20171650 Ver 1_USFWS signed BO_20171221

Monte Matthews
United States Department of the Interior
NCDOT Team Leader
US Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403-1343
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ecological Services
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
December 20, 2017
F7� � WILDLIFE
SBRVICS
�'''�o. T��`°�
Subject: Biological Opinion — Replacement of Bridge No. 43 on SR 1620 over Shocco Creek,
Warren County, North Carolina (TIP Number B-5687)
[FWS Log #: 04EN2000-2017-F-0527]
Dear Mr. Matthews:
This letter transmits the enclosed biological opinion (BO) of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) for the replacement of Bridge No. 43 on SR 1620 over Shocco Creek, Warren County,
North Carolina (the Action). The US Army Corps of Engineers, pursuant to Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act, proposes to authorize the Action. The Service received on November 15, 2017,
your letter requesting formal consultation for the Action described in Biological Assessment for
Replacement of Bridge No. 43 on SR 1620 over Shocco Creek. You determined that the Action
is likely to adversely affect Dwarf Wedgemussel.
You also determined that the Action is not likely to adversely affect Tar River spinymussel and
Yellow Lance. The Service concurs with these determinations for reasons we explain in Section
3 of the BO. Although the Yellow Lance is currently only a federally proposed threatened
species at this time, this concurrence is valid should the species be officially listed.
The enclosed BO answers your request for formal consultation, and concludes that the Action is
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species listed above. This finding fuliills
the requirements applicable to the Action far completing consultation under §7(a)(2) of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended.
Reinitiating consultation is required if the US Army Corps of Engineers retains discretionary
involvement or control over the Action (or is authorized by law) when:
a. the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded;
b. new information reveals that the Action may affect listed species or designated critical
habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this BO;

c. the Action is modi�ed in a manner that causes eifects to listed species or designated
critical habitat noc considered in this B�; or
d. a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that the Action may affect.
A complete administrative record of this consultation is on f'tle in our of�ce a[ the let[er-head
address. If yau have any questians about the BO, please contact Gary Jordan by phone at 919-
856-4520 x32 or by email at gary [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Gy.� � w►.
I �� �
Tom Augspurger
Deputy Field Office Supervisor
Enclosure
Electronic copy provided to:
Eric Alsmeyer, USACE, Wake Forest, NC
Chris Murray, NCDOT, Durham, NC
Jared Gray, NCDOT, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Rob Ridings, NCDEQ, Raleigh, NC
Sandra Daran, USFWS, Cortland, NY
2

Biological Opinion
Replacemen� of Bridge No. 43 on SR 1620 over Shocco
Creek, Warren County, North Carolina
(TIP Number B-5687)
[NAME, TITL`E]
FWS Log #: 04EN200�-2017-F-QS27
Pr�;pared by:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh Field Office
P.O. Box 3372b
Raleigh, NC 27635-3726
/
Date
/Z'2o'1 �

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONSULTATION HISTORY ...................................................................................................................................iii
BIOLOGICALOPINION ........................................................................................................................................ 1
1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 1
2. PROPOSED ACTION ................................................................................................................................... 1
2.1. Action Area .................................................................................................................................................2
2.2. Removal of the Existing Bridge ...................................................................................................................3
2.3. Construction of the New Bridge ..................................................................................................................3
2.4. Conservation Measures .............................................................................................................................. 3
2.5. Interrelated and InterdependentActions ...................................................................................................4
3. CONCURRENCE ......................................................................................................................................... 5
4. STATUS OF SPECIES ................................................................................................................................... 5
4.1. Species Description .....................................................................................................................................5
4.2. Life History ..................................................................................................................................................5
4.3. Numbers, Reproduction, and Distribution ..................................................................................................6
4.4. Conservation Needs and Threats ................................................................................................................7
5. ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE ...................................................................................................................... 8
5.1. Action Area Numbers, Reproduction, and Distribution ..............................................................................8
5.2. Action Area Conservation Needs and Threats ............................................................................................8
6. EFFECTS OF THE ACTION ............................................................................................................................ 9
6.1. Effects of Removal of the Existing Bridge ...................................................................................................9
6.2. Effects of Construction of the New Bridge ..................................................................................................9
6.3. Effects of Interrelated and Interdependent Actions ..................................................................................10
7. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ..............................................................................................................................10
8. CONCLUSION ...........................................................................................................................................10
9. INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT .................................................................................................................11
9.1. Amount or Extent of Take .........................................................................................................................12
9.2. Reasonable and Prudent Measures ..........................................................................................................12
9.3. Terms and Conditions ...............................................................................................................................13
9.4. Monitoring and Reporting Requirements .................................................................................................13
10. CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS .....................................................................................................13
11. REINITIATION NOTICE ..............................................................................................................................13
12. LITERATURE CITED ....................................................................................................................................14
11

