20160565 Ver 1_USFWS Comments_20160614

Strickland, Bev
From:Jordan, Gary <[e-mail]>
Sent:Tuesday, June 14, 2016 2:13 PM
To:Wrenn, Brian L
Subject:Re: FW: Permit Application for B-5343, Rockingham County
Attachments:20160502_biological opinion_signed_B-5343.pdf
Brian,

Attached is a Biological Opinion for this project. The BO was for the federally endangered Roanoke
logperch. I apologize for not previously cc'ing you.

Gary Jordan

Fish and Wildlife Biologist
Liaison to NCDOT
US Fish and Wildlife Service

P.O. Box 33726

Raleigh, NC 27636-3726

Phone: [phone] x.32
Email: [e-mail]

On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 1:26 PM, Wrenn, Brian L <[e-mail]> wrote:
Travis, Gary,
Do either of you have any specific concerns with proposed bridge replacement project, B-5343, in
Rockingham Co.?

Thanks,
Brian Wrenn
919-707-8792

From:
Carpenter,Kristi
Sent:
Thursday, June 02, 2016 4:17 PM
To:
Wrenn, Brian L <[e-mail]>
Subject:
RE: Permit Application for B-5343, Rockingham County

1

Brian,
BIMS number is 20160565.
Let me know if I can be of further assistance.
Thanks,
klc

From:
Dagnino, Carla S
Sent:
Thursday, June 02, 2016 11:28 AM
To:
David Bailey <[e-mail]>; Chapman, Amy <[e-mail]>
Cc:
Al-Ghandour, Majed N <[e-mail]>; Wanucha, Dave <[e-mail]>;
[e-mail]; Koch, Thomas K <[e-mail]>; Carpenter,Kristi
<[e-mail]>; Lauffer, Matthew S <[e-mail]>; Mellor, Colin
<[e-mail]>; Mills, James M <[e-mail]>; NCDOT Service Account - Roadway Design
<[e-mail]>; Parker, Jerry A <[e-mail]>; Staley, Mark K <[e-mail]>;
Wilson, Travis W. <[e-mail]>; Wilkins, Ronald B <[e-mail]>; Ayscue,
Phillip W <[e-mail]>; Harmon, Beth <[e-mail]>; Turchy, Michael A
<[e-mail]>; Robinson, Beverly G <[e-mail]>
Subject:
Permit Application for B-5343, Rockingham County

The Permit Application for B-5343 has been posted to the NCDOT website. The electronic copy can
be viewed /downloaded at

https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/Environmental/

This email serves as NCDOT’s permit application submittal to the NC Division of Water Resources
and the US Army Corp of Engineers.

Thank you.

Carla Dagnino
2

Western Region Environmental Program Supervisor II

Natural Environment Section

Project Development and Environmental Analysis

NC Department of Transportation

919 707 6110 office

[e-mail]

1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1598

1020 Birch Ridge Drive
Raleigh, NC 27610

Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the

North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
3

4

United States Department of the Interior
1'IJ['1 NIYD WlLLLICC, JCtCVII.0
K..Ie1gIS k:el8 VI[;ee
Po�t iJI11ee tSo� S,S !�s
K,.lel�ll, IVvRI7 Culvl:,-�a � 16jG-j /�S
lOiety 2, 201 d
Juhn F. S�lii�an_ III. P.E.
F�aeial High.�ay Atim����str�ti�,�,
3I0 N� W B���� Av�n.,�, S��t:. �lu
Raleigh; North Cazolina 27601
llear Mr. Sullivart:
11]I5 avawii'ci�� tT�Fsiuit5 Ul�. U..S. F��n una w��a�ife Service s�Sen+i��) Biologi�al �pini�n bdsed
��� �� n.�i�ri ��m� p�,posed replac�ment of Bridge N�. 1�9 c�v�r Cas�a3e [;reCk ��� U�
311lNC 77U �TIP No. B-5343); l��a�ed in Ro�kingh� C:ouii�y_ North C:aivliiia, �d ;ts e1-r�ts
�n the federally enddngered Raanoke lugpGr�h {t'ercina r��.} iti aCCuIdaIIi:� wiUl �G4�w17 / �I il��
�ndar,gG��d Spc�iGa A�t {ESA) �r 1y73, as �e„aea {16 u.S.�. I53f-1543). Y��. M� e� 25,
2016 request r�� iv�,��z[l CuriSllliail�u Waa �eceiv;,d �n M� t� 30, 2016. If you have any qu�s�i�ns
�����eming thia b�:,�vg���.I �pinion, please contaci Mr. Gazy Jordan a� (919) 85b-4520 {Ex�. 32}.
�iucCiCty,
J2� � ( h� � �
� �
Pei enjaornin
Fiela Supe� vi�vr
el�4u�aii� Capy:
Kluib�rly SuuEil, USFWS, LTiVU41r.iLi.r� VA
Sarah McRae, USFWS, Raleigh, NC
David Baul�y, U�ACE, Wa�ce Fores�, N(;
7erry P�-ker_ NCDOT_ Ci�ee���bur�_ NC;
Matt Haney, NC:DOT, Ra�e;gn, Ni:
N��� Menlin, NLDuT; R'�i[' ��g�, NC
Travis Wilson_ NCWRC_ Creedmoor_ NC
F�lix Davila, FHWA, Raleiph,- NC

