20230422 Ver 1_05_R5808_AgencyResponces_20230321

Appendix 5
Section G (5 & 7)
Agency Correspondence

3/10/23, 12:22 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
IPaC U.S. Fish &Wildlife Service
IPaC resource list
This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical
habitat (collectively referred to as trust resources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
(USFWS)jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced
below. The list may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but
that could potentially be directly or indirectly affected by activities in the project area.
However, determining the likelihood and extent of effects a project may have on trust
resources typically requires gathering additional site-specific (e.g., vegetation/species
surveys) and project-specific (e.g., magnitude and timing of proposed activities) information.
Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for the
USFWS office(s) with jurisdiction in the defined project area. Please read the introduction to
each section that follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS Facilities, and NWI
Wetlands) for additional information applicable to the trust resources addressed in that
section.
Location
Gates and Pasquotank counties, North Carolina
( 5
y
5
5�
5
.t
Local office
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
t. [phone]
JJJ [phone]
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/TRWOMIKDFVG7VDV763XAVA5ASA/resources 1/12

3/10/23, 12:22 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
MAILING ADDRESS
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, INC 27636-3726
PHYSICAL ADDRESS
551 Pylon Drive, Suite F
Raleigh, INC 27606-1487
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/TRWOMIKDFVG7VDV763XAVA5ASA/resources 2/12

3/10/23, 12:22 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
Endangered species
This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis
of project level impacts.
The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each
species. Additional areas of influence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes
areas outside of the species range if the species could be indirectly affected by activities in
that area (e.g., placing a dam upstream of a fish population even if that fish does not occur at
the dam site, may indirectly impact the species by reducing or eliminating water flow
downstream). Because species can move, and site conditions can change, the species on this
list are not guaranteed to be found on or near the project area. To fully determine any
potential effects to species, additional site-specific and project-specific information is often
required.
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of the
Secretary information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be
present in the area of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted,
funded, or licensed by any Federal agency. A letter from the local office and a species list
which fulfills this requirement can only be obtained by requesting an official species list from
either the Regulatory Review section in IPaC (see directions below) or from the local field
office directly.
For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC
website and request an official species list by doing the following:
1 . Draw the project location and click CONTINUE.
2. Click DEFINE PROJECT.
3. Log in (if directed to do so).
4. Provide a name and description for your project.
5. Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST.
Listed speciesl and their critical habitats are managed by the Ecological Services Program of
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the fisheries division of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheries).
Species and critical habitats under the sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown
on this list. Please contact NOAA Fisheries for species under their jurisdiction.
1 . Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also
shows species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing status page for
more information. IPaC only shows species that are regulated by USFWS (see FAQ).
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/TRWOMIKDFVG7VDV763XAVA5ASA/resources 3/12

3/10/23, 12:22 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
2. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office
of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of
Commerce.
The following species are potentially affected by activities in this location:
Mammals
NAME STATUS
Northern Long-eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis Threatened
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9045
Tricolored Bat Perimyotis subflavus Proposed Endangered
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/10515
Birds
NAME STATUS
Red Knot Calidris canutus rufa Threatened
Wherever found
There is proposed critical habitat for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1864
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
Wherever found
Flo critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7614
Reptiles
NAME STATUS
American Alligator Alligator mississippiensis SAT
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/776
Insects
NAME STATUS
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/TRWOMIKDFVG7VDV763XAVA5ASA/resources 4/12

3/10/23, 12:22 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus Candidate
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Critical habitats
Potential effects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the
endangered species themselves.
There are no critical habitats at this location.
Migratory birds
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act! and the Bald and Golden
Eagle Protection Acts.
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to
migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and
consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described below.
1 . The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.
2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
Additional information can be found using the following links:
• Birds of Conservation Concern https://www.fws.gQv//program/migratory-birds/species
• Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds
https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take-
migratory-birds
• Nationwide conservation measures for birds
https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/nationwide-standard-conservation-
measures.pdf
The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the
USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your
project location. To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how
this list is generated, see the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may find in this
location, nor a guarantee that every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see
exact locations of where birders and the general public have sighted birds in and around
your project area, visit the E-bird data mapping tool (Tip: enter your location, desired date
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/TRWOMIKDFVG7VDV763XAVA5ASA/resources 5/12