CONSULTATION HISTORY
This section lists key events and correspondence during the course of this consultation. A
complete administrative record of this consultation is on file in the Service's Raleigh Field
Office.
2017-OS-02 — Service staff inet onsite with North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) staff, consultants, and North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission staff to
discuss project plans and need for formal Section 7 consultation for the endangered
Dwarf Wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon).
2017-10-06 — The Service received a draft biological assessment (BA) for review.
2017-10-11— The Service provided comments on the draft BA to NCDOT.
2017-11-15 — The Service received the final BA (dated 2017-11-10) and a letter from the US
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) requesting initiation of formal Section 7
consultation.
2017-12-OS — The Service provided a letter to the USACE stating that all information required
for initiation of consultation was either included with their 2017-11-15 letter or was
otherwise available.
2017-12-11— The Service provided the USACE and NCDOT with a draft Biological Opinion.
iii

BIOLOGICAL OPINION
1. INTRODUCTION
A biological opinion (BO) is the document that states the opinion of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA), as to whether a
Federal action is likely to:
• jeopardize the continued existence of species listed as endangered or threatened; or
• result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat.
The Federal action addressed in this BO is the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
authorization, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, of the proposed replacement of
Bridge No. 43 on SR 1620 over Shocco Creek, Warren County, North Carolina (the Action).
This BO considers the effects of the Action on Dwarf Wedgemussel (DWM). The Action does
not affect designated critical habitat; therefore, this BO does not further address critical habitat.
The USACE determined that the Action is not likely to adversely affect the endangered Tar
River Spinymussel (Par�vaspina steinstansana) and the proposed-threatened Yellow Lance
(Elliptio lanceolata). The Service concurs with these determinations, for reasons we explain in
Section 3 of the BO.
A BO evaluates the effects of a Federal action along with those resulting from interrelated and
interdependent actions, and from non-Federal actions unrelated to the proposed Action
(cumulative effects), relative to the status of listed species and the status of designated critical
habitat. A Service opinion that concludes a proposed Federal action is not likely to jeopardize
species and is not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat fulfills the Federal
agency's responsibilities under §7(a)(2) of the ESA. In this BO, only the jeopardy definition is
relevant, because the Action does not affect designated critical habitat. "Jeopardize the continued
existence" means to engage in an action that reasonably would be expected, directly or indirectly,
to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the
wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species (50 CFR §402.02).
The basis of our opinion for DWM is developed by considering the status of the species, its
environmental baseline, the effects of the Action, and cumulative effects.
This BO uses hierarchical numeric section headings. Primary (level-1) sections are labeled
sequentially with a single digit (e.g., 2. PROPOSED ACTION). Secondary (level-2) sections
within each primary section are labeled with two digits (e.g., 2.1. Action Area), and so on for
level-3 sections.
2. PROPOSED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 43
on SR 1620 over Shocco Creek in Warren County, North Carolina. The existing bridge has a
sufficiency rating of 53.2 out of a possible 100 and is considered functionally obsolete according
to Federal Highway Administration standards. Components of both the superstructure and
substructure have experienced an increasing degree of deterioration that can no longer be

addressed by maintenance activities. The bridge is approaching the end of its useful life.
Replaceinent of the bridge will result in safer traffic operations. The tentative date for
construction to begin is June 2018. The estimated time to complete construction is approximately
8-9 months. Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Action requires authorization
from the USACE. The Action wil] be deconstructed into three components: l) removal of the
existing bridge, 2) construction of the new bridge, and 3) conservation measures.
2.1. Action Area
For puiposes of consultation under ESA �7, the action area is defined as "all areas to be affected
directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the iinmediate area involved in the
action" (50 CFR §402.02). The "Action Area" for this consultation includes the footprint of the
existing and new bridges, the river bank iinmediately adjacent to the bridge receiving any runoff
from the construction activity, a section of SR 1620 extending 386 feet to the northeast and 277
feet to the southwest, and a section of Shocco Creek extending from 400 meters (1312 feet)
downstream to 100 meters (328 feet) upstream of Bridge No. 43 (Figure 2-1). Under noi-mal
circuinstances, a downstream distance of 400 ineters is generally considered to be the maxiinum
extent of detectable sedimentation effects.
Figure 2-1
ApproximaCe boutidaries o1'Action Acea depicted in red.
2