This Biological Opinion (BO) is based on information provided in the submitted Biological
Assessment (BA) provided by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT),
emails, field investigations and other sources of information. A complete administrative record
of this consultation is on file at this office.
CONSULTATION HISTORY
March 23, 2012 — The Service provided project scoping comments to NCDOT and requested a
survey for Roanoke logperch.
May 2, 2013 — The Service was notified that a Roanoke logperch was captured during a survey.
May 23, 2013 — The Service met with NCDOT staff onsite to discuss the need for a formal
Section 7 consultation.
February 25, 2016 — The Service provided comments to NCDOT on a draft BA.
March 30, 2016 — The Service received a letter from the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA), dated March 25, 2016 with the attached final BA, requesting formal Section 7
consultation on the proposed replacement of Rockingham County Bridge No. 169 over Cascade
Creek.
BIOLOGICAL OPINION
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
NCDOT proposes to replace Bridge No. 169 on US 311/NC 770 over Cascade Creek in
Rockingham County, North Carolina. The bridge is located approximately 2.5 miles northeast of
downtown Eden and one mile south of the North Carolina/Virginia border. The existing bridge
is a two-span structure with an overall length of 50 feet that consists of an asphalt overlay on a
concrete deck on steel I-beams supported by reinforced concrete abutments and a solid
reinforced concrete interior pier. The bridge will be replaced on the existing alignment while
traffic is maintained on a temporary two-lane onsite detour alignment to the south. The new
bridge will have an overall length of 70 feet and an overall width of 33 feet. No interior piers
will be placed in the water for the new bridge.
The roadway grade of the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing structure.
The approach roadway will extend approximately 415 feet from the west end of the new bridge
and 435 feet from the east end of the new bridge. The approaches will be widened to include a
24-foot pavement width providing two 12-foot lanes. Six-foot shoulders (two-foot paved and
four-foot grass) will be provided on each side (nine-foot shoulders where guardrail is included).
An onsite detour is proposed to the south of the existing alignment with an alignment of 926 feet.
The detour alignment will utilize a temporary bridge with an overall length of 90 feet and clear
roadway width of 24 feet. The detour bridge will be removed and the area revegetated after the

old bridge has been replaced. The detour design includes the removal of an existing 24-inch pipe
connecting wetlands at the beginning of the project. This pipe will be realigned and replaced
with two 24-inch reinforced concrete pipes. Some drainage modiiications will be needed to tie
the pipes in to the existing wetland. Roadside ditches draining into wetlands that are affected by
the detour and mainline fill slopes will be replaced in kind. No new roadside ditches will be
introduced as part of this project.
For the bridge removal, the contractor will attach fabric on the rails and place a containment
system beneath the bridge to keep debris out of the creek. The contractor will begin by scraping
the asphalt from the deck, then remove the fabric from the rails, and then remove the bridge
railing. The deck will then be removed by sawing the concrete in sections and lifting them to
one of the end bents for hauling away. Once the deck is removed the steel girders will follow.
The existing concrete vertical abutments will be cut off at elevation 481.4 feet. The existing fill
material behind the abutments will be excavated an additional foot and will be backfilled with
Class II riprap. The embankment will also be protected with Class II riprap. A temporary
causeway will be constructed from the west stream bank to remove the existing interior pier
located in the middle of the stream. The causeway will be 48 feet long by 30 feet wide. The
causeway will be in place for approximately two weeks and will block approximately 67% of the
creek channel. Two 30-inch pipes will be placed in the causeway to help convey the average
daily stream flow.
The City of Eden owns a 16-inch force main sewer that is located between the existing bridge
and proposed detour bridge. The line is not active yet and will remain in place during project
construction, but will be lowered in any areas where it conflicts with drainage crossings. Where
the detour crosses the sewer line, steel plates may be installed in order to prevent traffic weight
from damaging the line. Piedmont Natural Gas has a four-inch gas line attached to the bridge
and running under the south shoulder of NC 770. The gas line will be removed from the bridge,
moved south approximately 20 feet, and will be horizontally drilled 10 feet under the creek.
CenturyLink has an underground copper line to the north that emerges onto poles to cross the
creek aerially. The aerial crossing will be horizontally drilled under the creek and moved out to
one foot inside the proposed right-of-way line.
Action Area
The action area is defined as the US 311/NC 770 right-of-way at Rockingham County Bridge
No. 169, beginning 415 feet west of the bridge and extending 435 feet east of the bridge, plus
Cascade Creek for a distance of 1,312 feet (400 meters) downstream and 328 feet (100 meters)
upstream of the bridge. The action area consists mainly of a maintained/disturbed roadside
vegetative community, the US 311/NC 770 pavement and bridge structure, and the Cascade
Creek channel. Cascade Creek arises in Virginia and empties into the Dan River in North
Carolina. The action area occurs approximately 1.8 miles upstream of Cascade Creek's
confluence with the Dan River. The Cascade Creek Watershed consists primarily of forest and
agricultural land uses.

