B-5989 Madison October 3 2022

B-5989 I Madison I Permit Application Distribution
Turchy, Michael A <[e-mail]>
Sun 10/2/2022 8:29 PM
To: [e-mail] < [e-mail] >;Chapman, Amy <[e-mail]>
Cc: Mitchell, Robert K<[e-mail]>;Bryan, Roger D <[e-mail]>;Moneyham, Nathaniel S
<[e-mail]>;Cheely, Erin K <[e-mail]>;smupef <[e-mail]>;Davenport, Ronald E
<[e-mail]>;Carpenter,Kristi <[e-mail]>;McHenry, David G
<[e-mail]>;Morgan, Stephen R <[e-mail]>;AI-Dhalimy, Nadia
<[e-mail]>;Sanders, Byron <[e-mail]>;Hanks, Brian <[e-mail]>;NCDOT Service Account
- Roadway Design<[e-mail]>;Fischer, Kevin <[e-mail]>;Staley, Mark K
<[e-mail]>;Griffin, Randy W <[e-mail]>;Youngman, Holland J <[e-mail]>;Wilson,
Lauren B <[e-mail]>
The permit application for B-5989, the replacement of Bridge 71 on SR 1395/Walnut Creek Road over Big Lauren
Creek in Madison County, has been posted to the NCDOT Permit Application Website, and the electronic Pre -
Construction Notification (ePCN) was submitted to the USACE, NCDWR, NCWRC, and USFWS.
The file named "B-5989 Madison September 30 2022" can be viewed/downloaded at:
https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/pdea/PermApps
or
Direct Link to Application:
https://xfer.services.ncdot.govZpdea/PermApps/B-5989%20Madison%20October%203%202022.pdf
Thank you,
Michael
Michael Turchy
Environmental Coordination and Permitting [ECAP] Group Leader
Environmental Analysis Unit
919 818 7427 mobile
919 707 6157 office
[e-mail]
https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/Environmental/EAU/ECAP
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Roy COOPER
GOVERNOR
October 3, 2022
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28805
ATTN: Ms. Lori Beckwith,
NCDOT Coordinator
NC Division of Water Resources
Transportation Permitting Branch
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1617
Mr. Kevin Mitchell
NCDOT Coordinator
J. ERIC BOYETTE
SECRETARY
Subject: Application for Section 404 Regional General Permit 50, and Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for the Proposed Replacement of Bridge 71 on Walnut Creek
Road (SR 1395) over Big Laurel Creek in Madison County, Division 13, TIP No. B-
5989, Debit $570 from WBS 47845.1.1.
Dear Madam and Sir:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace bridge number 71 on
Walnut Creek Road (SR 1395) with a new bridge in the existing location. Traffic will utilize an onsite
temporary detour bridge just west (downstream) of the existing bridge during construction.
As a result of replacing the existing bridge, constructing an onsite detour, and a temporary work bridge,
there will be a total of 33 linear feet of permanent stream impacts, and 118 linear feet (0.007 ac) of
temporary impacts.
Required mitigation for this project will be provided by debiting the Puncheon Fork Mitigation Site (PO
Number 7700002203).
The Puncheon Fork Mitigation Site is part of the RES French Broad HUC 06010105 umbrella mitigation
bank sponsored by EBX. The 13.5-acre project is located approximately five miles northwest of Swiss in
Madison County NC.
NCDOT acquired 1134.2 stream credits to offset the impacts associated with future transportation projects.
EBX will debit their ledger for 66 stream credits to offset 33 linear feet of stream impacts associated with
B-5989. The debit is listed below.
PO Number TIP I Debit Amount ] Permit Date 11 Notes = I Links
7700002203 I B-5989 I 66 133 In ft of impacts @ 2:1 ratio
Mailing Address: Location:
NC DEPARTMENT OF ntANSPORTATION Telephone: [phone] 1000131RcH RIDGE DRIVE
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS UNIT Customer Service: 1-877-368-4968 RALEIGH NC 27610
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598 Website: www.ncdot.gov

Please see enclosed copies of the Pre -Construction Notification (PCN), Stormwater Management Plan,
Permit Drawings, Biological Opinion, Archaeology and Historic Properties Information, Tribal
Coordination Documents, and Categorical Exclusion (CE).
This project calls for a letting date of January 17, 2023 and a review date of November 29, 2022.
A copy of this permit application has been posted on the NCDOT Website at:
http://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/Environmental. If you have any questions or need additional
information, please contact Erin Cheely at [e-mail] or [phone].
Sincerely,
Michael A. Turchy
Environmental Coordination and Permitting Group Leader
cc: NCDOT Permit Application Standard Distribution List

Pre -Construction
Notification

DWR
IDIOM— of Water Resources
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
For Nationwide Permits and Regional General Permits
(along with corresponding Water Quality Certifications)
April 13, 2022 Ver 4.3
Please note: fields marked with a red asterisk below are required. You will not be able to submit the form until all mandatory questions are answered.
Also, if at any point you wish to print a copy of the E-PCN, all you need to do is right -click on the document and you can print a copy of the form.
Below is a link to the online help file.
https://edocs.deq.nc.govfVVaterResources/0/edoc/624704/PCN / 2OHelp/ 2OFile/ 202018-1-30.pdf
A. Processing Information O
Pre -Filing Meeting Date Request was submitted on:
4/20/2022
If this is a courtesy copy, please fill in this with the submission date.
County (or Counties) where the project is located:"
Madison
Is this a NCDMS Project*
0Yes ONo
Click Yes, only if NCD MS is the applicant or co -applicant.
Is this project a public transportation project?*
OYes 0No
This is any publicly funded by municipal,state or federal funds road, rail, airport transportation project.
Is this a NCDOT Project?*
OO Yes O No
(NCDOT only) T.I.P. or state project number:
B-5989
WBS #*
47845.1.1
(for NCDOT use only)
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
O Section 404 Permit (wetlands, streams and waters, Clean Water Act)
❑ Section 10 Permit (navigable waters, tidal waters, Rivers and Harbors Act)
Has this PCN previously been submitted?*
Yes
No
1 b. What type(s) of permit(s) do you wish to seek authorization?*
L Nationwide Permit (NWP)
O Regional General Permit (RGP)
Standard (IP)
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?*
0Yes ONo
Regional General Permit (RGP) Number: 201902350 - Work associated with bridge construction, widening, replacement, and
interchanges
RGP Numbers (for multiple RGPS):
50
List all RGP numbers you are applying for not on the drop down list.

1 d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWR: *
check all that apply
❑O 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular
❑ Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ Individual 401 Water Quality Certification
1e. Is this notification solely for the record because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWR 401 Certification:
For the record only for Corps Permit:
1f. Is this an after -the -fact permit application?"
v Yes v No
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification - Express
❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
0Yes ONo
0Yes ONo
1g. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program.
O Yes O No
Acceptance Letter Attachment
Click the upload button or drag and drop files hereto attach document
FILE TYPE MUST BE PDF
1 h. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties?"
Yes - No
1j. Is the project located in a designated trout watershed?"
OO Yes O No
You must submit a copy of the appropriate Wildlife Resource Commission Office.
Linkto trout information: http://www.saw.usace.army.miI/Missions/Regulatory-Permit-Program/Agency-Coordination/Trout.aspx
B. Applicant Information
1a. Who is the Primary Contact?"
Erin Cheely
1c. Primary Contact Phone:"
1 b. Primary Contact Email" (xxx)xxx-xxxx
[e-mail] [phone]
1d. Who is applying for the permit?"
Owner ❑ Applicant (other than owner)
(Check all that apply)
1e. Is there an AgentlConsultant for this project?"
O Yes OO No
2. Owner Information
2a. Name(s) on recorded deed:"
NC Department of Transportation
2b. Deed book and page no.:
2c. Contact Person:
(for Corporations)
2d.Address*
Street Address
1598 Mail Service Center
Address Line 2
City
State / Province / Region
Raleigh
NC
Postal /Zip Code
Country
27699
USA
2e. Telephone Number:"
(xxx)xxx-xxxx
[phone]
2f. Fax Number:
(xxx)xxx-xxxx

2g. Email Address:"
[e-mail]
C. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Project Information
lJ
1a. Name of project:"
B-5989: Replace Bridge 71 over Big Laurel Creek on Walnut Road (SR 1395)
1b. Subdivision name:
(if appropriate)
1c. Nearest municipality/town:"
Marshall
2. Project Identification
lJ
2a. Property Identification Number: 2b. Property size:
(tax PIN or parcel ID) (in acres)
2c. Project Address
Street Address
Address Line 2
City State / Province / Region
Postal /Zip Code Country
2d. Site coordinates in decimal degrees
Please collect site coordinates in decimal degrees. Use between 4-6 digits (unless you are using a survey -grade GPS device) after the decimal place as appropriate, based on how the location was
determined. (For example, most mobile phones with GPS provide locational precision in decimal degrees to map coordinates to 5 or 6 digits after the decimal place.)
Latitude:" Longitude:"
35.9104-82.6485
ex: 34.208504-77.796371
3. Surface Waters
3a. Name of the nearest body of water to proposed project:"
Big Laurel Creek
3b. Water Resources Classification of nearest receiving water:"
C, Tr: ORW
Surface Water Lookup
3c. What river basin(s) is your project located in?"
French Broad
3d. Please provide the 12-digit HUC in which the project is located."
06010105
River Basin Lookup
4. Project Description and History
4a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this application:"
Surrounding land use is primarily forested interspersed with some residential.
4b. Have Corps permits or DWR certifications been obtained for this project (including all prior phases) in the past?"
O Yes O No G Unknown
4f. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0.05
4g. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams on the property:
(intermittent and perennial)
1,860
4h. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:"
The purpose of the proposed project is to replace a structurally deficient bridge. NCDOT Structures Management Unit records indicate Bridge No. 560071 currently has a sufficiency rating
of 33.84 out of a possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered structurally deficient due to a substructure condition appraisal of 4 out of 9 according to Federal Highway
Administration standards.

4i. Describe the overall project in detail, including indirect impacts and the type of equipment to be used:"
This project is the replacement of NCDOT Structure Bridge #560071. The existing bridge length is 150 feet long, 3 span (1 @49.8', 1 @50', and 1@49.8') with a reinforced concrete floor
and 1-beams. The proposed bridge will be a 2 span (1 @80', 1 @50') 45 inch girder bridge with an out -to -out deck width of 32.25 feet. The bridge will be replaced on the existing alignment
with traffic utilizing an on -site detour to the west of the existing bridge during construction. Standard road building equipment such as trucks, dozers, and cranes will be used.
5. Jurisdictional Determinations
5a. Have the wetlands or streams been delineated on the property or proposed impact areas?"
Yes No O Unknown
Comments:
Three perennial streams, one intermittent stream, and one small wetland were identified in the study
area.
5b. If the Corps made a jurisdictional determination, what type of determination was made?"
O Preliminary O Approved �. Not Verified Unknown N/A
Corps AID Number:
Example: SAW-2017-99999
5c. If 5a is yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known): Nathan Howell and Paige Green
Agency/Consultant Company: Three Oaks Engineering
Other:
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?"
v Yes O No
Are any other NWP(s), regional general permit(s), or individual permits(s) used, or intended to be used, to authorize any part of the proposed projector related activity? This includes other
separate and distant crossing for linear projects that require Department of the Army authorization but don't require pre -construction notification.
No.
D. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Where are the impacts associated with your project? (check all that apply):
U Wetlands Ll Streams -tributaries U Buffers
U Open Waters O Pond Construction
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this question for all stream sites impacted.
"S." will be used in the table below to represent the word "stream".
v
3a. Reason for impact" (?)
3b.lmpact type"
3c. Type of impact"
3d. S. name"
3e. Stream Type"
3f. Type ofJurisdiction"
width"
.Impact
a
S1
Site 1: Headwall construction
Temporary
Dewatering
SC - UT to Big Laurel Creek
Intermittent
Both
3
10
for nearby pipe extension
Avemge (feet)
pinear feet)
S2
Site 2: Pie Extension
p
Permanent
Culvert
SA - UT to Big Laurel Creek
9
Perennial
Both
5
33
Avemge (feet)
(linear feet)
S3
Site 2: Pipe Extension
Temporary
Culvert
SA - UT to Big Laurel Creek
Perennial
Both
5
45
Avemge (feet)
Qinear feet)
Sq
Site 3: Temporary Detour
Temporary
Other
Big Laurel Creek
Perennial
Both
60
23
Bridge
Avemge (feet)
Qinear feet)
SS
Site 4: Temporary Work
Temporary
Workpad/Causeway
Big Laurel Creek
Perennial
Both
60
40
Bridge
Avemge (feet)
(linear feet)
** All Perennial or Intermittent streams must be verified by DWR or delegated local government.
3i. Total jurisdictional ditch impact in square feet:
0
3i. Total permanent stream impacts:
33
3i. Total temporary stream impacts:
118

3i. Total stream and ditch impacts:
151
3j. Comments:
Total acreage of temporary impacts is 0.007 acre.
E. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
la. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing the project:"
The proposed replacement will span the river and maintain the existing level of service. The existing structure has deck drains, and the proposed bridge
will not have deck drains. The onsite detour bridge will also not have deck drains. The onsite detour allows the bridge to be replaced in the existing
location. Rip rap outlet pads will be utilized to dissipate flow and minimize erosion. The existing ditch will be retained with toe protection.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques:"
While the trout moratorium was waived by WRC for this project, Design Standards for Sensitive Watersheds will be adhered to. NCDOT will also adhere
to Best Management Practices for Construction and Maintenance Activities. Numerous other measures to protect bats during construction are outlined in
the September 2022 Biological Opinion.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
(•) Yes No
2c. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWR ❑O Corps
2d. If yes, which mitigation option(s) will be used forthis project?
❑ Mitigation bank ❑ Payment to in -lieu fee program ) Permittee Responsible Mitigation
NC Stream Temperature Classification Maps can be found under the Mitigation Concepts tab on the Wilmington District's RIBITS website.
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan including mitigation credits generated.
See cover letter. 66 If of stream mitigation credit will be debited from the Puncheon Fork Mitigation Site (PO Number 7700002203).
F. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWR)
*** Recent changes to the stormwater rules have required updates to this section .***
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
Yes v No
For a list of options to meet the diffuse flow requirements, click here.
If no, explain why:
No buffered resources within project area.
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. Is this a NCDOT project subject to compliance with NCDOT's Individual NPDES permit NCS000250?"
0Yes 0No
Comments:
G. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation
la. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of public (federal/state) land?"
Yes No
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State (North Carolina)
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?"
Yes No
1 c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.)"
• Yes 0 No

2. Violations (DWR Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWR Water Quality Certification Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), or DWR Surface Water or Wetland Standards or
Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?"
Yes No
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWR Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?"
O Yes OO No
3b. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
Due to the minimal transportation impact resulting from this bridge replacement, this project will neither influence nearby land uses nor stimulate growth.
Therefore, a detailed indirect or cumulative effects study will not be necessary.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWR Requirement)
4a. Is sewage disposal required by DWR for this project?"
Yes O No OO N/A
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or habitat?"
Yes No
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act impacts?"
O Yes No
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
Asheville
5d. Is another Federal agency involved?"
Yes No Unknown
5e. Is this a DOT project located within Division's 1-8?"
� Yes s) No
5f. Will you cut any trees in order to conduct the work in waters of the U.S.?"
OYes 0No
5g. Does this project involve bridge maintenance or removal?"
OO Yes O No
5g(1). If yes, have you inspected the bridge for signs of bat use such as staining, guano, bats, etc.? Representative photos of signs of bat use can be found in the NLEB SLOPES, Appendix
F, pages 3-7.
OO Yes O No
Link to the NLEB SLOPES document: http://saw-reg.usace.army.mil/NLEB/1-30-17-signed_NLEB-SLOPES&apps.pdf
If you answered "Yes" to 5g(1), did you discover any signs of bat use?"
O Yes O No O Unknown
*** If yes, please show the location of the bridge on the permit drawings/project plans.
5h. Does this project involve the construction/installation of a wind turbine(s)?*"
0Yes ONo
5i. Does this project involve (1) blasting, and/or(2) other percussive activities that will be conducted by machines, such as jackhammers, mechanized pile drivers, etc.?"
OYes 0No
5j. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical Habitat?"
Please see the attached September 2022 Biological Opinion with regard to impacts to listed bats. There are no other federally Endangered or
Threatened species listed within the project area per IPaC, last checked 9/21/22.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as an Essential Fish Habitat?"
Yes No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact an Essential Fish Habitat?"
NMFS County Index
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
Linkto the State Historic Preservation Office Historic Properties Map (does not include archaeological data: http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/

7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation status (e.g., National Historic Trust
designation or properties significant in North Carolina history and archaeology)?"
O Yes O No
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?"
Historic Architecture and Archaeology reviews (documented in the CE) and Tribal coordination (attached).
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
Link to the FEMA Floodplain Maps: https:Hmsc.fema.gov/portal/search
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-yearfloodplain?"
Yes No
8b. Ifyes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?"
Miscellaneous
Comments
v
Please use the space below to attach all required documentation or any additional information you feel is helpful for application review. Documents should be combined into one file when
possible, with a Cover Letter, Table of Contents, and a Cover Sheet for each Section preferred.
Click the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach document
B-5989 Madison October 3 2022.pdf 10.25MB
File must be PDF or KMZ
Signature
By checking the box and signing below, I certify that:
• The project proponent hereby certifies that all information contained herein is true, accurate, and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief', and
• The project proponent hereby requests that the certifying authority review and take action on this CWA 401 certification request within the applicable reasonable period of time.
• have given true, accurate, and complete information on this form;
• agree that submission of this PCN form is a "transaction" subject to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act"),
• I agree to conduct this transaction by electronic means pursuant to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act"),
• I understand that an electronic signature has the same legal effect and can be enforced in the same way as a written signature, AND
• I intend to electronically sign and submit the PCN form.
Full Name:"
Michael Turchy
Signature"
46i 4q T"
Date
10/2/2022
U

Permit
Drawings

Highway North Carolina Department of Transportation
Stormwater
Highway Stormwater Program 111)
d
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
(Version 3.00; Released August 2021) FOR NCDOT PROJECTS
WBS Element: 47845.1.1 TIP/Pro' No: B-5989 Coun ies : Madison Page 1 of 2
General Project Information
WBS Element:
47845.1.1 1 TIP Number: B-5989 Project Type: I Bridge Replacement Date: 6/27/2022
NCDOT Contact:
David Stuffs, PE
Contractor / Desi ner:
Patrick Hartnett, PE
Address:
Structures Management Unit
Address:
Summit Design and Engineering Services
1000 Birch Ridge Drive
1110 Navaho Dr#600
Raleigh, NC 27610
Raleigh, NC 27609
Phone:
919 707-6442
Phone:
919 322-0115
Email:
dstutts ncdot. ov
Email:
Patrick.hartnett summitde.com
City/Town:
Town of Marshall
County(ies):
Madison
River Basins :
French Broad
CAMA County?
No
Wetlands within Project Limits?
No
Project Descri tion
Project Length lin. miles or feet):
0.16 Surroundin Land Use: Rural Area with Residential Land Use
Proposed Project
Existina Site
Project Built -Upon Area (ac.)
0.70 ac.
0.54 ac.
Typical Cross Section Description:
Proposed Road and Bridge will be a 2-lane facility with 10' wide travel lane. The total
Existing road and bridge is a 2 lane facility with 10' wide travel lanes. The total bridge
proposed bridge length is 130 ft with an out -to -out width of 32.25 ft.
length of 150 ft and width of 28.1 ft
Annual Avg Daily Traffic (veh/hr/day):
Design/Future: 900 1 Year: 2040
I Existing:1 740 1 Year:1 2020
General Project Narrative:
State Project involves the replacement of NCDOT Bridge 560071 over Big Laurel Creek on SR 1395 in Madison County. The existing structure is a 150 feet long, 3 span (1 @49.8
(Description of Minimization of Water
ft, 1@50 ft, 1@49.8 ft) reinforced concrete floor and 1-beams structure with a sufficiency rating of 32.64. The proposed structure will be a 2 span (1@80', 1@50') 45 inch girder
Quality Impacts)
birdge with an out -to -out deck width of 32.25 feet. The existing structure has deck drains. The proposed bridge will not have deck drains. The proposed bridge will maintain the
existing level of service. The construction of the proposed bridge will utilize a work bridge with no more than 25 12" by 12" piles which will cause some temporary impacts. This
bridge replacement will utilize a detour bridge to maintain traffic while construction is ongoing. The detour structure will be 145' in length with superstructure and deck not to exceed 4
feet. The detour bridge will be located downstream of the proposed bridge and will not have deck drains. For purposes of calculating the temporary bridge foundations, three 3'
diameters piers will be use. The detour structure including the type of foundation and location of any interior bents is designed by the contractor. Construction of the Detour structure
is likely to cause some temporary impacts. There is one proposed outfall on the end of bridge left side. Rip Rap outlet pads will be utilized to dissipate the flow and minimize erosion.
Existing ditch will be retained with toe protection. The sole impact is due to the replacement of the existing 42" CMP before the begin of bridge side. Due to the detour structure, the
pipe must be lengthened during the construction and will cause temporary impacts. The pipe will be shortened after the removal of the detour structure to minimize permanent
impacts.

Hi ghway
Stormwater'
(Version 3.00; Released August 2021)
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Highway Stormwater Program
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR NCDOT PROJECTS
WBS Element: 47845.1.1 TIP/Pro' No.: B-5989
Coun ies : Madison
Page 2 of 2
General Project Information
Waterbody Information
Surface Water Body (1): Big Laurel Creek
NCDWR Stream Index No.:
6-112
NCDWR Surface Water Classification for Water Body
Primary Classification:
Class C
Supplemental Classification:
Trout Waters Jr)
Waters (ORW)
Other Stream Classification:
None
Impairments:
None
Aquatic T&E Species?
No T Comments:
NRTR Stream ID:
Biq Laurel Creek
Buffer Rules in Effect: N/A
Project Includes Bridge Spanning Water Body?
iYes
Deck Drains Discharge Over Buffer? N/A
Dissi ator Pads Provided in Buffer? INo
Deck Drains Discharge Over Water Body?
INO
(If yes, provide justification in the General Project Narrative)
(If yes, describe in the General Project Narrative; if no, justify in the
General Project Narrative)
(If yes, provide justification in the General Project Narrative)

C
a
r
m
N }
�E
CD
a
N -0
O T
N i
zm
:::]00
-m
ti T
NCO.
a
00
ON
U
See Sheet to For Index of Sheets
See Sheet t B For Conventional Symbols
1307 4 1443
1314
1 TENNESSEE
1331
1434 1332 NORTH CAROLmn .
1446 1341
12 �1
133D
° 1333
1316
s
r, 1330 PROJECT
1330 SITE
1317 1329 1343
318�
1319
1318 1318 1337 1341
1328 1424 1342
1338 1318
1459 1334 1319 _ 1410
. 318
1334 °�1334 1336
° 1370
1324 1323 2S-- 1335 1 1340 1370
1321 1411
1432 1345
14
1395 1325 -- 1326 1339
1370
1323& 1374 1373E I
1371 1345 I*I
1411 1375 1372
1143 1375 I
ee
1405 ' �1395 14413 1376°" °�y 1370 136913 7�
396
M
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DIVISIONOF HIGHWAYS
MADISON COUNTY
ETATB
BTATR PROTECT REPPRENCB N0.
BEET
NO
TOTAL
BREETB
B-5989
fffATE PROD. N0.
F.APROT.N0.
DPdR1"m
47845.1.1
WA
PE
47845.2.1
BRZ-1395 007
ROW&UTIL
47845.3.1
BRZ-1395(007)
CONST.
LOCATION: BRIDGE NO. 71 ON SR 1395 (WALNUT CREEK RD) 90% PLANS
OVER BIG LAUREL CREEK
TYPE OF WORK: GRADING, DRAINAGE, PAVING, RETAINING WALL
PERMIT DRAWING
SHEET 1 OF 11
' D c)
WETLAND AND SURFACE N
O
WATER IMPACTS PERMIT
THIS PROJECT IS NOT WITHIN ANY MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES
r• • CLEARING ON THIS PROJECT SHALL BE PERFORMED TO THE LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY METHOD II.
1� (
� O
TV
u
GRAPHIC SCALES
50 25 0 50 100
PLANS
50 25 0 50 100
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
10 5 0 10 20
PROFILE (VERTICAL) 00
DESIGN DATA PROJECT LENGTH
ADT 2020 = 740
ADT 2040 = 900 LENGTH ROADWAY PROJECT = 0.136 MILES
K = 10 %
D = 60 % T 3
LENGTH STRUCTURES PROJECT = 0.025 MILES
=
V = 40 MPH
* TTST =1% DUAL 2% TOTAL LENGTH PROJECT = 0.161 MILES
FUNC CLASS =
MINOR COLLECTOR NCDOT CONTACT. DAVID STUTTS, PE
SUB REGIONAL TIER PROJECT MANAGER
Prepared in Me Office of:
Hillsborough, NG 27278-8551
7
Vd—E 19)
Voice: [phone]
0SUMMIT 2-
Fax: [phone]
DESIN AND ENGINEERING SEIMCES www summllde.net
FIRM NO. PA339
2018 STANDARD SPFCIFICATIONS
JAMES A. SPEER, PE
RIGHT OF WAY DATE.
PROJECT ENGINEER
SPENCER MERRITT, PE
MARCH 20, 2020
LETTING DATE.
PROJECT DESIGN ENGINEER
JANAURY 17, 2023
HYDRA ULICS ENGINEER
ROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER
P.E.
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED

10
RICHARD6DEANROBER
FLOAT BQOR 7 PC 256
I.
z
O
Z
Co C 1
W
D p
0
ZS-Elly LEWIS
DB 5TS PC 660
PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
SHEET NO.
8-5989
5
P,W SHEET NO.
ROADWAY DESIGN
HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER
ENGINEER
INCOMPLETE
PANS
DO NOT USE FOR R/W
AGtlVISIT[ON
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
'pare t e NC FIRM LICENSE No�P-0'.
4ice ol: N N'320 Execcutive i]iF
19i91i 11, 1F
PERMIT DRAWING
SHEET 2 OF 11
SURFACE WATER IMPACTS
® TEMPORARY SURFACE WATER IMPACTS
PLANS

10
RICHARDSDEANROBER
PLOAi BQOR 7 PC 258
I.
z
O
Z
Co C 1
W
D p
0
PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
SHEET NO.
8-5989
4
P,W SHEET NO.
ROADWAY DESIGN
HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER
ENGINEER
INCOMPLETE
PANS
DO NOT USE FOR R/W
AGtlVISIT[ON
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
'pare t e NC FIRM LICENSE No�P-0'.
4ice ol: N N'320 Execcutive i]iF
19i91i 11, 1F
PERMIT DRAWING
SHEET 6 OF 11
SURFACE WATER IMPACTS
® TEMPORARY SURFACE WATER IMPACTS
PLANS

. .
IN

WETLAND AND SURFACE WATER IMPACTS SUMMARY
WETLAND IMPACTS SURFACE WATER IMPACTS
Site
No.
Station
(From/To)
Structure
Size / Type
Permanent
Fill In
Wetlands
(ac)
Temp.
Fill In
Wetlands
(ac)
Excavation
in
Wetlands
(ac)
Mechanized
Clearing
in Wetlands
(ac)
Hand
Clearing
in
Wetlands
(ac)
Permanent
SW
impacts
(ac)
Temp.
SW
impacts
(ac)
Existing
Channel
Impacts
Permanent
(ft)
Existing
Channel
Impacts
Temp.
(ft)
Natural
Stream
Design
(ft)
1
13+71 TO 13+84 -L- RT
PROPOSED PIPE REPLACEMENT
0.002
10
2
13+81 TO 14+39 -L- LT & RT
PROPOSED PIPE REPLACEMENT
0.003
0.004
33
45
3
14+05 TO 14+09 -DET- LT & RT
DETOUR BRIDGE
0.001
23
4
16+06 TO 16+65 -L- LT & RT
WORKBRIDGE
0.001
40
TOTALS*:
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.003
0.007
33
118
0
*Rounded totals are sum of actual impacts
NOTES:

Protected Species/
Section 7

Biological and Conference Opinion
Replacement of Bridge 560071
on Walnut Creek Road (SR 1395) over Big Laurel Creek
Madison County, North Carolina
GARY
PEEPLES
TIP B-5989
Service Log #18-426
Service Project Code 2022-0060708
V.S.
FTR " W1.FF'R
Prepared by:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Ecological Services Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
Digitally signed by
GARY PEEPLES
Date: 2022.09.26
13:13:34-04'00'
Janet Mizzi
Field Supervisor
Asheville Ecological Services Field Office
Asheville, North Carolina
Date

Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................4
2. CONSULTATION HISTORY.............................................................................................................4
3. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION AREA...........................................5
3.1 ACTION AREA............................................................................................................................5
3.2 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES..............................................................................
5
3.3 THREE BRIDGES........................................................................................................................6
3.4 STREAM IMPACTS AND CULVERTS.....................................................................................7
3.5 TREE REMOVAL.........................................................................................................................7
3.6 PERCUSSIVE ACTIVITIES........................................................................................................7
3.7 NIGHT WORK AND LIGHTING................................................................................................8
3.8 UTILITIES....................................................................................................................................8
3.9 LAND DISTURBANCE AND EROSION CONTROL...............................................................8
3.10 FACILITY OPERATION & POST -CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ....
8
3.11 CONSERVATION MEASURES..................................................................................................8
3.12 INTERRELATED AND INTERDEPENDENT ACTIONS.......................................................10
4. STATUS OF THE SPECIES..............................................................................................................10
4.1 GRAY BAT.................................................................................................................................10
4.1.1 Life History..........................................................................................................................11
4.1.2 Population Size....................................................................................................................13
4.1.3 Distribution..........................................................................................................................14
4.1.4 Threats.................................................................................................................................14
4.2 NORTHERN LONG-EARED BAT............................................................................................15
4.2.1 Life History..........................................................................................................................15
4.2.2 Population Size....................................................................................................................17
4.2.3 Distribution..........................................................................................................................17
4.2.4 Threats.................................................................................................................................17
4.3 TRICOLORED BAT...................................................................................................................18
4.3.1 Life History..........................................................................................................................19
4.3.2 Population Size....................................................................................................................21
4.3.3 Distribution..........................................................................................................................21
4.3.4 Threats.................................................................................................................................21
4.4 LITTLE BROWN BAT...............................................................................................................22
4.4.1 Life History..........................................................................................................................22
4.4.2 Population Size....................................................................................................................23
4.4.3 Distribution..........................................................................................................................23
4.4.4 Threats.................................................................................................................................23
5. ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE......................................................................................................24
5.1 GRAY BAT WITHIN THE ACTION AREA.............................................................................24
5.2 NORTHERN LONG EARED BAT WITHIN THE ACTION AREA........................................25
5.3 TRICOLORED BAT WITHIN THE ACTION AREA...............................................................26
5.4 LITTLE BROWN BAT WITHIN THE ACTION AREA..........................................................26
6. EFFECTS OF THE ACTION.............................................................................................................26
6.1 STRESSORS...............................................................................................................................27
6.1.1 Stressor 1: Loss of a Bridge Roost (Bridge Replacement)..................................................27
2

