20090134 Ver 1_Other Agency Comments_20090422

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
April 21, 2009
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1598
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
l
o.?
1
00,9
This letter is in response to your letter of April 13, 2009 which provided the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) with the biological determination of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) that the extension of Daniel Street (SR 1537) from Baker Street (SR
1518) to US 258 in Edgecombe County (TIP No. U-3826) may affecti but is not likely to
adversely affect the federally endangered Tar River spinymussel (TSM)(Elliptio steinstansana).
These comments are provided in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
The TSM was last observed in the Tar River near Tarboro in 2001. However, according to
information provided, at least three surveys conducted within the project area and immediately
downstream from 2002 to 2006 failed to find the TSM. A 2007 survey of a section of river
downstream of the project area, and a 2008 survey of a lengthy section of river upstream of the
project area also failed to find the TSM.
The quality of the habitat for TSM within the project footprint and immediately downstream has
been degraded due to the hydraulic effects of a railroad bridge approximately 100 feet upstream.
The railroad bridge bents in the water have caused areas of deep scour, the formation of large
sandbars and bank destabilization as compared to good quality habitat immediately upstream of
the railroad bridge.
Based on the mussel survey results, the commitment to the conservation measures listed within
the submitted biological evaluation, and other available information, the Service concurs with
your determination that the proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the
Tar River spinymussel. We believe that the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the ESA have
been satisfied. We remind you that obligations under section 7 consultation 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 in this review; (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 determined that may be affected by this identified action.

NCDOT has committed to conduct one last mussel survey of the project area prior to project let.
In the unlikely event that TSM is observed, it is understood that section 7 consultation will be
reinitiated.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions
regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at [phone] (Ext. 32).
Sincerely,
f"I Pete Benlamm
Field Supervisor
cc: William Wescott, USACE, Washington, NC
Rob Ridings, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
John Sullivan, FHWA, Raleigh,.NC
David Hams, NCDOT, Raleigh, NC

