20171465 Ver 1_15-030 Stokes Co Br 129 - 11/15/2017_20171115

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
February 20, 2015
Ms. Amy Euliss
Division 9 Environmental Officer
North Carolina Department of Transportation
375 Silas Creek Parkway
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27127
Dear Ms. Euliss:
Subject: Section 7 Concurrence Request on the James Spinymussel for the Proposed
Replacement of Bridge 129, on SR 1484 (Dan George Road), over South Double
Creek, Stokes County, North Carolina
On February 2, 2015, we received your letter requesting concurrence with your determination
that the subject bridge replacement is not likely to adversely affect the James spinymussel
(Pleurobema collina). We submit the following concurrence and recommendations in
accordance with the provisions of section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. §§1531-1543) (Act).
The proposed project area, in Stokes County, North Carolina, occurs immediately upstream of
the known range of the James spinymussel in the Dan River. The information you provided
indicates that surveys were conducted for this species in July 2014 and that no mussels were
found in the area immediately downstream of the proposed disturbance. Due to its close
proximity to the Dan River, it is important to ensure that the habitat downstream is not adversely
affected by the runoff of sediment from the project site. Your proposal to construct the project
with enhanced erosion-control measures, known as Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds,
will minimize the potential for erosion and habitat degradation. With this conservation measure
implemented, we concur with your determination that the project may affect, but is not likely to
adversely affect, the James spinymussel. With careful implementation of best management
practices and your proposed conservation measures, effects to the James spinymussel should be
insignificant and will not amount to a measurable effect; therefore, we believe the requirements
under section 7(c) of the Act are fulfilled. However, obligations under section 7 of the Act must
be reconsidered i£ (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. Jason Mays of our staff at
828/258-3939, Ext. 226. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please reference
our log numbers 4-2-15-030.
Sincerely,
.
J net A. Mizzi
ield Supervisor