6.1.2 Stressor 2: Loss of Potential Roost Trees (Tree Removal)..................................................28
6.1.3 Stressor 3: Alteration or Loss of Foraging / Commuting Habitat (Tree Removal) .............28
6.1.4 Stressor 4: Noise and Vibration...........................................................................................29
6.1.5 Stressor 5: Night Lighting...................................................................................................30
6.1.6 Stressor 6: Aquatic Resource Degradation..........................................................................30
6.1.7 Stressor 7: Collision.............................................................................................................30
6.1.8 Stressor 8: Hand Removal...................................................................................................31
6.3 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS.........................................................................................................31
6.4 SUMMARY OF EFFECTS.........................................................................................................31
7 CONCLUSION...................................................................................................................................31
8. INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT................................................................................................32
8.1 AMOUNT OR EXTENT OF TAKE...........................................................................................33
8.2. REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES.......................................................................33
8.3. TERMS AND CONDITIONS.....................................................................................................34
9. CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................................34
10. REINITIATION/CLOSING STATEMENT.......................................................................................35
11. LITERATURE CITED.......................................................................................................................35
12. FIGURES............................................................................................................................................47
Suggested Citation: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2022. Biological and Conference Opinion for the
Replacement of Bridge 560071 on Walnut Creek Road (SR 1395) over Big Laurel Creek, Madison
County, North Carolina. TIP B-5989. Service Log 918-426. Service Project Code 2022-0060708.
Asheville Ecological Services Field Office, Asheville, North Carolina. September. 49 pages.
3

1. INTRODUCTION
This document transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) biological and conference
opinions (Opinions) based on the Service's review of the proposed bridge replacement located in Madison
County, North Carolina, and its effects on the gray bat, northern long-eared bat, tricolored bat, and little
brown bat in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.). Your request for formal consultation was received on May 16, 2022.
These Opinions are based on information provided in responses to questions received on June 14, 2022
via e-mail, a field investigation by the Service on June 15, 2022, and the Revised Biological Assessment
(BA; Three Oaks Engineering, 2022) received on June 16, 2022. A complete administrative record of
this consultation is on file at the Asheville Ecological Services Field Office under the FWS Log Number
18-426 and Project Code 2022-0060708.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has proposed to replace Bridge 71 on
Walnut Creek Road over Big Laurel Creek. The Service maintains the Information for Planning and
Consultation Website (IPaC; Service 2022a), which lists two federally listed species and one candidate
species potentially in the action area (Table 1). In addition, this BA includes the little brown bat (Myotis
lucifugus) and the tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus), which also occur in Madison County (LeGrand et
al. 2022) and may become federally listed in the future. There is no designated critical habitat within the
action area for any of the five species (Table 1). Consultation is not required for monarch butterfly.
Table 1. Species List_ for B-5989
Common Name
Scientific Name
Federal Status
Suitable
Species Present in
Habitat
Action Area
Gray Bat
M otis grisescens
Endangered
Present
Yes
Little Brown Bat
M otis luci u us
At -Risk Species
Present
Presence Assumed
Monarch Butterfly
Danaus plexippus
Candidate
NA
NA
Northern Long-
Myotis
Threatened
Present
Presence Assumed
eared Bat
se tentrionalis
Tricolored Bat
Perimyotis
Proposed
Present
Yes
sub anus
Endangered
2. CONSULTATION HISTORY
August 8, 2018 —
NCDOT consultant sends a Start of Study Letter to the Service requesting input.
September 5, 2018 —
The Service provides NCDOT with a species list.
January 6, 2022 —
NCDOT sends the Service a species list provided by IPaC and requests
confirmation of its accuracy for use in a BA. The Service confirms the list.
January 11, 2022 —
NCDOT notifies the Service of the let date and when the formal consultation
request is expected (May 2022).
May 16, 2022 —
NCDOT requests initiation of formal consultation.
May 17, 2022 —
The Service acknowledges receipt of the request.
May 26, 2022 —
The Service sends a list of questions to NCDOT and starts work on the Opinion.
June 14, 2022 —
NCDOT sends shapefiles, figures, and responses to questions.
June 15, 2022 —
The Service conducts a site visit to Bridge 71.
June 16, 2022 —
The Service sends a note about the field visit to NCDOT, noting the presence of
guano on the northwestern side of the bridge and additional trees that will likely
need to be cleared. NCDOT submits the revised BA. The Services states that
they have no further comments.
August 8, 2022 —
The Service requested clarity on whether the new bridge will provide suitable
roosting habitat.
August 11, 2022 —
NCDOT provides more detail on new bridge design.
August 25, 2022 —
The Service asks for an update on any 2022 survey results and NCDOT provides
4

them.
September 9, 2022 —
The Service sends this final Biological and Conference Opinion to NCDOT for
review prior to signature.
September 14, 2022 —
NCDOT requests clarification on Term and Condition #3.
September 19, 2022 —
The Service elaborates on the intent behind Term and Condition #3 in an email to
NCDOT.
September 23, 2022 —
NCDOT informs the Service they have no further comments on this Biological
and Conference Opinion.
3. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION AREA
As defined in the Service's section 7 regulations (50 CFR 402.02), "action" means "all activities or
programs of any kind authorized, funded, or carried out, in whole or in part, by Federal agencies in the
United States or upon the high seas." The "action area" is defined as "all areas to be affected directly or
indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action." The direct
and indirect effects of the actions and activities must be considered in conjunction with the effects of
other past and present Federal, state, or private activities, as well as the cumulative effects of reasonably
certain future state or private activities within the action area. Information in this section was taken from
the BA (Three Oaks Engineering, 2022).
3.1 ACTION AREA
The action area includes the immediate project footprint as well as locations adjacent to the project that
could be affected by project activities such as noise and light from project activities that could potentially
result in effects in adjacent areas. To account for the effects in adjacent habitat, the action area extends
0.25 miles beyond the project footprint. The action area covers 186 acres (Figure 2). Forested habitat
makes up most of the action area, along with maintained/disturbed habitat. The project footprint (Figure
3) extends approximately 480 feet from the south end of the existing bridge along Walnut Creek Road,
approximately 300 feet from the north end of the existing bridge along Big Laurel Road toward Lewis
Branch Road, and approximately 280 feet from the north end of the existing bridge on Big Laurel Road
toward Buckner Branch Road. It includes temporary and permanent construction easements, areas for
equipment access and staging, drainage easements, cut/fill slopes, and an on -site detour. The project
disturbance footprint totals 1.7 acres. Three culverts occur within the project disturbance footprint though
more culverts or small bridges with suitable roosting habitat may occur within the action area and may be
impacted by noise.
The contractor may use areas outside the action area for borrow pits or spoil areas. Waste and borrow
areas will likely be required to dispose of and obtain materials for earthwork and are also subject to
clearing and grubbing. Since those locations are unknown at this time, activities associated with these
locations are not part of this Opinion and are not discussed further. NCDOT has stated that no
borrow/waste/staging area will be allowed that may affect federally listed species. Consultation will be
re -initiated if NCDOT determines that borrow pit/spoil/waste/staging/storage areas and their use by the
project may affect federally listed species.
3.2 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
Construction activities associated with the project may include, but are not limited to clearing, grubbing,
grading, installation of base material, bridge construction, and bridge removal. The project will include
installation and removal of a temporary work bridge and a temporary detour bridge, bridge approaches,
retaining wall, driven piles, drilled bridge footings, demolition of the existing bridge, civil site work,
mobilization, maintenance of traffic, replacing highway barrier rails, and final pavement markings. Fill
material will be placed along the southern approach to the new bridge, some of the existing stream bank
will be excavated, riprap will be installed along one bank of Big Laurel Creek, and a retaining wall will
be constructed along the other. Any temporary access locations will be regraded and vegetated.
Construction will take approximately 18 months.

3.3 THREE BRIDGES
On -Site Temporary Detour Bridge
NCDOT will construct a new temporary bridge at the site to service as an on -site detour bridge located
50-55 feet west of the existing bridge within the project disturbance footprint and action area. Traffic will
use this temporary detour bridge during the construction period. The bridge will be a single lane
controlled with three temporary traffic lights. An off -site detour was not evaluated due to the length (21
miles) of the closest available off -site detour. The detour bridge may have temporary effects to Big
Laurel Creek similar to those of the new bridge and temporary work bridge. If any temporary bridge
footings must be drilled in Big Laurel Creek, they will be removed when the temporary bridge is
dismantled.
New Bridge
The B-5989 project consists of replacing Bridge 71 on Walnut Creek Road over Big Laurel Creek with a
new bridge in its existing location. The existing bridge, constructed in 1965, has three spans, with one
bent in the creek. Bridge approaches will be widened to provide the new bridge with two 10-foot
vehicular lanes, a 6-foot shoulder on the west side and a 4-foot shoulder on the east side. Based on a
preliminary design, the replacement structure will be approximately 130 feet long with a 30-foot clear
deck width. The roadway and new bridge will have a 40-mile per hour (mph) design speed and 35 mph
speed limit. An approximately 140-foot long retaining wall is proposed along the east side of Big Laurel
Road, beginning at the northern edge of the new bridge, to avoid impacts to Big Laurel Baptist Church's
shelter and baptismal pool as much as possible. The retaining wall may require drilled -in elements that
impact Big Laurel Creek.
The roadway grade of the new structure will be raised by one to two feet to provide a design that meets
the project speed limit and helps ensure drainage does not pond on the bridge. The new bridge will be a
two -span concrete girder structure. The new bridge will accommodate cyclists on paved shoulders and
shall be compliant with the NCDOT Complete Streets Policy. The design includes bicycle -safe, 42-inch
vertical concrete guardrails.
Drilling will be conducted for the footings of the new bridge at one end bent and one interior bent. Since
the new bridge will span Big Laurel Creek, drilling will not take place within the creek itself for the
bridge bents. For drilling, an auger will be used to drill down until it encounters rock and is unable to
proceed further. The auger will remove loose material (spoils) from within the casing and deposit them in
a watertight catch pan. A rock auger or down -the -hole hammer will then be used to continue excavation
into the rock. As construction proceeds, the permanent steel casing will be twisted down into rock until
the rock surrounding the casing creates a seal. After this, shaft excavation will continue several feet into
rock. Spoils will continue to be removed using the watertight catch pan. As needed, the catch pan will be
transported to an upland disposal area at least 30 feet from the edge of the river where the spoils will be
treated through an approved North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) erosion
control device. Once rock excavation is complete, remaining spoils and any residual water at the bottom
of the shaft will be cleaned out using a flat bottom cleanout bucket and/or pumped through a hose to an
upland disposal area at least 30 feet from the edge of the river and treated through an approved NCDEQ
erosion control device. After steel reinforcement is placed in the shaft, concrete will be pumped directly
into the watertight permanent steel casing lining the shaft. Drilling activity is anticipated to take up to 31
days and will occur during the day.
Temporary Work Bridge
The project will require a temporary work bridge, which is anticipated to be built at the existing bridge
location once the existing superstructure is removed. The temporary work bridge will be wider than the
existing bridge and will provide the contractor with access down to the creek. Access to the work bridge
is expected to come from the south side approach. The work bridge may have temporary effects to Big
Laurel Creek. If any temporary bridge footings must be drilled in Big Laurel Creek, they will be removed
0

when the bridge is dismantled. At this stage of the design process, it is not known what the extent of the
temporary effects may be.
Bridge Demolition
Three bridges will be demolished for the project. Bridge demolition may occur any time of year and will
occur at different times. Bridge deck demolition may require equipment such as a tractor -trailer truck, a
crane, and a track hoe. The demolition will consist of scraping the asphalt from the existing bridge deck,
sawing the remaining concrete deck into sections, and hauling away the deck sections. Removal of bents
is the next step.
Once the deck of existing Bridge 71 is removed, the I -beams will be removed, and the temporary work
bridge will be constructed, allowing access to the creek for bridge construction. The temporary work
bridge will be used to remove the existing bent on the southern creek bank and then to install the
foundations for the new bridge and retaining wall.
The existing interior bridge footings, which are at the edge of the creek banks, will most likely be
removed by cutting them off at riverbed or ground elevation and leaving the base of the spread footing in
place. The method of removal will be dependent on the foundation conditions present at the site.
Exposed steel will be cut off. Once the interior bents are demolished and the new bridge foundations are
constructed, the temporary work bridge will be removed, the new bridge will be completed, and the
temporary detour bridge will be removed last.
3.4 STREAM IMPACTS AND CULVERTS
Three jurisdictional streams may be affected by the project, based on preliminary design (using slope
stake limits plus 25 feet): approximately 87 linear feet of Big Laurel Creek, 52 linear feet of Stream SA (a
perennial tributary), and 66 linear feet of Stream SC (an intermittent tributary). Stream SA currently runs
through a 42-inch tall by 33-foot-long corrugated metal pipe culvert under Walnut Creek Road; the pipe
will be replaced with a 54-inch pipe as part of the project. In addition, the pipe will temporarily be
extended to allow traffic to access the temporary detour bridge. Stream SC runs parallel to Walnut Creek
Road and joins Stream SA after crossing under a driveway through a 24-inch corrugated metal pipe
culvert which will not be affected by the project. An 18-inch corrugated metal pipe culvert that is
approximately 70 feet long is also in the project footprint but will not be replaced. No impacts to
wetlands are anticipated from the project construction.
3.5 TREE REMOVAL
Replacement of Bridge 71 will require tree removal to allow for construction access, grading, and crane
movements. Since Bridge 71 is in an area with steep terrain, adequate access to complete the necessary
work may require vegetative clearing beyond the existing right-of-way limits along Walnut Creek Road
and Big Laurel Road. A narrow strip of the project footprint overlaps the wooded east side of Walnut
Creek Road and Big Laurel Creek (Figure 3), however, work in this area will be limited in order to avoid
the Big Laurel Church shelter and baptismal pool. On the west/north side of Big Laurel Creek and the
existing bridge, where most of the project footprint occurs, trees are sparsely scattered along the creek.
Tree -clearing for the entire project will take place on 0.39 acres (up to 0.5 acres) of maintained/disturbed
land that is sparsely wooded. Method II clearing will be used, which means trees will be removed to the
slope stake or construction limits. Based on the current contract let date (January 2023), tree -clearing
may start as early as March, with a possible completion date of April 1, and guaranteed completion date
of May 15.
3.6 PERCUSSIVE ACTIVITIES
Noise/vibration will be generated primarily from equipment used to install guardrails, drive piles, drill
bridge footings, and demolish the existing bridge. Equipment that may be used includes a tractor -trailer
truck, a crane, and a track hoe. There may be infrequent and short-term percussive activities such as
7

hammering and sawing to remove old bridge decks and supports during bridge demolition. Drilling noise
will vary depending on the depth of the drill bit, depth of the water, and whether any silt or other substrate
is present above the bedrock. One end bent for the new bridge will require pile -driving, one of the
loudest construction noises on highway projects. Pile -driving may take two to four weeks. There may be
short-term percussive activities for installation of temporary and permanent guardrail posts. Noise
associated with the project may take place any time year but only during the day.
3.7 NIGHT WORK AND LIGHTING
No night work will take place. No permanent lighting associated with the bridge or roadway is present in
the project footprint currently, and none will be installed as part of this project. Existing lighting does
occur at the adjacent church. Also, three temporary traffic lights will be used to direct traffic at the detour
bridge. One light will be placed on Walnut Creek Road and two will be placed on Big Laurel Road, to
cover all directions of approaching traffic. The traffic lights will be red, yellow, and green. They will be
solar powered with backup generators and will be in place for up to 18 months.
3.8 UTILITIES
No underground utilities exist within the project footprint. There is one aerial power line being relocated,
which may create a small amount of temporary ground disturbance within the project footprint.
3.9 LAND DISTURBANCE AND EROSION CONTROL
The proposed action includes land -disturbing activities that create bare soil conditions. The Federal
Clean Water Act (CWA) and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) require that
construction activities control the discharge of pollutants in stormwater runoff including sediment. Each
is enforced by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and by the Division of Energy,
Minerals and Land Resources (DEMLR) and the Division of Water Resources (DWR) within the North
Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) through delegation of authority from the
USEPA. In North Carolina, NPDES General Permit NCGO1 covers construction activities. The permit
complies with State erosion and sediment control requirements along with other stormwater pollution
prevention requirements. NCDOT will implement standard erosion control measures during construction
consistent with the above permits and the NCDEQ's regulations at 15A NCAC 04B .0124 Design
Standards in Sensitive Watersheds, which includes stringent ground cover requirements.
3.10 FACILITY OPERATION & POST -CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT
Facility operations include daily vehicle and bicycle use, stormwater runoff treatment, and inspection and
maintenance activities. Traffic capacity and the speed limit of the bridge and improved roadway will not
increase. Maintenance of the road and bridge will continue post -construction though is not expected to
change from baseline conditions. NCDOT's Construction General Permit (NCGO1) allows for
stormwater discharge under the NPDES. NCDOT must comply with the NCDEQ's NPDES stormwater
permit (NCS000250), which incorporates the requirements NCGO1. The new bridge will not have
scuppers that drain into the creek, as the existing bridge does (though they were clogged during the
Service's site visit). Stormwater runoff from the proposed bridge will be discharged on riprap dissipater
pads at non -erosive velocities. After leaving pads, vegetated swales will carry the water downgrade to the
creek or its tributaries. NCDOT will implement Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds, which
includes a stormwater design for the 25-year storm event, instead of the 10-year storm.
3.11 CONSERVATION MEASURES
Conservation measures "are actions to benefit or promote the recovery of listed species that are included
by the Federal agency as an integral part of the proposed action. These actions will betaken by the
Federal agency... and serve to minimize or compensate for project effects on the species under review.
Such measures should be closely related to the action and should be achievable within the authority of the
action agency. " (Service and NMFS 1998). We consider the beneficial effects of conservation measures

in making our determination of whether the project will jeopardize the species and in the analysis of
incidental take. However, such measures must minimize impacts to listed species within the action area
to be factored into the Service's incidental take analysis. NCDOT provided the following conservation
measures (CMs) in the BA (Three Oaks Engineering, 2022).
CM 1. Tree clearing will be conducted as early in the calendar year as possible. The let date is
expected to be January 17, 2023. If time and funds allow, the contractor, or the NCDOT
Division, will clear the trees prior to the April P bat active season; however, if time does
not allow, then NCDOT will conduct an emergence survey, and the trees will be felled the
following day. An emergence survey will require approval from the Asheville Field Office
and will be consistent with Appendix E of the Range -wide Indiana Bat and Northern Long -
Eared Bat Survey Guidelines (Melissa Miller, personal communication, June 16, 2022).
Based on the current let date, all tree -clearing will be completed by May 15.
CM 2. There will be no night work for the project. Three traffic lights will be used at the
temporary detour bridge. The lights will be removed once the project is complete. No
permanent lighting will be installed.
CM 3. After inspecting the existing bridge to ensure no bats are present, roosting areas such as
expansion joints and drain holes will be filled with backer rod or similar material to exclude
bats prior to the start of the gray bat active season (March 15). Since bats can fit in tiny
spaces, care will be taken to completely seal all places bats could roost, and work will be
checked/overseen by a bat biologist. This work will be conducted prior to the start of B-
5989 construction.
CM 4. NCDOT or a permitted biologist will conduct a check of the existing bridge within 15 days
of demolition to ensure no bats are present and exclusions are still in place.
CM 5. If the temporary work bridge and detour bridge will be removed during the bat active
season (March 15 — November 15) and are conducive to bat roosting, NCDOT will conduct
a pre -demo check within 15 days of removal to ensure no bats are present.
CM 6. If the pre -demolition check of any bridge determines pups are present, NCDOT will refrain
from demolishing/removing the bridge where they are present until it can be determined by
a biologist that the pups are volant. NCDOT will then notify the Service.
CM 7. If the pre -demolition check determines adult bats are present in any of the bridges, a
permitted biologist will hand -remove adult bats from the bridge immediately prior to the
start of demolition work. NCDOT will contact the Service before removing any bats.
CM 8. Big Laurel Creek is in a watershed designated as Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW).
NCDOT will implement Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds, which includes
stringent ground cover requirements and a stormwater design for the 25-year storm event,
instead of the 10-year storm.
CM 9. If drilled piers are used for bridge construction, permanent watertight steel casings will
contain all disturbed material, fresh concrete, and negligible water used to cool machinery,
which will minimize effects to water quality. Material by-product (a mixture of bentonite
and river water) will be pumped out of the shaft to an upland disposal area to the extent
practicable and treated through a proper stilling basin or silt bag.
CM 10. Construction of the new bridge will be accomplished in a manner that prevents uncured
concrete from contacting water entering or flowing into Big Laurel Creek.
CM 11. NCDOT will invite representatives from the Service, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, and the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission to the pre -construction meeting for the
proposed project, as well as to all subsequent field inspections prior to construction, to
ensure compliance with all special project commitments.
CM 12. All resource agencies will be notified prior to the start of Bridge 71 superstructure
demolition so they may have a representative on site.
CM 13. NCDOT will contact the Service if new information about gray bat or northern long-eared
bat is discovered, as it relates to the project.
CM 14. NCDOT will report any dead bats found on the construction site to the Service.
0

CM 15. NCDOT will replant native riparian trees along the creek corridor in areas outside the
maintained (mowed) right-of-way where they do not pose sight distance issues for vehicles.
CM 16. NCDOT will inspect the 42-inch tall by 33-feet-long pipe culvert. A summer survey will
occur within two years of replacement. If bats are found, NCDOT will contact the Service.
CM 17. Long-term roosting habitat on the underside of the bridge will be maintained or improved.
The new bridge will have concrete girders beneath the deck, instead of steel I -beams as
with the existing bridge. The concrete girders should provide new roost areas for night -
roosting bats in the form of concrete vertical surfaces. Concrete retains daytime warmth
longer than steel and provides surface irregularities that allow bats to hang on a vertical
surface. The new bridge will also provide new areas of suitable day -roosting habitat. The
new bridge will have expansion joints at each end of the bridge though they will also have
joint material intended to keep the joint sealed. However, there are many other openings
between the girders at the interior bent and between the girders and the concrete backwall
at the ends of the bridge. These areas are under the bridge deck and only accessible from
below and are likely to offer ideal roosting habitat for bats. There are four girders in each
span that are 45 inches tall that will provide at least 12 locations of confined space for
potential roosting (see red circles on design photo). This ensures only temporary loss of a
suitable day roost for 18 months.
i
I�
New Bridge Design II Existing Bridge
3.12 INTERRELATED AND INTERDEPENDENT ACTIONS
A biological opinion evaluates the effects of a proposed Federal action. For purposes of consultation
under ESA Section 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. "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). NCDOT did not identify any interrelated or interdependent actions for
this project.
4. STATUS OF THE SPECIES
4.1 GRAY BAT
Scientific Name: Myotis grisescens
Status: Endangered
Date Listed: April 28, 1976
Critical Habitat: None Designated
10

This section summarizes best available data about the biology and current condition of the gray bat
throughout its range that are relevant to formulating an opinion about the action.
4.1.1 Life History
Cave Roosting Behavior
Gray bats are one of the few species of bats in North America inhabiting caves year-round. The species
occupies cold caves or mines in winter and warmer caves during summer (Tuttle 1976a, Harvey et al.
1981, Harvey 1994, Martin 2007). The species chooses hibernation sites where there are often multiple
entrances, good air flow (Martin 2007), and where temperatures are approximately 5°-9° C, though 1' 4'
C appears to be preferred (Tuttle and Kennedy 2005). Tuttle (1979) noted that an estimated 95% of the
range -wide population was confined to only nine hibernacula.
Gray bats show strong philopatry to both summering and wintering sites (Tuttle 1976a, Tuttle 1979,
Tuttle and Kennedy 2005, Martin 2007). Because of their highly specific roost and habitat requirements,
only about 5% of available caves are suitable for occupancy by gray bats (Tuttle 1979, Harvey 1994).
During all seasons, males and yearling females seem less restricted to specific cave and roost types
(Tuttle 1976b). Bachelor males segregate in separate aggregations within a colony home range that
usually includes several caves that may extend up to 70 kilometers along a particular river valley (Tuttle
and Kennedy 2005).
Gray bat hibernacula are often comprised of individuals from large areas of summer range. Based on
band recovery data, Hall and Wilson (1966) calculated that a gray bat hibernaculum in Edmonson
County, Kentucky attracted individuals from an area encompassing 27,195 square kilometers in
Kentucky, southern Illinois, and northern Tennessee (Hall and Wilson 1966). Gray bats are documented
to regularly migrate from 17 to 437 kilometers between summer maternity sites and winter hibernacula
(Tuttle 1976b, Hall and Wilson 1966), with some individuals moving as much as 689 to 775 kilometers
(Tuttle 1976b, Tuttle and Kennedy 2005).
Other Roost Types
There are some exceptions to this cave -specific roosting strategy. Many bat species use bridges and
culverts as roost sites (Keeley and Tuttle 1999) and the gray bat is no exception. Bridges provide a warm
refuge for individuals either foraging far from their primary daytime roosts or can serve as primary roosts
during summer months. Gray bats have been found roosting in bridges in Kentucky (Barbour and Davis
1969, Martin 2007), Virginia (Powers et al. 2016), and between concrete barriers on the sides of bridges
in Arkansas (Sasse 2019). Summer bridge and culvert roosts have also been identified in North Carolina
within the French Broad River (FBR) Basin (FBR) (Weber et al. 2020). Maternity colonies have also
turned up in more unusual places, such as a barn in Missouri (Gunier and Elder 1971) and the gate room
of a large dam in Tennessee (Lamb 2000). Weber et al. (2020) found 293 gray bats roosting in a building
and tracked two gray bats to sycamore trees in which they roosted (Samoray et al. 2020). Wetzel and
Samoray (2022) also tracked a gray bat to a shagbark hickory tree roost in Tennessee in April. Notably,
gray bats had not previously been documented using trees as roost sites. The knowledge of where gray
bats roost, especially during summer months, continues to expand.
Culverts
Culvert conditions can mimic those found in natural caves in terms of high levels of humidity and clear
running water. Gray bat bachelor colonies, maternity colonies, and/or winter roosts have been found in
culverts in Arkansas (Harvey and McDaniel 1988, Timmerman and McDaniel 1992), Virginia (Powers et
al. 2016), Tennessee (Powers et al. 2016), Georgia (L. Pattavina, personal communication, March 13,
2022), and Kansas (Decher and Choate 1988). Weber et al. (2020) surveyed 31 culverts in the FBR Basin
in North Carolina for the presence of gray bats. That study recorded gray bats in a concrete box culvert in
Western North Carolina with a 4.3-ft (1.3 m) entrance height. This culvert has a secondary entrance
height that is larger (8.5 ft or 2.6 m); bats were found roosting in parts of the culvert measuring 6 — 8 ft
11

tall. The shortest culvert Weber et al. (2020, pg. 28) documented gray bats in measured 320 ft (97.8 m)
long. Records show that culverts used by gray bats are generally concrete; however, Weber et al. (2020)
found gray bats using circular concrete lined corrugated metal pipe culverts and culverts with metal pipe
entrances that open into a larger concrete box culvert interior. Powers et al. (2016) and Timpone et al.
(2011) have documented a gray bat maternity roost in Washington County, Virginia. Georgia's smallest
gray bat culvert roost is an 8-ft tall by 504-ft long triple box culvert. While both Indiana and tricolored
bats in this culvert use a smaller 4-ft tall perpendicular pipe within the triple box culvert system, gray bats
have not been found in the shorter sections (L. Pattavina, personal communications, February 23 and
March 21, 2022; Photo 3). The only known gray bat roost located in a culvert in Arkansas (Timmerman
and McDaniel 1992; Blake Sasse, personal communication, April 8, 2022) has two entrances: the inflow
entrance is 5.6 ft (1.7 m) tall, and the outflow exit is 3.3 (1 m) ft tall. The culvert is 525 ft long. The
heights in the culvert, from ceiling to the water, varied from 4.8 ft (1.45 m) to 2.9 ft (0.89 m) at the time
of the survey. While summer use of culverts by gray bat is rare in Arkansas, use of culverts during
migration may be higher based on evidence that the species uses the concrete barriers on the sides of
bridges significantly more in the spring (Sasse, 2019). An instance of gray bat use of a storm sewer is
also known from Kansas (Decher and Choate 1988, Decher 1989).
Diet and Foraging
Gray bats feed exclusively on insects, with flies (Diptera), beetles (Coleoptera), caddisflies (Trichoptera),
moths (Lepidoptera), wasps (Hymenoptera), stoneflies (Plecoptera), leafhoppers (Homoptera), and
mayflies (Ephemeroptera) being the most important orders of insect prey (Rabinowitz and Tuttle 1982,
Clawson 1984, Brack 1985, Lacki et al. 1995, Best et al. 1997). Diet has been found to coincide most
directly with the predominantly available prey species in the foraging area (Clawson 1984, Barclay and
Bingham 1994), including both terrestrial and aquatic species (Clawson 1984). A study examining fecal
remains conducted by Brack and LaVal (2006) indicates that gray bat diets fluctuate to a minor degree
depending upon varying factors such as age, sex, and location.
Gray bat summer foraging is strongly correlated with open water of rivers, streams, lakes, or reservoirs,
where insects are abundant (Tuttle 1976b, LaVal et al. 1977). Results of surveys conducted in Tennessee
indicate that wetland depressions are also important foraging sites for gray bats (Lamb 2000). Although
the species may travel up to 35 kilometers between prime feeding areas over lakes and rivers and
occupied caves, (LaVal et al. 1977, Tuttle and Kennedy 2005, Moore et al. 2017), most maternity
colonies are usually located between 1-4 kilometers from foraging locations (Tuttle 1976b). Newly
volant gray bats travel 0.0 — 6.6 kilometers between roost caves and foraging areas (Tuttle 1976a, Tuttle
1976b). Joey Weber reported that two male gray bats captured and radio -tagged June 13, 2019 on the
Davidson River, were found the next day at a bridge roost 18-19 miles [43 river miles] to the northeast.
At foraging sites, Tuttle (1976b) estimated that gray bats forage within roughly three meters above the
water's surface. Abbreviated instances of bad weather in early spring and late fall are generally the only
times gray bats deviate from primarily feeding along local bodies of water, and then they are found
foraging in forest canopies (LaVal et al. 1977, Stevenson and Tuttle 1981).
Gray bats are known to establish foraging territories as insect numbers drop after dusk. Territories are
controlled by reproductive females, which annually return to preferred territories (Brady et al. 1982,
Goebel 1996). Gray bats tend to have large home ranges. Thomas and Best (2000) reported non -
reproductive gray bats (males and females) from one northern Alabama cave foraged over areas of
approximately 97 square kilometers. Moore et al. (2017) found reproductive female gray bats in
Arkansas had a larger home range than previously thought, with an average of 159 square kilometers, and
they depend on water for foraging and traveling. The home range for reproductive females may change
depending on reproductive status, but could also change based on colony size, insect abundance, habitat
continuity, land use, or a combination of these factors (Moore et al. 2017). During times of limited food
resources, males and pre -reproductive females may be excluded from foraging territories (Stevenson and
Tuttle 1981).
12

