ dbh or greater) from an estimated 7.5 acres is anticipated; most of the
entire project area is comprised of pavement, bridges, or maintained medians and road shoulders
with fragmented forested habitat. Tree clearing will occur at most approximately 100 feet from
the existing edge of the roadway. The right-of-way is less than 150 feet wide, thus any canopy
gap would be less than 350 feet wide.

Nighttime deck pouring may be required if it coincides with hot weather (typically July and
August). Night work is not expected for other kinds of work, though concrete delivery or
weather delays could occur without predictability and force work later into the evening on rare
occasions.

Bridges 155, 158, and 168 will take up to three pours (2-3 nights if done in hot weather) each.
Bridges 107 and 110 could require up to two nights of nightwork each. This work will occur
over several months and years, to allow for complex detours, construction, and demolition
schedules. Therefore, a maximum of 10 days of nightwork over a 3-year period with no more
than 3 contiguous days of night work in any one area is expected. Some work may occur
simultaneously in each of the three sites (flyover, Richland Creek, railroad).

Temporary night lighting will be directed to illuminate the bridge deck and not the creek or
riparian area. Typically, this will involve a mobile light unit on a mast that will be situated to
direct light down the long axis of the bridge where pouring is occurring, rather than outward.
Also notable is that during the deck pours for Bridges 155, 158, and 168, two will be done when
there is an existing adjoining bridge, so incidental illumination of the riparian area will be largely
to one side due to the shading on the other. The last bridge to be replaced, bridge 155, will be
demolished and constructed in between the temporary bridge and the new westbound bridge,
further reducing incidental illumination of the creek and riparian area.

Proposed Avoidance and Minimization Measures
NCDOT has committed to the following conservation measures as part of the project description:

1. To avoid potential impacts to tree roosting bats, remove all trees in the winter (October
16 to March 31) when bats are not active on the landscape.
2. Minimize illumination to the maximum extent practicable and avoid direct illumination
of Richland Creek and its riparian area and the railroad line during construction.
3. Prior to any bridge demolition conducted between March 15 and November 15, including
temporary bridges, surveys of the bridge decks, joints, and other potential roost areas of
these bridges will be completed within 30 days of deck demolition or expansion
(preferably within 14 days). If bats are present, then the USFWS will be consulted
regarding how to proceed.
4. Prior to bridge 107 expansion work, resurvey the big brown bat roost to confirm absence
of listed species (within 30 days, preferably 14 days). Gray bats commonly roost with
Mr. McHenry - NCDOT

3

this species. If listed bats are found, reinitiation will be required unless bridge widening
can occur between November 16 and March 14. If construction occurs during the active
season for gray bats (March 15 through November 15) and absent more project specific
details and additional conservation measures, take of listed species and a formal
consultation is likely.
5. Prior to widening the deck on bridge 107, which supports a big brown bat roost, the
deck’s vertical joints (but not the horizonal expansion joint) on the south side of the
bridge will be vertically sealed using a backer rod, without the use of any wet substance
which could affect bats, and under the supervision of the NCDOT Division
Environmental Officer (DEO) or similarly qualified biologist. USFWS is happy to assist
as well. This is the joint nearest the work and will minimize disturbance to roosting bats
by separating the work from the roost itself.
6. The DEO will conduct pre-construction kick-off meetings with the DOT Project Manager
and On-Site Construction Manager to review conservation measures for this project
including nighttime work minimization measures for reducing light impacts to bats.
7. NCDOT DEO or other qualified biologist will attend the first night of night work to
verify that light minimization measures are in place.

Status of the Species within the Action Area
You state in your letter that wetlands, rock faces, and high elevation habitats suitable for most
listed species known to occur in Haywood County will not be impacted. The project is located
below 3,000 feet. Therefore, blue ridge goldenrod, Carolina northern flying squirrel, rock gnome
lichen, spreading avens, and the spruce-fir moss spider are removed from further analysis.

Rusty-patched bumble bee: The project is located within the historical range of the species, but
the bee is considered not present and has not been observed or collected in this area since 2000.
Section 7 consultation is not required at this time for this species within the action area.
Therefore, this species is removed from further analysis.