Conservation Measures
Conservation measures represent actions, pledged in the project description, that the action
agency will implement to minimize the effects of the proposed action and further the recovery of
the species under review. Such measures should be closely related to the action and should be
achievable within the authority of the action agency. Since conservation measures are part of the
proposed action, their implementation is required under the terms of the consultation. The
FHWA and NCDOT have proposed the following conservation measures.
The following "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" are incorporated into NCDOT
projects that occur within or upstream of water bodies that contain federally protected aquatic
species:
• Erosion and sedimentation control measures, structures, and devices within a sensitive
watershed shall be so planned, designed and constructed as to provide protection from the
runoff of the 25-year storm which produces the maximum peak rate of runoff as
calculated according to procedures in the "Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and
Design Manual" or according to procedures adopted by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation.
• Sediment basins within sensitive watersheds shall be designed and constructed such that
the basin will have a settling efficiency of at least 70 percent for the 40 micron (0.04mm)
size soil particle transported into the basin by the runoff of the two-year storm which
produces the maximum peak rate of runoff as calculated according to procedures in the
"Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual" or according to procedures
adopted by North Carolina Department of Transportation.
• Erosion and sedimentation control measures will include the use of flocculants in
appropriate areas to improve the settling of sediment particles and reduce turbidity levels
in construction runoff. The use of flocculants will conform to Division of Water
Resources approved product list. No flocculants will be used at the perimeter of the site,
and erosion control measures will be designed to prevent the release of treated soil into
the stream.
• Newly constructed open channels in sensitive watersheds shall be designed and
constructed with side slopes no steeper than two horizontal to one vertical if a vegetative
cover is used for stabilization unless soil conditions permit a steeper slope or where the
slopes are stabilized by using mechanical devices, structural devices or other acceptable
ditch liners. In any event, the angle for side slopes shall be sufficient to restrain
accelerated erosion. (The only channel work to be conducted as part of this project
pertains to roadside ditches. Ditches affected by the detour and mainline fill slopes will
be replaced in kind.)
• Ground cover sufficient to restrain erosion must be provided for any portion of a land-
disturbing activity in a sensitive watershed within 14 calendar days following completion
of construction or development.
Since the project is located in an Environmentally Sensitive Area, special procedures will be
used for clearing and grubbing, temporary stream crossings, grading operations, and seeding and
4