Forested areas along the banks of streams and lakes serve as corridors for travel and as protective feeding
cover for newly volant young (Tuttle 1979, Brady et al. 1982, Moore et al. 2017). Whenever possible,
gray bats of all ages fly in the protection of forest canopy between roosts and feeding areas (Service
1982). Individuals may also fly overland from relatively land -locked roost sites to reach the main river
channel or tributary systems that lead to open -water foraging sites (Thomas 1994, Best and Hudson
1996). Gray bats do not feed in areas along rivers or reservoirs where the forest has been cleared (LaVal
et al. 1977). Weber et al. (2020) found that gray bats moving between the FBR Basin near Asheville,
North Carolina, and caves they use in Tennessee commuted along the FBR but several overland flyways
are evident from the GIS data.
Reproduction and Life Span
Gray bats are reproductively mature at two years of age (Miller 1939, Tuttle 1976a) and mate between
September and October. Copulation occurs upon arrival at hibernating caves, whereupon females
immediately enter hibernation. Mating males may take a few weeks to replenish fat stores but are
typically in hibernation by early November (Tuttle 1976b, Tuttle and Stevenson 1978). Adult females
store sperm throughout hibernation, a strategy known as delayed fertilization, and pregnancy begins
following their spring emergence (Krulin and Sealander 1972). After a gestation period of 60 to 70 days
(Saugey 1978), females give birth to one pup between late May and early June. Newborn young are
volant within 21-33 days (Tuttle 1976b, Harvey 1994, Tuttle and Kennedy 2005). In summer, female
gray bats form maternity colonies of a few hundred to many thousands of individuals.
Young, non-volant gray bats experience healthy growth rates because their energy expenditure for
thermoregulation is reduced by the roosting colony (Herreid 1963, 1967). In undisturbed colonies, young
may take flight within 20 to 25 days after birth. However, young may not become volant for 30 to 35
days if disturbed (Tuttle 1975). Hunting is primarily learned by young on their own after learning to fly
(Stevenson and Tuttle 1981), though lactating females will continue to nurse their offspring for a short
time after they become volant. Survival and growth of volant young is inversely proportional to the
distance traveled for shelter and food (Tuttle 1976a). Roosts are cool during this period of lactation and
females are often required to feed continuously to sustain the high body temperatures required to nurse
(Tuttle and Stevenson 1977). Distance traveled to feeding areas may also be correlated with adult
mortality (Martin 2007).
Gray bats have been recorded as living up to 17 years (Harvey 1992, Tuttle and Kennedy 2005), with a
mean annual survival rate of 70 percent in males and 73 percent in females (Gamer and Elder 1971).
While survivorship among juveniles is relatively high (Saugey 1978), only 50 percent of gray bats reach
maturity (Service 1980). Mortality rates are higher during the spring migration when fat stores have been
expended and food resources can be scarce (Tuttle and Stevenson 1977).
4.1.2 Population Size
In the late 1970s, Tuttle (1979) estimated the total population of gray bats to be approximately 2.25
million. This was a net increase in population size of 11 percent between the 1970's and 2003, and an
increase of 67 percent from the smallest population estimate. In 2007, a study was conducted examining
gray bat hibernacula and maternity roosts across the established range to ascertain the effectiveness of
current conservation steps. At that time, it was observed that populations had increased nearly 104
percent since 1982 (Martin 2007). More recently it has been reported that their populations appear to
have remained stable within Tennessee (Bernard et al. 2017) and Virginia (Powers et al. 2015). In 2017,
winter surveys of all Priority 1 hibernacula (as designated in the Gray Bat Recovery Plan) were
conducted, including the largest hibernaculum, Fern Cave in Alabama. This coordinated, range -wide
effort provided the best opportunity in decades to estimate the gray bat population, now estimated at
approximately 4,358,263 (Service 2019).
13

4.1.3 Distribution
The gray bat is known to occur in fourteen southeastern and midwestern states including Alabama,
Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma,
South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. There is little variation between summer and winter ranges
(NatureServe 2018) and population densities are highest in the limestone karst region (Hall and Wilson
1966, Barbour and Davis 1969, Tuttle 1976a, Harvey et al. 1981, Mitchell 1998).
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) records (2022) confirm presence in thirteen western
North Carolina counties: Ashe, Avery, Buncombe, Cherokee, Clay, Haywood, Henderson, Madison,
McDowell, Surry, Swain, Transylvania, and Yancey. Records in North Carolina represent mist -net
captures, North Carolina State Laboratory of Public Health records, and summer roost locations.
Gray bats were first discovered roosting in bridges in the FBR Basin (which includes the Pigeon River
Basin) by NCWRC in 2016. There are four known gray bat primary roosts, all of which occur near the
FBR, and several secondary roosts in the Asheville area (Weber et al. 2020). There are no known gray
bat hibernacula located in North Carolina. The closest hibernaculum is a cave located near Newport,
Tennessee, 0.2 miles from the Pigeon River (Weber et al. 2018).
4.1.4 Threats
The primary cause of gray bat population decline is human disturbance of their natural habitat (Barbour
and Davis 1969, Mohr 1972, Harvey 1975, Tuttle 1979, Service 1982, Service 2009), with wintering sites
and maternity roosts especially susceptible to disruption. Commercialization of caves, spelunking, and
looting for archaeological artifacts are activities that most commonly result in disturbance to roosting bats
(Service 1982, Service 2009). Disturbance in the hibernacula occurs when a human enters the cave and
bats wake from hibernation, using vital energy stores that cannot be recovered before emerging in the
spring (Tuttle 1976b). In addition, Stevenson and Tuttle (1981) found that banded gray bats tended to
avoid roosts where they had been handled by researchers.
Humans are also impacting the environment in other ways that can negatively impact bats. Deforestation
close to cave entrances, at foraging sites, and along commuting routes is likely to have negative effects
due to the removal of prey abundance and reduced cover from natural predators (Tuttle 1979).
Insecticide use historically had a detrimental impact on gray bat populations (Clark et al. 1978, Clark et
al. 1988), though many of the toxic substances are now banned from the market. While modern
pesticides (e.g., organophosphates, neonicotinoids, pyrethroids, carbonates) aren't expected to
bioaccumulate in tissues, they are still a concern, are highly toxic, and may kill bats from direct exposure
(Shapiro and Hohmann 2005). The presence of other contaminants of concern that can bioaccumulate
(e.g., pharmaceuticals, flame retardants) has been documented in bats (Secord et al. 2015), though
additional research is needed to understand impacts. Additionally, pesticides and other pollutants could
indirectly impact bats by reducing insect populations.
Siltation and nutrient loading of waterways where bats forage and drink may negatively affect the species.
As previously stated, a large portion of the gray bat diet is comprised of adult aquatic insects such as
mayflies, stoneflies, and caddisflies. These groups of aquatic insects are especially susceptible to
degraded water quality. Any substantial declines in the populations of these insects may have a
detrimental effect on gray bat populations as well (Service 1982). Tuttle (1979) presented a correlation
between a decline in gray bat numbers and an increase in sedimentation in several Alabama and
Tennessee waterways.
Gray bat populations could also be impacted by temperature and precipitation changes due to climate
change. Climate change will likely affect the distribution of suitable hibernacula for bats (Humphries et
al. 2002). Since gray bats are a cave -obligate species, requiring highly specific hibernacula and maternity
caves, they are acutely at risk from fluctuating climate conditions.
14

Another potential threat to gray bat populations is the fungal disease white -nose syndrome (WNS). The
disease is caused by the fungus Pseudogymnoascus destructans, which grows on the wings, ears, and
muzzle of hibernating bats (Cryan et al. 2013). Since its discovery in New York in 2006, WNS has had
an overwhelmingly negative effect on North American hibernating bats, eradicating millions of
individuals. In 2012, the Service confirmed the first instance of WNS in gray bats (Service 2012). The
full impact of WNS on overall gray bat populations is still being determined. As of spring 2017, the
species has yet to experience any WNS-related declines and their populations appear to have remained
stable within Tennessee (Bernard et al. 2017) and Virginia (Powers et al. 2016).
Studies have consistently shown that bat species richness decreases with the presence of artificial lighting
in foraging and roosting areas, with Myotis species particularly vulnerable (Spoelstra et al. 2017, Stone et
al. 2012, Downs 2003, Linley 2017). Lighting may exacerbate the barrier effect of roads, since those
species reluctant to cross open spaces are also those most likely to avoid light. There are no data specific
to gray bat for the use or avoidance of lighted areas that may occur along roadways. Research by Rydell
and Baagoe (1996) indicates that bats in the genera Eptesicus (big brown bats, Eptesicus fuscus) and
Lasiurus (red and hoary bats, Lasiurus borealis and L. cinereus, respectively) are the species typically
noted foraging around artificial lights. In contrast, they noted that bats in the genus Myotis seem to avoid
open spaces, preferring to feed in woodlands or low over water. Additional studies (e.g. Rydell 1992,
Blake et al. 1994, Stone et al. 2009, 2012) have shown that road lighting deters many bat species, notably
slow -flying, woodland -adapted species such as members of the genera Rhinolophus, Myotis, and
Plecotus, from approaching the road. Therefore, artificial lighting may cause avoidance behavior in gray
bat.
4.2 NORTHERN LONG-EARED BAT
Scientific Name: Myotis septentrionalis
Status: Threatened, Proposed Endangered
Date Listed: May 4, 2015
Date of Proposed Rule: March 23, 2022
Critical Habitat: None Designated
This section summarizes best available data about the biology and current condition of the northern long-
eared bat throughout its range that are relevant to formulating an opinion about the action. A Species
Status Assessment (SSA) was published March 22, 2022 (Service 2022c). There are no five-year reviews
or recovery plans for this species. Information in this section comes from the Final Rule to list the
species as Threatened (80 FR 17973 18033), the SSA (Service 2022c), the Proposed Rule to list the
species as endangered (87 FR 16442 16452), and other Biological Opinions produced by the Asheville
Ecological Services Field Office.
4.2.1 Life History
Northern long-eared bat typically overwinters in caves or mines and spends the remainder of the year in
forested habitats. The bat active season for northern long-eared bats in Western North Carolina is April 1
through October 15. While information is lacking, short regional migratory movements between seasonal
habitats (summer roosts and winter hibernacula) of 35-55 miles have been documented (Griffin 1940,
Caire et al. 1979, Nagorsen and Brigham 1993) and occur during the first part and last part of the active
season outside of the maternity season. The maternity season is May 15 through August 15 in Western
North Carolina (Susan Cameron, personal communication). Adult females give birth to a single pup.
Parturition (birth) may occur as early as late May or early June (Easterla 1968, Caire et al. 1979, Whitaker
and Mumford 2009) and may occur as late as mid -July (Whitaker and Mumford 2009). Juvenile volancy
(flight) often occurs by 21 days after birth (Kunz 1971; Krochmal and Sparks 2007).
Northern long-eared bats typically roost singly or in maternity colonies underneath bark or more often in
15

cavities or crevices of both live trees and snags (Sasse and Pekins 1996, Foster and Kurta 1999, Owen et
al. 2002, Carter and Feldhamer 2005, Perry and Thill 2007, Timpone et al. 2010). Males' and non -
reproductive females' summer roost sites may also include cooler locations, including caves and mines
(Barbour and Davis 1969, Amelon and Burhans 2006). NLEBs switch tree roosts often (Sasse and Pekins
1996), typically every 2 to 3 days (Foster and Kurta 1999, Owen et al. 2002, Carter and Feldhamer 2005,
Timpone et al. 2010). Suitable summer habitat is extensively defined in the Range -wide Indiana Bat and
Northern Long-eared Bat Survey Guidelines, which is updated annually
(hops://www.fws.gov/library/collections/range-wide-indiana-bat-and-northern-long-eared-bat-survey
guidelines).
Maternity colonies, consisting of females and young, are generally small, numbering from about 30
(Whitaker and Mumford 2009, p. 212) to 60 individuals (Caceres and Barclay 2000, p. 3); however,
larger colonies of up to 100 adult females have been observed (Whitaker and Mumford 2009, p. 212).
Summer home range includes both roosting and foraging areas, and range size may vary by sex.
Maternity roosting areas have been reported to vary from mean of 21 to 161 to 179 acres (Broders et al.
2006; Owen et al. 2003; Lacki et al. 2009) to a high of 425 acres (Lacki et al. 2009). Foraging areas are
six or more times larger (Broders et al. 2006; Henderson and Broders 2008). The distance traveled
between consecutive roosts varies widely from 20 ft (Foster and Kurta 1999) to 2.4 mi (Timpone et al.
2010). Likewise, the distance traveled between roost trees and foraging areas in telemetry studies varies
widely, e.g., a mean of 1,975 feet (Sasse and Perkins 1996) and a mean of 3,609 feet (Henderson and
Broders 2008). Circles with a radius of these distances have an area of 281 and 939 ac, respectively.
Northern long-eared bats are nocturnal foragers and use hawking (catching insects in flight) and gleaning
(picking insects from surfaces) behaviors in conjunction with passive acoustic cues (Nagorsen and
Brigham 1993, Ratcliffe and Dawson 2003). The northern long-eared bat has a diverse diet including
moths, flies, leafhoppers, caddisflies, and beetles (Griffith and Gates 1985, Nagorsen and Brigham 1993,
Brack and Whitaker 2001), with diet composition differing geographically and seasonally (Brack and
Whitaker 2001). Most foraging occurs above the understory, 1 to 3 in (3 to 10 ft) above the ground, but
under the canopy (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993) on forested hillsides and ridges, rather than along
riparian areas (LaVal et al. 1977, Brack and Whitaker 2001). This coincides with data indicating that
mature forests are an important habitat type for foraging northern long-eared bats (Caceres and Pybus
1997, White et al. 2017). Foraging also takes place over small forest clearings and water, and along roads
(van Zyll de Jong 1985). Northern long-eared bats seem to prefer intact mixed -type forests with small
gaps (i.e., forest trails, small roads, or forest -covered creeks) in forests with sparse or medium vegetation
for forage and travel rather than fragmented habitat or areas that have been clear cut (Service 2015).
Artificial Roosts
To a lesser extent, northern long-eared bats have also been observed roosting in colonies in human -made
structures, such as in buildings, barns, on utility poles, behind window shutters, in bridges, and in bat
houses (Mumford and Cope 1964, Barbour and Davis 1969, Cope and Humphrey 1972, Burke 1999,
Sparks et al. 2004, Amelon and Burhans 2006, Whitaker and Mumford 2009, Timpone et al. 2010,
Bohrman and Fecske 2013, Feldhamer et al. 2003, Sasse et al. 2014, Service 2015, Dowling and O'Dell
2018). It has been hypothesized that use of human -made structures may occur in areas with fewer
suitable roost trees (Henderson and Broders 2008, Dowling and O'Dell 2018). In northcentral West
Virginia, NLEBs were found to more readily use artificial roosts as distance from large forests (greater
than 494 acres) increased, suggesting that artificial roosts are less likely to be selected when there is
greater availability of suitable roost trees (De La Cruz et al. 2018).
A July 2014 survey in Missouri found two northern long-eared bats in a culvert with an entrance
measuring approximately 9 ft in diameter and 250 ft long (Droppelman 2014, L. Droppelman, personal
communication, February 24, 2022). Winter 2014 surveys in Louisiana documented northern long-eared
bats in seven concrete tube and box culverts ranging in size from 4.5 ft to 10.5 ft tall and 131 ft to 476 ft
long. Northern long-eared bats co -occurred in these culverts with southeastern myotis, tricolored bats,
16

Rafinesque's big -eared bat, and big brown bats (Nikki Anderson, unpublished data, March 23, 2022).
The species has not been found in culverts in Georgia (Emily Ferrall, personal communication, April 7,
2022), North Carolina, or Mississippi (Katelin Cross, personal communication, March 23, 2022).
Published culvert records are limited for this species.
4.2.2 Population Size
Prior to 2006 (i.e., before WNS was first documented), northern long-eared bat was abundant and
widespread throughout much of its range (despite having low winter detectability) with 737 occupied
hibernacula and a maximum count of 38,181 individuals (Table 2; Service 2022c). According to the SSA
(Service 2022c), in 2020, the northern long-eared bat was projected to be detected in 139 hibernacula,
with a median winter abundance of 19,356 individuals (Table 2; Service 2022c).
Available evidence, including both winter and summer data, indicates northern long-eared bat abundance
has and will continue to decline substantially over the next 10 years under current demographic
conditions. Winter abundance (from known hibernacula) has declined range -wide (49%) and across most
Representation Units (RPUs) (0-90%). In addition, the number of extant winter colonies declined range -
wide (81%) and across all RPUs (40-88%). There has also been a noticeable shift towards smaller colony
sizes, with a 96-100% decline in the number of large hibernacula (>100 individuals). Declining trends in
abundance and occurrence are also evident across much of northern long-eared bat's summer range.
Range -wide summer occupancy declined by 80% from 2010-2019. Data collected from mobile acoustic
transects found a 79% decline in range -wide relative abundance from 2009-2019 and summer mist -net
captures declined by 43-77% compared to pre-WNS capture rates (Service 2022c).
Table 2. Numbers of Northern Long -Eared Bat Adapted from Service (2022c) Tables in Appendix 3
(Service 2022c page 124).
Year
Range
iq States
Spatial Extent
Hibernacula
Winter Abundance
Prior to 2006
Range-
29
1.2 billion
737
38,131 (max)
(Historical
wide
Condition)
2020 (Projected)
Range-
18
644 million
139
19,356 (median)
wide
Prior to 2006
Southeast
50
393 (max)
(Historical
Unit
Condition)
2020 (Projected)
Southeast
1
Probability of
Unit
I
I
I
I population growth = 0
4.2.3 Distribution
Northern long-eared bats occur over much of the eastern and north -central U.S., and all Canadian
provinces west to the southern Yukon Territory and eastern British Columbia (Nagorsen and Brigham
1993, Caceres and Pybus 1997, Environment Yukon 2011). In the U.S., the species' range reaches from
Maine west to Montana, south to eastern Kansas, eastern Oklahoma, Arkansas, and east to South Carolina
(Whitaker and Hamilton 1998, Caceres and Barclay 2000, Simmons 2005, Amelon and Burhans 2006).
The species' range includes all or portions of 37 states and the District of Columbia. The edge of the
species' range extends into the mountains of Western North Carolina and occurs in at least 27 coastal
North Carolina counties (Jordan 2020; Gary Jordan, personal communication, July 6, 2022; Service
2022c).
4.2.4 Threats
Although there are countless stressors affecting northern long-eared bat, the primary factor influencing
the viability of the species is WNS. Other primary factors that influence northern long-eared bat viability
include wind energy mortality, effects from climate change, and habitat loss.
17

4.3 TRICOLORED BAT
Scientific Name: Perimyotis subflavus
Status: Proposed Endangered
Date Proposed for Listing: 14 September 2022
Critical Habitat: None Proposed
A petition to list the tricolored bat as threatened was received by the Service on June 16, 2016. On
December 20, 2017, the Service found that the petition presented substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. The Service commenced a review
(known as a 12-month finding) to determine if listing of the tricolored bat is warranted. The Service
proposed to list the species at endangered under the Endangered Species Act on 14 September 2022. The
Service completed an SSA (Service 2021) but no conservation or recovery plans yet exist for this species.
Most of the information below is reproduced, without changes, from a Biological Opinion by the
Missouri Field Office (Service 2022b), the Petition to List the Tricolored Bat (Center for Biological
Diversity and Defenders of Wildlife 2016), the Programmatic Biological Opinion on the Revised Forest
Plan for the Pisgah and Nantahala National Forests (Service 2022d), or the BA (Three Oaks Engineering,
2022).
18

4.3.1 Life History
Migration
Tricolored bats are an obligate hibernator with populations in subtropical regions hibernating even in the
absence of severe winters (McNab 1974). In Missouri, tricolored bats enter hibernation with an average
beginning date of mid -October and an average ending date of mid -April (LaVal and LaVal 1980). In
addition to caves, tricolored bats use a wide variety of other hibernacula including mines (Whitaker and
Stacy 1996, Brack 2007), storm sewers (Goehring 1954), box culverts (Sandel et al. 2001, Lutsch et al.
2022), and surge tunnels at quarries (Slider and Kurta 2011). Recent evidence indicates that tricolored
bats also hibernate in rock faces in Nebraska (Lemen et al. 2016) and suggests that the species may have a
wider winter range than previously suspected. Hibernating tricolored bats roost mostly singly but will
form small clusters and often select a roost on the walls as opposed to the ceiling of the hibernaculum
(Brack 1979, Kurta 2008). Throughout most of the range, they select relatively warm, stable sites often
located further from the hibernaculum entrance than other bat species (Brack 2007). Individuals
hibernate, on average, between about 15 and 25 days though may last longer (Brack and Twente 1985).
As previously noted, there is little information about tricolored bat movements, including swarming sites
and hibernacula, but the species is currently believed to be a short distance regional migrant (Fraser et al.
2012; Fujita and Kunz 1984). Species engaging in regional migration travel annually from hibernaculum
to summer roosting sites, and then move among swarming locations in the autumn (Fenton 1969; Fraser
et al. 2012; Hitchcock 1965). Recent research has led to some speculations that some individuals migrate
farther distances than previously suspected, and that migratory behavior may differ between males and
females (Davis 1959; Fraser et al. 2012). Fraser et al. (2012) investigated tricolored bat migration by
conducting stable hydrogen isotope analyses of 184 museum specimen fur samples and compared the
results to published values of collection site growing season precipitation. Their results suggested that
33% of males and 16% of females collected during the postulated non -molt period were south of their
location of fur growth. Fraser et al. (2012) also noted that if tricolored bats only engaged in regional
migration, then evidence would be expected to show equal numbers of bats migrating north and south
during the non -molt period. Respectively, Fraser et al. (2012) concluded that at least some tricolored
bats, of both sexes, engage in latitudinal migration.
Summer Habitat Use
Tricolored bat roost trees may occur in a relatively small area. One study found that the average distance
between roost trees was 86 in (range 5-482 m) and between capture locations and roost trees was 2.5 km
(range 165 to 2,290 m) (Schaefer 2016). Roost home ranges were between 0.005 acres and 10.9 acres for
seven individuals (Schaefer 2016) and 0.25 to 5.7 acres for four individuals (Veilleux and Veilleux
2004b). In Indiana, Veilleux and Veilleux (2004b) radio -tracked four tricolored bats to their respective
roosts trees and found that minimum and maximum distances from roosts trees were between 21 meters
(m) and 926 in. A study in Nova Scotia found that the average roosting area of maternity colonies using
more than five trees (n=5; 12 to 31 trees) varied from 4 - 191 acres, with a mean of 67.5 acres (Table 4 in
Poissant 2009). A study conducted in Arkansas radio -tagged 28 male and nine female tricolored bats and
found that roosts trees varied from 1-3 roost trees for males and 1-5 roost trees for females (Perry and
Thill 2007b). Seven of 14 female roosts were colonies and based on exit counts and visible pups, the
estimated number of bats (adults and pups) in colonies was 3-13, with an average of 6.9 (±1.5) (Perry and
Thill 2007b). Other studies report maternity colony sizes of 3.7 individuals (Veillieux and Veillieux
2004b), 15 individuals (Whitaker and Hamilton 1998), and 18 individuals with an average of 10
individuals (Poissant 2009). Perry and Thill (2007b) found males roosting in forested habitats also
occupied by females, but primarily in solitary roosts. One study found that individuals within a roosting
area/colony did not switch or overlap other roost areas/colonies though all individuals from all colonies
shared foraging space (Poissant 2009).
Maternity colonies are most likely to be found roosting in umbrella -shaped clusters of dead leaves, but
may also be found in live leaf foliage, lichens, patches of pine needles caught in tree limbs, buildings,
caves, bridges, culverts, and rock crevices (Humphrey 1975, Veilleux et al. 2003, Veilleux and Veilleux
19

2004a; b, Veilleux et al. 2004, Perry and Thill 2007, Newman et al. 2021). Perry and Thill (2007) suggest
that tricolored bat's yellow -brown coloration allows them to blend in with brown, dead leaf clusters
imparting protection from visual predators. Oak (genus Quercus) and maple (Acer) trees are preferred by
maternity colonies of tricolored bats presumably because the ends of the branches tend to have many
leaves (Veilleux et al. 2003; 2004, Perry and Thill 2007), and thus maternity colonies are more often
associated with uplands than bottomland forest. O'Keefe (2009) found male tricolored bats primarily in
hickories, maples, and birches and not oaks. Veilleux et al. (2003) found 27% of tricolored bat roosts in
oak trees when oaks compromised only 3% of the available trees; others found at least 80% of tricolored
bat roosts in oaks (Leput 2004, Perry and Thill 2007). Tricolored bats are known to forage near trees, as
well as forest perimeters, and along waterways (Fujita and Kunz 1984).
In Indiana, female tricolored bat maternity roosts occurred mostly in upland habitats (9.4%) as opposed to
riparian (0.8%) and bottomland (0.2%) habitats (Veilleux et al. 2003). Preferred upland habitat by this
species could be related to the greater availability of preferred roost tree species: white oak (Quercus
alba), bur oak (Quercus macrocarpa), and red oak (Quercus rubra) (Veilleux et al. 2003). O'Keefe
(2009) found that non -reproductive tricolored bats in North Carolina only roosted in forest stands older
than 72 years, and preferentially roosted at lower elevations, closer to non -linear openings, and closer to
streams than expected by random chance. Other researchers have found that at the stand level or greater,
tricolored bats seem to roost selectively in more mature forest within riparian buffers or corridors (Perry
and Thill 2007, O'Keefe 2009), within a diversity of patch types, farther than expected from roads (Perry
et al. 2008), and in unharvested 50-99-year-old stands of mixed pine —hardwood (22.4%) or hardwood
(34.7%; Perry et al. 2007). One small study in the Nantahala National Forest in Macon County found
male tricolored bat roosts were on average 136 in from roads or trails, and while the distance ranged from
4 to 285 meters, 75% of the roads in the study area were gated grass -covered U.S. Forest Service roads
with virtually no vehicular traffic (O'Keefe 2009). Other studies found tricolored bat roosts on average
70m and 52m from edges (Leput 2004, Veilleux et al. 2003, respectively).
Tricolored bats vary their roost position in the canopy and landscape depending on reproductive
conditions. Reproductive female bats roost lower in the canopy and farther from forest edges than non -
reproductive females. Veilleux and Veilleux (2004b) speculated that lower position in the canopy and
greater distances from the forest edge may reduce wind exposure and allow for more stable temperatures.
Gestation is typically 44 days (Wimsatt 1945), and females produce twin pups whose mass is
approximately 44-54 percent of the size of the mother, a higher ratio than most Vespertilionid bats (Kurta
and Kunz 1987). Young are volant at 3 weeks and act as adults around 4 weeks old (Hoying and Kunz
1998). Post -natal growth rates slow during cold snaps because the mothers cannot eat, and available
energy is used for thermoregulation (Hoying and Kunz 1998). As with other species of bats, some male
tricolored bats remain at hibernacula year-round (Whitaker and Rissler 1992). Most males roost in the
same types of leaf clusters used by female tricolored bats (Veilleux and Veilleux 2004a), although they
return to the same roost for multiple days, with one individual in Arkansas roosting in the same cluster for
33 days (Perry and Thill 2007). Male bats also select roosts in the same species of trees, although males
tend to use thinner and shorter trees (Veilleux and Veilleux 2004a). Males also tend to roost at lower
heights than females; often 16.4 feet (5 m) from the ground (Perry and Thill 2007).
Culverts
Katzenmeyer (2016), conducting winter surveys in Mississippi over five years, found tricolored bats in
culverts as small as 2 ft tall and 30 ft long. Tricolored bats use culverts in Florida as small as 3 ft tall by
60 ft long though smaller culverts are not surveyed. Preliminary analysis did not find an effect of culvert
height or length on tricolored bat presence in Florida (Smith, L. personal communication, March 9, 2022).
The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries has surveyed more than 1,000 culverts over three
winters and found tricolored bats in 21% of them. Summer surveys of a much smaller number of culverts
found the species in about 4% of surveyed culverts. The shortest length culvert occupied by tricolored
bats was 23.3 ft long. The culvert with the shortest height was 2.5 ft tall. The smallest culvert used by
the species in Georgia is a 3 ft tall pipe culvert that is 388 ft long (Emily Ferrall, personal communication,
20

April 7, 2022; Photo 3). There are numerous culvert records for this species across multiple states
(Walker et al., 1996; Martin et al., 2005; Katzenmeyer, 2016, L. Smith, personal communication, 2022,
Nikki Anderson, unpublished data, March 24, 2022).
4.3.2 Population Size
WNS has recently decimated tricolored bat populations in several states. Before the onset of WNS, the
tricolored bat was generally believed to be common and secure throughout most of its range in the eastern
US, some even considering it the species to be rapidly increasing in population and range, especially in
grassland areas (Benedict et al. 2000, Sparks and Choate 2000, Geluso et al. 2004). However subsequent
analysis of survey data suggests that even prior to WNS, the tricolored bat, along with several other
WNS-affected species, was in a state of gradual decline in the eastern US (Ingersoll et al. 2013).
Correcting for biases inherent in hibernacula counts, Ingersoll et al. (2013) found that from 1999-2011,
(i.e., both pre- and post-WNS), the tricolored bat declined by 34% in a multi -state study area (New York,
Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Tennessee). Capture rates of tricolored bats in Pennsylvania declined
by 56 percent between pre-WNS years (2001-2008) and 2013 (Butchkoski and Bearer 2016), which is
similar to the 53.8 percent decline observed in Missouri hibernacula (Colatskie 2017). Cheng et al.
(2021) estimates range -wide declines of 93% from 1995 to 2018 and a 59% overlap of species and WNS
occurrence ranges. The range -wide population of tricolored bats is estimated to be 67,898 individuals as
of 2020 (Service 2022b).
4.3.3 Distribution
Tricolored bats are known from 39 States (from New Mexico north to Wyoming and all states to the east),
Washington D.C., 4 Canadian Provinces (Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia), and
Guatemala, Honduras, Belize, Nicaragua, and Mexico. The species current distribution in New Mexico,
Colorado, Wyoming, South Dakota, and Texas is the result of westward range expansion in recent
decades (Geluso et al. 2005, Adams et al. 2018, Hanttula and Valdez 2021) as well as into the Great
Lakes Basin (Kurta et al. 2007; Slider and Kurta 2011). This expansion is largely attributed to increases
in trees along rivers and increases in suitable winter roosting sites, such as abandoned mines and other
human -made structures (Benedict et al. 2000, Geluso et al. 2005, Slider and Kurta 2011).
4.3.4 Threats
WNS is a threat to many bat species throughout North America. While WNS has been assumed to be the
sole driver of bat population declines, new research indicates that many factors are likely acting
synergistically (Ingersoll et al. 2016). Bats are subject to a suite of severe threats (Hutson and
Mickleburgh 1992 and 2001, Pierson 1998), including disturbance and altered microclimates of critical
hibernacula and day roosts (Tuttle 1979, Neilson and Fenton 1994, Thomas 1995), loss and modification
of foraging areas (Pierson 1998, Hein 2012, Jones et al. 2009), toxicity and changed prey composition and
abundances from pesticide use and other chemical compounds (Shore and Rattner 2001, Clark 1988),
climate change (Frick et al. 2010, Rodenhouse et al. 2009), and in-flight collisions with vehicles,
buildings, and wind turbines (Russell et al. 2009, Arnett et al. 2008, Kunz et al. 2007). Bats are often
subject to more than one of these threats simultaneously; such co-occurring threats may result in
synergistic or interacting effects, with impacts more severe than from any single threat in isolation (Crain
et al. 2008, Kannan et al. 2010, Laurance and Useche 2009, Harvell et al. 2002). The tendency of
tricolored bats to occupy a wide variety of hibernacula makes them vulnerable to entombment during
mine closures (Whitaker and Stacy 1996). As with other bats, chemical contamination may kill bats
directly or lead to sublethal effects that eventually lead to death or reduced reproduction (Clark et al.
1978, Clark et al. 1980, Clark et al. 1982, Eidels et al. 2016). Climate change is also an emerging threat
to the tricolored bat, primarily because temperature is an essential feature of both hibernacula and
maternity roosts. Lastly, the tricolored bat (and other bat species) may be threatened by the recent surge
in construction and operation of wind turbines across the species' range. Mortality of tricolored bats has
been documented at multiple operating wind turbines/farms.
21