2.2. Removal of the Existing Bridge
The existing bridge is an eight span (each span is �15 feet) structure with an overall length of
121 feet and consists of an asphalt overlay on a wooden deck with steel I-beams supported by
creosote treated wooden piles. Four of the interior bents are located within Shocco Creek. The
bridge will be removed from the top down, first removing the asphalt with containment measures
in place to prevent asphalt from dropping into the stream. This will be followed by removal of
the decking, girders, and finally the wooden piles. No heavy equipment will be placed in Shocco
Creek. An attempt will be made to pull the piles from the substrate; however, if this cannot be
accomplished with minimal substrate disturbance, the piles will be pinched off one foot below
the mud line. The removed piles will not be dragged across the streambed.
2.3. Construction of the New Bridge
The new bridge will be a three-span cored slab structure having an overall length of 135 feet and
width of 30 feet. Beginning from the northeast end of the bridge, the span configuration of the
new structure will be 35 feet, 75 feet, and 25 feet. The center span will completely span Shocco
Creek. Class II rip rap will be used to stabilize the stream banks in front of both new bents. The
rip rap will establish a more natural streambank by constructing a bench that ties to the adjacent
floodplain elevation along both streambanks. The total distance of stream bank to be stabilized
with rip rap is approximately 115 linear feet along the southwestern bank and approximately 99
feet along the northeastern bank. Work on the approach road extends 386 feet to the northeast
and 277 feet to the southwest of the bridge. An offsite detour will be utilized during project
construction.
2.4. Conservation Measures
The following measures will be incorporated into the design and construction of the Action to
avoid and/or minimize effects to DWM.
The following "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" [15A NCAC 04B.0124 (b) —(e)] will
be incorporated into the project:
• The Contractor may perform clearing operations but not grubbing operation until
immediately prior to beginning grading operations.
• Once grading operations begin, work shall progress in a continuous manner until complete.
• Erosion control devices shall be installed immediately following the clearing operation.
• Seeding and mulching shall be performed on the areas disturbed by construction immediately
following final grade establishment.
• Seeding and mulching shall be done in stages on cut and �11 slopes that are greater than 20
feet in height measure along the slope or greater than two acres in area, whichever is less.
The following are additional measures intended to further reduce deleterious construction related
effects to the waterway:
• An offsite detour will be utilized for this project.
• No heavy equipment will be placed in Shocco Creek.

• Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be implemented during
the removal of the existing bridge.
• If still present at the time of construction, a fallen tree crossing the stream below the existing
bridge will be completely removed to prevent potential bank erosion caused by the tree. The
engineer will evaluate if the root ball can remain in place.
• No new bents will be constructed in the stream. New bents will be constructed at or beyond
the top of bank.
• Existing timber abutments will be completely removed.
• Longer guardrail posts will be used to minimize shoulder and fill slope width.
• Deck drains will not be allowed to discharge directly into the stream.
• Special sediment control fence as indicated by NCDOT Standard No. 1606.01 will be
installed along the top of the stream bank. Standard silt fence will be installed along the toe
of slope parallel to the stream. Once the disturbed areas of the project draining to the special
sediment control fence have been stabilized, the special sediment control fence and all built
up sediment adjacent to the fence will be removed to natural ground and stabilized with a
native grass mix.
• All sedimentation and erosion control measures, throughout the project limits, will be
cleaned out when'/2 full with sediment, to ensure proper function of the measures.
• A Class II rip rap bench will be placed in such a manner as to reduce the width of the existing
bridge pool. This will facilitate the stream banks to correct toward the natural channel width
and will tie to the adjacent floodplain elevation along both streambanks.
• Coir fiber matting will be installed on the footprint of unclassified structure excavation near
the streambanks.
• Embankment construction and grading shall be managed in such a manner as to prevent
surface runoff/drainage from discharging untreated into the riparian buffer. Instead all
interim surfaces will be graded to drain to temporary erosion control devices. Temporary
berms, ditches, etc. will be incorporated, as necessary, to treat temporary runoff before
discharging into the riparian buffer (as specified in the NCDOT BMP Manual).
2.5. Interrelated and Interdependent Actions
A BO evaluates the effects of a proposed Federal action. For purposes of consultation under ESA
§7, the effects of a Federal action on listed species or critical habitat include the direct and
indirect effects of the action, plus the effects of interrelated or interdependent actions. "Indirect
effects are those that are caused by the proposed action and are later in time, but still are
reasonably certain to occur. Interrelated actions are those that are part of a larger action and
depend on the larger action for their justification. Interdependent actions are those that have no
independent utility apart from the action under consideration" (50 CFR §402.02).
Utility relocations are required in association with this project and include the following: 1)
removal of existing power poles throughout the project, 2) installation of new overhead power
lines and poles on the west side of the road and, 3) installation of new phone cable by trenchless
installation under Shocco Creek on the west side of the road. It is not anticipated that the
powerline relocation will involve activities within the banks of Shocco Creek.
�

