20090372 Ver 1_Other Agency Comments_20080904

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
September 4, 2008
Gregory J Thorpe, PhD
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr Thorpe
This letter is in response to your August 18, 2008 letter which requested comments from the U S
Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the Federal Environmental Assessment (FEA) for the
improvements to NC 210 (Murchison Road) from the proposed Fayetteville Outer Loop to NC
24-87-210 (Bragg Boulevard) in Spring Lake, Cumberland County, North Carolina (TIP No I1=
4444) These comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the National
environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U S C 4332(2)(c)) and section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U S C 1531-1543)
The Service has been involved in the combined NEPA/Section 404 Merger 01 Process After
concurrence was obtained from Merger Team members at Concurrence Point 2, two alternatives
(Alternatives 1 and 2) were carried forward and have been studied in detail within the FEA
Alternative 2 is the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) preferred
alternative Although Alternative 2 has higher wetland impacts than Alternative 1 (9 17 acres
versus 6 8 acres), Alternative 2 has substantially fewer commercial and residential relocations, as
well as a substantially lower overall cost
There are six federally endangered species listed for Cumberland County which require
consideration under section 7 of the ESA red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW, Pccoides borealis),
Saint Francis' satyr (Neonympha mitchellai francisci), pondberry (Lindera melissifolza), rough-
leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia), Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxaa), and
American chaffseed (Schwalbea americana) NCDOT has determined that the proposed project
will have no effect on all species except the RCW Table 12 on page 55 states that the biological
conclusion for the RCW is "unresolved"
The Service is concerned that this project may have potentially serious adverse effects on the
RCW The foraging partitions (i e half-mile radius from the center of the cluster of cavity trees)
of four RCW clusters overlap with the project (FB 0207, FB 0264, FB 0165, FB 0375)
Currently, all the clusters are active except for FB 0264 These clusters are located on Fort
Bragg property and are being monitored and managed as part of the North Carolina Sandhills
East Primary Core Population of the Sandhills Recovery Unit This population is one of only 13
designated Primary Core Populations, thus indicating its importance Fort Bragg manages its
portion of this Primary Core Population within Habitat Management Units (HMU) FB 0207
falls within the Greenbelt HMU, while FB 0264, FB 0165 and FB 0375 fall within the Northeast
Area HMU The juxtaposition of these clusters is critical to connecting the two HMUs and
maintaining dispersal and immigration between the two HMUs The loss of this connection
would seriously hamper RCW management at Fort Bragg The removal of any pine trees greater
than 30 years old could potentially cause an adverse affect to the RCW
If any pine trees greater than 30 years old are removed, a foraging habitat analysis using the
guidelines in the 2003 RCW Recovery Plan - Standard for Managed Stability (USFWS 2003)
will be required in order to fully assess the effects on the RCW The Standard for Managed
Stability requires a mimmum of 3,000 square feet of pine basal area in stems > 10 inches dbh
(diameter at breast height) on at least 75 acres of suitable habitat as defined in the 2003 RCW
Recovery Plan for each foraging partition Should habitat removals lower one or more RCW
foraging partitions below this threshold, the Service will consider this a "take" of the species and
formal section 7 consultation will be required This process requires up to 135 days to complete
once a complete initiation package is received from the Federal Highway Administration It is
extremely important that this project be designed to remove the least amount of RCW habitat
possible
Page 56 of the FEA states that a foraging analysis was conducted in early 2008 The Service has
yet to see this analysis, and we question why this important information was not presented in the
FEA Page 56 also states that a biological assessment is being prepared for the RCW At this
time, an alternatives analysis (i e foraging habitat analysis for both alternatives) is needed so as
to compare the two alternatives being studied in detail From a cursory review of maps with
preliminary plans superimposed on the four RCW partitions, it appears that Alternative 2 may
have less impact on the RCW than Alternative 1, however, until we have the foraging habitat
analysis data we cannot know this definitively
With regard to cumulative effects (as defined by NEPA) and considering TIP projects X-2 and
U-2519, page 66 of the FEA states "It is not expected the three projects will have a synergistic
effect which would increase the overall cumulative effect beyond each project's direct effects "
With regard to the RCW, the Service does not believe that the FEA presents enough information
to support that statement In a previous section 7 consultation, it was demonstrated that the U-
2519 project will have adverse effects to the RCW and the habitat within the Greenbelt HMU
The U-4444 project, combined with U-2519, could potentially lower the effectiveness of the
Greenbelt HMU/Northeast Area HMU connection and its ability to maintain genetic exchange
between the two HMUs The FEA fails to analyze this
The FEA does not adequately address the effects to the RCW Since the RCWs in this area are
of heightened significance due to their being designated as part of a Primary Core Population
within the 2003 RCW Recovery Plan, the FEA should have provided more information and
included some of the data from the aforementioned foraging analysis An agency field day is
being planned for the near future It would have been helpful to have held the field day prior to
the release of this FEA While the Service does not believe that section 7 of the ESA needed to
be completed prior to release of the FEA, more information is needed before the Service can take
an informed position on the project
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project If a Finding of No Significant
Impact is developed, we would like to receive a copy If you have any questions regarding our
response, please contact Mr Gary Jordan at [phone], ext 32
Sincerely,
Pete Benjamin
Field Supervisor
Literature cited
U S Fish and Wildlife Service 2003 Recovery Plan for the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides
borealis) second revision U S Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA 296 pp
cc Chris Milrtscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Rob Ridings, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Richard Spencer, USACE, Wilmington, NC
John Sullivan, FHWA, Raleigh, NC