4.4 LITTLE BROWN BAT
Scientific Name: Myotis lucifigus
Status: Under Review
Date Listed: Not Applicable
Critical Habitat: Not Applicable
The little brown bat is not a federally listed, proposed, or candidate species, but it is currently undergoing
a discretionary status review as listed on the Service's National Listing Workplan. The Service
anticipates determining if the species warrants listing under the Endangered Species Act in 2023 (Service
2016c) and anticipates completion of a SSA in 2022. Currently, no conservation or recovery plans exist
for this species. Most of the information below is reproduced, without changes, from a Biological
Opinion written by the Missouri Field Office (Service 2022b) or from the BA (Three Oaks Engineering,
2022).
4.4.1 Life History
Migration
Little brown bats migrate between subterranean habitats in winter to trees, anthropogenic structures
(Humphrey and Cope 1976) (e.g., buildings and woodpiles), and natural structures (e.g., under rocks, in
caves) during summer (Fenton and Barclay 1980). Spring migration occurs in parallel with staging with
most bats moving from the hibernacula to the summer range in April and May. In the late summer and
fall, individual little brown bats depart from summer roosts and migrate to a variety of transient roosts
(Fenton and Barclay 1980) before arriving at winter hibernacula, between September and October
(Saunders 1988).
LaVal and LaVal 1980found that of approximately 1,600 banded little brown bats, only eight were found
at both the hibernacula and a summer roost. Six bats made short migrations of approximately 25 miles
(40.23 Km), but two migrated approximately 150 miles (241.40 Km). Myers (1964) banded 4,427 little
brown bats in Missouri and adjacent states, 20 of which provided information on migration. Average
migration distance was 94.3 miles (151.76 Km) with extremes of 18 (28.97 Km) and 240 miles (386.24
Km). Several other studies found hibernacula located up to 186 miles from summer roosts (Davis and
Hitchcock 1965; Fenton 1970; Griffin 1970; Humphrey and Cope 1976), or perhaps as far as 621 miles
(Wilson and Ruff 1999). These and other studies (Griffin 1940, Griffin 1945, Barbour and Davis 1969)
suggest many little brown bats migrate relatively short distances, but migrations of more than 100 miles
are not unusual. Most little brown bats stay within 62 miles (100 km) of their hibernacula. This
movement pattern produces an area of high summer density around important hibernacula, but scattered
summer colonies in far -removed areas.
Summer Habitat
Most little brown bats roost in buildings, other anthropogenic structures such as bridges and bat boxes,
tree cavities, and under exfoliating bark (Boyles et al. 2009). Maternity colonies typically contain 300 to
1200 individuals (adults and offspring) (Wisconsin DNR 2013 citing Humphrey and Cope 1976), though
a colony of 6,700 little brown bats was found in a barn in Indiana (Whitaker and Hamilton 1998). No
records of little brown bats using culverts are known at this time. The ability to use a variety of summer
habitats is also key to understanding a large and diverse geographic range (Bergeson et al. 2015). Bats
using the interface between developed lands (that provide roosts) and undeveloped lands and water (that
provide foraging habitat) tend to be healthier and have higher reproductive rates (Coleman and Barclay
2011). Female little brown bats use warm roosts (Burnett and August 1981). Little brown bats select
roost trees that are large, dead, or dying trees with substantial solar exposure (Crampton and Barclay
1998, Bergeson et al. 2015). Little brown bats make frequent use of cracks and hollows in trees as well as
under sloughing bark (Crampton and Barclay 1998, Bergeson et al. 2015). Randall (2014) found that data
collected during their telemetry study in 2007 agreed with Broders and Forbes (2004), who reported that
all female little brown bats captured in forests were found to roost in nearby buildings, whereas the males
roosted in nearby trees. Minimum roosting areas for little brown bats have a mean of 9.6 acres, minimum
22

foraging areas a mean of 129 acres (Broders et al. 2006). Other home range estimates differ by life stage,
with pregnant little brown bat home ranges averaging 74 acres and lactating little brown bat home ranges
averaging 44 acres (Henry et al. 2002). Coleman et al. (2014) estimated mean home range at 353 acres.
Barbour and Davis (1969) noted that females are pregnant when they arrive at maternity roosts in early -
to mid -April, with individuals arriving throughout May and into June. In Indiana (Krochmal and Sparks
2007), females in one colony gave birth to a single pup between 3 June and 15 July. These pups began
fluttering at 2 days of age, could complete coordinated wing strokes by 15 days and could fly by 21 days.
Most pups are likely volant by the end of July or mid -August in North Carolina. Maternity colonies begin
to break up as soon as the young are weaned; few remain by September (Barbour and Davis 1969).
4.4.2 Population Size
Long-term monitoring of 22 prominent little brown bat hibernacula in the core of their range provided the
basis for cave survey data from 1985 to predict a population of 6.5 million little brown bats as of 2006
(Frick et al. 2010b). This estimate was presumed to account for the vast majority of the species' overall
population at the time. As of 2006, regional mean growth suggested that the northeastern core population
of this species was stable or slightly increasing (Frick et al. 2010b). Thus, the pre-WNS population of
this species — both throughout its range and within its core northeastern range — was viable and did not
face imminent risk of extinction.
The appearance of WNS in 2006 dramatically altered the population balance, which in turn has
substantially impaired the ability of little brown bats to adapt to other cumulative threats looming against
a rapidly declining species baseline. In four years, this lethal fungal pathogen summarily killed at least
one million little brown bats in the northeastern core range, and all efforts undertaken thus far to contain
its westward spread and rate of infection have proven ineffective. As the disease spreads geographically
and regionally, population collapse has been observed and, in some cases, local species extinction has
been predicted, suggesting that even limited take may have the potential for population -level effects
(MidAmerican Energy Company [MEC] 2018, Frick et al. 2010, Ingersoll et al. 2013). Of winter
hibernacula examined where WNS has been confirmed or suspected for two or more years, survey data
indicates that winter populations at 36 of 38 sites had declined compared to their 10-year pre-WNS
average estimates (Kuntz and Reichard 2010). Of hibernaculum that averaged greater than 50 little brown
bats prior to the discovery of WNS, four hibernacula (North Carolina [3], Tennessee [1]) declined to zero
little brown bats in the most recent post-WNS surveys (Kuntz and Reichard 2010). Moreover, 16
hibernacula (42%; 23 in total but 7 were smaller on average than 50 individuals prior to WNS) declined
below 50 individuals in the most recent post-WNS survey estimate (Kuntz and Reichard 2010). Die -offs
of little brown bats at hibernacula have been associated with declines in summer activity (Dial et al.
2011). Cheng et al. (2021) estimates a 98% decline at hibernacula with WNS establishment from 1995 to
2018 and a 36% overlap of species and WNS occurrence ranges for little brown bat.
4.4.3 Distribution
The little brown bat is widely distributed across North America. Their geographic distribution ranges
from central Alaska to northern Florida and into southern California and central Mexico (Harvey et al.
1999). They are absent from the middle plains region (e.g., New Mexico, Texas, and southern Florida).
Prior to the arrival of WNS, the largest colonies were found in the northeastern and Midwestern U.S.,
where some hibernacula contained tens to hundreds of thousands of individuals (Kunz and Reichard
2010). The southern edge of their distribution is limited by the lack of caves, whereas the northern edge
of the range is likely defined by a limited number of suitable hibernacula and the longer length of the
hibernation season (Humphries et al. 2002, Humphries et al. 2006).
4.4.4 Threats
Tinsley (2016) reviewed potential threats to the little brown bat and determined WNS as the greatest
threat faced by the species; without WNS it is unlikely the little brown bat would be a conservation
23

priority. Other stressors of importance include deaths from other diseases, losses at wind energy sites,
environmental contaminants, and loss and adverse modification of both summer and winter habitat. Like
other bats, the little brown bat is frequently the subject of persecution by people. Because little brown
bats can form large maternity colonies, they are often the target of exclusion efforts (Cope et al. 1991).
Threats from chemical contamination, climate change, and wind turbines are the same as those reviewed
above for tricolored bat. Mortality of little brown bats has been documented at multiple operating wind
turbines/farms.
5. ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE
The environmental baseline refers to the condition of the listed species in the action area, without the
consequences to the listed species caused by the proposed action. The environmental baseline includes
the past and present impacts of all Federal, State, or private actions and other human activities in the
action area, the anticipated impacts of all proposed Federal projects in the action area that have already
undergone formal or early section 7 consultation, and the impact of State or private actions which are
contemporaneous with the consultation in process [50 CFR §402.02].
The proposed project lies in the Southern Blue Ridge Mountain physiographic region of North Carolina,
in Madison County in the FBR Basin. Elevations in the action area are approximately 2,040-2,240 feet
above mean sea level. Forested habitat in various stages of growth makes up most of the action area.
Aerial photographs from 2010 indicate that much of the hillside northwest of Bridge 71 had been logged
in the recent past, while 2022 imagery shows the area as wooded. Big Laurel Baptist Church, located at
the intersection of Big Laurel Road and Walnut Creek Road, maintains a parking area and mowed lawn.
Other maintained/disturbed habitat in the action area includes roads, driveways, scattered houses, and
mowed fields.
Within the action area, Big Laurel Road runs parallel to Big Laurel Creek. The canopy along Big Laurel
Creek has been reduced in the immediate area around Bridge 71 and just to the west: hazardous trees have
been removed from the roadside, and trees have been cleared by homeowners and on church property.
While there is some human activity in the B-5989 action area especially immediately in and around
Bridge 71 that may have reduced the quality of habitat for some bat species, most of the action area is
completely forested with only a small amount of development and clearing. In general, the action area is
likely to consist of high -quality forested habitat for bats.
Bridge 71 may enhance roosting habitat for cave -obligate bats in the area since caves and karst
topography are limited in North Carolina. The bridge also provides suitable roosting habitat for tree -
roosting species. Bridge 71 has a concrete deck, steel I -beams, and two expansion joints in the deck.
Deck drains are present in the existing bridge; when these are clogged, as some were during a June 2022
site visit, they provide roosting habitat for bats. The guardrails are concrete, but do not provide crevices
suitable for roosting. There is no permanent roadway lighting at the bridge though several lights exist on
the adjacent church property.
According to the USGS mines database, there are no mines located within a half mile of Bridge 71
(https://mrdata.usgs.gov/mrds/find-mrds.php, accessed 1/25/2022).
5.1 GRAY BAT WITHIN THE ACTION AREA
Indiana State University (ISU) conducted studies from 2018-2020 and in 2021. These studies focused on
gray bats in the FBR Basin, which includes Big Laurel Creek, in North Carolina. These studies
incorporated acoustic monitoring, roost counts, captures, and radio telemetry to gather data on
distribution, foraging, roosting ecology, and migratory pathways within the study area. Emergence
counts conducted by ISU at known roosts in North Carolina estimated a conservative population size of
902-2,933 gray bats in the FBR Basin (Weber and Walters 2022). Importantly, ISU studies revealed bats
regularly move back and forth across the North Carolina and Tennessee border documenting the
24

continuity of the population with those in other Tennessee basins.
Bat detectors indicate that gay bats are present in North Carolina from March 15 —November 15. During
migratory periods, gray bats move to and from winter roosts out of state (NCDOT 2019). Acoustic data
indicates a pattern of lower gray bat activity in the FBR Basin from May to July, evidence that at least a
portion of the gray bat population leaves the Basin during summer (Weber et al. 2020). Most gray bat
roosts were centered on the FBR and its tributaries. The FBR is approximately 7.2 miles from B-5989.
Acoustic surveys indicated that gray bats are relatively widespread in the FBR Basin. Based on acoustic
data, Weber et al. (2018 & 2020) suspected gray bats travel mainly via the major river corridors of the
FBR and Pigeon River.
ISU staff observed a gray bat and a big brown bat roosting in crevices at Bridge 71 in April of 2020
(Table 3). Two unidentified bats were observed on a second occasion a few days later. No bats were
found during subsequent surveys in May and June of that year, nor were bats observed during earlier
inspections (Table 3). One gray bat was found roosting in the bridge in August 2022 (Table 3).
Currently, there is no evidence that the bridge is being used as a maternity site. Moderate levels of gray
bat foraging activity were recorded in 2020 at an acoustic recording station along Big Laurel Creek
approximately 100 meters from the bridge. Activity was recorded mainly from July —October.
A review of North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) records (2022) indicates that there is a
2020 record of a gray bat roosting under a Big Laurel Road bridge approximately 2.2 miles east of Bridge
71. Another gray bat record occurs approximately seven miles south of the project site at Hayes Run. In
total, there are ten gray bat records within a ten -mile radius of Bridge 71.
Table 3. Bridge 71 Survey Effort Summary
June 12, 2018
NCDOT inspected Bride 71 for bats. No evidence of roosting bats.
June 18, 2019
ISU inspected Bride 71 for bats. No evidence of roosting bats.
April 15, 2020
Bridge 71 inspected for bats by ISU. One gray bat and one big brown bat
(E tesicus scus) are found roosting in crevices of the bridge.
April 19, 2020
ISU observed two bats roosting in the bridge, although they could not be
identified to species.
May 24, 2020
ISU staff inspected Bride 71 for bats. No bats observed.
June 12, 2020
ISU staff inspected Bride 71 for bats. No bats observed.
June 25, 2020
ISU staff inspected Bride 71 for bats. No bats observed.
July 1— Aug 15,
2022
NCDOT inspected Bridge 71 for bats, twice about a week apart. One gray
bat was found in the outer expansion joint in the same spot on each visit.
5.2 NORTHERN LONG EARED BAT WITHIN THE ACTION AREA
NCDOT and ISU did not detect northern long-eared bats during bridge inspections conducted from 2018 -
2022. A review of NCNHP (2022) records indicates that the nearest northern long-eared bat record is a
capture record of a lactating female in 2003 approximately six miles from Bridge 71 on Big Laurel Creek.
The nearest northern long-eared bat hibernaculum record is 17 miles east of the project at the Upper Cane
River, with observations in 1992 and 2014 (NCNHP 2022). NCDOT recorded Myotis sp. foraging
activity in 2020 at an acoustic recording station along Big Laurel Creek approximately 100 meters from
the bridge (Melissa Miller, NCDOT, pers. comm., June 14, 2022). Therefore, the species is assumed to
be present.
To our knowledge, no known northern long-eared bat roost trees occur within the action area though no
surveys have been conducted. As a worst -case scenario, based on life history information outlined in
Section 4 of this Opinion and the size of the action area (186 acres), we assume that one maternity colony
of northern long-eared bats containing 60 individuals could be using the action area.
25

5.3 TRICOLORED BAT WITHIN THE ACTION AREA
NCDOT and ISU did not detect any tricolored bats roosting on Bridge 71 during bridge inspections
(Table 3). A review of NCNHP records (2022) indicates that there is a 2020 record of this species
roosting under a Big Laurel Road bridge approximately 2.2 miles east of Bridge 71. NCDOT
documented tricolored bat within the action area during acoustic surveys in 2020 along Big Laurel Creek
approximately 100 meters from Bridge 71. Forested habitat, which could be used for roosting or
foraging, is present in the action area. As a worse -case scenario, if we assume, based on life history
information in Section 4.3.1, a maternity colony will occupy an area of 5 acres, and each colony has a
mean of 7 bats, we estimate the presence of 38 maternity colonies (=186-acre action area / 5-acre
maternity colony) or 266 bats.
5.4 LITTLE BROWN BAT WITHIN THE ACTION AREA
NCDOT and ISU did not detect any little brown bats roosting on Bridge 71 during bridge inspections
(Table 3). The closest known record of little brown bat (NCNHP 2022) is approximately eight miles
south of Bridge 71 on a Baileys Branch Road bridge over the FBR, dating from 2018. Also, while
NCDOT has not documented little brown bat within the action area, they recorded Myotis sp. foraging
activity in 2020 at an acoustic recording station along Big Laurel Creek approximately 100 meters from
the bridge. Forested habitat, which could be used for roosting or foraging, is present in the action area.
Therefore, due to the presence of suitable habitat, Myotis sp. acoustic detections in the action area, and
nearby existing records, the species is assumed present during the bat active season. As a worst -case
scenario, we assume one maternity colony of 1,200 little brown bats may occur in the 186-acre action
area. This is based on the maximum number of little browns in a typical roost and highly variable, mean
foraging and roosting home ranges presented in Section 4.4.1.
6. EFFECTS OF THE ACTION
In accordance with 50 CFR 402.02, effects of the action "refers to the direct and indirect effects of an
action on the species or critical habitat, together with the effects of other activities that are interrelated
or interdependent with that action, that will be added to the environmental baseline. 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. "
This section analyzes the direct and indirect effects of the Action on the gray bat, northern long-eared bat,
tricolored bat, and little brown bat as summarized in Table 4. 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. The effects of the action are added to the environmental baseline and, after
taking into consideration the status of the species, serve as the basis for the determination in these
Opinions (50 CFR 402.14(g)(4)).
Stressors are alterations of the environment that may result from the proposed action that are relevant to
the species. Based on the description of the proposed action and the species' biology, NCDOT and the
Service have identified eight stressors to bats (
Table 4
Table 4. Stresso). Each section below describes a stressor, the species response to the stressor, and the
rationale for the determination of effects. Gray bat are present in the action area and vulnerable to effects
from construction taking place between March 15 and November 15. Northern long-eared bat, tricolored
bat, and little brown bat are or may be present in the action area and vulnerable to effects from
construction taking place between April 1 and October 15. Stressors from construction will last the
length of the project while bats are active. Individual stressors will generally be short term in nature. We
26

have concluded that any adverse effects to gray bats, northern long-eared bats, tricolored bats, and little
brown bats from several stressors will be insignificant or discountable with the implementation of
conservation measures
Table 4). Therefore, effects resulting from those stressors caused by the proposed action are discussed
only briefly in these Opinions.
Table 4. Stressors, Project Activity, and Effects Summary
Where effect determinations are different for gray bat (MYGR), northern long-eared bat (MYSE), tricolored bat
(PESU), and little brown bat (MYLU), an effect or effect determination is given for each species.
Construction
Operations and Maintenance
Project Activity /
Phase Activities
(O&M) Phase Activities
Summary
Does Stressor
Effect to the
Does Stressor
Effect to the
Stressor
Effect
Occur During
Species
Occur during
Species
Determination
Construction?
M?
(1) loss of a bridge
Yes,
MYGR:
No
All Species:
MYGR NLAA
roost (bridge
permanent (but
Insignificant
(replacement
No Effect
replacement)
will be
of old bridge
(restores
MYSE/PESU/M
replaced)
MYSE/PESU/MY
roost with new
baseline
YLU: No Effect
LU: No Effect
bridge roost)
over time)
(2) loss of
Yes, potential
All Species:
No
All Species:
All Species:
potential roost
for unknown
Discountable
No Effect
NLAA
trees (tree
tree roosts
(Harm avoided by
removal)
CM 1)
(3) alteration or
Yes
All Species:
No
All Species:
All Species:
loss of
Insignificant
No Effect
NLAA
foraging/commuti
ng habitat (tree
removal)
(4) noise and
Yes
MYGR:
Same as
All Species:
MYGR NLAA
vibration
Insignificant
baseline
No Effect
(Harm avoided by
MYSE/PESU/M
CM 3)
YLU: LAA
NLEB/PESU/MYL
U: Harm (to bats in
unknown tree
roosts in a portion
of the action area)
(5) night lighting
Yes (tree
All Species:
Yes (lack of
All Species:
All Species:
removal causes
Insignificant (due
trees)
Insignificant
NLAA
increased
to CM 2)
(improving
lighting on the
over time
creek from
due to CM
exiting
15)
permanent
lighting)
(6) aquatic
Yes (In -water
All Species:
Yes
All Species:
All Species:
resource
work)
Discountable
(Stormwater)
Discountabl
NLAA
degradation
(supported by CM
e (supported
8)
by CM 8)
(7) collision
Yes
All Species:
Reduced from
All Species:
All Species:
Discountable
baseline
No Effect
NLAA
(8) hand removal
Yes
MYGR: Harm
No
All Species:
MYGR: LAA
No Effect
27

NLEB/MYLU/PESF
MYSE/PESU/M
F I
� U: No Effect
YLU: No Effect
6.1 STRESSORS
6.1.1 Stressor 1: Loss of a Bridge Roost (Bridge Replacement)
Bats will be excluded from using Bridge 71 before the project commences. Therefore, the proposed
project will cause the loss of preferred roost site for individual gray bats. This loss will be for up to 18
months as the new bridge will contain suitable roost crevices (CM 17) and will be completed during the
18-month construction window. The 18-month displacement may cause bats to have to commute further
from new roost locations to preferred foraging sites, resulting in a loss of fitness and increased exposure
to predation. Due to bridge exclusion prior to the bat active season, the abundance of alternative bridge
roosts in the area (at least 11 bridges of unknown suitability on Big Laurel Creek within 2.5 miles), a
known occupied alternative bridge roost (Bridge 76), and potential for the temporary bridges to provide
suitable bat roosting habitat, we expect these effects will be insignificant and therefore not likely to
adversely affect (NLAA) the gray bat. Loss of a bridge roost is not anticipated to affect northern long-
eared bats, little brown bats, or tricolored bats, since none have been observed roosting at Bridge 71 over
multiple surveys.
6.1.2 Stressor 2: Loss of Potential Roost Trees (Tree Removal)
Tree -clearing activities are anticipated to take place in March or April of 2023 (latest May 15, 2023). If
tree -clearing cannot be completed prior to April 1, an emergence survey will be conducted the night
before tree -clearing is carried out. Gray bat may be active in the area after March 15th, and other
protected bats may be active slightly later (after April 1 st), but the maternity season will not have begun,
so nonvolant pups will not be present. Gray bats do not typically utilize trees for roosting and this
behavior is highly unusual for the species; the effects from tree removal on gray bat are discountable and
are therefore NLAA the species. Trees in the project footprint consist of medium-sized sycamores,
walnuts, and a white pine, which may not have the flaking bark, but could have cracks, crevices, hollows,
and leaf clusters preferred for roosting. Due to the limited amount of tree -clearing, the types of trees
present, their location, the time of year in which tree removal will take place, and CM 1 (tree clearing
timing restrictions/emergence surveys), the probability that any northern long-eared bat, little brown bat,
or tricolored bats or occupied roost trees will be removed or affected by the project is discountable and
therefore tree removal is NLAA these three species. Wooded vegetation in the remainder of the action
area and surrounding landscape still provides suitable roosting habitat for tree -roosting bats.
6.1.3 Stressor 3: Alteration or Loss of Foraging / Commuting Habitat (Tree Removal)
Typical gray bat foraging locations are lakes, rivers, and other large, open water bodies (Tuttle 1976b,
1979, LaVal et al. 1977), and in riparian areas associated with these resources (Brack and LaVal 2006),
therefore, clearing of woody vegetation associated with the project has some potential to affect gray bat
foraging and commuting behavior. Little brown bats and tricolored bats may also use the creek for
foraging. Any bats that travel or forage along Big Laurel Creek where tree -clearing has occurred may be
more susceptible to predation. Since tree cover is currently sparse along the creek in the project footprint
and the amount of tree clearing is very limited, we anticipate the removal of woody vegetation will have
an insignificant effect on foraging/commuting gray bat, little brown bats, and tricolored bats post -
construction and is therefore NLAA these species.
Most northern long-eared bat foraging occurs on forested hillsides and ridges, rather than along riparian
areas (Brack and Whitaker 2001, LaVal et al. 1977). Therefore, we anticipate the removal of woody
vegetation would have an insignificant effect on northern long-eared bat foraging and commuting
behavior and is therefore NLAA this species.
Cleared areas may serve as ecological barriers for some species, including bats. If bats avoid areas where
clearing is occurring/has occurred, this may lead to increased travel time/distance between their roosts
28

and foraging areas and could potentially result in diminished fitness of adults and/or reduced survivorship
of pups and/or adults. It is not possible to determine if the removal of trees at Big Laurel Creek could
contribute to a disruption in roosting at the bridge, post -construction. CM 15 (plant trees post -
construction) will minimize the impacts of this stressor.
6.1.4 Stressor 4: Noise and Vibration
The use of construction equipment is anticipated to cause the following temporary and sporadic increased
noise and vibration levels (West 2016) within the action area any time of year but only during the day:
• Pile -driving 74-103 decibels
• Guardrail installation 95-105 decibels
• Impact hammer 85-90 decibels
• Rock drill 85-98 decibels
• Track hoe 91-106 decibels
• Background traffic noise pre- and post -construction (approximately 44 vehicles/hour at 40 mph
design speed) 57 decibels
Since no night work is anticipated, only day roosting bats may be affected by this stressor. As a worse -
case scenario, construction noise/vibration may take place during the bat maternity season (May 15 -
August 15). Drilling for bridge footings is estimated not to exceed one month and pile -driving for bridge
footings is estimated to take from two weeks up to a month if there are adverse circumstances (weather or
subsurface issues) but will not exceed a month.
Animal response to sound and vibration depends on a number of factors, including level and frequency,
distance and event duration, equipment type and condition, frequency of disruptive events over time,
slope, topography, weather conditions, previous exposure to similar events, time of day, behavior during
the event, and the animal's location relative to the source (Delaney and Grubb 2003).
If any bats were present at the bridge during percussive activities, they may incur adverse effects.
However, exclusion material will be used to prevent gray bats from roosting at Bridge 71 prior to
construction (CM 3), therefore effects from noise and vibration will be insignificant to gray bat and
therefore is NLAA the species.
Tree removal activities will remove potential roost trees adjacent to site work within the project footprint
(Figure 3), so no tree -roosting bats should be in the immediate vicinity where construction noise and
vibrations will be taking place. But they may be present in the surrounding action area (186 acres,
Figures 2). Any bat tree -roosting in the action area could be exposed to levels of noise to which they are
not accustomed. Bats exposed to noise and vibration may flush from their roosts. Bats that flush from
their roost and/or avoid travel and foraging areas in response to this stressor will face increased energy
expenditures, which can have significant impacts given the low body mass of bats. Because females
require increased energy reserves during lactation (Kurta et al. 1989), an increased demand for energy in
response to noise and vibrations could be especially detrimental to lactating females and, subsequently,
their pups. Bats that flush during the daytime are at greater risk of harm due to predation (Mikula et al.
2016). No known tree roosts are present in the area; however, no tree roost surveys were conducted, and
the presence of northern long-eared bat, tricolored bat, and little brown bat are assumed as tricolored bat
and Myotis sp. calls were detected acoustically in the action area. Therefore, we assume that adverse
effects from noise and vibration are possible in at least parts of the action area, and are likely to adversely
affect (LAA) northern long eared bat, little brown bat, and tricolored bat at unknown roost trees.
Therefore, we have included incidental take in these Opinions for these species.
As traffic capacity will not increase as a result of the project, traffic levels, including traffic noise and
vibration, are not anticipated to change post -project. Any bats in the action area will be exposed to a
29

similar amount of noise and vibration as they would have been pre -construction. West (2016) noted that,
"some level of tolerance and habituation does occur in some species that colonize bridges and other
highway structures."
6.1.5 Stressor 5: Night Lighting
No permanent lighting will be added for the project (CM 2). Several permanent light fixtures on the
church already exist within the action area. Three temporary traffic lights will be placed at the site and
will be red, yellow, and green. Red light (approximately 3,000 Kelvin [K]) has been shown to cause a
minimum amount of disturbance for activity levels of Myotis sp. when compared to dark foraging areas
(Downs et al. 2003).
Tree removal from the project may expose the creek corridor to additional light pollution from headlights,
the temporary traffic lights, or any lights used at the adjacent church. Any bat flying through lit areas
may be more vulnerable to predation. However, the existing trees in the project footprint are already few
and scattered, so light may already be visible at the creek pre -construction. NCDOT has committed to
replacing trees to help block any existing and future light from reaching the creek (CM 15).
Elevated light levels may affect gray bat, northern long-eared bat, little brown bat, or tricolored bat that
forage or commute in or near the project footprint during construction. The presence of artificial lighting
could force light -shy bats to use suboptimal flight routes or fly further to reach foraging sites and require
them to expend more energy in the process (Stone et al. 2009, Stone et al. 2012); however, all lighting is
in areas of open, maintained/disturbed habitat, where bat activity may already be limited. Gray bat and
northern long-eared bat do not typically forage over areas of open, terrestrial habitat. Any bats that
continue to forage or commute through areas with elevated light levels may be more susceptible to
predation, although the detour bridge will provide some shaded cover along Big Laurel Creek.
The existing guardrails on the bridge are low, open concrete rails, which allows some headlights from
trucks and other vehicles to shine over the railing and into adjacent airspace above the creek. They will
be replaced with a 42-in. solid concrete "Jersey barrier" style guardrail, which will be more effective at
blocking vehicle headlights post -project.
As described above, due to existing site conditions, minimal tree clearing, commitment to CMs 2 and 15,
we believe effects from night lighting during construction and operations and maintenance activities will
be insignificant and therefore is NLAA gray bat, northern long-eared bat, tricolored bat, or little brown
bat.
6.1.6 Stressor 6: Aquatic Resource Degradation
Project construction activities have the potential to affect water quality within the action area and could
degrade important aquatic foraging resources for bats. While post -construction operations and
maintenance activities may affect water quality, several important design characteristics in the stormwater
plan and the bridge design (reduced bents) are likely to benefit water quality. NCDOT will implement
CM 8 (Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds) which will help protect water quality both during and
after construction. As a result, we expect aquatic resource degradation to be discountable for this project
and, therefore, NLAA the four bat species under consideration.
6.1.7 Stressor 7: Collision
Bat mortality caused by impacts from passing vehicles is widely documented (Kiefer et al. 1995, Lesinski
2007, Gaisler et al. 2009, Russell et al. 2009, Lesinski et al. 2010, Medinas et al. 2013). The 2021
NCDOT I-26 FBR bridge annual monitoring used night vision video to observe bat movements. Results
for that bridge showed that nearly double the number of bats choose to fly below that bridge (61%)
compared to over (30%) (NCDOT 2021). Numbers of bats flying over versus under a bridge are expected
to vary according to bridge height and other site -specific factors influencing bat's flight behavior. It is
30

