20161008 Ver 1_Fish & Wildlife-Bridge 610228 Concurrence_20161019

LTnited States I)eparirnent oi the Interio
FISH AND WIT�DLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
October 1, 2012
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1598
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
����g� �� �
!
OCT � 2012 �
�
►.91J1S10�J l�F N?�HW,���S , �a���Y �
�p�P����� OF��`����iVl�_`�J. ,,_,. � �
This letter is in response to your letter of September 18, 2012 wluch provided the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) with the biological conclusion of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) that the replacement of Bridge No. 610228 on SR 1320 (Williamson
Street) over Suck Branch in Montgomery County may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect
the federally endangered Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus sclaweinitzii). In addition, NCDOT
has determined that the project will have no effect on the federally endangered red-cockaded
woodpecker (Picoides borealis) and smooth caneflower (Echinaeea laevigata). These
comments are provided in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
According to information provided, a plant survey was conducted at the proj ect site on
September 7, 2012. Although no specimens of Schweinitz's sunflower were observed in the
study area, there are four known occurrences of the species less than one mile from the project
site. Based on the plant survey results and other available information, the Service concurs with
your conclusion that the proposed bridge replacement may affect, but is not likely to adversely
affect the Schweinitz's sunflower.
During the September 7, 2012 plant survey, no specimens ot smooih coneflower were obse�ved.
Also, no suitable foraging or nesting habitat occurred within the project area for the red-
cockaded woodpecker. Based on the survey results and other available information, the Service
concurs with your conclusion that the project will have no effect on the smooth coneflower and
red-cockaded woodpecker. We believe that the requirements of Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA have
been satisfied. We remind you that obligations under Section 7 consultation must be
reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect
listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered in this review; (2) this
action is subsaquently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; or (3) a new
species is listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected by this identified action.

The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions
regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at [phone] (Ext. 32).
Sincerely,
i
�'' Pete Benjamin
Field Supervisor
Electronic copy: Romue Smith, USACE, Wilmington, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Atlanta, GA