20181249 Ver 1_Attachment 8 - 2015-11-25 Letter from Gary Jordan to Richard Hancock_20181217

Unitct� S�ate� De��artment of the Intex�ior
r��st� n�n �<<l.n��r-� s�:iiv�cl�.
f�alci��l� I�ield Uftice
Pu�E C)f�icc [30� �3736
ft�}lei<�h. Noril} Carolina?76;(-37?6
November 25, ZD 1 �
Ric��arcf W. Hancock, PE
I'roject I3evcia��ine�it and Envirc�ninental f�nalysis
North CaroViria Department af Transportation
I��S Mail Service Center
Raiei�h, NQrth Carolina 27699-154f�
Dcar Mr•. Hancock:
���� co��
This letler is in response to your Noven�ber I�, 2015 I�tter wl�icl� requested comments fron� the
U.S. Ffsll and Wilditfe Service (Service) on the Federal Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(D�IS) fe�r tlie Complete 540 Triangle Cxpress�vay Sotitheast �xtensio�l in Wake and .lohnston
Couilties, Nartll Carolina {TIP Nos. R-'�7? 1, ��-2828, R-2829). These commeiits are pravided in
accardance witl� provisior►s of the Nationak Envir•c�r�rnenta� 1'olicy Aet {42 U.S.C. 4332(?')(c)) and
SEction 7 oPth� C�1dai�gered Species Act (TSA} �F 1973, as anlenc�ed (16 U.S.C. 153f-I543).
T1�e Nortll Carolii�a Department of "I'ra«spartacion (NCDOT) and Federal Hi�hw�y
Admi�listration {FHWA) pro�ose ta build a ne�v, Eir�►ited-access higllway from NC 55 in Apex to
US G41US 264 Bypass (I-495} in Kni�htdale — a distance oi'ap�ro�imately 27 mi[es. The
Coci���9eie 5�0 projcct r�auld con�plete tlie I-5�0 auter loop that currently exists on the nortl� and
west sides oi' R�leigh.
�`ienecal Com�nents
Overall. the prQject �v�ill have very substantial irnpacts on fish and �,vildlife r�sources, including
irnpacts to streams, wetlands, uPland forest and ather l�ab�tat t�fpes. Tllese impacts ��il! b� in th�
forr�z of direct loss of habi�at and h�abitat fi•a��rnentation effects on remaining habitat. A�thou�h
tliese habitais are already fca�mented by suburhan d�velopmeni ancj other land u�es in the project
area, additiot�a[ cumulative habitat fragtnent�tion eftects will occur. In addition, indirect h�btt�t
loss i� expected d�ie tc� secondar}� develc�pme:r�c induced by the new road facility.
Comments o�1 the Dwarf Weds�emussel
In prcviot�s carrespondenec anc� during the Service's participation in interagency me�tin�s, the
Service 13as treqtiiently stated its concern re�;ardin� the likcly acfverse effects of t�ie project on t11e
�edez�ally en�iangered dwarftived�;�rr�tissel (DWM, �tlus�7�idojlta laeterodc�n) withir� the Swift
Crcek watershed (Neuse River basin}, �t is anticipated tl�at the FHWA, as the lead federal action
a�ency, will initiate tormal 5ectian 7 consultatio�l by submitting to i�ie Service an initiation
packagc which inclt�des a Biolo�ical Assessment (BA). In rcturn, the S�rv�ce will cond��ct an
analysis Ea deter��li�1e if�the project will,jeo��ardize t�-►c cai�tialtled existence oFthe DWM and