expected that some number of bats migrating or commuting through the action area will pass above the
bridges and will therefore be at risk of injury or mortality due to vehicle collision.
During construction, the project will temporarily add an extra bridge and bents to the action area. While
this may add obstacles to the flyway and change bat behavior, traffic will only occur on one of the bridges
at any one time and the total number of lanes will drop from two to one. Post -construction, since traffic
levels will not change, this potential stressor will not increase from baseline conditions. The posted speed
limit is anticipated to be 35 mph post -project, which may limit vehicle -bat collisions. Also, the roadway
grade of the new structure will be raised by one to two feet. This, and the reduction in the number of
permanent bridge footings from two bents to one, may encourage bats flying along Big Laurel Creek to
fly under the bridge, instead of over it. The bridge may serve as a protective underpass for foraging,
commuting, or migrating bats. We find collision effects from construction to be discountable, that is,
NLAA the four bat species under consideration. We also find that collision effects from operations and
maintenance activities will have no effect to all four bat species since there will be either no change to the
baseline condition or a reduction in collision risk from baseline conditions (Table 4).
6.1.8 Stressor 8: Hand Removal
If CM 3 (exclusion) fails and CM 4 (pre -demo bat survey) detects any gray bats roosting on Bridge 71,
the gray bat(s) will be removed by hand. Per CM 7 (hand removal/relocation), NCDOT will contact the
Service before the gray bat(s) are removed to coordinate a relocation plan. While we do not expect the
incidental take to be lethal, it may harm the individual(s)(Table 4). This stressor will have no effect on
northern long-eared bat, tricolored bat, and little brown bat as they are not expected to be roosting on the
bridge based on past survey results.
6.3 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
Cumulative effects are defined as "those effects of future state or private activities, not involving Federal
activities, that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the Federal action subject to
consultation" (50 CFR 402.02). Future federal actions unrelated to the proposed action are not considered
because they require separate consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
Parcels in the action area are zoned as Residential -Agricultural or Vacant (Madison County 2009). While
the potential exists for tree clearing, construction activities, and additional lighting to occur in the future
associated with residential and agricultural lands and church activities, those activities are not considered
reasonably certain to occur. Therefore, there are currently no anticipated cumulative effects for this
action area.
6.4 SUMMARY OF EFFECTS
In summary, of the anticipated stressors and effects discussed above, construction -phase noise/vibration
and construction -phase hand -removal of bridge -roosting bats are the stressors that are expected to
adversely affect gray bat, northern long-eared bat, tricolored bat, and little brown bat. Take from these
stressors is expected in the form of harm. The other stressors and the operation and maintenance phase
discussed above are expected to have insignificant or discountable effects on gray bat, northern long-
eared bat, tricolored bat, and little brown bat (Table 4).
7 CONCLUSION
After reviewing the current status of gray bat and northern long-eared bat, the environmental baseline
for the action area, the effects of the proposed action, and the cumulative effects, it is the Service's
biological opinion that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of gray bat
or northern long-eared bat. No critical habitat has been designated for these species; therefore, none will
be affected. This opinion is based on the following:
1. Although the proposed action is expected to result in adverse effects to the gray bat and northern
long-eared bat, we have determined that the species' reproduction, numbers, and distribution will
31

not be appreciably reduced as a result of the proposed action.
a. The gray bat population utilizing the FBR Basin is estimated at 902-2,933 individuals,
and the entire gray bat population is conservatively estimated at 4,358,263 individuals.
While we do not know how many gray bats may be using the action area, we know that
up to two gray bats have roosted on Bridge 71. Adverse effects caused by the project are
expected on two bats, or 0.2% of the most conservative estimate of the FBR Basin
population and an even smaller fraction of the range wide population and take is not
expected to be lethal.
b. The Service projected the range -wide northern long-eared population to be 19,356
individuals in 2020. We do not know how many northern long-eared bats may be using
the action area and thus susceptible to adverse affects from noise and vibration. Based on
mean home -range sizes (21 — 179 acres), distances between roosts (20 feet to 2.4 miles),
and the typical foraging range of northern long-eared bat maternity colony (1.5 miles =
4,522 acres), if we assume the presence of one maternity roost of up to 60 individuals
within the 186-acre (0.25 radius circle) action area, the project will impact less than
0.31% of the range -wide population. Additionally, take is not expected to be lethal.
Effects of the action will only impact a very small portion of gray bat and northern long-eared bat
roosting, foraging, and commuting habitat within their range.
After reviewing the current status of tricolored bat and little brown bat, the environmental baseline for
the action area, the effects of the proposed action, and the cumulative effects, it is the Service's conference
opinion that the action, as proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the tricolored
bat or little brown bat.
1. Although the proposed action is expected to result in adverse effects to the tricolored bat and little
brown bat, we have determined that the species' reproduction, numbers, and distribution will not
be appreciably reduced as a result of the proposed action.
a. If the tricolored bat range -wide population is 67,898 individuals (Service 2022b), then
this project will impact less than 0.4% (= 266 / 67,898) of the range -wide population.
Additionally, impacts are not expected to be lethal.
b. While the current range -wide population of little brown bat is unknown, populations
within WNS-impacted areas (36% of the little brown population) have declined 98%
(Cheng et al. 2021). Assuming the range -wide population of little brown bat is evenly
distributed across its range, thirty-six percent of the 2006 estimated population of 6.5
million bats is 2.34 million individuals. If the 2.34 million bats declined by 98%, that
leaves 46,800 bats in WNS-impacted areas. Based on home range sizes presented in
Section 4.4.1, if we assume that one maternity colony with 1,200 little brown bats occurs
within the 186-acre action area, adverse effects from noise and vibration would impact
2.6% of the WNS-impacted portion of the population (=1,200/46,800) and a much
smaller fraction of the range -wide population. Additionally, impacts are not expected to
be lethal.
2. Effects of the action will only impact a very small portion of tricolored bat and little brown bat
roosting, foraging, and commuting habitat within their range.
8. INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act and Federal regulations pursuant to section 4(d) of the
Endangered Species Act prohibit the taking of endangered and threatened species, respectively, without
special exemption. Take "means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or
collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct" (16 U.S.0 §1532). Harm in the definition of "take"
in the Endangered Species Act "means 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" (50 CFR
17.3). Incidental taking "means any taking otherwise prohibited, ifsuch taking is incidental to, and not
32

the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity" (50 CFR 17.3). Under the terms of
section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to, and not intended as part of, the agency
action is not considered to be prohibited under the Endangered Species Act, provided that such taking is
in compliance with the terms and conditions of this Incidental Take Statement.
The measures described below are non -discretionary and must be undertaken by the NCDOT so that they
become binding conditions of any grant or permit issued to the NCDOT or its contractors, as appropriate,
for the exemption in section 7(o)(2) to apply. The NCDOT has a continuing duty to regulate the activity
covered by this incidental take statement. If the (agency) (1) fails to assume and implement the terms and
conditions or (2) fails to require its contractors to adhere to the terms and conditions of the incidental take
statement through enforceable terms that are added to the permit or grant document, the protective
coverage of section 7(o)(2) may lapse. In order to monitor the impact of incidental take, the NCDOT
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(1)(3)).
8.1 AMOUNT OR EXTENT OF TAKE
Incidental take of gray bat, northern long-eared bat, tricolored bat, and little brown bat is anticipated to
occur as a result of the replacement of Bridge 71, via the hand removal of gray bats roosting on Bridge 71
and noise and vibratory impacts on unknown tree roosts of northern long-eared bats, tricolored bats,
and/or little brown bats within the action area. The take associated with this project is expected in the
form of harm. The harm resulting from the proposed action is not expected to cause mortality of
individuals within the action area but could reduce fitness and reproductive success of bats occurring
within the action area over the duration of the 18-month project.
The Service anticipates that up to 2 gray bats could be taken as a result of the proposed action. Take of
two gray bats is estimated based on the highest count of bats at Bridge 71 (Table 3). In this Opinion, the
Service determined that this level of anticipated take is not likely to result in jeopardy to the gray bat.
The Service anticipates the incidental taking of northern long-eared bats, tricolored bats, and little brown
bats associated with this project will be difficult to detect because: 1) the individuals are small, mostly
nocturnal, and occupy trees where they are difficult to observe, 2) finding dead or injured bats during or
following project implementation is unlikely, and 3) most incidental take is in the form of non -lethal harm
and not directly observable. Also, there is no data from the action area that estimates the number of
northern long-eared bats, tricolored bats, and little brown bats in the action area, and bat populations are
known to fluctuate seasonally and annually in a given area, therefore, it is difficult to base the amount of
incidental take on numbers of individual bats for these three species. Given this, the Service will monitor
the extent of take for northern long-eared bats, tricolored bats, and little brown bats using two surrogate
measures:
The location of construction operations. Construction operations will not occur outside the 1.7-
acre project disturbance footprint (Figure 3)., confining noise and vibration effects to the action
area (Figure 2).
The duration of activities, which will not exceed 18 months or two maternity seasons (May 15 —
August 15).
These surrogate measures are appropriate because the anticipated taking will result from noise and
vibration effects to suitable roosting trees in the action area, and the timing of this activity. These
surrogate measures serve to set a clear limit for determining when take has been exceeded for northern
long-eared bat, tricolored bat, and little brown bat. In this Opinion, the Service determined that this level
of anticipated take is not likely to result in jeopardy to these three species.
8.2. REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES
The Service believes the following reasonable and prudent measures (RPMs) are necessary and
33

appropriate to minimize impacts of incidental take of gray bat and northern long-eared bat. These
non -discretionary measures reduce the level of take associated with project activities, include only actions
that occur within the action area, and involve only minor changes to the project.
RPM 1. NCDOT will ensure that the contractor understands and follows the measures listed in the
"Conservation Measures", "Reasonable and Prudent Measures," and "Terms and
Conditions" sections of these Opinions.
RPM 2. NCDOT will monitor and document the level of take and the surrogate measures of take
and report them to the Service.
The prohibitions against taking tricolored bat and little brown bat found in section 9 of the Endangered
Species Act do not apply until the species is listed. However, the Service advises the NCDOT to
consider implementing the following RPMs. If this conference opinion is adopted as a biological opinion
following a listing or designation, these measures, with their implementing terms and conditions, will be
nondiscretionary.
RPM 3. NCDOT will ensure that the contractor understands and follows the measures listed in the
"Conservation Measures", "Reasonable and Prudent Measures," and "Terms and
Conditions" sections of these Opinions.
RPM 4. NCDOT will monitor and document the level of take and the surrogate measures of take
and report them to the Service.
8.3. TERMS AND CONDITIONS
In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Endangered Species Act, the NCDOT must
comply with the following terms and conditions (T&C), which implement the RPMs above and outline
required reporting and/or monitoring requirements. When incidental take is anticipated, the T&Cs must
include provisions for monitoring project activities to determine the actual project effects on listed fish or
wildlife species (50 CFR §402.14(1)(3)). These T&Cs are nondiscretionary.
T&C 1. NCDOT will ensure that the procedures listed in the "Conservation Measures",
"Reasonable and Prudent Measures", and "Terms and Conditions" sections of these
Opinions are being implemented and that all project plans are being implemented in a
manner that ensures the conditions of these Opinions are met.
T&C 2. Project monitoring, carried out by the federal agency or non-federal designated
representative, ensures the terms of these Opinions are carried out, provides the Service
with information essential to assessing the effects of various actions on listed species, and
allows the Service to track incidental take levels. NCDOT will monitor the project
disturbance footprint to ensure surrogate measures of take are not exceeded.
T&C 3. Once the project is complete, NCDOT will provide a short report by the end of the calendar
or fiscal year in which the project is completed, whichever is more distant, that 1) indicates
the actual level of incidental take (and/or surrogate measures) in comparison to those
analyzed in these Opinions, 2) provides results/feedback/lessons-learned on the
effectiveness of CMs, RPMs, and T&Cs, and 3) documents the start and end of the project.
The Service believes that no more than two gray bats will be incidentally taken as a result of the proposed
action and that two surrogate measures of take limiting construction operations to the 1.7-acre project
disturbance footprint and 18-month duration of activities will not be exceeded. The RPMs, with their
implementing T&Cs, are designed to minimize the impact of incidental take that might otherwise result
from the proposed action. If, during the course of the action, this level of incidental take is exceeded,
such incidental take represents new information requiring re -initiation of consultation and review of the
RPMs provided. The federal agency must immediately provide an explanation of the causes of the taking
and review with the Service the need for possible modification of the RPMs.
34

9. CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Section 7(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act directs Federal agencies to use their authorities to further
the purposes of the Endangered Species Act by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of
endangered and threatened species. The following conservation recommendations are discretionary
agency activities to minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species, to help
implement recovery plans, or to develop information.
The proposed action and its avoidance and minimization measures and conservation measures
significantly reduce take; therefore, we are not providing any additional conservation recommendations.
10. REINITIATION/CLOSING STATEMENT
This concludes formal consultation and conference on the actions outlined in your revised BA (Three
Oaks Engineering, 2022). As provided in 50 CFR 402.16, re -initiation of formal consultation is required
where discretionary federal agency involvement or control over the action has been retained (or is
authorized by law) and if. (1) the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded; (2) new information
reveals effects of the agency action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an
extent not considered in these Opinions; (3) the agency action is subsequently modified in a manner that
causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat not considered in these Opinions; or (4) a new
species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the action. In instances where the
amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded, any operations causing such take must cease pending re -
initiation.
You may ask the Service to confirm this conference opinion as a biological opinion issued through formal
consultation if the tricolored bat or little brown bat is listed or critical habitat is designated. The request
must be in writing. If the Service reviews the proposed action and finds that there have been no
significant changes in the action as planned or in the information used during the conference, the Service
will confirm this conference opinion as the biological opinion on the project and no further section 7
consultation will be necessary. Re -initiation of the subsequent, confirmed biological opinion would be
required for the same four reasons listed above.
The incidental take statement provided in this conference opinion does not become effective if or until the
species are listed and the conference opinion is adopted as the biological opinion issued through formal
consultation. At that time, the project will be reviewed to determine whether any take of the tricolored
bat or little brown bat has occurred. Modifications of the Opinion and incidental take statement may be
appropriate to reflect that take. No take of the tricolored bat or little brown bat may occur between any
final listing of the tricolored bat or little brown bat and the adoption of this Conference Opinion as a
Biological Opinion through formal consultation or the completion of a subsequent formal consultation.
11. LITERATURE CITED
Adams, R.A., B. Stoner, D. Nespoli, and S. M. Bexell. 2018. New records of tricolored bats (Perimyotis
subflavus) in Colorado, with first evidence of reproduction. Western North American Naturalist,
78(2), 212-215.
Amelon, S., and D. Burhans. 2006. Conservation assessment: Myotis septentrionalis (northern long-eared
bat) in the eastern United States. Pages 69-82 in Conservation assessments for five forest bat species
in the eastern United States, Thompson, F. R., III, editor. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, North Central Research Station, General Technical Report NC-260. St. Paul, Minnesota.
82pp
Arnett, E.B., Brown, W.K., Erickson, W.P., Fiedler, J.K., Hamilton, B.L., Henry, T.H., Jain, A., Johnson,
G.D., Kerns, J., Koford, R.R. and Nicholson, C.P., 2008. Patterns of bat fatalities at wind energy
facilities in North America. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 72(1), pp.61-78.
Barbour, R.W., and W.H. Davis. 1969. Bats of America. The University of Kentucky Press, Lexington,
35

Kentucky. 311 pp.
Barclay, R. M. R. and R. M. Bingham. 1994. Constraints on optimal foraging: A field test of prey
discrimination by echolocating insectivorous bats. Animal Behavior. 48:1013- 1021.
Benedict, R. A., H. H. Genoways, and P. W. Freeman. 2000. Shifting distributional patterns of mammals
of Nebraska. Proceedings of the Nebraska Academy of Science. 26:55-84.
Bergeson, S. M., T. C. Carter, and M. D. Whitby. 2015. Adaptive roosting gives little brown bats an
advantage over endangered Indiana bats. American Midland Naturalist. 174:321-330.
Bernard, R. F., E. V. Willcox, K. L. Parise, J. T. Foster, and G. F. McCracken. 2017. Whitenose
syndrome fungus, Pseudogymnoascus destructans, on bats captured emerging from caves during
winter in the southeastern United States. BMC Zoology, 2(1):12.
Best, T. L. and M. K. Hudson. 1996. Movements of gray bats (Myotis grisescens) between roost sites and
foraging areas. The Journal of the Alabama Academy of Science. 67:6-14.
Best, T. L., B. A. Milam, T. D. Haas, W. S. Cvilikas, and L. R. Saidak. 1997. Variation in diet of the gray
bat (Myotis grisescens). Journal ofMammalogy. 78:569-583.
Blake D., A. M. Huston, P. A. Racey, J. Rydell, and J. R. Speakman. 1994. Use of lamplit roads by
foraging bats in Southern England. Journal of Zoology. 234:453-462.
Bohrman, J., and D. Fecske. 2013. White -Nose Syndrome Surveillance and Summer Monitoring of Bats
at Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge, Morris County, New Jersey. A final report prepared for
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 115pp.
Boyles, J., J. Timpone, and L. W. Robbins. 2009. Bats of Missouri. Indiana State University, Center for
North American Bat Research and Conservation, Publication number 3. 60 pp.
Brack, V., Jr. 1979. The duration of the period of hibernation in Eptesicus fuscus, Myotis lucifugus, and
Pipistrellus subflavus under natural conditions. Unpublished M.S. thesis. University of Missouri,
Columbia, Missouri. 50 pp.
Brack V. Jr. 2007. Temperatures and Locations Used by Hibernating Bats, Including Myotis sodalis
(Indiana Bat), in a Limestone Mine: Implications for Conservation and Management. Journal of
Environmental Management. 40:739-746.
Brack, V., Jr. and J. W. Twente. 1985. The duration of the period of hibernation in three species of
vespertilionid bats. L Field studies. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 63:2952-2954.
Brack, V., Jr. 1985. The foraging ecology of some bats in Indiana. Indiana Academy of Sciences. 94:231-
237.
Brack, V., Jr. and R. K. LaVal. 2006. Diet of the gray myotis (Myotis grisescens): Variability and
consistency, opportunism, and selectivity. Journal ofMammalogy. 87:7- 18.
Brack V. Jr., and J.O. Whitaker. 2001. Foods of the northern myotis, Myotis septentrionalis, from
Missouri and Indiana, with notes on foraging. Acta Chiropterologica, 3(2):203-210.
Brady, J. T., T. H. Kunz, M. D. Tuttle, and D. E. Wilson. 1982. Gray bat recovery plan. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Denver, CO.
Broders, H.G. and Forbes, G.J., 2004. Interspecific and intersexual variation in roost -site selection of
northern long-eared and little brown bats in the Greater Fundy National Park ecosystem. The Journal
of Wildlife Management, 68(3), pp.602-610.
Broders, H., G. J. Forbes, S. Woodley, and L D. Thompson. 2006. Range Extent and Stand Selection for
Roosting and Foraging in Forest -Dwelling Northern Long -Eared Bats and Little Brown Bats in the
Greater Fundy Ecosystem, New Brunswick. Journal of Wildlife Management. 70 (5): 1174-1184.
Burke, H.S. Jr. 1999. Maternity colony formation in Myotis septentrionalis using artificial roosts: the
rocket box, a habitat enhancement for woodland bats? Bat Research News, 40:77-78.
Butchkoski, C. M. and S. Bearer. 2016. Summer bat netting trends in Pennsylvania. Chapter 9, pages 137-
151. in Conservation and ecology ofPennsylvania's bats (C.M. Butchkoski, D.M. Reeder, G.G.
Turner, and H.P. Whidden, eds.). Pennsylvania Academy of Science, East Stroudsburg,
Pennsylvania. 267 pp.
Center for Biological Diversity and Defenders of Wildlife. 2016. Petition to list the tricolored bat
Perimyotis subflavus as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Petition
submitted to the U.S. Secretary of the Interior, acting through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The Center for Biological Diversity, Tucson, Arizona and Defenders of Wildlife, Washington D.C.
36

76pp.
Caceres, M.C., and M.J. Pybus. 1997. Status of the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in
Alberta. Alberta Environmental Protection, Wildlife Management Division, Wildlife Status Report
No. 3, Edmonton, AB, 19pp.
Caceres, M.C., and R.M.R. Barclay. 2000. Myotis septentrionalis. Mammalian Species, 634:1-4.
Caire, W., R.K. LaVal, M.L. LaVal, and R. Clawson. 1979. Notes on the ecology of Myotis keenii
(Chiroptera, Vespertilionidae) in Eastern Missouri. American Midland Naturalist, 102(2): 404-407.
Carter, T.C., and G. Feldhamer. 2005. Roost tree use by maternity colonies of Indiana bats and northern
long-eared bats in southern Illinois. Forest Ecology and Management, 219:259- 268.
Cheng, T.L., Reichard, J.D., Coleman, J.T., Weller, T.J., Thogmartin, W.E., Reichert, B.E., Bennett,
A.B., Broders, H.G., Campbell, J., Etchison, K. and Feller, D.J., 2021. The scope and severity of
white -nose syndrome on hibernating bats in North America. Conservation Biology, 35(5), pp.1586-
1597. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8518069/.
Clark, D. R., Jr, R. K. Laval, and A. J. Krynitsky. 1980. Dieldrin and heptachlor residues in dead gray
bats, Franklin County, Missouri-1976 versus 1977. Pesticides Monitoring Journal. 13:137-140.
Clark, D. R., R. K. LaVal, and M. D. Tuttle. 1982. Estimating pesticide burdens of bats from guano
analyses. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 29:214-220.
Clark, D.R., 1988. How sensitive are bats to insecticides? Wildlife Society Bulletin (1973-2006), 16(4),
pp.399-403.
Clark, D. R., F. M. Bagley, and W. W. Waynon Johnson. 1988. Northern Alabama colonies of the
endangered grey bat Myotis grisescens: organochlorine contamination and mortality. Biological
Conservation. 43(3): 213-225.
Clark, D. R., Jr., R. K. LaVal, and D. M. Swineford. 1978. Dieldrin-induced mortality in an endangered
species, the gray bat (Myotis grisescens). Science. 199(4335):1357-1359.
Clawson, R. L. 1984. Investigations of endangered Indiana bat and gray bat summer ecology, distribution
and status. Missouri Department of Conservation Surveys and Investigation Projects, Study Number
66.
Colatskie, S. 2017. Missouri bat hibernacula survey results from 2011-2017, following white -nose
syndrome arrival. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri. 14 pp.
Coleman, J.L. and R. M. Barclay. 2011. Influence of urbanization on demography of little brown bats
(Myotis lucifugus) in the prairies of North America. PLoS One, 6(5), p.e20483.
Coleman, L. S., Ford, W. M., Dobony, C. A., & Britzke, E. R. 2014. Comparison of radio -telemetric
home -range analysis and acoustic detection for little brown bat habitat evaluation. Northeastern
Naturalist, 2](3), 431-445. Available at: https://bioone.org/journals/northeastern-naturalist/volume-
21 /issue-3/045.021.0309/Comparison-of-Radio-Telemetric-Home-Range-Analysis-and-Acoustic-
Detection/ 10.1656/045.021.0309.full
Cope, J.B., and S.R. Humphrey. 1972. Reproduction of the bats Myotis Keenii and Pipistrellus subflavus
in Indiana. Bat Research News, 13:9-10.
Cope, J. B., J. O. Whitaker, Jr., and S. L. Gummer. 1991. Duration of bat colonies in Indiana.
Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science. 99:199-201.
Crain, C.M., Kroeker, K. and Halpern, B.S., 2008. Interactive and cumulative effects of multiple human
stressors in marine systems. Ecology letters, 11(12), pp.1304-1315.
Crampton, L. H. and M. R. Barclay. 1998. Selection of roosting and foraging habitat by bats in different -
aged aspen mixedwood stands. Conservation Biology. 12:1347-1358.
Cryan, P. M., C. U. Meteyer, J. G. Boyles, and D. Blehert. 2013. White -nose syndrome in bats:
illuminating the darkness. BMC Biology. 11:47.
Davis, W.H., 1959. Disproportionate sex ratios in hibernating bats. Journal ofMammalogy. 40(1):16-19.
Davis, W.H., and H.B. Hitchcock. 1965. Biology and Migration of the Bat, Myotis lucifugus, in New
England. Journal ofMammalogy. 46(2):296-313
Decher, J. 1989. Critical Habitat of the Gray Bat (Myotis grisescens) in Kansas. Master's Thesis. Fort
Hays State University. 2102. https:Hscholars.fhsu.edu/theses/2102.
Decher, J. and J.R. Choate. 1988. Critical habitat of the gray bat Myotis grisescens in Kansas. (Abstract).
Bat Research News. 29(4):45.
37

De la Cruz, J.L., R.L. Ward, and E.S. Schroder. 2018. Landscape characteristics related to use of artificial
roosts by northern long-eared bats in north -central West Virginia. Northeastern Naturalist,
25(3):487-501.
Delaney, D. K., and T. G. Grubb. 2003. Effects of off -highway vehicles on northern spotted owls: 2002
results. Report to California Department of Parks and Recreation, Off -Highway Vehicle Recreation
Division, Contract No. 4391Z9-0-0055. United States Army Engineer Research and Development
Center/Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, Champaign, Illinois.
Dobony, C.A., A.C. Hicks, K.E. Langwig, R.I. von Linden, J.C. Okomewski, and R.E. Rainbolt. 2011.
Little brown myotis persist despite exposure to white -nose syndrome. Journal of Fish and Wildlife
Management. 2:190-195.
Dowling, Z.R., and D.I. O'Dell. 2018. Bat use of an island off the coast of Massachusetts. Northeastern
Naturalist, 25(3):362-382.
Downs, N. C., V. B., J. Guest., J. Polanski., S. L. Robinson., and P. A. Racey. 2003. The effects of
illuminating the roost entrance on the emergence behavior of Pipistrellus pygmaeus. Biological
Conservation, 111, 247-252.
Droppelman, P. L. 2014. Bat Survey Report for Myotis sodalis Indiana bat, Myotis grisescens Gray Bat,
Myotis septentrionalis Northern long-eared bat, Mine Tailings Impoundment Brushy Creek Mine
Doe Run Company Reynolds County, Missouri. Eco-Tech Consultants, Inc. 73p.
Dzal, Y.A., 2011. Thermoregulatory and foraging strategies of the little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus)
during the reproductive season. Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research, University of Regina.
Easterla, D.A. 1968. Parturition of Keen's Myotis in Southwestern Missouri. Journal of Mammalogy,
49(4):770.
Environment Yukon. 2011. Yukon Bats. Government of Yukon, Environment Yukon, Whitehorse,
Yukon. 22p
Eidels, R. R., D. W. Sparks, J. Whitaker J O, and C. A. Sprague. 2016. Sub -lethal effects of chlorpyrifos
on big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus). Archives of Environmental Contaminants and Toxicology.
2016:322-335.
Feldhamer, G.A., T.C. Carter, A.T. Morzillo, and E.H. Nicholson. 2003. Use of bridges as day roosts by
bats in southern Illinois. Transactions of the Illinois State Academy of Science, 96(2): 107-112
Fenton, M.B. 1969. Summer activity of Myotis lucifugus (Chiroptera:Vespertilionidae) at hibernacula in
Ontario and Quebec. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 47(4)597-602.
Fenton, M. B. 1970. Population studies of Myotis lucifugus: (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae) in Ontario.
Life sciences contributions no. 77. Royal Ontario Museum, Ontario, Canada. 34 pp.
Fenton, M.B., and R.M.R. Barclay. 1980. Myotis lucifugus. 142 Mammalian Species, pp. 1-8.
Foley, J., Clifford, D., Castle, K., Cryan, P. and Ostfeld, R.S., 2011. Investigating and managing the rapid
emergence of white -nose syndrome, a novel, fatal, infectious disease of hibernating bats.
Conservation biology, 25(2), pp.223-231.
Foster, R.W., and A. Kurta. 1999. Roosting ecology of the Northern bat (Myotis septentrionalis) and
comparisons with the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). Journal of Mammalogy, 80(2):659-
672.
Fraser, E. E., L. P. McGuire, J L Eger, F. J. Longstaffe, and M. B. Fenton. 2012. Evidence of latitudinal
migration in tri-colored bats, perimyotis subflavus. PLoS ONE 7:e31419.
Frick, W.F., D.S. Reynolds, and T.H. Kunz. 2010. Influence of climate and reproductive timing on
demography of little brown myotis Myotis lucifugus. Journal ofAnimal Ecology. 79:128-136.
Frick, W.F., J.F. Pollock, A. Hicks, K. Langwig, D.S. Reynolds, G.G. Turner, C. Butchowski, T.H. Kunz.
2010b. A once common bat faces rapid extinction in the northeastern United States from a fungal
pathogen. Science, 329:679-682.
Fujita, M.S. and T. H. Kunz. 1984. Pipistrellus subflavus. Mammalian species, (228), pp.1-6.
Fuller, N.W., J. D. Reichard, M. L. Nabhan, S. R. Fellows, L.C. Pepin, and T. H. Kunz. 2011. Free -
ranging little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus) heal from wing damage associated with white -nose
syndrome. EcoHealth. 8(2):154-162.
Gaisler, J., Z. Rehak, and T. Bartonicka. 2009. Bat casualties by road traffic (Brno -Vienna). Acta Theriol.
54:147-155.
38

Geluso, K. N., R. A. Benedict, and F. L. Kock. 2004. Seasonal activity and reproduction in bats of east -
central Nebraska. Transactions of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences and Aff liated Societies. 29:33-
44.
Geluso, K., T. R. Mollhagen, J. M. Tigner, and M. A. Bogan. 2005. Westward expansion of the eastern
pipistrelle (Pipistrellus subflavus) in the United States, including new records from New Mexico,
South Dakota, and Texas. Western North American Naturalist. 65:405-409.
Goebel, A. B. 1996. Temporal variation in movement patterns of adult female Myotis grisescens
(Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae). M.S. thesis, Auburn University, Alabama.
Goehring, H. H. 1954. Pipistrellus subflavus obscurus, Myotis keenii, and Eptesicus fuscus fuscus
hibernating in a storm sewer in central Minnesota. Journal ofMammalogy. 35:434-435.
Griffin, D. R. 1940. Migration of New England bats. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at
Harvard College. 86:217-246.
Griffin, D. R. 1945. Travels of banded cave bats. Journal ofMammalogy. 26:15-23.
Griffin, D.R. 1970. Migration and homing in bats. Pp. 233-264, In Biology of Bats, Vol. 2 (W.A.
Wimsatt, ed.). Academic Press, New York, 477 pp.
Griffith, L.A., and J.E. Gates. 1985. Food habits of cave -dwelling bats in the central Appalachians.
Journal of Mammalogy, 66(3):451-460.
Gunier, W. J., and W. H. Elder. 1971. Experimental homing of gray bats to a maternity colony in a
Missouri barn. American Midland Naturalist. 86:502-506.
Hall, J. S., and N. Wilson. 1966. Season population movements of the gray bat in the Kentucky area.
American Midlands Naturalist. 75:317-324.
Hanttula, M.K. and E.W. Valdez. 2021. First record and diet of the tri-colored bat (Perimyotis subflavus)
from Guadalupe Mountains National Park and Culberson County, Texas. Western North American
Naturalist. 81(1): 31-134.
Harvell, C.D., Mitchell, C.E., Ward, J.R., Altizer, S., Dobson, A.P., Ostfeld, R.S. and Samuel, M.D.,
2002. Climate warming and disease risks for terrestrial and marine biota. Science, 296(5576),
pp.2158-2162.
Harvey, M. J., J. S. Altenbach, and T. L. Best. 1999. Bats of the United States. Arkansas Game and Fish
Commission, Little Rock, Arkansas, 64 pp.
Harvey, M. J. 1975. Endangered Chiroptera of the southeastern United States. Southeastern Association
of Game and Fish Commissioners. 29:429-433.
Harvey, M. J. 1992. Bats of the eastern United States. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, Little Rock.
Harvey, M. J. and V. R. McDaniel. 1988. Non -cave roosting sites of the endangered gray bat, Myotis
grisescens, in Arkansas. (Abstract). Bat Research News. 29(4):47.
Harvey, M. J., J. J. Cassidy, and G. G. O'Hagan. 1981. Endangered bats of Arkansas: distribution, status,
ecology, and management: report to Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, US Forest Service,
Ozark National Forest, [and] National Park Service, Buffalo National River. Ecological Research
Center, Department of Biology, Memphis State University, Memphis, Tennessee, 137pp.
Harvey, Michael J. 1994. Status of the Endangered Gray Bat (Myotis grisescens) Hibernating Populations
in Arkansas. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 48: 52.
Hein, C.D. 2012. Potential impacts of shale gas development on bat populations in the northeastern
United States. Austin, Texas: Bat Conservation International. 33 p.
Henderson, L.E., and H.G. Broders. 2008. Movements and resource selection of the northern long-eared
myotis (Myotis septentrionalis) in a forest -agriculture landscape. Journal of Mammalogy, 89(4):952-
963.
Henry, M., Thomas, D.W., Vaudry, R., and Carrier, M. 2002. Foraging Distances and Home Range of
Pregnant and Lactating Little Brown Bats (Myotis lucifugus). Journal ofMammalogy, 83 (3)L 767-
774. Available at: https:Hacademic.oup.com/jmammal/article/83/3/767/2373247
Herreid, C. F., IL 1963. Temperature regulation of Mexican free -tailed bats in cave habitats. Journal of
Mammalogy. 44:560-573.
Herreid, C. F., IL 1967. Temperature regulation, temperature preferences and tolerance, and metabolism
of young and adult free -tailed bats. Physiological Zoology. 40:1-22.
Hitchcock, H.B., 1965. Biology and migration of the bat, Myotis lucifugus, in New England. Journal of
39