mulching. The Environmentally Sensitive Area is defined as a 50-foot buffer zone on both sides
of the stream measured from top of stream bank (see Figure 3 in BA).
• Clearing and grubbing — In areas identified as Environmentally Sensitive Areas, the
contractor may perform clearing operations, but not grubbing operations until
immediately prior to beginning grading operations as described in Article 200-1 of the
Standard Specifications. Erosion control devices shall be installed immediately
following the clearing operation.
• Grading — Once grading operations begin in Environmentally Sensitive Areas, work shall
progress in a continuous manner until complete. All construction within these areas shall
progress in a continuous manner such that each phase is complete and areas are
permanently stabilized prior to beginning of next phase.
• Temporary stream crossings — Any crossing of streams within the limits of this project
shall be accomplished in accordance with the requirements of Subarticle 107-12(B) of the
Standard Specifications. Since the temporary causeway blocks more than 50% of the
channel, two 30-inch pipes will be installed temporarily with the causeway to help
convey the average daily stream flow.
• Seeding and mulching — Seeding and mulching shall be performed in accordance with
Section 1660 of the Standard Specifications, and vegetative cover sufficient to restrain
erosion shall be installed immediately following grade establishment. Seeding and
mulching shall be performed on the areas disturbed by construction immediately
following final grade establishment. No appreciable time shall lapse into the contract
time without stabilization of slopes, ditches and other areas within the Environmentally
Sensitive Areas.
� Stage seeding — The work covered by this section shall consist of the establishment of a
vegetative cover on cut and fill slopes as grading progresses. Seeding and mulching shall
be done in stages on cut and fill slopes that are greater than 20 feet in height measured
along the slope, or greater than 2 acres in area. Each stage shall not exceed the limits
stated above.
The following additional measures are intended to further reduce deleterious construction related
effects to the waterway and aquatic fauna:
� Vegetated grass swales will be used where practicable.
• No direct discharge of deck drains over water will be allowed on the permanent structure.
There will be grated inlets that will outfall into roadside ditches or swales prior to
discharging into the stream. The stream will be reinforced with riprap embankment
protection at those ditch discharge points.
• There will be no fill within the stream banks, although there will be some excavation of
the existing road embankment behind the old bridge at the beginning and end of the
proposed bridge. This excavation will go down to the elevation of the natural floodplain
elevation. The vertical concrete abutments of the existing bridge will be cut off at the
floodplain bench elevation to avoid impacts in the stream from abutment removal.
• Machines will be refueled outside of the Environmentally Sensitive Area and inside a
specific containment area designed to contain any spills and facilitate easy cleanup.
• Machines will be inspected daily to catch and repair leaks of hydraulic fluid.
• A storm water management plan will be completed with the permit drawings.

IL STATUS OF THE SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT
A. Species/critical habitat description
The Roanoke logperch is a large darter with an elongate body up to 165 mm in total length
(Roberts and Rosenberger 2008). It has a bulbous snout, eight to 11 lateral blotches, dorsal
scrawling, and an orange streak on the first dorsal fin which is especially vivid in mature males
(Jenkins and Burkhead 1994).
The Roanoke logperch has a small geographic range and narrow habitat preferences, occurring
primarily in medium-size rivers with silt-free, unembedded pebble and gravel substrate. It can
be found in larger streams in the upper Roanoke, Smith, Pigg, Big Otter, Nottoway river systems
and Goose Creek in Virginia, and in the Dan, Mayo, and Smith river systems in North Carolina
(Lahey and Angermeier 2007). Its upstream range in the Dan and Mayo rivers is presumably
impeded by dams (USFWS 2016).
The Roanoke logperch was listed as a federally endangered species in 1989 (U.S. Federal
Register 54:34468-34472). No critical habitat has been designated for the Roanoke logperch.
B. Life history
The Roanoke logperch is a benthic invertivore that uses a feeding tactic whereby it flips pebbles
and gravels with its snout and eats the exposed invertebrates. Because of this specialized feeding
behavior, they prefer habitat with loose, unembedded, and unsilted substrates and substrates of a
size that are easily flipped (Rosenberger and Angermeier 2003, Lahey and Angermeier 2007).
The maximum life span is approximately 6.5 years (Burkhead 1983), and reproductive maturity
occurs at 2-3 years (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994). In Virginia, spawning occurs in April or May
in deep runs over gravel and small cobble. Logperch typically bury their eggs and provide no
subsequent parental care (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994).
C. Population dynamics
The Roanoke logperch is considered uncommon to rare, and populations are isolated from each
other by dams and unsuitable habitat reaches (Roberts 2008, Roberts 2012). Survey efforts for
the species have demonstrated a low sampling efficiency (Rosenberger 2007). This low
catchability, along with patchy distribution and low abundance, make them difficult to detect
(Lahey and Angermeier 2007). Given these factors, abundance data on the species is extremely
difficult to obtain and may have limited meaning (Rosenberger 2007).
Until recently, there were thought to be approximately eight known discrete populations of
Roanoke logperch. The population in the upper Roanoke River is probably the largest and most
important in the species' range (USFWS 2007). Although populations may have once occurred