3.CONCURRENCE
The USACE determined that the Action is not likely to adversely affect the endangered Tar
River Spinymussel (Parvaspina steinstansana) and the proposed-threatened Yellow Lance
(Elliptio lanceolata). The Service concurs with these determinations for the following reasons. A
mussel survey was conducted at the project site on March 29, 2017. No specimens of Tar River
spinymussel or Yellow Lance were observed during the survey. Although records exist from
several miles downstream in Shocco Creek, neither species has ever been observed near the
Action Area.
This concurrence concludes consultation for the listed species named in this section, and these
are not further addressed in this BO. The circumstances described in the Reinitiation Notice of
this BO that require reinitiating consultation for the Action, except for exceeding the amount or
extent of incidental take, also apply to these species.
4. STATUS OF SPECIES
This section summarizes best available data about the biology and current condition of Dwarf
Wedgemussel (DWM, Alasmidonta heterodon) throughout its range that are relevant to
formulating an opinion about the Action. The Service published its decision to list DWM as
endangered on March 14, 1990 (55 FR 9447- 9451).
4.1. Species Description
The DWM is a small bivalve, rarely exceeding 45 mm in length. Clean young shells are usually
greenish-brown with green rays. As it ages, the shell color becomes obscured by diatoms or
mineral deposits and appears black or brown. The shell is thin but does thicken somewhat with
age, especially toward the anterior end. The anterior end is rounded while the posterior end is
angular forming a point near the posterio-ventral margin (USFWS 2017).
4.2. Life History
DWM occur in small creeks to deep rivers in stable habitat with substrates ranging from mixed
sand, pebble and gravel, to clay and silty sand. In the southern portion of its range, it is often
found buried under logs or root mats in shallow water (USFWS 1993); whereas in the northern
portion of its range, it may be found in firm substrates of mixed sand, gravel or cobble, or
embedded in clay banks in water depths of a few inches to greater than 20 feet (Fichtel and
Smith 1995, Gabriel 1995, Gabriel 1996, Nedeau and Werle 2003, Nedeau 2004a and 2004b,
Nedeau 2006).
The DWM's reproductive cycle is typical of other freshwater mussels, requiring a host fish on
which its larvae (glochidia) parasitize and metamorphose into juvenile mussels. The following
species have been confirmed as host fish for the DWM: tessellated darter (Etheostoma
olmstedi), Johnny darter (E. nigrum), fantail darter (E. flabellare), chainback darter (Percina
nevisense), Roanoke darter (P. roanoka), mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdi), slimy sculpin (C.
cognatus), Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), pirate perch (Aphredoderus sayanus), redbreast
5

sunfish (Lepomis auritus), green sunfish (L. cyanellus), bluegill (L. macrochirus), bluehead chub
(Nocomis leptocephalus), highfin shiner (Notropis altipinnis), swallowtail shiner (Notropis
procne), white shiner (Luxilus albeolus), and pinewoods shiner (Lythrurus matutinus)
(Michaelson and Neves 1995, White 2007, Levine et al. 2011). The DWM is not a long-lived
species as compared to other freshwater mussels; life expectancy is estimated at 10 to 12 years
(Michaelson and Neves 1995).
4.3. Numbers, Reproduction, and Distribution
The DWM is found solely in Atlantic Coast drainage streams and rivers of various sizes and
moderate current. It currently ranges from New Hampshire to North Carolina. Historically, the
DWM range extended north to New Brunswick, Canada. The DWM has been documented in 16
major drainages (Table 4-3), comprising approximately 70 sites. However, at least 45 of these
sites are based on less than five individuals or solely on relic shells (USFWS 2007, USFWS
2013).
Table 4-3. DWM ma'or draina es.
State Ma'or Draina e County
NH Upper Connecticut River Coos, Grafton, Sullivan, Cheshire
VT Upper Connecticut River Essex, Orange, Windsor, Windham
MA Middle Connecticut River Hampshire, Hampden
CT Lower Connecticut River Hartford
NY Housatonic River Dutchess
NY Middle Delaware Orange, Sullivan, Delaware
NJ Middle Delaware Warren, Sussex
PA Upper Delaware River Wayne
MD Choptank River Queen Anne's, Caroline
MD Lower Potomac River St. Mary's, Charles
MD Upper Chesapeake Bay Queen Anne's
VA Middle Potomac River Stafford
VA York River Louisa, Spotsylvania
VA Chowan River Sussex, Nottoway, Lunenburg
NC Upper Tar River Granville, Vance, Franklin, Nash
NC Upper Fishing Creek Warren, Franklin, Nash, Halifax
NC Upper Contentnea Creek Wilson, Nash, Johnston
NC U er Neuse River Johnston, Wake, Oran e
* The 16 major drainages identiiied in Table 4-3 do not necessarily correspond to the original drainages
identified in the 1993 Recovery Plan, although there is considerable overlap.
The main stem of the Connecticut River in New Hampshire and Vermont is considered to have
the largest remaining DWM population, consisting of three distinct stretches of sporadically
occupied habitat segmented by hydroelectric dams. Other viable populations in the northeastern
United States include the Ashuelot River in New Hampshire and the Flat Brook in New Jersey.
The Farmington River in Connecticut, Paulins Kill in New Jersey, and the Neversink River in
New York may also harbor viable populations, but more survey work is needed (USFWS 2013).
0