Appalachian elktoe: NCDOT surveyed Richland Creek for Appalachian elktoe mussels
(Alasmindonta raveneliana) in October 2018 from 400 meters downstream of the study area to
100 meters upstream of the study area; none were found. NCDOT believes the stream is likely
too cold for mussels. The NCDOT mussel survey report notes chronic water quality problems in
Richland Creek as well; it is listed on the North Carolina Division of Water Resources 2020
303(d) list of impaired streams for exceeding the fecal coliform criteria. The nearest records for
Appalachian elktoe in Haywood County are upstream of the Canton Paper Mill in the Pigeon
River, which is about 8 river miles upstream of the confluence of Richland Creek with the
Pigeon River. This confluence is 4 river miles downstream of the project area. Lake Junaluska
is downstream of the project’s bridges and isolates the project area from any aquatic species
ascending from the Pigeon River. Based on this information, this species is removed from
further analysis.

Small whorled pogonia: Portions of the affected project area that are potentially suitable for
small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) were surveyed on May 21 and June 10, 2021 within
the optimal survey window for the species. No small whorled pogonia were detected. The
habitat present here is marginal due to dense mid-story and herbaceous cover.
Mr. McHenry - NCDOT

4

Suitable Bat Habitat: There are no caves or mines apparent near the project and removal of
buildings for construction is not anticipated. All five bridges provide suitable roosting habitat
for bats. Per the concurrence request, suitable tree roosts (i.e. trees ≥3-inch diameter at breast
height (dbh) and trees or snags with shaggy bark ≥ 5-inch dbh) are also present within the action
area and are planned for removal.

The five B-3186/B-5898 bridges were inspected for bats and bat sign on May 17, 2021, May 25,
2021, and June 10, 2021. There was a small amount of guano indicative of night roosting and a
single big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus) seen in a clogged deck drain on bridge 155. No sign of
bat use or bats were evident on bridge 158. The deck drains of both bridge 155 and 158 were
rechecked on June 10, 2021 and no bats were present. Bridge 168 had no signs of bat use or bats
on May 17, 2021. A total of 59 big brown bats were identified in the deck of bridge 107 on May
25, 2021. The adjacent bridge (#110) lacked bats and bat sign; it also lacks the deck expansion
joints that bats are using on bridge 107. No federally listed or at-risk bat species were detected
during bat surveys of all five bridges.

Indiana bat: The action area is located within the range of Indiana bat. NCDOT has
only conducted bridge roost surveys and has not performed surveys appropriate for tree
roosting habitat that comply with the Indiana Bat Summer Survey Guidelines (March
2020). No Indiana bats were identified during roost surveys. The nearest Indiana bat
records are from two individuals who were roosting on a bridge approximately 4.75 miles
to the northwest of the project site. No prior survey results are available from within or
near the action area, thus presence is assumed. The action area is 11 miles east of critical
habitat for the species.

Gray bat: Gray bat roost records from 2018 and 2019 occur approximately 1.25 miles
southwest of the project area along Richland Creek (2 river miles). No large colony was
detected at this location. A large multi-species gray bat roost colony is present
approximately 6 miles east (11 river miles) of the project site. Both known gray bat
locations are within foraging distance of the action area. Gray bats regularly forage
within extensive ranges over water, averaging about 7.4 mi from roosting sites (from 0.6
mi to 22 mi) (LaVal et al. 1977). Most maternity colonies are usually located between
0.6 mi and 2.5 mi from foraging locations (Tuttle 1976 in Service 2009). Gray bat roosts
have been found in bridges, culverts, buildings, caves, cave-like structures, storm drains,
and dams. Gray bats have only been known to use trees on a few occasions in Madison
County, North Carolina along the French Broad River and Putnam County, Tennessee
(Samoray et al. 2020).

Northern long-eared bat: The action area is located approximately 2.75 miles north of
a red 12-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC), which surrounds a known location of northern
long-eared bat. Presence of this species during foraging or commuting activities is
assumed in the action area.

Little brown bat and tricolored bat: The project is located approximately 7 miles from
known records of little brown bat. The nearest location for a tricolored bat is on Richland
Mr. McHenry - NCDOT

5

Creek in 2018, about 2 river miles from bridges 155 and 158. Presence of these species
during foraging or commuting activities is assumed within the action area.