throughout the Roanoke, Dan, and Nottoway river drainages, many reaches and river systems are
now unsuitable due to habitat degradation (Rosenberger 2007).
Over the past few years, Roanoke logperch have been newly discovered in the main-stem Dan
River and several tributaries to the Dan River in Rockingham County, North Carolina —
including Mayo River, Smith River, Big Beaver Island Creek, Wolf Island Creek, and Cascade
Creek. These discoveries may suggest that the geographic range is expanding, or it could mean
that the geographic range is larger than previously thought (Roberts 2012). However, the smaller
tributaries to the Dan River (Big Beaver Island Creek, Wolf Island Creek, and Cascade Creek)
may not hold permanent populations (Thomas Russ, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, personal communication, October 6, 2015).
D. Status and distribution
Due to its presumed rarity, decline, and susceptibility to additional habitat loss and
fragmentation, the Roanoke logperch was listed as endangered in 1989 (U.S. Federal Register
54:34468-34472). Known and potential threats to the species include large dams and reservoirs,
small dams and reservoirs, watershed urbanization, agricultural/silvicultural activities,
channelization, road building, toxic spills, riparian/woody debris loss, and water withdrawals
(USFWS 2007).
The species appears to be reproducing throughout its range, but a poor understanding of
abundance at the time of listing makes it difiicult to determine whether populations are
increasing, stable, or declining over the long term (USFWS 2007). However, the number of
known populations and the geographical range of the species have increased since the species
was listed in 1989 (USFWS 2007, Roberts 2012).
It appears that massive habitat loss associated with the construction of several large
impoundments in the Roanoke River Basin in the 1950s and 1960s (e.g. Leesville, Smith
Mountain, and Philpott Reservoirs) caused the greatest overall loss of Roanoke logperch habitat
and reduction in the species original range (USFWS 2007). Today's isolated populations
probably represent remnants of much larger populations that once occupied a much larger
geographical range. The remaining populations are small and no genetic exchange occurs among
them. These factors, along with the potential for local catastrophic events (e.g. flooding,
draught, toxic chemical spills) increase each population's vulnerability to extirpation.
The most widespread current threat to Roanoke logperch is non-point source pollution in the
form of fine sediment from both urban and poor agricultural practices (USFWS 2007).
Microhabitats that contain loosely embedded sediment free of heavy silt cover are critical for this
species (Rosenberger and Angermeier 2003). Urbanization and agricultural activities have
exposed many streams within the range of the species to heavy siltation, a process that fills
substrate interstitial spaces, thereby reducing the suitability of habitat for logperch (Lahey and
Angermeier 2007).
The best known and largest population of Roanoke logperch, which inhabits the upper Roanoke
from the City of Roanoke upstream into the North and South Forks, has been subjected to
7

considerable stress from human uses in the basin (USFWS 2007). The adverse effects to aquatic
systems from increased urbanization and impervious surface is well understood (Wheeler et al.
2005, Rosenberger 2007). Although there are no trend data available, the continued urbanization
of the upper Roanoke threatens the existing population density and abundance in this portion of
the species' range (USFWS 2007).
E. Analysis of the species/critical habitat likely to be affected
The FHWA and NCDOT have determined that the project will adversely affect the Roanoke
logperch. No critical habitat has been designated for the Roanoke logperch, so none will be
affected. The FHWA and NCDOT have determined that the project will have no effect on the
federally endangered James spinymussel (Pleurobema collina) and smooth coneflower
(Echinacea laevigata). The Service concurs with these "no effect" biological conclusions, and
these two species will not be further addressed in this BO.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE
Under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, when considering the "effects of the action" on federally listed
species, the Service is required to take into consideration the environmental baseline. The
environmental baseline includes past and ongoing natural factors and the past and present
impacts of all federal, state, or private actions and other activities in the action area (50 CFR
402.02), including federal actions in the area that have already undergone section 7 consultation,
and the impacts of state or private actions which are contemporaneous with the consultation in
process.
A. Status of the species within the action area
The Roanoke logperch was not known to occur in Cascade Creek unti12009. In that year, a fish
kill occurred in Cascade Creek in Virginia approximately 1.5 miles upstream from the project
site that extended south toward the state line with North Carolina. Ten thousand fish were killed,
including two Roanoke logperch. In a fish survey conducted on April 24, 2012 at the project
site, a single Roanoke logperch was observed. A subsequent survey conducted on July 17, 2015
did not find the species. Since only three specimens of Roanoke logperch have ever been
detected in Cascade Creek, it is not possible to determine the overall status of the species within
this stream. However, it is thought that smaller tributaries to the Dan River such as Cascade
Creek may not hold permanent populations (Thomas Russ, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, personal communication, October 6, 2015).
B. Factors affecting the species environment within the action area
The existing bridge, especially the bent in the channel and the approach fill in the floodplain,
may currently have some localized effect on Roanoke logperch habitat within the action area
(e.g. affecting flow characteristics). Good quality habitat for the Roanoke logperch occurs
within the action area; however, some bank erosion is occurring.