Because of the qualitative survey methods used to assess the populations, it is not possible to
estimate the number of individuals in these populations. However, recent surveys indicate that
DWM numbers may be declining at some locations in the Connecticut River and Ashuelot River
(Biodrawversity LLC 2013, Biodrawversity LLC et al. 2014).
Although remaining populations from New Jersey south to North Carolina are much smaller, the
Upper Tar River and Upper Fishing Creek in North Carolina are thought to harbor viable
populations. Other populations in North Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland appear to be declining
as evidenced by low densities, lack of reproduction, or inability to relocate any DWM in follow-
up surveys (USFWS 2013).
4.4. Conservation Needs and Threats
Human activity has significantly degraded DWM habitat causing a general decline in populations
and a reduction in distribution of the species. Primary factors responsible for the decline of the
DWM include: 1) impoundment of river systems, 2) pollution, 3) alteration of riverbanks, 4)
siltation, 5) competition from invasive species, and 6) extreme weather events (e.g. floods and
drought) (USFWS 1993, USFWS 2013).
Damming and channelization of rivers throughout the DWM's range have resulted in the
elimination or alteration of much of its formerly occupied habitat (Watters 2001). Domestic and
industrial pollution was the primary cause for mussel extirpation at many historical sites.
Mussels are known to be sensitive to a wide variety of heavy metals and pesticides, and to
excessive nutrients and chlorine (Havlik and Marking 1987). Mussel die-offs have been
attributed to chemical spills, agricultural waste run-off and low dissolved oxygen levels.
Because freshwater mussels are relatively sedentary and cannot move quickly or for long
distances, they cannot easily escape when silt is deposited over their habitat. Siltation has been
documented to be extremely detrimental to mussel populations by degrading substrate and water
quality, increasing exposure to other pollutants and by direct smothering of mussels (Ellis 1936,
Marking and Bills 1980). In Massachusetts, a bridge construction project decimated a population
of DWM by accelerated sedimentation and erosion (Smith 1981).
The invasive Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea) competes with native mussels for food or space
and alters the nutrient cycling of streams in which they are abundant (CABI 2017). The Asian
clam now occurs throughout most of the range of the DWM. The decline of DWM populations
in Virginia was observed concurrently with, or shortly after, the colonization of the state's rivers
by the Asian clam. Anecdotal observations indicate that the Asian clam has strong negative
effects on the abundance of native bivalves that are of similar size (USFWS 2013).
Extreme weather events like flooding and drought have had an impact on DWM. Surveys in
2006 indicated that the DWM population in the Neversink River (formerly one of the most
robust populations of DWM) was adversely affected by flood events, and it remains to be seen if
this population can rebound. Drought also appears to have adverse effects on DWM populations.
This is evident in the upper Tar River watershed in North Carolina, where severe population
declines have been witnessed following a substantial drought in 2007 (USFWS 2013).
7

Most DWM populations are small and geographically isolated from each other. This isolation
restricts exchange of genetic material among populations and reduces genetic variability within
populations (USFWS 1993). Recent studies investigating the range-wide phylogeographic
structure of DWM indicate that the low degree (or absence) of gene flow between and within
drainages suggests that individual host fish do not move between drainages, nor do they exhibit
effective movement (resulting in gene flow) within drainages (USFWS 2013).
5. ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE
This section is an analysis of the effects of past and ongoing human and natural factors leading to
the current status of the DWM, its habitat, and ecosystem within the Action Area. The
environmental baseline is a"snapshot" of the species' health in the Action Area at the time of the
consultation, and does not include the effects of the Action under review.
5.1. Action Area Numbers, Reproduction, and Distribution
The Action Area is located within the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Element
Occurrence ID 20988 for DWM. This Element Occurrence is listed as first being observed in
1993. A mussel survey was conducted within the Action Area on March 29, 2017. Along with
many common Eastern Elliptio (Elliptio complanata) mussels, a single DWM was observed
upstream of the road crossing near the upper end of the Action Area. Surveys conducted by the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission in 2004 and 2005 found one and four DWM,
respectively, also within the upper end of the Action Area (NCWRC 2017). It is not possible to
know the exact number of individuals currently occupying the Action Area, but DWM have not
been observed in the portion of the Action Area downstream of the road crossing.
Although not currently present within the Action Area, the presence of beaver dams upstream
and downstream of the Action Area has adversely affected DWM habitat in Shocco Creek by
converting portions of the stream from a lotic system to a more lentic system. DWM cannot
persist indefinitely in a lentic system. Although beaver dams can be transient in nature, they have
the effect of fragmenting and isolating mussel populations.
5.2. Action Area Conservation Needs and Threats
The Action Area contains approximately 0.7 acres of habitat for the DWM; however, the portion
of habitat located closest to the bridge is poor quality due to the presence of a deep pool. Better
quality habitat occurs upstream of the bridge. The land use around and upstream of the Action
Area is primarily forested, with ample forest buffers to protect the stream. Therefore, the Action
Area is not currently threatened with water quality issues from upstream. The most immediate
threat to DWM within the Action Area is from beaver activity, which could render the habitat
unsuitable to the species.
:

6. EFFECTS OF THE ACTION
This section analyzes the direct and indirect effects of the Action on the DWM, which includes
the direct and indirect effects of interrelated and interdependent actions. Direct effects are caused
by the Action and occur at the same time and place. Indirect effects are caused by the Action, but
are later in time and reasonably certain to occur. Our analyses are organized according to the
description of the Action in Section 2 of this BO.
6.1. Effects of Removal of the Existing Bridge
There will be no excavation within Shocco Creek, and no heavy equipment will operate within
the channel. However, when the existing wooden piles are pulled out of the substrate of the
creek, a small amount of silt will be disturbed and redeposited downstream into DWM habitat.
Siltation can harass or harm mussels by degrading substrate and water quality, by increasing
exposure to pollutants, and by direct smothering of mussels (Ellis 1936, Marking and Bills
1980). However, the amount of siltation from pile removal is expected to be minimal. Of greater
potential concern is prolonged erosion of the disturbed area on and along the banks of the stream
where the existing bridge abutments will be excavated for removal. A major storm event could
erode soil from within this disturbed area and wash it into the stream, causing harassment or
harm by interfering with respiration, feeding, or spawning and otherwise degrading habitat for
DWM and their host fish. Also, the removal of a large downed tree adjacent to the bridge may
provide another minor source of sediment input into the stream. However, to avoid or minimize
the potential siltation effects, NCDOT has developed stringent erosion control measures (see
Section 2.4) which greatly minimize sediment entering the stream. Assuming the proper
installation and maintenance of these erosion control measures and full implementation of all
conservation measures, the probability of effects from siltation leading to mortality is low. Only
if the erosion control measures failed would effects be expected to be lethal. All potential effects
described in this section and the following section could affect not only juvenile and adult
DWM, but the larval glochidia stage and the species' host fish as we1L However, given the
cryptic nature of DWM, any effects would be difficult to detect and measure.
The removal of the existing wooden piles from the channel will cause a minor change in the
stream's flow pattern and velocity, which could be adverse or beneficial. However, such effects
are expected to be insignificant.
6.2. Effects of Construction of the New Bridge
While the new bridge is constructed, the potential for effects from siltation from the disturbed
construction area along the banks is similar to that described in Section 6.1. Again, the stringent
erosion control measures should minimize this effect.
To stabilize the banks adjacent to the bridge, 115 linear feet of the southwestern bank and 99
linear feet of the northeastern bank will be rip-rapped. The rip rap will extend down into the edge
of the water. Any DWM present along the water's edge could be crushed. However, the area to
be rip-rapped is adjacent to poor quality habitat, thus the probability of DWM being present is
low.
0

The elimination of bridge bents in the channel (from four to zero) will ultimately 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 in-channel bents 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 siltation), the elimination of in-channel bents
will thus eliminate future disturbance from debris removal. Lengthening the new bridge from
121 feet to 135 feet will allow the stream to access more of its floodplain and thus potentially
reducing downstream bank scouring and siltation effects on DWM.
6.3. Effects of Interrelated and Interdependent Actions
The removal of existing power line poles and the placement of new poles will create a minor
amount of ground disturbance within the floodplain of Shocco Creek. However, potential effects
to DWM would be insignificant. The installation of a new phone cable under Shocco Creek
using directional boring methodology is likewise expected to have insignificant effects.
7. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
For purposes of consultation under ESA §7, cumulative effects are those caused by future state,
tribal, local, or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the Action Area. Future
Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered, because they require
separate consultation under §7 of the ESA.
We are not aware of any non-Federal actions in the Action Area that may affect DWM.
Therefore, cumulative effects are not relevant to formulating our opinion for the Action.
8. CONCLUSION
In this section, we summarize and interpret the findings of the previous sections (status, baseline,
effects, and cumulative effects) relative to the purpose of a BO under §7(a)(2) of the ESA, which
is to determine whether a Federal action is likely to:
a) jeopardize the continued existence of species listed as endangered or threatened; or
b) result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat.
"Jeopardize the continued existence" means to engage in an action that reasonably would be
expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and
recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of
that species (50 CFR §402.02).
The largest populations of DWM occur in the Connecticut River and other rivers and streams in
the northeastern United States (USFWS 2007, USFWS 2013). Although the number of DWM
within the Action Area is unknown, the species has only been observed within the Action Area
upstream of the road crossing. During the most recent mussel survey on March 29, 2017, a single
DWM was observed near the upstream end of the Action Area where the best habitat occurs. It is
unknown if any DWM occur downstream of the bridge within the Action Area where adverse
10

effects from siltation would occur. The Action Area comprises only about 0.7 acres of habitat,
some of which is poor quality. If DWM are present at or downstream of the bridge within the
Action Area, some adverse effects will occur as harm or harassment. However, assuming proper
installation and maintenance of NCDOT's stringent erosion control measures, the probability of
adverse effects from siltation leading to mortality is low. Only if the erosion control measures
failed would effects be expected to be lethal. The probability of mortality from placement of rip
rap is also low given the small area affected and the low quality of the habitat where rock will be
placed.
The Action incorporates many construction-related conservation measures which will reduce the
potential to adversely affect DWM. The Action also has important long-term beneficial effects
when compared to the existing structure which will be removed. Overall, the effects of the
Action are not biologically meaningful relative to the species' populations range-wide and the
species' conservation needs.
After reviewing the current status of the species, the environmental baseline for the Action Area,
the effects of the Action and the cumulative effects, it is the Service's biological opinion that the
Action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the DWM.
9. INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT
ESA §9(a)(1) and regulations issued under §4(d) prohibit the take of endangered and threatened
fish and wildlife species without special exemption. The term "take" in the ESA means "to
harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in
any such conduct" (ESA §3). In regulations at 50 CFR §17.3, the Service further defines:
•"harass" as "an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of
injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal
behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or
sheltering;"
•"harm" as "an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such act may include
significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife
by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or
sheltering;" and
•"incidental take" as "any taking otherwise prohibited, if such taking is incidental to, and
not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity."
Under the terms of ESA §7(b)(4) and §7(0)(2), taking that is incidental to and not intended as
part of the agency action is not considered prohibited, provided that such taking is in compliance
with the terms and conditions of an incidental take statement (ITS). For the exemption in ESA
§7(0)(2) to apply to the Action considered in this BO, the USACE must undertake the non-
discretionary measures described in this ITS, and these measures must become binding
conditions of any permit, contract, or grant issued for implementing the Action. The USACE has
a continuing duty to regulate the activity covered by this ITS. The protective coverage of
§7(0)(2) may lapse if the USACE fails to:
• assume and implement the terms and conditions; or
11