Effects of the Action and Conclusions

Small whorled pogonia: While no plants were found during surveys, suitable habitat is present.
Small whorled pogonia populations fluctuate from year to year based on several potential factors,
declining and rebounding at sites across its range. This species is also subject to herbivory and a
dormant phase where they fail to emerge in a given year (USFWS Recovery Plan 1992).
Because suitable habitat is present and detectability of the species is a concern, we would concur
with a may affect, not likely to adversely affect determination for small whorled pogonia from
the Federal action agency.

Indiana, gray and northern long-eared bat: Based on the information provided, direct effects
are not expected as trees will be removed in the winter, no listed bats were detected during
surveys of bridges, and additional bat surveys are planned prior to demolition or widening. As
presence is assumed or known, the project’s night work may indirectly affect foraging and
commuting bats that may be present in the area. Bats may avoid lit areas, causing them to use
other areas, potentially impacting individual bat fitness due to longer flight distances or threats
from predation or vehicle traffic in new routes. The project is not bisecting any contiguous
forested areas, so the project is not expected to further fragment any foraging areas for forest
interior bat species. The maximum tree canopy gap created by the project will be less than 350
feet and includes only trees within the existing right-of-way. As night work is restricted to less
than ten nights over three years, will not occur at any one site for more than three consecutive
nights, will only occur if deck pouring needs to occur in July or August, will not include
percussive activity, and will minimize, to the maximum extent practicable the amount of light
reaching the river or rail line, effects are expected to be small and unlikely to reach the scale
where take occurs. That is, based on best judgment, a person would not be able to meaningfully
measure, detect, or evaluate the indirect fitness effects to listed bat species from avoidance of lit
areas resulting in insignificant effects. Therefore, we concur with NCDOTs determination that
the project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the Indiana, gray, and northern long-
eared bat.

Little brown bat and tricolored bat: Little brown bat and tricolored bat are at-risk species
(ARS). ARS are not legally protected under the Act and are not subject to any of its provisions,
including section 7, unless they are formally proposed or listed as endangered or threatened.
These two species have been petitioned and we will be making listing determinations on each of
these species in the near future, during the timeframe when this project is expected to be under
construction. While lead federal agencies are not prohibited from jeopardizing the continued
existence of an ARS or proposed species unless the species becomes listed, the prohibition
against jeopardy and taking a listed species under section 9 of the Act applies as soon as a listing
becomes effective, regardless of the stage of completion of the proposed action. As construction
for this project may last up to three years, NCDOT has requested a conference on these species
to avoid the need for reinitiation if these species are proposed for federal listing and their listing
is finalized during the project period.

Mr. McHenry - NCDOT

6

The effects of the action on these two ARS are the same as those for Indiana, gray, and northern
long-eared bat (see above). We believe the avoidance and minimization measures as outlined
will be protective of the little brown and tricolored bat and thus offer no additional
recommendations for reducing adverse effects. After reviewing the proposed action and the
current status of the little brown and tricolored bat, we have determined that the project is not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the little brown bat or tricolored bat. Should the
species be listed in the future, we could concur with a may affect, not likely to adversely affect
determination by the Federal action agency provided that all avoidance and minimization
measures described in the project description are implemented and the species are not found
roosting within the action area during bridge surveys.

Conservation Recommendations
Implementation of these conservation recommendations is not required for compliance with
Section 7.

1. There is a lack of scientific literature on the effects that bridge construction projects have
on roosting bats. Monitoring the big brown bat colony under bridge 107 during the
widening project could provide valuable information on the kind and magnitude of
disturbance experienced by bats during construction.
2. Conduct additional daytime bat roost surveys of bridge 107. Additional negative surveys
for gray bat would increase the chances that listed species are unlikely to be found
immediately prior to construction.

Reinitiation
We believe the requirements under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act are fulfilled.
However, obligations under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act must be reconsidered if:
(1) new information reveals impacts of this proposed action may affect listed species or critical
habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2) this proposed action is subsequently modified
in a manner that was not considered in this review, or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat
is determined that may be affected by the proposed action.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments.
Please contact Ms. Lauren B. Wilson of our staff at [e-mail] if you have any
questions. In any future correspondence concerning these projects, please reference our Log
Number 21-333.

Sincerely,

Janet Mizzi
Field Supervisor