20180512 Ver 1_17-178 Spiny mussel concurrence_20180411

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFC SERVICE
Asheville Field Oftice
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville. North Carolina 28801
Febcuary 2, 2017
Ms. Amy Euliss
Division 9 Environmenta( Officer
North Carolina Department of Tcanspoctation
375 Silas Creek Parlcway
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27127-7167
Dear Ms. Euliss:
Subject: Endangered Species Concurrence for Proposed Replacement of Stokes County Bridge
I 25 on State Route 1484 (Dan George Road) over North Double Creel<
On February l, 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
(Pleurobeina 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 fi•eshwater mussels in North Double Creek and downstream in the Dan Rivec.
Although the James spinymussel is known to inhabit the Dan River in Stokes County, there were no
freshwater mussels found in the areas surveyed wit}1in the pcoject footprint, in Not•th Double Cceek,
or in areas immediately below the moutkl of North Double Creek during the mussel survey effort.
Accordingly, we concur with youc determination that the p►•oposed 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 thceatened
Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septerrt�^ionalis) on 1/5/l6, this activity is now excepted it•om take
prohibitions for Northern long-eared bat, based on the project location. Project activities in the
action acea: ( I) would not affect a known hibernation site; (2) are not located within '/4 mile of a
lcnown hibernation site, ot•; (3) are not located witllin a 150' radius of a known maternity (tree) site.
Therefoce, we believe the �•equicements �u�der Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543), aee fulfilled. Obligations under Section 7 of the ESA must
be reconsideced if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect listed
species or critical habitat in a manner not pt•eviously considered, (2) this action is subsequently
modifiied in a manner that was not consideced in this ►•eview, or (3) a new species is listed or ccitical
habitat is detecmined that may be affected by the identified action.

Sincerely,
. �
anet A. Mizzi
Field Supervisor
2