• require a permittee, contractor, or grantee to adhere to the terms and conditions of the ITS
through enforceable terms that are added to the permit, contract, or grant document.
In order to monitor the impact of incidental take, the USACE must report the progress of the
Action and its impact on the species to the Service as specified in this ITS.
9.1. Amount or Extent of Take
This section specifies the amount or extent of take of DWM that the Action is reasonably certain
to cause, which we estimated in the "Effects of the Action" section of this BO. We reference, but
do not repeat, these analyses here.
The Service anticipates that the Action is reasonably certain to cause incidental take of individual
DWM consistent with the definition of harass and/or harm resulting from removing the existing
bridge and constructing the new bridge (see section 6.1 and 6.2). However, we believe that
incidental take for this species is difficult to determine. Incidental take that occurs as harassment
due to sub-lethal levels of siltation which temporarily disrupt movement, breeding, feeding, or
sheltering of adult and juvenile DWM, larval glochidia, and the species' host fish are likely not
detectable or measureable. Incidental take that occurs as harm resulting in injury or death from
larger amounts of siltation would be difficult to determine. Actual habitat degradation may be
detectable, but knowing whether a specific degradation actually affected the species would be
difficult to determine. Spent shells may be collected, but attributing the cause of mortality would
be very difficult. Incidental take that occurs as harm from being crushed would likely go
unnoticed due to the cryptic nature of species. Also, there is no practical way to know the
number of DWM (adult, juveniles, and the much smaller glochidia) or host fish that may be
present within the Action Area at any given time. Therefore, it is not possible to base the overall
amount of incidental take on numbers of animals.
Due to the difficulty of detecting take of DWM caused by the Action, the amount or extent of
take will be defined by using acres of DWM habitat as a surrogate measure. The Action Area
contains approximately 0.7 acre of potentially suitable habitat for DWM. Therefore, the amount
or extent of take of DWM caused by the Action is all DWM and DWM host fish harassed and/or
harmed within the 0.7 acre of habitat contained in the Action Area. The USACE will monitor the
extent of taking using this surrogate measure (see Section 9.4).
9.2. Reasonable and Prudent Measures
The Service believes that no reasonable and prudent measures are necessary or appropriate to
minimize the impact of incidental take caused by the Action on DWM. Minor changes that do
not alter the basic design, location, scope, duration, or timing of the Action will not reduce
incidental take below the amount or extent anticipated for the Action as proposed. Therefore, this
ITS does not provide RPMs.
12

9.3. Terms and Conditions
No reasonable and prudent measures to minimize the impacts of incidental take caused by the
Action are provided in this ITS; therefore, no terms and conditions for carrying out such
measures are necessary.
9.4. Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
In order to monitor the impacts of incidental take, the USACE must report the progress of the
Action and its impact on the species to the Service as specified in the incidental take statement
(50 CFR §402.14(i)(3)). This section provides the specific instructions for such monitoring and
reporting (M&R). As necessary and appropriate to fulfill this responsibility, the USACE must
require any permittee, contractor, or grantee to accomplish the monitoring and reporting through
enforceable terms that are added to the permit, contract, or grant document. Such enforceable
terms must include a requirement to immediately notify the USACE and the Service if the
amount or extent of incidental take specified in this ITS is exceeded during Action
implementation.
M&R #1. Erosion Control Measures Failure. If erosion control measures catastrophically fail
(e.g. during a major storm event), the Service must be immediately notified. If
sedimentation effects are observed outside the Action Area, the amount or extent of
incidental take specified in this ITS has been exceeded and the Service must be contacted
immediately.
lO.CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS
§7(a)(1) of the ESA directs Federal agencies to use their authorities to further the purposes of the
ESA by conducting conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and threatened species.
Conservation recommendations are discretionary activities that an action agency may undertake
to avoid or minimize the adverse effects of a proposed action, implement recovery plans, or
develop information that is useful for the conservation of listed species. The Service offers the
following recommendations that are relevant to the listed species addressed in this BO and that
we believe are consistent with the authorities of the USACE.
Provide resources for additional survey work for DWM within the Upper Tar River
Watershed.
11.REINITIATION NOTICE
Formal consultation for the Action considered in this BO is concluded. Reinitiating consultation
is required if the USACE retains discretionary involvement or control over the Action (or is
authorized by law) when:
a. the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded;
b. new information reveals that the Action may affect listed species or designated critical
habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this BO;
13

