20150387 Ver 1_Fish and WIldlife Service Divisions 1 4 5 6 7 8_20150422

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
June 28, 2012
Pamela R. Williams
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Transportation Program Management Unit
1595 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1595
Dear Ms. Williams:
This letter is in response to your request for comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) on the potential environmental effects of the proposed replacement of several bridges
in Divisions 1, 4, 5, 6; 7 and 8. These bridge replacements are part of the state-funded Year 2
Master List (see attached truncated list). Division 6 bridges were addressed separately in a May
11, 20121etter from the Service. The following comments provide information in accordance
with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and Section 7
ofthe Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
Speci�c Comments
Division 1
Some of these bridges cross streams that are likely utilized by anadromous fish. In-water
construction moratoria may be necessary for some bridges. The Service will defer to the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and/or North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries for
specific moratoria requirements and dates. We do not plan to attend any of the field scoping
meetings.
Division 4
Bridge 410030 over Rocky Swamp in Halifax County is located within a known population of
the federally endangered dwarfwedgemussel (AZasmidonta heterodan). Dwarf wedgemussels
have been observed multiple times at and near the bridge over the last several years. A formal
Section 7 consultation is likely needed for this project. Given the fast-tracic nature of these state-
funded bridges, it is important to note that a formal Section 7 consultation may take several
months or more to complete. After the Service receives a complete initiation package (including
Biological Assessment) from the lead federal action agency (i.e. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers),
the Service has 135 days to complete a Biological Opinion. Therefore, it is iinperative that
sufficient time be built into the schedule to complete the consultation process.
For Bridge 630076 over Sandy Creek in Nash County, the federally endarigered Tar River
spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana) has been observed upstream in Sandy Creek and
downstream in Swiff Creek. It is unknown if the species occurs near the project site. Mussel

�
surveys should be conducted at this site if suitable habitat exists. At a minimum, informal
Section 7 consultation will likely be required for this project.
For Bridge 630091 over Tar River in Nash County, there are historic records of the federally
endangered Tar River spinymussel upstream of this location. It is not known if the species
currently occurs near the project area. Mussel surveys should be conducted at this site if suitable
habitat exists. At a minimum, informal Section 7 consultation will likely be required for this
project.
For Bridge 970028 over Contentnea Creek in Wilson County, the federally endangered dwarf
wedgemussel historically occurred upstream of Buckhorn Reservoir. Although the species has
never been recorded' downstream of Buckhorn Reservoir, mussel surveys should be conducted if
suitable habitat exists near the project site.
The Service would like to attend the scheduled field scoping meetings far Bridges 410030,
630076 and 630091 only. We request that you schedule the meetings for these three projects on
the same day. We do not have any specific concerns for the other projects within Division 4.
� �
Division 5
For Bridge 910162 over the Little l�iver in Wake County, the federally endangered dwarf
wedgemussel was observed at multiple locations downstream of this site in the 1990s, with the
closest occurrence being approximately three miles downstream. If suitable habitat exists at or
near the site, mussel surveys should be conducted. The Service would like to attend the field
scoping meeting for this project. The Service does not have any specific concerns for any of the
other Division 5 projects.
Division 6
Projects in this Division were addressed under separate cover.
Division 7
The Service does not have any specific concerns for any of these projects. We do not plari to
attend any of the field scoping meetings.
Division 8
The following Bridge Numbers in Montgomery County fall within the potential range of the
federally endangered Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii): 610030, 610157,
610228 and 610232. Bridge Number 610228 is located < 0.5 mile from a known location of the
species. The Service recommends that surveys for this species be completed during the optimal
survey window of late August — October for these four bridges. Please note that due to the fast-
track nature of these bridge projects, it is imperative that surveys occur during the 2012 survey
window. Otherwise, the projects may be delayed due to having to wait until the next survey
season in 2013.
Bridge Number 820006 in Scotland County is located approximately 0.5 mile from a known
occurrence of the federally endangered red-cockaded woodpecker (Picozdes borealzs) located
within the Sandhills Game Land. It should be determined whether active cavity trees occur
within 0.5 mile of the bridge, and if so, whether any suitable foraging habitat would be removed.

We do not have any specific concerns for the other projects within Division 8. We do not plan to
attend any of the field scoping meetings for this Division.
General Comments
The Service recommends the following general conservation measures to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts to fish and wildlife resources:
1. Wetland, forest and designated riparian buffer impacts should be avoided and minirnized
to the maximum extent practical;
2. If unavoidable wetland or stream impacts are proposed, a plan for compensatory
mitigation to offset unavoidable impacts should be provided early in the planning
process;
3. Off-site detours should be used rather than construction of temporary, on-site bridges. �
For projects requiring an on-site detour in wetlands or open water, such detours should be
aligned along the side of the existing structure which has the least and/or least quality of
fish and wildlife habitat. At the completion of construction, the detour area should be
entirely removed and the impacted areas be planted with appropriate vegetation,
including trees if necessary; �
4. 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. The general moratorium period
for anadromous fish is February 15 - June 30;
5. New bridges should be long enough to allow for sufficient wildlife passage along stream
corridors;
�
6. Best Management Practices (BMP) for Construction and Maintenance Activities should
be implemented;
7. Bridge designs should include provisions for roadbed and deck drainage to flow through
a vegetated buffer priar to reaching the affected stream. This buffer should be large
enough to alleviate any potential effects from run-off of storm water and pollutants;
8. The bridge designs should not alter the natural stream and stream-bank morphology or
impede fish passage. To the extent possible, piers and bents should be placed outside the
bank-full width of the stream; and
9. Bridges and approaches should be designed to avoiti any fill that will result in daimning
or constriction of the cliannel or flood plain. If spanning the flood plain is not feasible,
culverts should be installed� in the flood plain portion of the approach to restore some of
the hydrological functions of the flood plain and reduce high velocities of flood waters
within the affected area.

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act requires that all federal action agencies (or their
designated non-federal representatives), in consultation with the Service, insure that any action
federally authorized, funded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any federally threatened or endangered species. To assist you, a county-
by-county list of federally protected species known to occur in North Carolina and information
on their life histories and habitats can be found on our web page at http://www.fws, ov/nc-
es/es/countvfr.html .
If you determine that the proposed action may affect (i.e. likely to adversely affect or not likely
to adversely affect) a listed species, you should notify this office with your determination, the
results of your surveys, survey methodologies and an analysis of the effects of the action on
listed species, including consideration of direct, indirect and cumulative effects, before
conducting any activities that might affect the species. If you determine that the proposed action
will have no effect (i.e. no beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect effect) on listed species, then
you are not required to contact our office for concurrence.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. If you have any questions
regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at (919) 85b-4520, ext. 32.
Sincerely,
� Pete Benjamin
Field Supervisor
Attachment: Truncated Master List - Divisions 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8
Electronic cc: Bill Biddlecome, USACE, Washington, NC
Tom Steffens, USACE, Washington, NC
Eric Alsmeyer, USACE, Wake Forest, NC
Ronnie Smith, USACE, Wilmington, NC
Andy Williams, USACE, Wake Forest, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Atlanta, GA
Clay Willis, NCDOT, Edenton, NC
Chad Coggins, NCDOT, Wilson, NC
Chris Murray, NCDOT, Durham, NC
Jerry Parker, NCDOT, Creensboro, NC .
Art King, NCDOT, Aberdeen, NC

A �