�� a� � � �: �
�c :. :, ::
I�'is��'t��a B�oli�gic Opinioi� (I30j. Since chere �vas a si�nificant lack of infonnation nceded to
develop ttie Cclviraninental Qaseline portions of�tlie I3A and BO, the NCDOT and FHWA agreed
tn funcl acjditional studies witllii� thc S�vift Cree[� watershed to fill in the information �;aps.
The Service has reviewed the "Dwarf Wed�cn�tissel Viability SiEidy: Phase 1" report anc{ founci
the inforEnation to be very ��elpful and weiI �resented. The information provided addresses some
af the critica[ i�lfornlation �7eeds �ve have. Ho�vevcr, we understand t}�is inforrr�atior� to be an
interi�n re�ort of t�sks can�plcted thus far, �vitf� st�bscq�ent tas[:s anei analysis to be provided at a
iatc;r date ii� Phas� 2. Cor�ciusev� answers ta questions regarding the viability of the DWM and
its habitat i�i the S�vift Creck �vaterslled �re yet Forthcoming.
In order ta avoid a Jeopardy BO, the action agency �nust not "enga�e in an action that reasonably
���ould be expected, directly or indir�:etly, to red�ice a�preciably the Eikelihood of bath the
survival and reco��ery of a[isted species in tlze ��-ild by reducing tfie reproduction, numbers, ar
distributioil of that species." In order far the Se�-ice to ultimately rccover klie D��TN1, the 1993
D�varf Wed�;em��ssel Reeovery I'l�n rec�ui�-es, amo3lg other crileria, that a viable popu[ation (i.e.
a papulatian c4nt�ining a suf�ficient number of reproducing adults to maintain genetic variability
and annt�al recruitment adeqt�ate to mainiain a skable population) occur in 5�4�ift Crcek.
Therefore. maintainin� such a papulation i�� the post-proiect Swift Creck �vatersh�d is vitally
important. �Ve cannot understate the significance a��illis issue.
5ince the DW�vi r,vas first discovered i�i S�vi�t Crcek in 1991, rapid tle��elapn3ent witl�in iEie
«�atershecE belo�� the �,a�Ce Benson Dam has severcly impacted tl�e DWM. Musse] survey data
froit� tl�is tinteframe sho��=s a declinin� catc�l per unit effort (CPUL), implying a declining
populatior�. Althou�h prelin�inary indicators oFthe long-term viability of tl�e DWM in Swif=k
Creek are �i�ixed, one positivc note is tiie evidence oi�recent reproduction. �-�owever, it is t�nclear
��•hetl�er this repraduction is s�.�fticient to maintain �op�alatinn viability.
A North Carolin� DWM l�or� �roup has conclitdcd that population au�n�cntatian throu�h
ca}�tive pro�a�ation is an essential coenpone�lt of Enana�ement strate�.ics to ensure DWM
persistence in North Caralina (Smich et al. ?Ol5). T11►s is especially true with the population in
S�r�rift Creek ��fhere the Allee effect (high risk of demo�rapllic extirpatian due to low pop�tCation
abundance and lack of dispersal) is one of the major limitii�g faccors of population viability.
Thou�h �nt�ch af�tl�e tecl�nical and proced�ral k�iowledge for propa�;ating DWM has previously
�een developed (Beck a�ld Neves ZOQI }, thc Service and our p�rti�ers lack a dedicated facility
and staff to cc��ldfict DWM propa�ation on a la�-ge scale. As stated on pabe 95 of the DEIS,
tar��eted efior�s to propa�ate the DWM and augment tlie existing population in S�vift Creek could
improve tlie cE�ances of maintaanin� the species' �iabi[ity i►� tile wat�rsEied. As a projcct
conservation measure, the Service r�conamends that the NCDOT and �HWA provide assiscance
in developing a dcdic�ted �aptiv� �ropa�ation facility in order to produce DWMs for au�nieiitin�
the declinin� pop�ilation witiYi91 Swift Creek. The ability, or tile lack thereof, to propagate
DWMs and at��ment the �o�aulation i�� Swi�t Creek wil! factor si�nifcantly in ou� analysis to
determine wh�:ther the Complet�; 540 project wil! ,jeopardize the concinued existence of the
specjes.