c. the Action is modified in a manner that causes effects to listed species or designated
critical habitat not considered in this BO; or
d. a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that the Action may affect.
In instances where the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded, the USACE is required to
immediately request a reinitiation of formal consultation.
12.LITERATURE CITED
Biodrawversity LLC. 2013. Quantitative survey of dwarf wedgemussels (Alasmidonta
heterodon) in the Ashuelot River downstream from the Surry Mountain Dam. Unpublished
report prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Concord, NH and U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Surry Mountain Lake/Otter Brook Lake, Keene, New Hampshire. 6 pp.
Biodrawversity, LLC, The Louis Berger Group, Inc. and Normandeau Associates, Inc. 2014. ILP
Study 24 Dwarf Wedgemussel and co-occurring mussel study, Phase 1 Report. Public
version. 42 pp. + app.
CABI. 2017. Corbicula fluminea. In: Invasive Species Compendium. CAB International,
Wallingford, UK. Available online at http://www.cabi.or�/isc/datasheet/88200. Accessed on
11 December 2017.
Ellis, M.M. 1936. Erosion silt as a factor in aquatic environments. Ecology 17:29-42.
Fichtel, C. and D.G. Smith. 1995. The freshwater mussels of Vermont. Nongame and Natural
Heritage Program, Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department. Technical Report 18. 53 pp.
Gabriel, M. 1995. Freshwater mussel distribution in the rivers and streams of Cheshire,
Hillsborough, Merrimack and Rockingham Counties, New Hampshire. Report submitted
to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New England Field Office and New Hampshire Fish and
Game Department. 60 pp.
Gabriel, M. 1996. 1996 Monitoring of the dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) in the
Ashuelot and Connecticut Rivers, New Hampshire. Report submitted to The Nature
Conservancy, Eastern Regional Office, Boston, Massachusetts. 27 pp.
Havlik, M.E. and L.L. Marking. 1987. Effects of contaminants on Naiad Mollusks (Unionidae):
A Review. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Resource Publication
164. Washington, D.C. 20 pp.
Levine, J.F., C.B. Eads, R. Greiner, and A.E. Bogan. 2011. Propagation and culture of federally
listed freshwater mussel species. Final report submitted to the North Carolina Department of
Transportation, Raleigh, NC. 111 pp.
14

Marking, L.L. and T.D. Bills. 1980. Acute effects of silt and sand sedimentation on freshwater
mussels. Pages 204-211 in: J.L. Rasmussen, ed. Proceedings of the UMRCC symposium on
Upper Mississippi River bivalve mollusks. Upper Mississippi River Conservation
Committee, Rock Island, Illinois. 270 pp.
Michaelson, D.L. and R.J. Neves. 1995. Life history and habitat of the endangered dwarf
wedgemussel Alasmidonta heterodon (Bivalvia:Unionidae). Journal of North American
Benthological Society 14:324-340.
NCWRC. 2017. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission online Portal Access to
Wildlife Systems (PAWS). Accessed on December 8, 2017.
Nedeau, E.J. and S. Werle. 2003. Freshwater mussels of the Ashuelot River: Keene to Hinsdale.
Unpublished report submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Concord, New
Hampshire. 50 pp.
Nedeau, E.J. 2004a. A fourth investigation of the survival of Dwarf Wedgemussels
(Alasmidonta heterodon) for the relocation project on the Connecticut River, Route 2
Stabilization Project, Lunenburg, Vermont. Unpublished report submitted to the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Concord, New Hampshire. 7 pp.
Nedeau, E.J. 2004b. Quantitative survey of dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon)
populations downstream of the Surry Mountain Flood Control Dam on the Ashuelot River.
Unpublished report submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Concord, New
Hampshire. 12 pp.
Nedeau, E.J. 2006. Characterizing the range and habitat of Dwarf Wedgemussels in the "Middle
Macrosite" of the Upper Connecticut River. Unpublished report submitted to the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Concord, New Hampshire. 6 pp.
Smith, D.G. 1981. Selected freshwater invertebrates proposed for special concern status in
Massachusetts. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering. Division
of Water Pollution Control. Westborough, MA.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Dwarf Wedge Mussel Alasmidonta heterodon Recovery
Plan. Hadley, Massachusetts. 52 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Dwarf Wedgemussel Alasmidonta heterodon 5-Year
Review: Summary and Evaluation. Concord, New Hampshire. 19 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Dwarf Wedgemussel Alasmidonta heterodon 5-Year
Review: Summary and Evaluation. Concord, New Hampshire. 27 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2017. Dwarf Wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon). Available
online at https://www.fws.�ov/ralei�pecies/es_dwarf wed�emussel.html. Accessed on 11
December 2017.
15

Watters, T. 2001. Freshwater mussels and water quality: A review of the effects of hydrologic
and instream habitat alterations. Pages 261-274 in: Proceedings of the First Freshwater
Mollusk Conservation Society Symposium, 1999. Ohio Biological Survey, Columbus, Ohio.
White, B.S. 2007. Evaluation of fish host suitability for the dwarf wedgemussel Alasmidonta
heterodon. Master's Thesis, Pennsylvania State University, Beach Lake, PA. 92 pp.
16