IV. EFFECTS OF THE ACTION
Under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, "effects of the action" refers to the direct and indirect effects of
an action on the species or critical habitat, together with the effects of other activities that are
interrelated or interdependent with that action. The federal agency is responsible for analyzing
these effects. The effects of the proposed action are added to the environmental baseline to
determine the future baseline, which serves as the basis for the determination in this BO. Should
the effects of the federal action result in a situation that would jeopardize the continued existence
of the species, we may propose reasonable and prudent alternatives that the federal agency can
take to avoid a violation of section 7(a)(2). The discussion that follows is our evaluation of the
anticipated direct and indirect effects of the proposed project. Indirect effects are those caused
by the proposed action that occur later in time but are still reasonably certain to occur (50 CFR
402.02).
A. Factors to be considered
Since Cascade Creek may not hold a permanent population of Roanoke logperch, and given the
paucity of records of the species within the creek, Roanoke logperch may or may not be present
within the action area while the bridge is replaced. Although the contractor is anticipated to take
up to four months to complete the entire project, the actual in-water work to remove one bent
will be limited to approximately two weeks. This in-water work will be limited in scope and
nature.
Given the mobility of the species during normal flow conditions, the potential for exposure to
adverse effects is low. The duration and severity of disturbance from the project will likely be
minimal. The clearing and excavation work outside the channel could potentially expose
Roanoke logperch habitat to detrimental effects for a longer duration if erosion control methods
were inadequate or were compromised during a severe storm. However, these potential adverse
effects would be limited and temporary, and perhaps indistinguishable from the effects of a large
rain event.
B. Analysis for effects of the action
Beneficial effects: The removal of the existing bridge bent in the channel and the commitment
to completely span the channel will have beneficial effects. Given that in-channel bents can trap
debris during high flows and can change stream hydraulics in the immediate vicinity of the
structure (causing scour and deposition), the elimination of the in-channel bent is expected to
reduce the bridge's effects on stream flow patterns. Also, given that large debris piles must often
be removed from in-channel bents (creating additional channel disturbance and downstream
sedimentation), the elimination of the in-channel bent will thus preclude future disturbance from
debris removal. The lengthening of the bridge from 50 feet to 70 feet and increasing the
hydraulic opening under the bridge will allow the stream to access more of its floodplain, thus
potentially reducing downstream bank scouring and sedimentation. Also, the elimination of drop
inlets on the new bridge will lessen the potential for toxic agents to enter the stream at the project
location.

Direct effects: Given the mobile nature of the species, it is unlikely that any Roanoke logperch
mortality would occur as a result of the proj ect. However, habitat for the species may be directly
affected by the removal of the in-channel bent and temporary causeway. Disturbed sediment
could redeposit downstream within Roanoke logperch habitat. However, the increased turbidity
and substrate disturbance would likely be temporary and have sub-lethal effects on the species.
Upstream or downstream movements of Roanoke logperch could be hindered temporarily by the
disturbance created during bent removal and the placement/removal of the temporary causeway.
However, this disturbance is expected to only occur for approximately two weeks.
Of greater concern is prolonged erosion of the disturbed area on and along the banks of the
stream within the action area during the construction of the bridge and approach road. A major
storm event could erode soil from within the disturbed construction area and wash it into the
stream, potentially interfering with respiration, feeding, or spawning and otherwise degrading
habitat. To avoid or minimize the potential for this effect, NCDOT has developed stringent
erosion control measures and other conservation measures (see "Conservation Measures" section
of this BO) which greatly reduce the likelihood of sediment entering the stream. In the unlikely
event of catastrophic failure of erosion control measures, the effects are still likely sub-lethal.
Given the mobility of the species under normal flow conditions, Roanoke logperch could
temporarily relocate to areas of better habitat.
Indirect effects: Since the project involves replacing an existing two-lane bridge with a new
two-lane bridge, it is unlikely that the project will promote any secondary development or land
use changes. The removal of the existing bent in the channel will likely alter flow patterns at the
bridge thus forcing the stream to reach a new equilibrium. Though some minimal sediment
deposition may occur due to a localized reduction of velocity, the effect is likely minimal and
possibly undetectable. Overall, the project is not likely to have any measurable, indirect effect
on Roanoke logperch.
Interrelated and interdependent actions: A four-inch gas utility line and an underground copper
line will be relocated within the project right-of-way by others. The utility lines will be
directionally bored underneath Cascade Creek and no adverse effects are expected.
C. Species response to the action
With the implementation of the conservation measures previously described, Roanoke logperch
are not likely to experience any mortality. However, Roanoke logperch behavior and
movements may be altered for approximately two weeks during the in-water work, or could be
altered at any time during the project construction in the event of catastrophic failure of erosion
control measures. The use of some portion of the action area could be temporarily denied to
Roanoke logperch. Roanoke logperch would likely be forced to utilize more suitable habitat
upstream or downstream of the project. However, any such disruptions to normal Roanoke
logperch behavior would be short-lived.
lo

