20171374 Ver 1_17-195 SSpinymussel concurrence_20171030

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
February 6, 2017
Ms. Amy Euliss
Division 9 Environmental Officer
North Carolina Department of Transportation
375 Silas Creek Parkway
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27127-7167
Dear Ms. Euliss:
Subject: Endangered Species Concurrence for Proposed Replacement of Stokes County Culvert
107 on State Route 1696 (Duggins Road) over Lynn Branch
On February 3, 2017, we received your letter (via email) requesting section 7 concurrence on
effects the subject bridge replacement may have on the federally endangered James spinymussel
(Pleurobema collina). The following comments are provided in accordance with section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
On August 16, 2016, you and Andrew Henderson of the US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS)
visited the proposed project site, as well as upstream and downstream areas, to assess aquatic habitats
and survey for freshwater mussels in Lynn Branch and downstream in Snow Creek and the Dan
River. Although the James spinymussel is known to inhabit the Dan River in Stokes County, there
were no freshwater mussels found in the areas surveyed within the project footprint, in Lynn Branch,
Snow Creek, or in areas immediately downstream during the mussel survey effort. Accordingly, we
concur with your determination that the proposed bridge replacement project may affect, but is not
likely to adversely affect the James spinymussel.
As outlined in the Biological Opinion completed on the 4(d) rule for the federally threatened
Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) on 1/5/16, this activity is now excepted from take
prohibitions for Northern long-eared bat, based on the project location. Project activities in the
action area: (1) would not affect a known hibernation site; (2) are not located within'/4 mile of a
known hibernation site, or; (3) are not located within a 150' radius of a known maternity (tree) site.
Therefore, we believe the requirements under Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543), are fulflled. Obligations under Section 7 ofthe ESA 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, (2) this 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 identified action.

If you have questions about these comments please contact Mr. Andrew Henderson of our staff
at 828/258-3939, Ext. 227. In any future correspondence concerning these projects, please
reference our Log Number 17-195.
Sincerely,
-�,,r
Janet A. Mizzi
Field Supervisor
2