Mammalogy. 46(2): 296-313.
Hoying, K. M. and T. H. Kunz. 1998. Variation in size at birth and post -natal growth in the insectivorous
bat Pipistrellus subflavus (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae). Journal of Zoology. 245:15-27.
Humphrey, S. R. 1975. Nursery roosts and community diversity on Nearctic bats. Journal ofMammalogy.
56:321-346.
Humphrey, S. R. and J. B. Cope. 1976. Population ecology of the little brown bat, Myotis lucifugus, in
Indiana and north -central Kentucky. Special Publication of the American Society of Mammalogists.
4:1-81.
Humphries, M. H., D. W. Thomas, and J. R. Speakman. 2002. Climate -mediated energetic constraints on
the distribution of hibernating mammals. Nature. 418:313-316.
Humphries, M. M., J. R. Speakman, and D. W. Thomas. 2006. Temperature, hibernation energetics, and
the cave and continental distributions of little brown myotis. Pages 23-37 in Functional and
Evolutionary Ecology of Bats (A. Zubaid, G. F. McCracken, and T. Kunz, eds.). Oxford University
Press, Oxford, United Kingdom. 360 pp.
Hutson, A.M. and Mickleburgh, S.P. eds., 2001. Microchiropteran bats: global status survey and
conservation action plan (Vol. 56). IUCN.
Ingersoll, T.E., B.J. Sewall, and S.K. Amelon. 2013. Improved analysis of long-term monitoring data
demonstrates marked regional declines of bat populations in the eastern United States. PLoS One,
8(6), p.e65907.
Ingersoll, T.E., B.J. Sewall, and S.K. Amelon. 2016. Effects of white -nose syndrome on regional
population patterns of 3 hibernating bat species. Conservation Biology 30(5): 1048- 1059.
Jones, G., Jacobs, D.S., Kunz, T.H., Willig, M.R. and Racey, P.A., 2009. Carpe noctem: the importance
of bats as bioindicators. Endangered species research, 8(1-2), pp.93-115.
Kannan, K., Yun, S.H., Rudd, R.J. and Behr, M., 2010. High concentrations of persistent organic
pollutants including PCBs, DDT, PBDEs and PFOS in little brown bats with white -nose syndrome in
New York, USA. Chemosphere, 80(6), pp.613-618.
Katzenmeyer, J.B. (2016). Use of highway culverts, box bridges, and caves by winter -roosting bats in
Mississippi. Masters Thesis, Mississippi State University. University Libraries Theses and
Dissertations. https://scholarsiunction.msstate.edu/td/4869/
Keeley, B.W. and M.D. Tuttle. 1999. Bats in American bridges. Bat Conservation International, Austin
Texas.
Kiefer A., H. Merz, W. Racko, H. Roer, and D. Schlegel. 1995. Bats as traffic casualties in Germany.
Myotis. 32: 215- 220.
Krochmal, A. R. and D. W. Sparks. 2007. Timing of birth and estimation of age of juvenile Myotis
septentrionalis and Myotis lucifugus in west -central Indiana. Journal ofMammalogy. 88:649-656.
Krulin, G. S. and J. A. Sealander. 1972. Annual lipid cycle of the gray bat, Myotis grisescens.
Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology. 42 A:537-549.
Kunz, T.H. 1971. Reproduction of Some Vespertilionid Bats in Central Iowa. American Midland
Naturalist, 86(2):477-486.
Kunz, T.H., Arnett, E.B., Cooper, B.M., Erickson, W.P., Larkin, R.P., Mabee, T., Morrison, M.L.,
Strickland, M.D. and Szewczak, J.M., 2007. Assessing impacts of wind -energy development on
nocturnally active birds and bats: a guidance document. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 71(8),
pp.2449-2486.
Kunz T. H. and J. D. Reichard. 2010. Status review of the little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus) and
determination that immediate listing under the Endangered Species Act is scientifically and legally
warranted. Status Review prepared for US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Kurta, A. 2008. Bats of Michigan. Indiana State Center for North American Bat Research and
Conservation, Publication 2. Indiana State University, Terre Haute, Indiana. 72 pp.
Kurta A., G.P. Bell, K.A. Nagy, and T.H. Kunz. 1989. Energetics of pregnancy and lactation in free -
ranging little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus). Physiological Zoology 62: 804-818.
Kurta, A. and T. H. Kunz. 1987. Size of bats at birth and maternal investment during pregnancy.
Symposia of the Zoological Society of London. 57:79-106.
Kurta, A., J.P. Hayes, and M.J. Lacki. 2007. Bats in forests: conservation and management. Johns
40

Hopkins University Press.
Lacki, M. J., L. S. Burford, and J. O. Whittaker, Jr. 1995. Food habits of gray bats in Kentucky. Journal
of Mammalogy. 76:1256-1259.
Lacki, M. J., D. R. Cox, and M. B. Dickinson. 2009. Meta -analysis of summer roosting characteristics of
two species of Myotis bats. American Midland Naturalist. 162: 318-26.
Lamb, J. W. 2000. Section 10 permit number SA 97-34 annual report for Myotis grisescens and Myotis
sodalis on Arnold Air Force Base/Arnold Engineering Development Center (AEDC), Unpublished
Report, ASC Environmental Services, Conservation, Arnold Air Force Base, TN.
Laurance, W.F. and Useche, D.C., 2009. Environmental synergisms and extinctions of tropical species.
Conservation biology, 23(6), pp.1427-1437.
LaVal, R. K. and M. L. LaVal. 1980. Ecological studies and management of Missouri bats, with emphasis
on cave -dwelling species. Missouri Department of Conservation: Terrestrial Series. 8:1-53.
LaVal, R. K., R. L. Clawson, M. L. La Val, and W. Caire. 1977. Foraging behavior and nocturnal activity
patterns of Missouri bats, with emphasis on the endangered species Myotis grisescens and Myotis
sodalis. Journal ofMammalogy. 58:592-599.
LeGrand, H., L. Gatens, E. Corey, and T. Howard. 2022. Mammals of North Carolina: their Distribution
and Abundance. Raleigh NC: North Carolina Biodiversity Project and North Carolina State Parks.
https:Hauthl.dpr.ncparks.gov/mammals/accounts.php. Accessed February 21, 2022.
Lemen, C. A., P. W. Freeman, and J. A. White. 2016. Acoustic evidence of bats using rock crevices in
winter: A call for more research on winter roosts in North America. Transactions of the Nebraska
Academy of Sciences and Affiliated Societies. 36:9-13.
Lesinski G., A. Sikora, and A. Olszewski. 2010. Bat casualties on a road crossing a mosaic landscape.
European Journal of Wildlife Research. 57:217-223.
Lesinski, G. 2007. Bat road casualties and factors determining their number. Mammalia. 71(3): 138-142.
Linley, G. D. 2017. The impact of artificial lighting on bats along native coastal vegetation. Australian
Mammalogy, 39(2), 178-184. doi:10.1071/aml5047
Lorch, J.M., Meteyer, C.U., Behr, M.J., Boyles, J.G., Cryan, P.M., Hicks, A.C., Ballmann, A.E.,
Coleman, J.T., Redell, D.N., Reeder, D.M. and Blehert, D.S., 2011. Experimental infection of bats
with Geomyces destructans causes white -nose syndrome. Nature, 480(7377), pp.376-378.
Lutsch K. E., A.G. McDonald, K.T. Gabriel, and C.T. Cornelison. 2022. Roadway -associated culverts
may serve as a transmission corridor for Pseudogymnoascus destructans and white -nose syndrome
in the coastal plains and coastal region of Georgia, USA. Journal of Wildlife Diseases. 58(2): 322-
332.
Madison County. 2009. Current Zoning and Land Use.
hLtps://www.madisoncouniync. ov/uploads/5/9/7/0/59701963/map 3 -
_ current_ zoning land_use.pdf. Accessed: February 4, 2022.
Martin, C. O., R.F. Lance, C.H. Bucciantim. 2005. Collisions with aircraft and use of culverts under
runways by bats at U.S. Naval Air Station Meridian, Meridian, Mississippi. Bat Research News. 46:
51-54.
Martin, C. 0.2007. Assessment of the population status of the gray bat (Myotis grisescens). Status
review, DoD initiatives, and results of a multi -agency effort to survey wintering populations at major
hibernacula, 2005-2007. Environmental Laboratory, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer
Research and Development Center Final Report ERDC/EL TR-07-22. Vicksburg, Mississippi. 97pp.
Maslo, B. and N.H. Fefferman. 2015. A case study of bats and white -nose syndrome demonstrating how
to model population viability with evolutionary effects. Conservation Biology. 29(4): 1176-1185.
Maslo, B., M. Valent, J. F. Gumbs, and W. F. Frick. 2015. Conservation implications of ameliorating
survival of little brown bats with white -nose syndrome. Ecological Applications. 25:1832-1840.
McNab, B. K. 1974. The behavior of temperate cave bats in a subtropical environment. Ecology. 55:943-
958.
Medinas, D., J.T. Marques, and A. Mira. 2013. Assessing road effects on bats: the role of landscape, road
features, and bat activity on road -kills. Ecological Research. 28: 227-237.
MidAmerican Energy Company. 2019. Final Habitat Conservation Plan; MidAmerican Energy Company
Iowa Wind Project Portfolio. Prepared by MidAmerican Energy Company. 193 pp (plus
41

appendices and addenda).
Mikula, P., F. Morelli, R.K. Lucan, D.N. Jones, P. Tryjanowski. 2016. Bats as prey of diurnal birds: a
global perspective. Mammal Review 46: 160-174.
Miller, R. E. (1939), The reproductive cycle in male bats of the species Myotis lucifugus lucifugus and
Myotis grisescens. Journal of Morphology 64: 267-295.
Mitchell, W. A. 1998. Species profile: gray bat (Myotis grisescens) on military installations in the
southeastern United States. U.S. Army Corps of Strategic Environmental Research and Development
Program Technical Rep- SERDP-98-6, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS. 25pp.
Mohr, C. E. 1972. The status of threatened species of cave -dwelling bats. Bulletin of the National
Speleological Society. 34:33-37.
Moore, Patrick R., T.S. Risch, D.K. Morris, and V. Rolland. 2017. Habitat use of female gray bats
assessed using aerial telemetry. Journal of Wildlife Management 81(7):1242- 1253.
Mumford R.E., and J.B. Cope. 1964. Distribution and status of the chiroptera of Indiana. American
Midland Naturalist, 72(2):473-489.
Myers, R. F. 1964. Ecology of three species of myotine bats in the Ozark Plateau. Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri. 210 pp.
Nagorsen, D.W. and R.M. Brigham. 1993. Bats of British Columbia. Royal British Columbia Museum,
Victoria, and the University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver. 164 pp
NatureServe. 2018. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Accessed: October 8, 2018. http://www.natureserve.org/calorer.
Newman, B.A., S.C. Loeb, and D.S. Jachowski. 2021. Winter roosting ecology of tricolored bats
(Perimyotis subflavus) in trees and bridges, Journal ofMammalogy. 105(5): 1331-1341.
North Carolina Bat Working Group. 2013. Bats of North Carolina: Tri-colored Bat (Perimyotis
subflavus). https://www.ncbwg.org/tri-colored-bat-perimyotis-subflavus/
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). 2019. STIP Project I-2315 Biological
Assessment, I-26 Connector.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). 2021. Gray Bat Monitoring 2021 Annual
Report. I-26 Widening, Buncombe County, North Carolina, WBS Element No. 26030.1.2 and
34232.1.1. STIP I-4700/I-4400.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) Online Data Search. 2022. Accessed February 08,
2022. Last updated January 20, 2022. www.ncnhp.org.
O'Keefe, J.M. 2009. Roosting and Foraging Ecology of Forest Bats in the Southern Appalachian
Mountains. (PhD diss., Clemson University). Available from:
https://tigelprints.clemson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.c gi?article=1333&context=all_ dissertations
Owen, S.F., M.A. Menzel, W.M. Ford, J.W. Edwards, B.R. Chapman, K.V. Miller, and P.B. Wood. 2002.
Roost tree selection by maternal colonies of Northern long-eared Myotis in an intensively managed
forest. USDA Forest Service. Newtown Square, Pennsylvania. 10 pp.
Owen, S. F., M. A. Menzel, W. M. Ford, B. R. Chapman, K. V. Miller, J. W. Edwards, P. B. Wood. 2003.
Home -range size and habitat used by the northern Myotis (Myotis septentrionalis). American
Midland Naturalist 150:352-359.
Perry, R. W. and R. E. Thill. 2007. Roost selection by male and female northern long-eared bats in a pine -
dominated landscape. Forest Ecology and Management. 247:220-226.
Perry, R.W., and R.E. Thill. 2007b. Tree roosting by male and female eastern pipistrelles in a forested
landscape. Journal of Mammalogy 88(4):974-981.
Perry, R.W., R.E. Thill, and D.M. Leslie Jr. 2008. Scale -dependent effects of landscape structure and
composition on diurnal roost selection by forest bats. J. Wildlife. Manage. 72(4): 913-925.
Pierson, E.D., 1998. Tall trees, deep holes, and scarred landscapes: conservation biology of North
American bats. Bat biology and conservation. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, USA,
pp.309-325.
Poissant, J. A. 2009. Roosting and Social Ecology of the Tricolored Bat, Perimyotis subflavus, in Nova
Scotia. Thesis for Master of Science. Saint Mary's University, Halifax, Nova Scotia. 85 pp.
Available at:
42

https://t.library2.smu.calbitstreamlhandle/O I1251501poissant_j oseph-a-masters-2009.PDF?sequence
=2&isAllowed=y
Powers, K. E., R.J. Reynolds, W. Orndorff, B.A. Hyzy, C.S. Hobson, and W.M. Ford. 2016. Monitoring
the Status of Gray Bats (Myotis grisescens) in Virginia, 2009-2014, and Potential Impacts of White -
Nose Syndrome. Southeastern Naturalist. 15(1): 127-137.
Powers K. E. R. J., Reynolds, W. Orndorff, W. M., Ford, C. S., Hobson. 2015. Post -white -nose syndrome
trends in Virginias cave bats, 2008-2013. Journal of Ecology and The Natural Environment.
2015;7:113-123.
Rabinowitz, A. R. and M. D. Tuttle. 1982. A test of the validity of two currently used methods of
determining bat prey preferences. ACTA Theriological. 27. 21:283-293.
Ratcliffe, J.M. and J.W. Dawson. 2003. Behavioral flexibility: the little brown bat, Myotis lucifugus, and
the northern long-eared bat, M. septentrionalis, both glean and hawk prey. Animal Behaviour,
66:847-856.
Randall, L.A., 2014. Roost -site selection and movements of little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus) in
southwestern Yukon. Northwestern Naturalist, 95(3), pp.312-317.
Rodenhouse, N.L., Christenson, L.M., Parry, D. and Green, L.E., 2009. Climate change effects on native
fauna of northeastern forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 39(2), pp249-263.
Russell A.L., C.M. Butchkoski, L. Saidak, and G.F. McCracken. 2009. Road -killed bats, highway design,
and the commuting ecology of bats. Endangered Species Research. 8:49-60.
Rydell, J. 1992. Exploitation of insects around streetlamps by bats in Sweden. Functional Ecology.
6:744-750.
Rydell, J. and H. J. Baagoe. 1996. Gatlampor 6kar fladderm6ssens pre-dation pa fjarilar [Streetlamps
increase bat predation on moths]. Entomologisk Tidskrift. 117:129-35.
Sandel, J. K., G. R. Benatar, K. M. Burke, C. W. Walker, T. E. Lacher, Jr., and R. L. Honeycutt. 2001.
Use and selection of winter hibernacula by the eastern pipistrelle (Pipistrellus subflavus) in Texas.
Journal ofMammalogy. 82:173-178.
Sasse, D.B., and P.J. Pekins. 1996. Summer roosting ecology of northern long-eared bats (Myotis
septentrionalis) in the white mountain national forest. Bats and Forests Symposium October 1995,
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, pp. 91-101.
Sasse, D.B., M. L. Caviness, M. J. Harvey, J. L. Jackson, and P. N. Jordan. 2014. Journal of the Arkansas
Academy of Science 68(32):170-173.
Sasse, D. B. 2019. Gray Bat Day Roosts in Concrete Barriers on Bridges during Migration. The American
Midland Naturalist. 182(1): 124-128.
Saugey, D. A. 1978. Reproductive biology of the gray bat, Myotis grisescens, in northcentral Arkansas.
M.S. Thesis, Arkansas State University, Jonesboro.
Saunders, D.A. [online]. 1988. Little Brown Bat (Myotis lucifugus). P. 216 in Adirondack Mammals.
State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry.
Schaefer, K. 2016. Habitat Usage of Tri-colored Bats (Perimyotis subflavus) in Western Kentucky and
Tennessee Post -White Nose Syndrome. Murray State Theses and Dissertations.
hLtps://digitalcommons.mllgaystate.edu/etd/33.
Secord, A. L.; K.A. Patnode, C. Carter, E. Redman, D.J. Gefell, A.R. Major, and D.W. Sparks. 2015.
Contaminants of emerging concern in bats from the Northeastern United States. Archives of
Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 69: 411-421.
Shapiro, A., and M. G. Hohmann. 2005. Summary of threatened and endangered bat related restrictions
on military training, testing, and land management. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development
Center Construction Engineering Research Laboratory ERDC/CERL Technical Report TR-05-13,
ADA443510.
Shore, R.F. and Rattner, B.A. eds., 2001. Ecotoxicology of wild mammals. Chichester: Wiley.
Simmons, N.B. 2005. Order Chiroptera: Subfamily Myotinae. p. 516 in Mammal species of the world: a
taxonomic and geographic reference, D.E. Wilson and D.M. Reeder, editors. The John Hopkins
University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. 2000 pp
Slider, R. M. and A. Kurta. 2011. Surge tunnels in quarries as potential hibernacula for bats. Notes of the
Northeastern Naturalist. 18:378-381.
43

Sparks, D. W. and J. R. Choate. 2000. Distribution, natural history, conservation status, and biogeography
of bats in Kansas. Pages 173-228 in Reflections of a naturalist: Papers honoring professor Eugene
D. Fleharty (J. R. Choate, ed.). Fort Hays Studies, Special Issue. 1:1-241.
Sparks, J.K., B.J. Foster, and D.W. Sparks. 2004. Utility pole used as a roost by a northern myotis,
Myotis septentrionalis. Bat Research News, 45:94.
Spoelstra K., R.H.A. van Grunsven, J.J.C. Ramakers, K.B. Ferguson, T. Raap, M Donners, E.M.
Veenendaal, M.E. Visser. 2017. Response of bats to light with different spectra: lightshy and agile
bat presence is affected by white and green, but not red light. Proceedings of the Royal Society. 284:
20170075.
Stevenson, D. E. and M. D. Tuttle. 1981. Survivorship in the endangered gray bat (Myotis grisescens).
Journal ofMammalogy. 62(2):244-257.
Stone E. L., G. Jones, and S. Harris. 2012. Conserving energy at a cost to biodiversity? Impacts of LED
lighting on bats. Global Change Biology. 19:2458-2465.
Stone, E. L., G. Jones, and S. Harris. 2009. Street lighting disturbs commuting bats. Current Biology.
19:1123-1127.
Thomas, D. P. 1994. A radiotelemetric assessment of the foraging ecology of the gray bat (Myotis
grisescens) at Guntersville Reservoir, Alabama. M.S. Thesis, Auburn University, AL.
Thomas, D.P., and T.L. Best. 2000. Radiotelemetric assessment of movement patterns of the gray bat
(Myotis grisiscens) at Guntersville Reservoir, Alabama. Pages 27-39 in B.R. Chapman and J. Laerm,
editors. Fourth Colloquium on Conservation of Mammals in the Southeastern U.S. Occasional
Papers of the NC Museum of Natural Sciences and the NC Biological Survey, No. 12, Raleigh, NC,
USA.
Three Oaks Engineering. 2022. An Assessment of Potential Effects to Federally Listed Species for
Replace Bridge 560071 on Walnut Creek Road (SR 1395) over Big Laurel Creek TIP B-5989,
Madison County, North Carolina. Federal Project No. BRZ-1395(007) WBS Element No. 47845.1.1.
Timmerman, L. and V. R. McDaniel. 1992. Maternity Colony of Gray Bats in a Non -Cave Site. Journal
of the Arkansas Academy of Science: 46:108-109.
Timpone, J.C., J.G. Boyles, K.L. Murray, D.P. Aubrey, and L.W. Robbins. 2010. Overlap in roosting
habits of Indiana Bats (Myotis sodalis) and northern bats (Myotis septentrionalis). American
Midland Naturalist 163:115-123.
Timpone, J., K.E. Francl, V. Brack Jr., and J. Beverly. 2011. Bats of the Cumberland Plateau and Ridge
and Valley provinces, Virginia. Southeastern Naturalist. 10(3): 515-528.
Tinsley, K. 2016. Status review for the eastern subspecies of the little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus
lucifugus). Prepared for U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3,
Bloomington, Minnesota. 150 pp.
Tuttle, M. D., and D. E. Stevenson. 1977. An Analysis of Migration as a Mortality Factor in the Gray Bat
Based on Public Recoveries of Banded Bats. The American Midland Naturalist. 97(1), 235-240.
Tuttle, M. D. 1976a. Population ecology of the gray bat (Myotis grisescens): philopatry, timing, and
patterns of movement, weight loss during migration, and seasonal adaptive strategies. Occasional
Papers of the Museum of Natural History University of Kansas. 54:1-38.
Tuttle, M. D. 1976b. Population ecology of the gray bat (Myotis grisescens): Factors influencing growth
and survival of newly volant young. Ecology. 57:587-595.
Tuttle, M. D. 1979. Status, causes of decline and management of endangered gray bats. Journal of
Wildlife Management. 43: 1-17.
Tuttle, M. D. and D. E. Stevenson. 1978. Variation in the cave environment and its biological
implications. Pages 108-21 in R. Zuber (ed). National cave management symposium proceedings,
1977, Big Sky, Montana.
Tuttle, M. D. and J. Kennedy. 2005. Field guide to eastern cave bats. Bat Conservation International,
Inc., Austin, TX. 41 pp.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 1980. Selected vertebrate endangered species of the
seacoast of the United States - the gray bat. FWS/OBS- 80/01.42, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Slidell, LA.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 1982. Gray Bat Recovery Plan. Minneapolis, MN, 26
44

pp -
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1998.
Consultation Handbook: Procedures for Conducting Consultation and Conference Activities Under
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. March. Final. 315 pp. Available at:
hops://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/endan eg red-species-consultation-handbook.pdf
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 2009. Gray bat (Myotis grisescens) 5-year Review. US
Fish and Wildlife Service, Columbia, MO.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 2012. White -nose Syndrome Confirmed in Federally
Endangered Gray Bats. hops://www.fws.gov/external-affairs/public-affairs/. Accessed: September
12, 2017.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 2014. Northern Long-eared Bat Interim Conference
and Planning Guidance. USFWS Regions 2, 3, 4, 5, & 6. Available at
hllp://www.fws. gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nlba/pdf/NLEBinten*mGuidance 6Jan2014.pdf.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 2015. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;
Threatened Species Status for the Northern Long -Eared Bat With 4(d) Rule; Final Rule and Interim
Rule. Federal Register 80(63): 17974-18033.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 2019. Gray Bat (Myotis grisescens).
hops://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/grbat_fc.html.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2021. Species Status Assessment Report for the Tricolored Bat
(Perimyotis subflavus), Version 1.1. December 2021. Hadley, Massachusetts. Available at:
hqps:Hecos.fws.gov/ServCat/DownloadFile/221212.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 2022a. Information for Planning and Consultation
(IPaQ. Accessed January 6, 2022.
https:Hecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/BBKWYJI614NE7JHOKGB2JHODMFI/re sources
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 2022b. Biological opinion and conference opinion for
the issuance of an incidental take permit for the gray bat, Indiana bat, northern long-eared bat, little
brown bat, and tricolored bat, Associated with the Habitat Conservation Plan for the Missouri
Department of Conservation's habitat and public access management activities across the state of
Missouri. Columbia, Missouri. hllps:Hecos.fws.gov/docs/plan_ documents/bobs/bobs_3468.pdf
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Service 2022c. Species Status Assessment Report for the
Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), Version 1.1. March 22, 2022. Bloomington, MN.
hl!ps:Hecos.fws.gov/ServCat/DownloadFile/215290
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Service 2022d. Programmatic Biological Opinion on the
Revised Forest Plan for the Pisgah and Nantahala National Forests. FWS Log Number 22-399.
Asheville Ecological Services Field Office. June 02, 2022.
van Zyll de Jong, C.G. 1985. Handbook of Canadian mammals. National Museums of Canada, Ottawa,
Canada. 212pp.
Veilleux, J. P. and S. L. Veilleux. 2004a. Colonies and reproductive patterns of tree -roosting female
eastern pipistrelle bats in Indiana. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science. 113:60-65.
Veilleux, J. P. and S. L. Veilleux. 2004b. Intra-annual and interannual fidelity to summer roost areas by
female eastern pipistrelles, Pipistrellus subflavus. The American Midland Naturalist. 152:196-200.
Veilleux, J. P., J. O. Whitaker, Jr., and S. L. Veilleux. 2003. Tree -roosting ecology of reproductive female
eastern Pipistrelles, Pipistrellus subflavus, in Indiana. Journal ofMammalogy. 84:1068-1075.
Veilleux, J. P., J. O. Whitaker, Jr., and S. L. Veilleux. 2004. Reproductive stage influences roost use by
tree roosting female eastern pipistrelles, Pipistrellus suflavus. Ecoscience. 11:249-256.
Walker, C. W., J.K Sandel, R.L. Honeycutt, and C. Adams. 1996. Winter utilization of box culverts by
vespertilionid bats in southeast Texas. The Texas Journal of Science. 48:166-168.
Weber, J and B. Walters. 2022. Monitoring Gray Bats in Western North Carolina, Report to Biltmore
Farms and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Indiana State University, Terre Haute, IN.
Weber, J., J. O'Keefe, and B. Walters. 2018. Activity Report: Distribution, Roosting, and Foraging
Ecology, and Migration Pathways for Gray Bats in Western NC. Indiana State University, Terre
Haute, IN.
Weber, J., J. O'Keefe, and B. Walters. 2018. Activity Report: Distribution, Roosting, and Foraging
45

Ecology, and Migration Pathways for Gray Bats in Western NC. Indiana State University, Terre
Haute, IN.
Weber, J., J. O'Keefe, B. Walters, F. Tillman, and C. Nicolay. 2020. Distribution, Roosting and Foraging
Ecology, and Migration Pathways for Gray Bats in Western North Carolina. NCDOT Project 2018-
36, FHWA/NC/2018-36.
West, E.W. 2016. Technical Guidance for Assessment and Mitigation of the Effects of Traffic Noise and
Road Construction Noise on Bats. Division of Environmental Analysis, California Department of
Transportation, 1120 N Street, MS-27, Sacramento CA 95814.
Wetzel and Samoray 2022. The Long Way Home: One Gray Bat's Journey Through Middle Tennessee.
Poster presented at: Southeastern Bat Diversity Network Conference 2022.
Whitaker, J.O., and W.J. Hamilton. 1998. Order Chiroptera: Bats. Chapter 3: pp.89-102 in Mammals of
the eastern United States, Third Edition, Comstock Publishing Associates, a Division of Cornell
University Press, Ithaca, New York, 608pp.
Whitaker, J.O., and R.E. Mumford. 2009. Northern Myotis. pp. 207-214. In Mammals of Indiana. Indiana
University Press, Bloomington, Indiana. 688pp.
Whitaker, J. O., Jr. and L. J. Rissler. 1992. Seasonal activity of bats at Copperhead Cave. Proceedings of
the Indiana Academy of Science. 101:127-134.
Whitaker, J. O., Jr and M. Stacy. 1996. Bats of abandoned coal mines in southwestern Indiana.
Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science. 105:277-280.
White, J.W., P. Freeman, C. A. Lemen. 2017. Habitat selection by the Northern Long-eared Myotis
(Myotis septentrionalis) in the Midwestern United States: Life in a shredded farmscape. Transactions
of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences and Affiliated Societies 37: 1-10.
Wilson, D.E., and S. Ruff. 1999. The Smithsonian Book of North American Mammals. The Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Wimsatt, W. A. 1945. Notes on breeding behavior, pregnancy, and parturition in some vespertilionid bats
of the eastern United States. Journal of Mammalogy. 26:23-33.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2013. Wisconsin Little Brown Bat Species Guidance.
Bureau of Natural Heritage Conservation, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison,
Wisconsin. PUB-ER-705. Available at: hllps:Hdnr.wi.gov/files/pdf/pubs/er/er0705.pdf
46

12. FIGURES
't; "" ""'� Biological Assessment
Repracemern of Bridge 71
AwAt on Walnut Creek Road (SR 1395)
%p� Drat 9r9 Laurel Creek (S-5999)
{ -Acbm Area
&Mebean bounty. N04h Car Done
47
�• Am 202: Figiire
mar 0 ISO 300 re
l2■ 1
Z2-90Z
..-%
NMSO MFe

I%Ef# n f
��1�,� A Y+�. Biological Assessment
Repawment of finuge 71
Sri r%Ai nu?Creek Road (SR 1395)
over Big _aurei Z:reek(6-5989)
f Ovtour E5ndge $&Tied -clearing
Maamn C n : nty, Earth Caraina
M
D1.
l6nr2022
Figure
kaln 0 7S SO Fs-4
,.�
rib
3,ra
n� 54 � h.rAH rlr
NMSQ A+f