V. CUMMULATIVE EFFECTS
Cumulative effects include the effects of future state, tribal, local or private actions that are
reasonably certain to occur in the action area considered in this BO. Future federal actions that
are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section because they require
separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA. At this time there are no known future
local, state or private actions, not requiring federal actions that are reasonably certain to occur
within the action area.
VI. CONCLUSION
After reviewing the current status of the Roanoke logperch, the environmental baseline for the
action area, all effects of the proposed project, and the conservation measures identified in the
BA, it is the Service's biological opinion that the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 169 over
Cascade Creek on US 311/NC 770 in Rockingham County, as proposed, is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of this species. No critical habitat for this species has been
designated, therefore none will be affected.
This non jeopardy opinion is based on the following factors: Cascade Creek may not contain a
permanent population of Roanoke logperch. Roanoke logperch may not be present during the
project construction. In-channel work will be minimal, thus limiting the potential for adverse
effects. Several conservation measures will greatly reduce the potential for adverse effects.
Adverse effects are likely sub-lethal and short-term in duration. The project has important long-
term beneficial effects.
INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT
Section 9 of the ESA and federal regulations pursuant to Section 4(d) of the ESA prohibit the
taking of endangered and threatened species, respectively, without special exemption. Take is
defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to
engage in any such conduct. Harm is further defined by the Service to include significant habitat
modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly
impairing essential behavioral patterns such as breeding, feeding or sheltering. Harass is defined
by the Service as intentional or negligent actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed
species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which include, but
are not limited to, breeding, feeding or sheltering. Incidental take is defined as take that is
incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Under the
terms of Section 7(b)(4) and Section 7(0)(2), taking that is incidental to and not intended as part
of the agency action is not considered to be prohibited taking under the ESA provided that such
taking is in compliance with the terms and conditions of this Incidental Take Statement.
The measures described below are non-discretionary, and must be undertaken by the FHWA so
that they become binding conditions of any grant or permit issued to the NCDOT, as appropriate,
for the exemption in section 7(0)(2) to apply. The FHWA has a continuing duty to regulate the
activity covered by this Incidental Take Statement. If the FHWA (1) fails to assume and
implement the terms and conditions or (2) fails to require the NCDOT to adhere to the terms and
ll

conditions of the Incidental Take Statement through enforceable terms that are added to the grant
or permit document, the protective coverage of section 7(0)(2) may lapse. To monitor the impact
of incidental take, the FHWA or the NCDOT must report any detectable impacts on the species
to the Service as specified in the Incidental Take Statement [50 CFR §402.14(�(3)].
Amount or Extent of Take Anticipated
The Service anticipates that incidental take of Roanoke logperch may occur as a result of the
bridge replacement. However, we believe that incidental take for this species may be difficult to
detect for the following reasons: The most likely form of take would occur as harm or
harassment due to temporary disturbance and/or temporary habitat degradation resulting in
behavioral modification of Roanoke logperch. Roanoke logperch movements, breeding, feeding
or sheltering could be temporarily disrupted. Incidental take resulting from behavioral
modification would be very difficult to detect and monitor in a small, mobile aquatic species.
Actual habitat degradation may be detectable, but knowing whether a specific degradation
actually affected the species would be difficult to determine.
Because there is no practical way to know the number of Roanoke logperch that may be present
within the action area at any given time, or to know whether or not sub-lethal incidental take has
even occurred, it is not possible to base the overall amount of incidental take on numbers of
individual fish. Therefore, the level of incidental take of Roanoke logperch can be defined as all
Roanoke logperch that may be harmed, harassed, or killed within the action area (400 meters
downstream and 100 meters upstream of the existing bridge). If incidental take is exceeded, all
work should stop, and the Service should be contacted immediately.
Effect of the Take
In the accompanying BO, the Service has determined that the level of anticipated take is not
likely to result in jeopardy to the Roanoke logperch. The proposed project will not result in the
destruction or adverse modification of any critical habitat.
Reasonable and Prudent Measures
The Service believes the following reasonable and prudent measures (RPM) are necessary and
appropriate to minimize take of Roanoke logperch. These nondiscretionary measures include,
but are not limited to, the terms and conditions outlined in this BO.
l. Avoid affecting Roanoke logperch during spawning season.
2. Adverse effects to Roanoke logperch habitat must be minimized to the maximum extent
practicable.
3. Report any detectable incidental take of Roanoke logperch.
Terms and Conditions
In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the ESA, the FHWA and NCDOT
must comply with the following terms and conditions, which implement the reasonable and
12