forested wetland. If we apply the 2:1 ratio to the 0.94 acre of wetland restoration, the on-site
mitigation will provide compensation for 0.47 acres of wetland impacts
Also, we are concerned that the proposed on-site restoration perhaps is not proposed to be
graded deeply enough to provide high quality wetland restoration. The cross-sections of the
wetland restoration area appear in places to match the highest elevation of the adjacent wetlands,
rather than an average or lower elevation. NCDOT should propose appropriate elevations to
ensure that the site will be wet enough to support similar wetlands as the adjacent area.
EPA also has concerns with the use of Mildred Woods Mitigation Site for this project.
The Mildred Woods site is an approximately 13-year old, apparently non-riparian forested
wetland along U.S. 64, south of the proposed impacts. This site has had relative success, and the
trees are getting large. Although the permit application and the March 17, 2009, revision to the
permit application refer to this site as `riparian,' there are no streams within the site or adjacent
to the site. It is unclear how this site was deemed to contain riparian mitigation credit, and we
recommend that the wetland types on the site be clarified. We also are unsure as to whether
additional debits are still allowed at the Mildred Woods site. We recommend that these issues be
resolved prior to issuance of the permit. If NCDOT intends to utilize the non-riparian wetlands
at Mildred Woods for the mature cypress swamp impacts, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
will allow the debits at the Mildred Woods site, then EPA recommends that a do be
applied. This ratio takes into account that the Mildred Woods site is more mature than many
other mitigation sites, and also that the mitigation is out-of-kind.
EPA has reviewed the mitigation plan for the on-site mitigation and is concerned that
NCDOT only proposes to monitor the forested wetland restoration area for three years. Also, the
mitigation plan does not propose to monitor hydrology of the wetland site. Pursuant to 40 CFR
Part 230.96, wetland mitigation sites which have slow development rates, such as forested
wetlands, must be monitored for longer than five years. EPA recommends that all forested
wetland mitigation sites be monitored for a minimum of seven years. All references to a three-
year monitoring period should be revised to a seven-year monitoring period, throughout the
document. J
Vegetation and hydrology of the forested wetlands should be monitored for at least seven
years. The vegetation success criteria should include criteria for year seven. EPA recommends
260 planted trees per acre. Hydrology success criteria for the restored areas should include, at a
minimum, demonstrating a jurisdictional hydroperiod.
Pursuant to 40 CFR Part 230.94(c), 12 components must be included in a mitigation plan.
Some of the components which are missing from the on-site Mitigation Plan include:
- Site protection instrument. This should include a description of the legal arrangements
(including site ownership) that will be used to ensure long-term protection of the mitigation
project site.
- Monitoring requirements. A description of parameters monitored to determine whether the
project is on track to meet performance standards and if adaptive management is needed.
2
i
J
Ja`SE?rFS.
m
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
z = ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
;`?roq vao E?.°= 61 FORSYTH STREET
L ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
April 7, 2009
Colonel Jefferson Ryscavage
District Engineer
Attn: Mr. William Wescott, Project Manager
Washington Regulatory Field Office
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889-1000
Subject: North Carolina Department of Transportation; Daniel Street Extension
TIP No. U-3826
Action I.D. #SAW-2009-00101
Dear Colonel Ryscavage:
This is in response to the Public Notice for the North Carolina Department of
Transportation's (NCDOT) Daniel Street Extension project (TIP No. U-3826). According to the
public notice, the applicant proposes to construct a two-lane facility on new location, including a
new bridge across the Tar River. Impacts are proposed to the Tar River and an unnamed
tributary to the Tar River, and 1.48 acres of adjacent wetlands (Riverine Swamp Forest and
Bottomland Hardwood Forest). As compensation for the permanent wetland impacts, NCDOT
proposes to use a combination of on-site and off-site mitigation, at a 1:1 ratio. The impacts and
the proposed mitigation are located in the Tar River Basin (HUC code 03020103). No
compensation is proposed for the temporary impacts or stream impacts. The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 4, Wetlands and Marine Regulatory Section has reviewed the
public notice, the permit application (and March 17, 2009 revisions to the application), the
mitigation plans and monitoring reports for the Mildred Woods mitigation site, and other
information related to the project. We also discussed this project with your staff by phone on
March 19, 2009. We have the following comments for your consideration.
As stated above, NCDOT proposes to utilize a combination of on-site and off-site
mitigation to compensate for the permanent impacts, at a 1:1 ratio. However, EPA does not
believe that a 1:1 mitigation ratio is appropriate. The on-site mitigation consists of removal of an
old railroad bed to grade, restoring 0.94 acre of wetlands adjacent to the site. EPA recommends
a mitigation ratio of 2:1 for the on-site mitigation. This mitigation site has not been constructed
yet. The impacts fro tm he road project are to high qualit mature wetlands. An unconstructed
forested wetland mitigation site does not provt e an equivalent level o nction as a mature
Intemet Address (URL) • http://v .apa.gov
Recycled/Racyclable . Pdnled with Vogelable OR Based Inks on Recytled Paper (Mlnrtnum 30% PoslCeoSamer)

-Performance Standards. This should include ecologically-based, quantifiable standards for both
wetland and stream projects.
- An adaptive management plan (contingencies).
- A long-term management plan. The mitigation plan should clearly state whether long-term
management is needed for any aspect of the site. If long-term management is necessary, then the
plans should be clearly stated. Future enforcement of the easement boundaries is an example of
a typical issue to address.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions or
comments, please contact Kathy Matthews, of my staff, at [phone] or
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
l
e fifer S. erby
?f
Wetlands and Marine Regulatory Section
cc: USFWS
NCDWQ
NCWRC
NCHP
NCDOT

Gary Jordan
USFWS
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636 - 3726
Mr. Brian Wrenn, Env. Sup.
Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Greg Thorpe, Env. Mgmt. Dir.
NCDOT/PDEA
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1598
Travis Wilson
Eastern Region Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
1142 I-85 Service Rd.
Creedmoor, NC 27522
Renee Gledhill-Earley
NC State Historic Preservation Office
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-4617
4