Comments on Alternatives
Detailed study alternatives that include the Red Corridor segment clearly have the lowest
impacts on wetlands and streams. The Red Corridor would have the least direct and indirect
effects on the DWM and its habitat since it crosses Swift Creek upstream of Lake Benson —
outside the known range of the species in the watershed. However, the Service acknowledges
and understands the intense opposition to the Red Corridor segment due to its disproportionate
impacts on the human environment.
Detailed study alternatives that include the Orange Conidor segment, being the protected
corridor with right-of-way purchases made many years ago prior to any comprehensive
environmental analysis, greatly minimize impacts to the human environment. However, the
Orange Corridor segment has great potential to adversely affect the DWM since it crosses Swift
Creek, tributaries to Swift Creek, and a significant portion of the watershed all downstream of
Lake Benson — within the known occupied range of the species. The Orange Corridor segment
connects to I-40 at a particularly unfavorable location for the DWM. This location puts the
interchanges with I-40 and US 70 Bypass on top of several tributaries to Swift Creek and also is
in close proximity to the Swift Creek main stem. The DWM is at risk from direct effects
associated with construction of the project (e.g. erosion and siltation from construction) and from
indirect effects associated with the degradation of water quality from secondary development
induced by the new road. Increased impervious surface and storm water runoff from additional
development would likely further degrade the water quality of Swift Creek and its tributaries.
Also, other proposed projects within the study area such as the proposed widening of I-40 (TIP
No. I-5111) and bridge replacements on Swift Creek could cumulatively contribute to a decline
in habitat quality for the DWM. The Service finds the Orange Comdor very problematic.
Detailed study alternatives that include the Lilac Corridor segment would have very similar,
albeit somewhat lesser adverse effects on the DWM. These somewhat lesser effects would be
due to the fact that the interchange with I-40 would be farther removed from Swift Creek and its
tributaries.
Other Species
The DEIS renders a biological conclusion of "no effect" for the federally endangered red-
cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) and Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii). Based on the
survey results, the Service concurs with these "no effect" conclusions. The DEIS renders a
"May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect" conclusion for the northern long-eazed bat (Myotis
septentrionalis). As stated in the DEIS, formal Section 7 consultation has already been
completed for this species through a Programmatic Biological Opinion adopted on May 4, 2015.
As stated in the DEIS, Section 7 is yet unresolved for the DWM and Tar River spinymussel
{Elliptio steinstansana). However, the Service believes that the project is unlikely to have
adverse effects on the Tar River spinymussel.
There is a possibility that up to three additional mussel species may be listed as federally
endangered or threatened prior to the completion of the Complete 540 project — the Atlantic
pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni), yellow lance (Elliptio lanceolata), and green floater (Lasmigona
subviridis). Conclusions and recommendations for the dwarf wedgemussel may be relevant to
these additional species. In addition, the Carolina madtom (Noturus furiosus, a fish species) and

the Neuse River waterdog (Necturus lewisi, an amphibian) may also be federally listed as
threatened or endangered prior to the completion of the project.
Other Miscellaneous Comments
Page 29 states "...the dwarf wedgemussel...could be directly affected by the proposed project."
While true, the Service believes that indirect effects from road-induced development are the
greater concern.
Page 97 incorrectly states "An incidental take is when a non-federal activity will result in the
loss, or "take" of a threatened or endangered animal." As per 50 CFR 17.3, an incidental take is
"any taking otherwise prohibited, if such taking is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the
carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity." For the purposes of Section 7, this would only
include federal activities. For Section 10 of the ESA, incidental take would only include non-
federal activities.
The Clemmons Educational State Forest is referenced several times in the DEIS. The Service
prefers that this forest not be impacted. At only 825 acres, this state forest is relatively small and
already exists in a fragmented context. Even small impacts to this forest could substantially
degrade the wildlife habitat value of this public land.
The Service believes that this DEIS and its accompanying technical reports adequately address
the existing fish and wildlife resources, the waters and wetlands of the United States, and the
potential impacts of this proposed project on these resources. 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,
Pete Benjamin
Field Supervisor
Literature cited:
Beck, K.M. and R.J. Neves. 2001. Propagation studies of the endangered dwarf wedgemussel.
Final Report to the North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh, NC. 63 pp.
Smith, D.R., S.E. McRae, T. Augspurger, J.A. Ratcliffe, R.B. Nichols, C.B. Eads, T. Savidge,
and A.E. Bogan. 2015. Developing a conservation strategy to maximize persistence of
an endangered freshwater mussel species while considering management effectiveness
and cost. Freshwater Science 34(4):000-000.

Electronic copy provided to:
Eric Alsmeyer, USACE, Wake Forest, NC
Cynthia Van Der Wiele, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
George Hoops, FHWA, Raleigh, NC
Donnie Brew, FHWA, Raleigh, NC
Neil Medlin, NCDOT, Raleigh, NC
Eric Midkiff, NCDOT, Raleigh, NC
Rob Ridings, NCDWR, Raleigh, NC