prudent measures described previously and outline required reporting requirements. These terms
and conditions are nondiscretionary.
1. No in-water work may occur during the timeframe of March 1— June 15. (RPM 1)
2. NCDOT will ensure that the contractor and on-site NCDOT staff understand and follow
the measures listed in the "Conservation Measures" section of this BO. (RPM 2)
3. If fish mortality is observed within the action area during the construction of the project,
the dead fish must be identified to species to determine the presence or absence of
Roanoke logperch. If Roanoke logperch are identified, the NCDOT must notify the
Service of the take. (RPM 3)
CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA directs federal agencies to use their authorities to further the purposes
of the ESA by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and threatened
species. The following conservation recommendations are discretionary agency activities to
minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, to
help implement recovery plans, or to develop information.
1. Conduct or assist with periodic Roanoke logperch status surveys within its known range
and submit results to the Service.
2. Contribute funding and/or staff to any future Roanoke logperch research or conservation
efforts conducted by others.
In order for the Service to be kept informed of actions minimizing or avoiding adverse effects or
benefiting listed species or their habitats, we request notification of the implementation of any
conservation recommendations.
REINITIATION/CLOSING STATEMENT
This concludes formal consultation on the action outlined in your March 25, 2016 request for
formal consultation. As provided in 50 CFR section 402.16, reinitiation of formal consultation is
required where discretionary federal agency involvement or control over the action has been
retained (or is authorized by law) and i£ (1) new information reveals effects of the agency action
that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this
opinion; (2) the agency action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the
listed species or critical habitat not considered in this opinion; or (3) a new species is listed or
critical habitat designated that may be affected by the action.
Literature Cited
Burkhead, N.M. 1983. Ecological studies of two potentially threatened fishes (the orangefin
madtom, Noturus gilbert and the Roanoke logperch, Percina rex) endemic to the
Roanoke River drainage. Final Report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington, NC.
13

Jenkins, R.E. and N.M. Burkhead. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries
Society, Bethesda, MD.
Lahey, A.M. and P.L. Angermeier. 2007. Range-wide assessment of habitat suitability for
Roanoke logperch (Percina rex). Final Contract Report VTRC 07-CR8. Virginia
Transportation Research Council, Charlottesville, VA.
Roberts, J.H. and A.E. Rosenberger. 2008. Threatened fishes of the world: Percina rex (Jordan
and Evermann 1889) (Percidae). Environmental Biology of Fish 83:439-440.
Roberts, J.H. 2012. Assessment of the distribution and abundance of Roanoke logperch
(Percina rex) in the Dan River basin of Virginia. Final Report to the Virginia
Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, Richmond, VA.
Rosenberger, A.E. and P.L. Angermeier. 2003. Ontogenetic shifts in habitat use by the
endangered Roanoke logperch (Percina rex). Freshwater Biology 48:1563-1577.
Rosenberger, A.E. 2007. An Update to the Roanoke Logperch Recovery Plan. Prepared for
USFWS Virginia Field Office, Gloucester, VA.
USFWS. 2007. Roanoke Logperch (Percina rex). 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation.
Prepared by Virginia Field Office, Gloucester, VA.
USFWS. 2016. Roanoke logperch (Percina rex). Retrieved on March 24, 2016 at
http://www.fws. gov/raleigh/species/es_roanoke_logperch.html
Wheeler, A.P., P.L. Angermeier, and A.E. Rosenberger. 2005. Impacts of new highways and
subsequent landscape urbanization on stream habitat and biota. Reviews in Fisheries
Science 13:141-164.
14