Archaeology
Historic
Architecture
and
Landscapes

DocuSign Envelope ID: DF80781 E-EOOC-4552-B7BD-BC4D5007DF5E
l-12-O069
roQ af.. NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED FORM _
This furm only pertains W ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this prajact. It is not a'P�'
p 1 valid fur Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must com ult separately with the
Historic Architecture and Landscapes Group.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project Nv:
Wii ivo.,
F-A. No. -
B-5989
44593.1.1
Federal Permit Required'}
County Madison
Document: Federal CF
Funding: ® State ❑ Federal
® Yes ❑ No Permit Type: USACE
ProJwtZWcP1pdon. Replacement of Bridge No. 71 over Big Laurel Camk an SR 1395 in Madison
County, North Carolina. 'Ihe aeclaaeuliagical Area or Potential Effects (APE) is centered on the bridgo
strttclure and measures .5D in length and 50Oft in width (25DR from each side ufthe SR 1395 center -line).
SUM111"Y OF CULTURAL RESOURCES RLVILEW
Brief descripilon of review aelivh1 ar, mutts of review, and enrreffisions.
Permitting and Funding information was reviewed For determinrig the level pf archaeological input required by
state and Fed era] laws. Based on the submitted '"request for cultural resources review" form, the project Is
federally -funded with federal permit Interaction. As such. Section 106 of the National Historic preservation Act will
apply and the federu[ Highway AdrnInistrattan (FHwA) wl11 serve as the lead federal agency. Next, construction
design and other data was ekamined (when applicable) to define the character and extant of potential impacts to
the ground surfaces embracing the project locale, In this case, the APE was designed to capture any federal permit
area or any areas of potential ground disturbingactMty.
Once an API: was outlined, a map review and site file search was conducted at the Office of state Archaeology
(OSA) on Wednesday, January z4, 2018. No previously decumented archaeological sites are located in the APE: cr
directly adjacent.
Examinatlon of NationaI Register of Historic Places INAAP), State Study Listed (5L), locally Designated (LID),
Determined Eliglble (DE), and Surveyed Site (SS) properties employing resources availahIe on the NCSHPO webslte
is crucial In establishing the Ineatian of noteworthy historic occupations {elated to a perspective construction
impact area. A cross-check of these mapped resources roncluded that ne meaningful historic properties with
possible contributing archaeological elements were located inward of the archaeological APE margins. In addlHon,
historic maps of Madison County were appraised to ldentlfy farmer structure Iocatinns, land use patterns, or other
confirimation of historic occupation In the project vicinity. Archaeological f historical reference materials were
Inspected as well. In general, the cultural background re►riew established that. no N R H P listed properties, prevlouafy
recorded archaeological sites, or cemeteries are located within the APE.
Further, topographic, geologic, flood boundary, and MRCS soil survey maps (ArF, TO, BnF) were referenced to
evaluate pedeological, geomurphoiogical, hydrological, and other environmental determinants that may have
resulted in past occupation at this location. Aerial and ara-ground phetagraphs (NCDOT Spatial Data Viewer) and
the Goggle Street View reap appilcat;ion (when amenable) were a[so examinedf utilized For additinnal assess rne„t
at disturbances, both natural and human induced, which compromise the integrity of archaeological sites.
EnvironmentaIli mpatt ractors do not suggest a heighten ad potential ror archaeological nmxroe recovery.
nro axex r atrr sr oar sErrr�xr�r3'J do a+ Qael"W roeavfs
t nf2

DocuSign Envelope ID: DF80781 E-EOOC-4552-B7BD-BC4D5007DF5E
17-12-0069
Brief Erplanrrtioa of wiry the available hiforwatian provides a reliable haNis for reiasonably predicting
that there are no anident j%d historic properties in tie APE:
No documented cultural rewurces are contained wlthi n the curnentAPE limits for the SR 1395/Bridge 7I
replacement project in Madison County, North Carolina. The majority of the APE is characterlaed as sloping with 50
to 95 percent slopes and very bovIdery soil. In such contexts, Intact NRHP afchaeologkal sites are unI1kelyto be
present or pre5erved. No further conw ka#Ion 1s advocated. A finding of 'no archaeological survey required" is
considered appropriate.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attaAed; Maps) M Previous Survey 111ro ❑Photos ❑Correspondence
❑ Photocopy of County Survey Notes Other.
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST
ND ARCHAEOLGGYSURVEY REOUIRRD
r
"hn ARr llA2dC1f i3r:? SZlRPFE'RF(�UfR6D"fanoalvrrka�lare+vd rl s �nr i?Msporrduap Frwws oa ¢umrrjladw die 3PI3 Pr u ie rtgrrrmeuu,
2 orz

DocuSign Envelope ID: DF80781 E-EOOC-4552-B7BD-BC4D5007DF5E
Fvjsr! T-liv No. {-W—f off)
17-12-00
HISTORIC ARC1E TCTECTURE AND LANDSCAPES
NO HISTORIC PROPERTIES PRESENT OR AFFECTED FORM
T)LW form only pertains to Historic Architecture and Landscapes For this project. It
is not valid for Archaeological Resources. You roust consult separately with the
Archaeology Group.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project NO:
B-5989
County:
Madisan
WBS Mo.:
44593.I.1
Document
CE
Fed. Aid o;
Funding.
State Federal
Federal
Perrraait s :
Yes NO
Perrrrix
7 e(s) ;
USACl?
Froiect Descripriorg :
Replace Bridge No 71 on SR 1395 over Big Laurel Creck.
SUMMARY OF HISTORIC ARCHICTECTURE AND LANDSCAPES REVIEW
❑ There are no National Register -listed or StudyUsted properties within the project's area of
potential effects.
ED 'There are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criteria
Consideration G within the project'-.; area of potential effects.
❑ There are no properties within the project's area cf potential effects,
® There are prapertiea over fifty years old within the area of'potential XecLs, but they do not
meet the Lriteria for Iisting on the National Register.
There are no historic properties present or affected by this project. (Attach any notes or
documents as needed.)
Uate.of field visit, n{a
Desrri fion of review ae vi es results and eonclusio=.`
Review of HPO quad maps, relevant background reports, historic dusigmttons roster, and indexes was
undertaken an April 20, 2018. Based on this review the Area efPotential Esffccts (APE) the bridge itself
is a surveyod site. This bridge was not included in the 2005 Historic Bridge Stn-vey. Built in N65,
Madison Couttty Bridge No. 71 does not exemplify any distinctive en&effing or nosthetic type
and is not eligible for the Natimial Register of Historic Plaoes. There are no other properties over
50 years cf age but none of the rise to the 1eve1 of signiflcarice that would make them eligible for
National register listing. No historic properties wi11 be affected by the project.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
N aps} ❑Previous Survey Info. ®Photos ❑Corrmpafidence ❑Desiga Plans
ll.rro�k,l�rl�i h��n�l ,Lr. xi.rVLJWS10R1CPR0PF477FyKP9h4F7'0AAk7ECT9DfarmJbeMiwPriraraparmjimPrajeemray si{fierJis+kc1+i1J7
I1+rOgrY7AlNf" Agremww.
Page I of 3

DocuSign Envelope ID: DF80781 E-EOOC-4552-B7BD-BC4D5007DF5E
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN
Historic Architecture and Landscapes — NO IM70RIC PROMRTIES YRESF24T 08 A['FECTED
w
NCDOT Architectural Historian
�1is+wiF,!r7frrrrvti o�1l.rrare. res vo TmnrpuMwlwl ly'rcLw4rua lij ekr7007
AW10*tlreffC Agr& IOlA
Page 2 of

DocuSign Envelope ID: DF8O781 E-EOOC-4552-B7BD-BC4D5OO7DF5E
Madison BCtd$c No 7 I
�firhorlc,fr'ekrtr�4�rr � f f.erir�on�p�r NO ffA71f7J�fC PRQJ"15Ai1�4 PVJs�5irhri'!]IR A FFFr7 7Df4r'mIOr MO,- 74r 2007
PfWm i "mWc Agreow n?
Page 3 of 3

DocuSign Envelope ID: DF80781 E-EOOC-4552-B7BD-BC4D5007DF5E
y ' '1•1r � I r 5��
i
L � _
4
AI
MADISON _
0 U NTY
i
�:.
r
USGS Two Quad - White Fuck
B-5989

Tribal
Coordination

Cbtawba Indian Nation
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
1536 Tom Steven Road
Rock Hill, South CarolIrna 29730
Office 803-328-2427
Fax [phone]
November 1, 2019
Attention C2VId Stu#ts
NCDDT
1581 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
Re THPO 4 Taus V Project DowrFp4on
Replacement o' Budge 580471 on S.R. 1395 (44akam Creak Road) over Big Laurel Greer Irr
2020-193-2 Buncombe County as project a-5989
Dear Mr. Stutts,
The Catawba have, no immediate cvncems with regard to traditional cuitural properties,
sacred sites or Native American archaeological sites within the boundaries of the
proposed project areas. However, the Catawba are to be notified if Nataive American
artifacts and 1 or human remains are located during the grourid disturbance phase
of this project.
It you have questions please contact Caitlin Rogers at B03-326-2427 ext. 226, or e-rraii
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
VllenoraM G. Haire
T
Tribal H;stork Preservation Offcer

Office of the Chief
CWY.B D3P Chuck Hoskin Jr.
CHERoKEE NATioN° PHncipal Chief
Bryan Warner
P.U. Box 948 • Tahlequah, OK 74455-0948 Depiso, Principal Chief
918-453-5000 • www.chenokee.ora
November 19, 2019
David Stutts
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Structures Management Unit
1581 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
Re: Project B-5989, Bridge 560071 Replacement
Mr. David Stutts:
The Cherokee Nation (Nation) is in receipt of your correspondence about Project B-5989, Bridge
560071 Replacement, and appreciates the opportunity to provide comment upon this project.
Please allow this letter to serve as the Nation's interest in acting as a consulting party to this
proposed project.
The Nation maintains databases and records of cultural, historic, and pre -historic resources in this
area. Our Historic Preservation Office reviewed this project, cross referenced the project's legal
description against our information, and found no instances where this project intersects or adjoins
such resources. Thus, the Nation does not foresee this project imparting impacts to Cherokee
cultural resources at this time.
However, the Nation requests that the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
halt all project activities immediately and re -contact our Offices for further consultation if items
of cultural significance are discovered during the course of this project.
Additionally, the Nation requests that NCDOT conduct appropriate inquiries with other pertinent
Tribal and Historic Preservation Offices regarding historic and prehistoric resources not included
in the Nation's databases or records.
If you require additional information or have any questions, please contact me at your convenience.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Wado,
Elizabeth Toombs, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Cherokee Nation Tribal Historic Preservation Office
[e-mail]
918.453.5389

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Roy COOPER
GOVERNOR
October 3, 2019
Ms. Eldine Stevens
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians
PO Box 1245
Tahlequah, OK 74465
Dear Ms. Stevens,
JAnIES H. TRomom III
SECRETARY
The North Carolina Department of Transportation is starting the project development, environmental, and
engineering studies for the replacement of Bridge 560071 on S.R. 1395 (Walnut Creek Road) over Big
Laurel Creek in Buncombe County as project B-5989.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is the lead federal agency and a Permit is anticipated
under the Section 404 Process with the USACE.
The project vicinity map is attached.
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful in evaluating potential
environmental impacts of the project including recommendation of alternates to be studied. Your
comments may be used in the preparation of the NEPA Environmental Document, in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act.
Please respond by November 1st so that your comments can be used in the scoping of this project. If you
have any questions concerning this project, or would like any additional information, please contact me at
dstuttskncdot.gov or [phone].
Thank you,
DocuSigned by:
A4A2999A8BC64F2...
David Stuffs, P.E.
NCDOT Project Engineer — PEF/Program Management
cc: Matt Wilkerson — NCDOT Archaeology Team Leader
George Hoops, P.E. — FHWA, Non -Merger NCDOT Divisions 13 &14
Mailing Address: Telephone: [phone] Location:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1000 BIRCH RIDGE DRIVE
STRUCTURES MANAGEMENT UNIT Customer Service: 1-877-368-4968 RALEIGH NC 27610
1581 MAIL SERVICE CENTER Website: www.ncdot.gov
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598

r:
4
4i
Project Location
U
t
<r
4
r
r
0 0.5 1
Miles
Oel.
�. �}ilRti9trLf
v�
GF NORTH Cy VICINITY MAP County: MADISON
an REPLACE BRIDGE 71
y v NORTH NA ON SR 1395 WALNUT CREEK RD Div: 13 STIP# B-5989 Figure
DEPARTMMENTENT
'
o OF TRANSPORTATION OVER BIG LAUREL CREEK ms: 47845.1.1
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
'OF TRPH'Qop MADISON COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA Date: OCTOBER 2019

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Roy COOPER J. ERIC BOYETTE
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
September 27, 2022
Russell Townsend
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
2077 Governors Island Road
Bryson City, NC 28713
Dear Mr. Townsend,
The North Carolina Department of Transportation is developing the engineering studies for the proposed
replacement of Bridge 71 on Walnut Creek Road (SR 1395) over Big Laurel Creek in Madison County.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is the lead federal agency for compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and
a Permit is anticipated under the Section 404 Process with the USACE. A project vicinity map and
archaeological survey report is attached.
The coordinates of this project are approximately: 35.910547,-82.64853
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful in evaluating potential
environmental impacts of the project.
In accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA, we also request that you inform us of any historic properties
of traditional religious or cultural importance that you are aware of that may be affected by the proposed
project. Be assured that, in accordance with confidentiality and disclosure stipulations in Section 304 of the
NHPA, we will maintain strict confidentiality about certain types of information regarding historic
properties.
Please respond by October 27, 2022, so that your comments can be used in the evaluation of this project. If
you have any questions concerning this project, or would like any additional information, please contact
me at ekcheely�ncdot.gov or [phone].
Sincerely,
Michael A. Turchy
Environmental Coordination and Permitting Group Leader
ec:
Matt Wilkerson, NCDOT Archaeology Team Leader
Lori Beckwith, USACE Project Manager
Mailing Address:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Telephone: [phone]
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS UNIT Customer Service: 1-877-368-4968
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598 Website: www.nedot.gov
Location:
1000 BIRCH RIDGE DRIVE
RALEIGH NC 27610

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Roy COOPER
GOVERNOR
September 27, 2022
LeeAnne Wendt
PO Box 580
Okmulgee, OK 74447
Dear Ms. Wendt,
J. ERIC BOYETTE
SECRETARY
The North Carolina Department of Transportation is developing the engineering studies for the proposed
replacement of Bridge 71 on Walnut Creek Road (SR 1395) over Big Laurel Creek in Madison County.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is the lead federal agency for compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and
a Permit is anticipated under the Section 404 Process with the USACE. A project vicinity map and
archaeological survey report is attached.
The coordinates of this project are approximately: 35.910547,-82.64853
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful in evaluating potential
environmental impacts of the project.
In accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA, we also request that you inform us of any historic properties
of traditional religious or cultural importance that you are aware of that may be affected by the proposed
project. Be assured that, in accordance with confidentiality and disclosure stipulations in Section 304 of the
NHPA, we will maintain strict confidentiality about certain types of information regarding historic
properties.
Please respond by October 27, 2022, so that your comments can be used in the evaluation of this project. If
you have any questions concerning this project, or would like any additional information, please contact
me at [e-mail] or [phone].
Sincerely,
Michael A. Turchy
Environmental Coordination and Permitting Group Leader
ec:
Matt Wilkerson, NCDOT Archaeology Team Leader
Lori Beckwith, USACE Project Manager
Mailing Address:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Telephone: [phone]
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS UNIT Customer Service: 1-877-368-4968
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598 Website: www.nedot.gov
Location:
1000 BIRCH RIDGE DRIVE
RALEIGH NC 27610

DocuSign Envelope ID: DF80781 E-EOOC-4552-B7BD-BC4D5007DF5E
rt
o
t �
a i
a �
Project Location
S �
v
J
ft-.,
R ..Hrw#".
a
01
0 0.5 1g
9s
Miles Y
wr
°�NORreca VICINITY MAP County: MADISON
'O REPLACE BRIDGE 71
`q NORTH NA ON SR 1395 WALNUT CREEK RD Div: 13 STIP# B-5989 Figure
DEPARTMMENTENT
'
o OF TRANSPORTATION OVER BIG LAUREL CREEK
'v tiT DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS WBS: 47845.1.1
9p�F�r OF 7RA�SQ�P MADISON COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA Date: NOVEMBER 2019
a
a
a
44

DocuSign Envelope ID: DF80781 E-EOOC-4552-B7BD-BC4D5007DF5E
l-12-O069
pQ NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED FORM
` This furm unly pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this project. It is not
valid fur Historic Architecture and I.andsrapes. You must consult separately with the
° Historic Architecture and Landscapcs Group. $µ
]PROJECT INFORMATION
Project Na:
WRS No:
F-A. Arm
B-5989
44593.1.1
Federal Permit Required?
county: Madison
l]mu uonenf: Federal CF
Funding: ® State ❑ Federal
® Yes ❑ No Pemif T}pe: USACE
ProJwfDesc,r1p1km. Replacemcnt of Bridge No. 71 over Big Laurel Crmk con SR 1395 in Madiscii
County, North Care lina. 'Me arcllaealiagical Area of Potential Effects (APE) is centuTed on the bridgo
structure and rnettsures .50 in length and 500ff in width (250A fwm each side ufthe SR 1395 center -line).
SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES RLEYIEVH
Brief desrripiion of mieiw adivh1m results of review, exd eanelusions:
Permitting and funding informat ian was reviewed far determin ins the ievel of archaeological input required by
state and fed era! laws. Based on the submitted '"request for cultural resources review" farm, the protect IS
federally -funded with federal permit Interact!on. As such. Section 106 of the National Historic Preseraadon Act will
apply and the Federal Highway AdrnI nlstrattun (FHwA4 wl11 serve as the lead federal agency, Next, construction
design and other data was ekamine€1 (when applicable) to defrne the character and extent of potential impacts to
the ground surfaces embracing the project locale, In this case, the APE was designed to capture any federal permit
area or any areas of potential ground disturbirtgaictMty.
Once an APE was outlined, a map mwiew and site fle sea rch was conducted at the Office of State Archaeology
(OSA) ort Wednesday, January z4, 2018. No prevlously documented archaeological sites are located in the APE: or
directly adjacent.
Examination of National Register of Historic Places INPAPj, State Study Listed (5L), locally Designated (Lo),
Detetmined Elialble (DE), and Surveyed Site (S5) properties employing resources availahIe on the NCSHPO website
is crucial In rsstablishing the location of nateworthV historic occupations related to a perspective construction
impact area. A cross-check of these mapped resources runduded that no meaningful historic properties With
possible contributing archaeological elements were located inward of the archaeological APE rnargins. In addition,
historic maps of Madison County were appraised to tdentlfy former structure locations, land use patterns, or other
confirmation of historic occupation In the project vicinity. Archaeological f historical reference materials were
Inspected as well. In general, the cultural background review established that no N R H P listed properties, previou*
recorded archaeological sites, or cemeteries are located within the APE.
Further, topographic, geologic, flood boundary, and MRCS soil survey maps (ArF, TO, QnF) were referenced to
evaluate pedleological, geamurphological, hydrological, and uther environmental determinants that may have
resulted in past occupation at this location. Aerial and orI-ground phetagraphs (NCDOT Spatial Data Viewer) and
the Goggle Street View map appilcaltion (when amenable) were also examinedjutilI?ed for additional assessment
of disturbances, both natural and human induced, whi:0 compromise the integrity or archaeological sites.
EnviranmentaVimpactfactors da not suggest a heightened potential for archaaologlcal resource recaveq.
"No ARCliAEE]lAGY SrJRi�F7 RI:"[N11Ri:13 " fn�a, fa+' a4c �7n�e�ade[fM7nor�inv�,�nrlarfrrrt P�ee18 G,, �wsf�jirdk� rheiPff N�'ud;�'a�wvrlc.yg�a�trtc�ri"
i rrf 2

DocuSign Envelope ID: DF80781 E-EOOC-4552-B7BD-BC4D5007DF5E
17-12-0069
Brief Explarrrrtiali of wiry lire rrailrrbk information provides a refidble himis, for reirsambly prerlicfirg
that there are no triride l kd hislorlc properoies In the APE:
Na ducumented cultural resourcesare contained w1thI n the current APE Ilmlts for the Sit I395f Bridge 71
replacement project in Madison County, Narth Carolina. The majority of the APE is characterlaed as sloping with 50
to 95 percent slopes and very bouldery soil. In such contexts, Intact NR14P archaeological sites are unllkelyto be
present or preserved. No further consukatlon Is advocated. A finding of 'no archaeological survey required" is
considered appropriate.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached mRpm M Previous Survey Info ❑ Photos ❑Correspondcuce
❑ gf:a#ncapy of County Survey Notes other:
FINDING BY NCII(YP ARCHAEOLOGIST
ND ARCIHAEDLGGYSURVEY REQUIZED
'm
NCDOT
"h+n ARi'llR6Y7li3�?' SZ.fHVT.• E' RE(�UfR6D"1arArlvr rke �f,�wad,.�d��n� 13wrsperrfr,aa� Frr�eus as �err�aim die 30I3 Pra�raev�e�ie.fgrarweuu,
� uf�

NEPA/SEPA
Document

DocuSign Envelope ID: DF80781 E-EOOC-4552-B7BD-BC4D5007DF5E
Type I and II Ground Disturbing Categorical Exclusion Action
Classification Form
STIP Project No.
WBS Element
B-5989
47845.1.1
Federal Project No. BRZ-1395(007)
A. Project Description:
NCDOT Project B-5989 proposes to replace Bridge No. 560071 on Walnut Creek Road
(S.R.1395) over Big Laurel Creek, adjacent to the T-intersection of Walnut Creek Road and
Big Laurel Road (S.R.1318) in Madison County, North Carolina (Figures 1 and 2). The
project will remove the existing bridge and replace it with a new bridge in its existing
location. In addition, wide outside paved shoulders are proposed along both sides of the
bridge (Figure 3).
Based on a preliminary design, the replacement structure will be approximately 130 feet
long providing a 30-foot clear deck width. The bridge will include two, 10-foot vehicular
lanes, a 6-foot shoulder on the west side and a 4-foot shoulder on the east side. The bridge
length is based on preliminary design information and is set by hydraulic requirements. The
roadway grade of the new structure will be raised by one to two feet in order to provide a
design that meets the project speed limit. The new grade works in conjunction with
designing the sag vertical curves on both approaches that are located off of the bridge
structure to ensure drainage does not pond on the bridge. The new structure provides a
deeper, 2-span concrete girder structure to replace an existing 3-span steel girder
structure.
Project construction will extend approximately 400 feet from the south end of the new
bridge along Walnut Creek Road, approximately 270 feet from the north end of the new
bridge along Big Laurel Road toward Lewis Branch Road, and approximately 200 feet from
the north end of the new bridge on Big Laurel Road toward Buckner Branch Road. The
approaches will be widened to provide two, 10-foot vehicular lanes and 3-foot shoulders on
both sides (seven -foot shoulders where guardrail is included). The roadway will be
designed as a Minor Collector using Sub -Regional Tier Guidelines with a 40 mile per hour
design speed. An approximately 140-foot long retaining wall is proposed along the east
side of Big Laurel Road, beginning at the northern edge of the new bridge, in order to avoid
impacts to Big Laurel Baptist Church's shelter and baptismal pool as much as possible
(Figure 3).
The replacement bridge will be constructed using a temporary detour bridge located west
(downstream) of the existing bridge. Traffic will utilize this temporary, alternating, single
lane, on -site detour bridge with signal control during the construction period.
B. Description of Need and Purpose:
The purpose of the proposed project is to replace a structurally deficient bridge. NCDOT
Structures Management Unit records indicate Bridge No. 560071 currently has a sufficiency
rating of 33.84 out of a possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered
Updated 4/25/17

DocuSign Envelope ID: DF80781 E-EOOC-4552-B7BD-BC4D5007DF5E
structurally deficient due to a substructure condition appraisal of 4 out of 9 according to
Federal Highway Administration standards.
C. Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
❑X TYPE IA
D. Proposed Improvements
28. Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of grade
separation to replace existing at -grade railroad crossings, if the actions meet the
constraints in 23 CFR 771.117(e)(1-6).
E. Special Project Information:
Estimated Traffic:
Current Year (2015) 700 vehicles per day (vpd)
Future Year (2040) 900 vpd
Tractor -Trailer Semi -truck (TTST) 1 %
Dual Axle Trucks (Dual) 2%
Alternatives Evaluation:
Replace Bridge No. 560071 In -Place with a New Bridge using an On -site Detour
(Recommended) — A temporary, single lane detour bridge with signal control will be
constructed downstream (west of the existing bridge) to provide an on -site detour during
the construction period. The new bridge will be constructed on existing alignment.
No Build — The no build alternative would result in eventually closing the road, which is
unacceptable given the volume of traffic served by Walnut Creek Road.
Rehabilitation — The bridge was constructed in 1965 and is reaching the end of its
useful life. Rehabilitation would only provide a temporary solution to the structural
deficiency of the bridge.
Offsite Detour - An off -site detour was not evaluated due to the length (21 miles) of the
closest available off -site detour.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Accommodations:
Although no bicycle route markers or facilities were observed within the project area, the
Madison County Comprehensive Transportation Plan (2012) lists Big Laurel Road in their
inventory of existing on -road bicycle facilities and the Land of Sky RPO Blue Ridge Bike
Plan (2013) lists this corridor as an "Other Bicycle Corridor." No pedestrian facilities are
present within the project area.
The new bridge will accommodate cyclists on paved shoulders and shall be in compliance
with the NCDOT Complete Streets Policy, as adopted August 30, 2019. The design
includes two 10-foot lanes with a 4-foot paved shoulder on the east side and a 6-foot
paved shoulder on the west side. Bicycle -safe, 42-inch vertical concrete barrier rails will
also be included.
2 Updated 4/25/17

DocuSign Envelope ID: DF80781 E-EOOC-4552-B7BD-BC4D5007DF5E
Natural Resources:
Three potential jurisdictional streams (Big Laurel Creek, a perennial tributary [Stream SA],
and an intermittent tributary [Stream SC]) may be impacted by the project based on
preliminary design (using slope stake limits plus 25 feet) (Figure 2). The proposed bridge
replacement will potentially impact approximately 87 linear feet of Big Laurel Creek, as
well as approximately 46 linear feet of Stream SA and 66 linear feet of Stream SC. No
wetland impacts are anticipated. A Nationwide Permit (NWP) will likely be applicable for
the project. The USACE holds the final discretion as to what permit may be required to
authorize project construction. If a Section 404 permit is required, then a Section 401
Water Quality Certification (WQC) from the NCDWR will also be needed. Final impact
determinations will be made during the permitting phase of the project.
Tribal Territory:
A start of study letter was sent to the EBCI Tribal Historic Preservation Office on August 8,
2018, providing information about the project and requesting comments. A project
notification and request for comment was mailed to the Catawba Indian Nation on October
3, 2019 and was emailed to the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians and
Cherokee Nation by NCDOT SMU staff on October 21, 2019. Catawba Indian Nation and
Cherokee Nation responded that they have no immediate concerns, but that they should
be notified if Native American artifacts and/or human remains are located during the
ground disturbing phase of the project. No comments have been received to date from
EBCI or United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indian Nation.
Estimated Costs:
The proposed project is included in the NCDOT State Bridge Program. Right of way
acquisition and construction are scheduled for Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 and FY 2021,
respectively. Current cost estimates, based on 2019 prices, are as follows:
Right of Way: $ 12,704
Utilities: $ 17,520
Construction $ 2,550,000
Total: $ 2,580,224
Design Exceptions: None
Public Involvement:
A landowner letter was sent to all property owners affected directly by this project.
Property owners were invited to comment. No comments have been received to date.
Additionally, a small group meeting was held with Big Laurel Baptist Church on June 4,
2019. This meeting was attended by Big Laurel Baptist Church staff, NCDOT's consultant
project team members from Summit and Three Oaks Engineering, and NCDOT Division
13 staff. The purpose of this meeting was to review the project designs and schedule with
the church and discuss project impacts to the church's property and operations. The
meeting participants agreed that NCDOT Division 13 staff will coordinate with Big Laurel
Baptist Church and the project's contractor prior to construction, in order to address public
access restrictions to the church's property and parking lot (possibly using moveable
barriers) due to the proposed location of the temporary signals. A summary of the
meeting's content can be found in the Appendix.
3 Updated 4/25/17

DocuSign Envelope ID: DF80781 E-EOOC-4552-B7BD-BC4D5007DF5E
F. Project Impact Criteria Checklists:
Type I & II - Ground Disturbing Actions
FHWA APPROVAL ACTIVITIES THRESHOLD CRITERIA
If any of questions 1-7 are marked "yes" then the CE will require FHWA approval.
Yes
No
1
Does the project require formal consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife
❑
Service (USFWS) or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)?
2
Does the project result in impacts subject to the conditions of the Bald and
❑
Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGPA)?
3
Does the project generate substantial controversy or public opposition, for any
❑
reason, following appropriate public involvement?
4
Does the project cause disproportionately high and adverse impacts relative to
❑
low-income and/or minority populations?
5
Does the project involve a residential or commercial displacement, or a
❑
substantial amount of right of way acquisition?
6
Does the project require an Individual Section 4(f) approval?
❑
❑x
Does the project include adverse effects that cannot be resolved with a
7
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) under Section 106 of the National Historic
❑
Preservation Act (NHPA) or have an adverse effect on a National Historic
Landmark (NHL)?
If any of questions 8 through 31 are marked "yes" then additional information will be required for those
questions in Section G.
Other Considerations
Yes
No
Does the project result in a finding of "may affect not likely to adversely affect"
8
for listed species, or designated critical habitat under Section 7 of the
❑x
❑
Endangered Species Act (ESA)?
9
Is the project located in anadromous fish spawning waters?
❑
❑x
Does the project impact waters classified as Outstanding Resource Water
10
(ORW), High Quality Water (HQW), Water Supply Watershed Critical Areas,
❑
303(d) listed impaired water bodies, buffer rules, or Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation (SAV)?
11
Does the project impact waters of the United States in any of the designated
❑
mountain trout streams?
12
Does the project require a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Individual
❑
0
Section 404 Permit?
13
Will the project require an easement from a Federal Energy Regulatory
❑
Commission (FERC) licensed facility?
14
Does the project include a Section 106 of the NHPA effects determination
❑
other than a no effect, including archaeological remains?
Updated 4/25/17

DocuSign Envelope ID: DF80781 E-EOOC-4552-B7BD-BC4D5007DF5E
Other Considerations (continued)
Yes
No
15
Does the project involve hazardous materials and/or landfills?
❑
❑x
Does the project require work encroaching and adversely affecting a
16
regulatory floodway or work affecting the base floodplain (100-year flood)
❑
elevations of a water course or lake, pursuant to Executive Order 11988 and
23 CFR 650 subpart A?
Is the project in a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) county and
❑
17
substantially affects the coastal zone and/or any Area of Environmental
Concern (AEC)?
18
Does the project require a U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) permit?
❑
0
19
Does the project involve construction activities in, across, or adjacent to a
❑
designated Wild and Scenic River present within the project area?
20
Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) resources?
❑
0
21
Does the project impact federal lands (e.g. U.S. Forest Service (USFS),
❑
USFWS, etc.) or Tribal Lands?
22
Does the project involve any changes in access control?
❑
0
23
Does the project have a permanent adverse effect on local traffic patterns or
❑
community cohesiveness?
24
Will maintenance of traffic cause substantial disruption?
❑
0
Is the project inconsistent with the STIP or the Metropolitan Planning
25
Organization's (MPO's) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) (where
❑
0
applicable)?
Does the project require the acquisition of lands under the protection of
Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act, the Federal Aid in Fish
26
Restoration Act, the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, Tennessee Valley
❑
Authority (TVA), or other unique areas or special lands that were acquired in
fee or easement with public -use money and have deed restrictions or
covenants on the property?
27
Does the project involve Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
❑
buyout properties under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program HMGP ?
28
Does the project include a de minimis or programmatic Section 4(f)?
❑
❑X
29
Is the project considered a Type I under the NCDOT's Noise Policy?
❑
❑x
30
Is there prime or important farmland soil impacted by this project as defined by
❑
0
the Farmland Protection Policy Act FPPA ?
31
Are there other issues that arose during the project development process that
❑
affected the project decision?
G. Additional Documentation as Required from Section F
Response to Question 8 — Biological Conclusions Unresolved:
The project to replace Bridge No. 560071 has been reviewed by NCDOT Biological Surveys
Group for effects on the northern long-eared bat (NLEB) and gray bat (MYGR).
As of May 4, 2015, NLEB is listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as
"Threatened" under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. As of December 12, 2018, NLEB is
5 Updated 4/25/17

DocuSign Envelope ID: DF80781 E-EOOC-4552-B7BD-BC4D5007DF5E
listed by USFWS as "current" in Madison County. According to the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program (NHP) Biotics Database, most recently updated October 2018, the nearest
NLEB hibernacula record is 17 miles east of the project (EO ID 34327) and no known NLEB
roost trees occur within 150 feet of the project area. EO 34327 represents Cooper's Site with
an observation in 1992 and 2014. NCDOT has also reviewed the USFWS Asheville Field office
website for consistency with NHP records. This project is located entirely outside of the red
highlighted areas (12-digit HUC) that the USFWS Asheville Field Office has determined to be
representative of an area that may require consultation. The closest 12 digit (060101080303)
red HUC is approximately 17 miles away (Upper Cane River). NCDOT has determined that the
proposed action does not require separate consultation on the grounds that the proposed
action is consistent with the final Section 4(d) rule, codified at 50 C.F.R. § 17.40(o) and
effective February 16, 2016. NCDOT may presume its determination is informed by best
available information and consider Section 7 responsibilities fulfilled for NLEB.
The MYGR is listed by USFWS as "Endangered" under the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
with known "current" occurrences in Madison County. NHP data indicate that the closest
known occurrence of MYGR is approximately 7 miles south of the project site (EO ID 36755).
EO 36755 represents an observation over the Hayes Run site (2017).
On June 12, 2018, NCDOT biologists assessed Bridge No. 560071 for potential northern long-
eared bat and/or gray bat habitat. Shallow vertical top sealed crevices suitable for roosting
were present on the structure. No caves or mines are located within the project footprint. No
evidence (bats, staining, and guano) of bats was observed. However, a biological conclusion
has not been reached and the determinations remain Unresolved. Final design, tree clearing
and percussive activities information will be provided in the permit application, as noted in the
project commitments.
Response to Question 10:
Big Laurel Creek and its tributaries within the project area are classified as an Outstanding
Resource Water (ORW). In accordance with 401 Water Quality Certification general
conditions, the NCDOT commits to implementing Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds.
Iable 3. Potential streams in the studs area
IMCDXNR
Best Usage
Bank
Bankfull
Depth
5ttram Dame
hasp ID
Index
G7assificalion
Heigbt
Ridth
Number
fr(it)(in)
BiCrLaurel
Big Laurel Creek
6-112
C; Tr, ORW
4-6
50-70
4-36
UT to Big Laurel
SA
6-112
C; Tr, ORW
3-4
4-6
M
Creek
UT to Big Laurel
SB
6-112
Q Tr ORW
1-3
3-6
M
Creek
UT to Big Laurel
SC
6-112
Q Tr ORW
1-2
34
M
Creek
Response to Question 11 — Construction Moratoria:
NCDWR identifies Big Laurel Creek as a trout water, and the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) identifies Big Laurel Creek as a hatchery
supported trout water. Therefore, an in -stream moratorium and required design practices are
anticipated for this project.
Response to Question 16 - Floodplain:
6 Updated 4/25/17

DocuSign Envelope ID: DF80781 E-EOOC-4552-B7BD-BC4D5007DF5E
This project involves construction activities on or adjacent to FEMA-regulated stream(s).
Therefore, the Division shall submit sealed as -built construction plans to the Hydraulics Unit
upon completion of project construction, certifying that the drainage structure(s) and roadway
embankment that are located within the 100-year floodplain were built as shown in the
construction plans, both horizontally and vertically.
The Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program (FMP) to
determine status of the project with regard to applicability of NCDOT'S Memorandum of
Agreement, or approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and subsequent
final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR).
7 Updated 4/25/17

Project Commitments
Madison County
Replace Bridge No. 560071 on Walnut
Creek Road (S.R.1395) over Big Laurel Creek
Federal Project No. BRZ-1395(007)
WBS No. 47845.1.1
TIP No. B-5989
FEMA Floodplains and Floodways (Division 13 Construction, NCDOT SMU)
• This project involves construction activities on or adjacent to FEMA-regulated stream(s).
Therefore, the Division shall submit sealed as -built construction plans to the Hydraulics
Unit upon completion of project construction, certifying that the drainage structure(s)
and roadway embankment that are located within the 100-year floodplain were built as
shown in the construction plans, both horizontally and vertically.
Floodplain Mapping Coordination (NCDOT Hydraulic Design Unit)
• The Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program (FMP), to
determine status of project with regard to applicability of NCDOT'S Memorandum of
Agreement, or approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and
subsequent final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR).
Outstanding Resource Water (NCDOT Division 13, Roadside Environmental Unit)
• Big Laurel Creek is located in a watershed designated as Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW). The NCDOT will implement Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds.
Construction Moratoria (NCDOT Division 13 Construction)
• The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) identifies Big Laurel
Creek as hatchery supported trout waters and has requested a moratorium prohibiting
in -stream work and land disturbance within the 25-foot trout buffer from January 1 to
April 15.
Northern long-eared bat and Gray bat (NCDOT Division 13)
• Final design, tree clearing, and percussive activities information will be provided in the
permit application, as noted in the project commitments.
• After completion of the project, the contract administrator for construction must submit
the actual amount of tree clearing reported in tenths of acres. This information should
be submitted to Chris Manley in the EAU Biological Surveys Group
(cdmanley(a)ncdot.gov).
Big Laurel Baptist Church (NCDOT Division 13)
• Due to the location of the temporary signals to be used, NCDOT Division 13 staff will,
prior to construction, coordinate with Big Laurel Baptist Church and the project's
contractor regarding general public access restrictions (in the form of moveable
barriers) to the church's property and parking lot.
B-5989 — Categorical Exclusion Page 1 of 1
December 2019

DocuSign Envelope ID: DF80781 E-EOOC-4552-B7BD-BC4D5007DF5E
Categorical Exclusion Approval
STIP Project No. B-5989
WBS Element
47845.1.1
Federal Project No. BRZ-1395(007)
Prepared By:
,—UocuSlgnad by_�
12/10/2019
Date
Rob y sse te, Transportation Planner
Three Oaks Engineering
Prepared For:
Structures Management Unit
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Reviewed By:
—Ut--Li ,3,gnatl by:
12/11/2019 �''L ✓�l,w `� . �t�WIS1 �l�
Date Philip S. Harris, III, PE
Environmental Analysis Unit Head
North Carolina Department of Transportation
If all of the threshold questions (1 through 7) of
❑X Approved Section F are answered "no," NCDOT approves this
Categorical Exclusion.
If any of the threshold questions (1 through 7) of
❑ Certified Section F are answered "yes," NCDOT certifies this
Categorical Exclusion.
-- C.v.:.u3, gneA by:
12/11/2019'��
Date Kevin Fischer, PE, Assistant State Structures Engineer
Structures Management Unit
North Carolina Department of Transportation
FHWA Approved: For Projects Certified by NCDOT (above), FHWA signature
required.
N/A
Date John F. Sullivan, III, PE, Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
9 Updated 4/25/17

DocuSign Envelope ID: DF80781 E-EOOC-4552-B7BD-BC4D5007DF5E
rt
o
t �
a i
a �
Project Location
S �
v
rkd
u
4?
*.
..f Hrw#".
01
0 0.5 1g
Miles Y
wr
°�NORreca VICINITY MAP County: MADISON
'O REPLACE BRIDGE 71
`q NORTH NA ON SR 1395 WALNUT CREEK RD Div: 13 STIP# B-5989 Figure
DEPARTMMENTENT
'
o OF TRANSPORTATION OVER BIG LAUREL CREEK
'v tiT DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS WBS: 47845.1.1
9p�F�r OF 7RA�SQ�P MADISON COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA Date: NOVEMBER 2019
a
a
a
44

DocuSign Envelope ID: DF80781 E-EOOC-4552-B7BD-BC4D5007DF5E
Legend
B-5989 Study Area
NCDOT Bridge
Existing Jurisdictional Stream
® Existing Jurisdictional Wetland
i
Parcel Boundary
Flood Hazard - FEMA
oil
Bridge No. 71
�i�ar.Jd�ra•+� .sir--j- -=�._�_zi ��
1'
0 125 250 500
• y Feet
ii
°�NORreca ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES MAP County: MADISON
'O REPLACE BRIDGE 71
`q NORTH NA ON SR 1395 WALNUT CREEK RD Div: 13 STIP# B-5989 Figure
DEPARTMMENTENT
o OF TRANSPORTATION OVER BIG LAUREL CREEK
'v tiT DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS WBS: 47845.1.1
9p�F�r OF 7RA�SQ�P MADISON COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA Date: NOVEMBER 2019

DocuSign Envelope ID: DF80781 E-EOOC-4552-B7BD-BC4D5007DF5E
Legend
Proposed Roadway Bridge
— Proposed Retaining Wall
— Proposed Guardrail
Proposed Edge of Travel
- Proposed Slopestake
Proposed Temporary Detour
Edge of Travel
Proposed Temporary Detour
Roadway Bridge
Existing Jurisdictional Stream
® Existing Jurisdictional Wetland
Existing Property Line
fK
SR 1318,(Big Laurel Rd)
F 90
w NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT
c o OF TRANSPORTATION
'v tiT DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
9p�F�r OF 7Rb��'QOP
IL
t.
G
PROJECT DESIGN MAP
REPLACE BRIDGE 71
ON SR 1395 (WALNUT CREEK RD)
OVER BIG LAUREL CREEK
MADISON COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
Od
0 75 150 300
Feet
County: MADISON
Div: 13 1 STIP# B-5989 Figure
WBS: 47845.1.1 3
Date: NOVEMBER 2019

CN
00
'CN
vlJ
W
NO
See Sheet I For Index of Sheets
See Sheet 1B For Conventional Symbols
See Sheet iC-1 For Survey Cootrol Sheet
v r1443
0`
PROJECT
SITE
1313
�.
11-4
1318
1323
1311
A
VICINITY MAP
THIS PROJECT IS NOT W
CLEARING ON THIS PRC
STATE OF NORTH CARO]L INA
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
MADISON COUNTY
LOCATION. BRIDGE NO. 71 ON SR 1395 (WALNUT CREEK RD)
OVER BIG LAUREL CREEK
TYPE OF WORK: GRADING, DRAINAGE, PAVING, RETAINING WALL
AND STRUCTURE.
65% (CFI) PLANS
TO WALNUT GAP
TO SR 1336 l
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
COMMUNITY
(BUCKNER
_y_ STA. 11+25.00
�
�
A
BRANCH RD.)
�\
END BRIDGE
STA. 14+75±
co
—DET—
BEGIN BRIDGE
�C
—DET— STA. 13+30—
/ O
> 7
,1O
END CONSTRUCTION
BEGIN TIP PROJECT B-5989
�
� �
—DET—
—Y— STA. 13+22.25
—L— STA. 11+50.00
i
�W Ni— SC 739
\END
TIP PROJECT B-5989
—L— STA. 19+50.00
BEGIN BRIDGE
END BRIDGE
—L— STA. 16+83.00
RETAINING
—L— STA. 15+53.00
WALL
INC®bfiPV.]E'➢'E P➢.ANS
GRAPHIC SCALES
DESIGN DATA
PROJECT LENGTH
s'e�red 01f1c" °r�,°a,,,�,�ap„�°
HYDRAULICS ENGINEER
So 25 0 50 loo
ADT 2015 = 700
Fw,l n
ADT 2040 = 900
K = 10 %
LENGTH ROADWAY PROJECT = 0.122 MILES
e
®�®wpe
PLANS
1018 sraam�an mrc�iF cnnoxs
'
D = 50 %
LENGTH STRUCTURES PROJECT = 0.030 MILES
ROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER
50 25 0 5o too
V = 40 MPH
' TTST =1% DUAL 2%
TOTAL LENGTH PROJECT = 0.152 MILES
RIGHT OF WAY DATE:
MARCH 20 2020
JAMES A. SPEER PE
PR �EcrExcxExx
�
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
NCDOT CONTACT. DAVID STUTTS, PE
rR,occr ��.a x�cex
10 5 0 10 20
FUNC CLASS =
MINOR COLLECTOR
SUB REGIONAL TIER
LETTING DATE:
MARCH 15 2021
BRANDON W. JOHNSON PE
ur 1 excixern
®`a Ta�aage
PROFILE (VERTICAL)

PARCEL INDEX
HaK��IL rv�. G9 x,o PG A A mEGOG�.,o aGH�iA,a� "'
s GHaxn raLrory Kow AIDK6 o.an N
x ° ° kow nex Dols ' RICHADRD DEANNROi
° G 08 zH PP z I.
Kow txea.ax o.ox4 PL 9 BOOK T PI
° OE �I66K6 DGaP' _��
x-L- POT SIG. 10400.00 Y}
DAVID THOMAS GRAZIANO
CN 559 PG 288
-L- PC Sta. 11477,66 I
mA -DE7- PC Sta. IO+OO.IXh
R TI
9\\ � 55^^J��OH3 MPRKEL-1
IT I K P'"DB q G 696 �, O
BEGIN PROJECT \ eo s+ GEore Q 9so oL R"' I oe CHURCH
S IN
G
INCIDENTAL MILLING woods&� ,�` e T \ Pc 2 z o
AT TIE-IN o L{ ve A �I
° MMr ems\ 6 ,1T
Ism E
-L- PCC St a 13+48b2
T Q o
-L- ta.l i; o'
/ INCIDENTAL MILLING
AT BEGIN GRADES K 2, "A
G111 TI
S SEE
OQ £ DE rO GrV.
_j a
A HOG E 919i
i2099.
RE
.m. _
X\
B GIN PPRO SLAB
/ - A/5+42./
CALVIn \ PA'"I \ ue 5P8 P
P BOOCK O m
s.
MA GENTRY
DB 2l G 88I
O
-Y- POT Sta. 10+00.00 3196
RICHARDGBEAN ROBERTS 9s.ss E
522 PG 57
-Y- PC St . 1I+78.39
Ro�K°RErA�N�NL BALL
-Y- PT Sta. 12453.15 -L-
� 4 In
MADISON COUNT
e 3, / OB "'PS259 Q
N 84' AR, E
-Y- PoT Sia. /3+32.47
-L- POT Sta. 17+10.75
gas ,
� Do No Ds, uae�
-CC Sta�9t49.25a'l A
� 33�
(' vENIS 08SHERRY51O
r/4.) B G 66
/Kist VOOS % /iriGz r E/ /SHERRY LEWIS
B 6 PG 2GA a G[ P y NB 5r9 n 66G
sza.65
INC®hfiPQ.]E'➢'E P Ms
Mo PLMHL
uMEBss nu slMMniuRES R[s COcaMRE[i[o
-L- AND -Y- PROFILES
DETAIL 4 1
is off \ o 0 or�u `�`• FAD CRADF P ., sm. s z see _ \ t L 51o.18t50A0 �eL°�
69 �- Lr
Kr To
v Ri
o e2o' Lz
� so s °
II �"- END RETAINING wnu 300o Kr
ALI L H*25o0 ryP° coo np-xo°
nn.
�E H:oM sraLAL. L IT
GHRSTOPXER WADDELL
OB B5555 PG 37
5
C URC ES N K 5 PG5r9
m HEGN RETAINING
oo MADSON COUNTY PLAT
BILL o.ao Kr . x65 PG 2%
rP.-L- I"G 20A
/L 5 PT Sta. 16+94.09 O4 °AID cn snELr
ti9 cos s -L- 51,
INCIDEN
-- AT TIE
I
Br
END APPROACH SLAB
-L- PC Sto. 17+80.43
-L- STA.16t93.84
-L-
-Y-
PI Sla 12463.24
Pl Sla 1542727
P/ Sta 18466.62
P/ SID 19476.89
PI Sta 12415,81
Al= 6'49'34.d'fL7)
p = 35'59'22.8'fL71 p = 28'26'57A'(LT)
p = 5'/4"496'2T1
p = 6'41'37.3'(LT)
uN .Ga
D = 3' 59' 33.9'
L = 17096'
D = Id 25' 02.7
L = 345.48'
D = 16' 51' 06.f
L = 168,82'
D = 9' 30' 00.0'
L = 5523'
D = 8' 57' 08.9'
L = 74.77'
T = 85.58'
T = 178,65'
T = 86J9'
T = 27,64'
T = 37.43'
R = 1,435A0'
R = 550.00'
R = 340.00'
R = 603.If
R = 640DO
SE = EXIST.
SE = 04
SE = EXIST
S£ = EXIST.
SE = 04
RO = 72'
DS = 3offm
RO = 80'
DS = 40mph

DocuSign Envelope ID: DF80781 E-EOOC-4552-B7BD-BC4D5007DF5E
l-12-O069
roQ af.. NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED FORM _
This furm only pertains W ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this prajact. It is not a'P�'
p 1 valid fur Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must com ult separately with the
Historic Architecture and Landscapes Group.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project Nv:
Wii ivo.,
F-A. No. -
B-5989
44593.1.1
Federal Permit Required'}
County Madison
Document: Federal CF
Funding: ® State ❑ Federal
® Yes ❑ No Permit Type: USACE
ProJwtZWcP1pdon. Replacement of Bridge No. 71 over Big Laurel Camk an SR 1395 in Madison
County, North Carolina. 'Ihe aeclaaeuliagical Area or Potential Effects (APE) is centered on the bridgo
strttclure and measures .5D in length and 50Oft in width (25DR from each side ufthe SR 1395 center -line).
SUM111"Y OF CULTURAL RESOURCES RLVILEW
Brief descripilon of review aelivh1 ar, mutts of review, and enrreffisions.
Permitting and Funding information was reviewed For determinrig the level pf archaeological input required by
state and Fed era] laws. Based on the submitted '"request for cultural resources review" form, the project Is
federally -funded with federal permit Interaction. As such. Section 106 of the National Historic preservation Act will
apply and the federu[ Highway AdrnInistrattan (FHwA) wl11 serve as the lead federal agency. Next, construction
design and other data was ekamined (when applicable) to define the character and extant of potential impacts to
the ground surfaces embracing the project locale, In this case, the APE was designed to capture any federal permit
area or any areas of potential ground disturbingactMty.
Once an API: was outlined, a map review and site file search was conducted at the Office of state Archaeology
(OSA) on Wednesday, January z4, 2018. No previously decumented archaeological sites are located in the APE: cr
directly adjacent.
Examinatlon of NationaI Register of Historic Places INAAP), State Study Listed (5L), locally Designated (LID),
Determined Eliglble (DE), and Surveyed Site (SS) properties employing resources availahIe on the NCSHPO webslte
is crucial In establishing the Ineatian of noteworthy historic occupations {elated to a perspective construction
impact area. A cross-check of these mapped resources roncluded that ne meaningful historic properties with
possible contributing archaeological elements were located inward of the archaeological APE margins. In addlHon,
historic maps of Madison County were appraised to ldentlfy farmer structure Iocatinns, land use patterns, or other
confirimation of historic occupation In the project vicinity. Archaeological f historical reference materials were
Inspected as well. In general, the cultural background re►riew established that. no N R H P listed properties, prevlouafy
recorded archaeological sites, or cemeteries are located within the APE.
Further, topographic, geologic, flood boundary, and MRCS soil survey maps (ArF, TO, BnF) were referenced to
evaluate pedeological, geomurphoiogical, hydrological, and other environmental determinants that may have
resulted in past occupation at this location. Aerial and ara-ground phetagraphs (NCDOT Spatial Data Viewer) and
the Goggle Street View reap appilcat;ion (when amenable) were a[so examinedf utilized For additinnal assess rne„t
at disturbances, both natural and human induced, which compromise the integrity of archaeological sites.
EnvironmentaIli mpatt ractors do not suggest a heighten ad potential ror archaeological nmxroe recovery.
nro axex r atrr sr oar sErrr�xr�r3'J do a+ Qael"W roeavfs
t nf2

DocuSign Envelope ID: DF80781 E-EOOC-4552-B7BD-BC4D5007DF5E
17-12-0069
Brief Erplanrrtioa of wiry the available hiforwatian provides a reliable haNis for reiasonably predicting
that there are no anident j%d historic properties in tie APE:
No documented cultural rewurces are contained wlthi n the curnentAPE limits for the SR 1395/Bridge 7I
replacement project in Madison County, North Carolina. The majority of the APE is characterlaed as sloping with 50
to 95 percent slopes and very bovIdery soil. In such contexts, Intact NRHP afchaeologkal sites are unI1kelyto be
present or pre5erved. No further conw ka#Ion 1s advocated. A finding of 'no archaeological survey required" is
considered appropriate.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attaAed; Maps) M Previous Survey 111ro ❑Photos ❑Correspondence
❑ Photocopy of County Survey Notes Other.
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST
ND ARCHAEOLGGYSURVEY REOUIRRD
r
"hn ARr llA2dC1f i3r:? SZlRPFE'RF(�UfR6D"fanoalvrrka�lare+vd rl s �nr i?Msporrduap Frwws oa ¢umrrjladw die 3PI3 Pr u ie rtgrrrmeuu,
2 orz

DocuSign Envelope ID: DF80781 E-EOOC-4552-B7BD-BC4D5007DF5E
Fvjsr! T-liv No. {-W—f off)
17-12-00
HISTORIC ARC1E TCTECTURE AND LANDSCAPES
NO HISTORIC PROPERTIES PRESENT OR AFFECTED FORM
T)LW form only pertains to Historic Architecture and Landscapes For this project. It
is not valid for Archaeological Resources. You roust consult separately with the
Archaeology Group.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project NO:
B-5989
County:
Madisan
WBS Mo.:
44593.I.1
Document
CE
Fed. Aid o;
Funding.
State Federal
Federal
Perrraait s :
Yes NO
Perrrrix
7 e(s) ;
USACl?
Froiect Descripriorg :
Replace Bridge No 71 on SR 1395 over Big Laurel Creck.
SUMMARY OF HISTORIC ARCHICTECTURE AND LANDSCAPES REVIEW
❑ There are no National Register -listed or StudyUsted properties within the project's area of
potential effects.
ED 'There are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criteria
Consideration G within the project'-.; area of potential effects.
❑ There are no properties within the project's area cf potential effects,
® There are prapertiea over fifty years old within the area of'potential XecLs, but they do not
meet the Lriteria for Iisting on the National Register.
There are no historic properties present or affected by this project. (Attach any notes or
documents as needed.)
Uate.of field visit, n{a
Desrri fion of review ae vi es results and eonclusio=.`
Review of HPO quad maps, relevant background reports, historic dusigmttons roster, and indexes was
undertaken an April 20, 2018. Based on this review the Area efPotential Esffccts (APE) the bridge itself
is a surveyod site. This bridge was not included in the 2005 Historic Bridge Stn-vey. Built in N65,
Madison Couttty Bridge No. 71 does not exemplify any distinctive en&effing or nosthetic type
and is not eligible for the Natimial Register of Historic Plaoes. There are no other properties over
50 years cf age but none of the rise to the 1eve1 of signiflcarice that would make them eligible for
National register listing. No historic properties wi11 be affected by the project.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
N aps} ❑Previous Survey Info. ®Photos ❑Corrmpafidence ❑Desiga Plans
ll.rro�k,l�rl�i h��n�l ,Lr. xi.rVLJWS10R1CPR0PF477FyKP9h4F7'0AAk7ECT9DfarmJbeMiwPriraraparmjimPrajeemray si{fierJis+kc1+i1J7
I1+rOgrY7AlNf" Agremww.
Page I of 3

DocuSign Envelope ID: DF80781 E-EOOC-4552-B7BD-BC4D5007DF5E
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN
Historic Architecture and Landscapes — NO IM70RIC PROMRTIES YRESF24T 08 A['FECTED
w
NCDOT Architectural Historian
�1is+wiF,!r7frrrrvti o�1l.rrare. res vo TmnrpuMwlwl ly'rcLw4rua lij ekr7007
AW10*tlreffC Agr& IOlA
Page 2 of

DocuSign Envelope ID: DF8O781 E-EOOC-4552-B7BD-BC4D5OO7DF5E
Madison BCtd$c No 7 I
�firhorlc,fr'ekrtr�4�rr � f f.erir�on�p�r NO ffA71f7J�fC PRQJ"15Ai1�4 PVJs�5irhri'!]IR A FFFr7 7Df4r'mIOr MO,- 74r 2007
PfWm i "mWc Agreow n?
Page 3 of 3

DocuSign Envelope ID: DF80781 E-EOOC-4552-B7BD-BC4D5007DF5E
y ' '1•1r � I r 5��
i
L � _
4
AI
MADISON _
0 U NTY
i
�:.
r
USGS Two Quad - White Fuck
B-5989

DocuSign Envelope ID: DF80781 E-EOOC-4552-B7BD-BC4D5007DF5E
r
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Roy COOPER
GOVERNOR
Meeting Summary
.TAMES H. TROGDON, III
SECRETARY
Replace Bridge No. 560071 on SR 1395 (Walnut Creek Road) over Big Laurel Creek,
in Madison County, North Carolina, TIP No. B-5989
Date Prepared:
June 7, 2019
Meeting Date/Time/Place:
June 4, 2019; 4:00pm to 5:00pm; Big Laurel Baptist Church, 5805 Big Laurel Road,
Marshall, NC 28753
Meeting Purpose:
Small group meeting with Big Laurel Baptist Church to review the project designs and
schedule and discuss project impacts to the church's property and operations
Prepared By:
Robby Bessette, Three Oaks Engineering
Meeting Attendees:
Kellen Griffin
Big Laurel Baptist Church
kellen.griffin([e-mail]
Calvin Payne
Big Laurel Baptist Church
James Waldrouf
Big Laurel Baptist Church
rwaldrouf47([e-mail]
Mike Calloway
NCDOT Division 13
mkcalloway([e-mail]
Joel Davis
NCDOT Division 13
[e-mail]
James Speer
Summit
[e-mail]
Brandon Johnson
Summit
[e-mail]
Jason Patskoski
Summit
[e-mail]
Stuart Bourne
Summit
[e-mail]
Suzanne Young
Three Oaks Engineering
[e-mail]
Robby Bessette
Three Oaks Engineering
robby.bessette(@threeoaksen&ineerin&.com
Meeting Outline
Led primarily by James Speer (Summit), the meeting began with prayer and introductions of the project
team in attendance. James reviewed the project design sheets with church representatives and
described the project development process and next steps. The work zone is by nature a very tight area
with many constraints including the existing terrain and a creek that crosses the road at a very large
skew, the church facilities (buildings, retaining wall, septic system), and having part of the existing bridge
on an intersection. He provided background information on the project, including schedule and traffic
volumes, and presented the project typical (cross) sections and on -site, one -lane, signalized detour
plans. He and Stuart Bourne (Summit) discussed this detour and the temporary signal options for the
project. Throughout the majority of the meeting, the consultant and NCDOT Division project team
fielded questions from church staff and addressed their concerns. Jason Patskoski (Summit) and

DocuSign Envelope ID: DF80781 E-EOOC-4552-B7BD-BC4D5007DF5E
Brandon Johnson (Summit) concluded the meeting by discussing the flooding and hydraulic observations
of the area by the church representatives.
Project/Design Details
• Design year: 2040
• Design year traffic volumes: 900 vehicles per day
• Design speed limit: 40 miles per hour
• Project Schedule: Right -of -Way (ROW) date of March 2020, Let date of March 2021
o Construction contracts are typically awarded one month after the Let date with
construction for this project likely starting April or May 2021
• Proposed Typical Section: two, 10-ft. travel lanes with minimum 4-ft. offset/shoulders to
accommodate bicyclists
• Detour: on -site, one -lane, temporary detour bridge to be constructed just downstream (west) of
the existing bridge
Concerns/Questions raised by Big Laurel Baptist Church
• Length of the construction period
o With construction typically beginning one month after the project let date, the most
likely construction timeframe is one year. Restrictions related to a trout moratorium
prohibit in -water construction activity between October 15tn and April 15tn
Location of the temporary traffic signals
o The location of the three temporary signals was pointed out on the design plans. Four
proposals related to these temporary signals were presented to the church staff.• 1) use
of solar to power the signals (they remain functional through 30 days of no sun), 2) a
digital board at each signal that provides a timeframe to drivers of when their light will
next turn green, 3) a camera on top of the temporary signals to detect the presence of
cars which can be used to automatically provide a green light if the cameras detect that
only one signal has a waiting vehicle, and 4) an emergency vehicle button that will give
emergency service provides precedence over others when approaching the intersection.
■ Pastor Griffin was highly supportive of suggestions 2 and 3.
If the bridge will be replaced in the existing location or shifted
o The bridge will be replaced in the existing location, although the new structure will be
wider, and this widening will be to the west.
Project impacts to the church's baptismal
o A retaining wall will be used to avoid disturbing the structure of the baptismal and
covered shelter. Also pointed out was the note to the contractor on the project designs
to not disturb the church baptismal and shelter (as well as the church's existing rock
retaining wall and wood steps).
• How congregants will access the church property during construction and how to limit access by
the general public during construction (to shortcut the temporary signals)
o Church staff expressed concern over drivers' likely tendency to ignore or avoid
temporary signals. If the temporary signal is before the church's driveway, people may
attempt to bypass the signal by driving through the church's parking lot. Due to the
grade of the driveways and gravel surface, this may be both dangerous (potentially
harmful to individuals/drivers and a liability for the church) and detrimental to the
church's property.
2 l P a g e

DocuSign Envelope ID: DF80781 E-EOOC-4552-B7BD-BC4D5007DF5E
o Division staff suggested that the contractor can utilize barricades at the driveways of the
church during construction in order to restrict access to the church's property by the
public. These barricades will be temporary and easily moveable.
Are any changes to the existing retaining wall in front of the church necessary?
o Church staff described existing problems with the turning radius off of the bridge for
larger trucks.
o The project team will verify the curvature of the roadway near the existing retaining wall
is sufficient. Also pointed out was the note to the contractor on the project designs to
not disturb the church's existing stone wall (as well as the church's baptismal and wood
steps).
Will there be utility impacts to the overhead connection servicing the church's shelter and
baptismal area?
o The church plans to install a utility pole to hold this overhead utility line.
o Impacts to any utilities with be evaluated during final design.
Church and Area Information (provided/mentioned to the project team by church staff outside of the
concerns and questions above)
• Size of the congregation: average Sunday attendance of 60-80 people (30-50 vehicles), volumes
lower for Wednesday night services
• Occasional logging truck usage of the bridge and adjacent roadways
• Notable bicycle usage of the bridge and adjacent roadways
• Perception that the heaviest volume of traffic is traveling north over the bridge and turning west
onto Big Laurel Road
• Although the gravel parking area to the west of the bridge on the south side of Big Laurel Road is
often used by congregants during times of church services, parking for fishing in the area is a
likely use during other times.
• Flooding is frequently an issue in the low-lying field on the north side of Big Laurel Creek to the
west of the bridge, but water levels have never reached the bridge itself.
Next Steps/Action Items
• Three Oaks Engineering and the project team to include a green sheet commitment in the
project's Federal Categorical Exclusion (CE) about coordination between the Division and the
church prior to construction regarding general public access restrictions to their property and
parking lot
The project may have temporary impacts to logging truck movements across the temporary
detour bridge. The work zone area is by nature a very tight area with many constraints and
logging trucks may experience difficultly maneuvering through the work zone. Access will be
maintained in the work zone by using a temporary one lane detour with signal control. A
temporary one lane bridge will be located downstream from the existing bridge and is part of
the design for the on -site detour. The design team will make every reasonable effort in
producing a plan to maintain traffic through the work zone with respect to all constraints within
the project area. When the project is completed, improved mobility will be achieved with
improved turning radii for larger vehicle movements.
Cc:
Meeting attendees
Project File
3 l P a g e