3/10/23, 12:22 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
range and a species on your list). For projects that occur off the Atlantic Coast, additional
maps and models detailing the relative occurrence and abundance of bird species on your
list are available. Links to additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other
important information about your migratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and
use your migratory bird report, can be found below.
For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization
measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF
PRESENCE SUMMARY at the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be
present and breeding in your project area.
NAME BREEDING SEASON
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Breeds Sep 1 to Jul 31
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area,
but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential
susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of
development or activities.
Brown-headed Nuthatch Sitta pusilla Breeds Mar 1 to Jul 15
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular
Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA
Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor Breeds May 1 to Jul 31
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC)throughout its
range in the continental USA and Alaska.
Prothonotary Warbler Protonotaria citrea Breeds Apr 1 to jul 31
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC)throughout its
range in the continental USA and Alaska.
Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus Breeds May 10 to Sep 10
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC)throughout its
range in the continental USA and Alaska.
Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus Breeds elsewhere
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular
Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA
Probability of Presence Summary
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely
to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your
project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read and
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/TRWOMIKDFVG7VDV763XAVA5ASA/resources 6/12

3/10/23, 12:22 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
understand the FAQ "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before
using or attempting to interpret this report.
Probability of Presence ( )
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s)
your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-
week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey
effort (see below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One
can have higher confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also
high.
How is the probability of presence score calculated?The calculation is done in three steps:
1 . The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in
the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events
for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted
Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in
week 12 is 0.25.
2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of
presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum
probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of
presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence
at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of
presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2.
3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical
conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the
probability of presence score.
To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.
Breeding Season ( )
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds
across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your
project area.
Survey Effort (1)
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of
surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The
number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.
To see a bar's survey effort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.
No Data (—)
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.
Survey Timeframe
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/TRWOMIKDFVG7VDV763XAVA5ASA/resources 7/12

3/10/23, 12:22 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant
information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are
based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.
probability of presence breeding season I survey effort — no data
SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Bald Eagle
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
Nuthatch
Brown-headed ----
BCC- BCR
Prairie Warbler —
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Prothonotary __-- __-- __-.
Warbler HIM 111111111111 ---- --- -- - --
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Red-headed III II
Woodpecker
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Rusty Blackbird ____ ____ ____ __- _
BCC- BCR
Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory
birds.
Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all
birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds
are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the
locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure.
To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding in your project area, view the Probability of
Presence Summary. Additional measures or permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity
you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present on your project site.
What does IPaC use to generate the list of migratory birds that potentially occur in my specified
location?
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC)and other
species that may warrant special attention in your project location.
The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge
Network(AKN).The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science
datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/TRWOMIKDFVG7VDV763XAVA5ASA/resources 8/12

3/10/23, 12:22 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
cell(s)which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because
they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a
particular vulnerability to offshore activities or development.
Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area.
It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially
present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator(RAIL)Tool.
What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially
occurring in my specified location?
The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by
the Avian Knowledge Network(AKN)..This data is derived from a growing collection of survey., banding, and
citizen science datasets.
Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes
available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret
them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link.
How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering or migrating in my area?
To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering,
migrating or year-round), you may query your location using the RAIL Tool and look at the range maps
provided for birds in your area at the bottom of the profiles provided for each bird in your results. If a bird
on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your
project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If"Breeds
elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area.
What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:
1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC)that are of concern throughout their
range anywhere within the USA(including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin
Islands);
2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in
the continental USA; and
3. "Non-BCC-Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either
because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or(for non-eagles) potential susceptibilities in
offshore areas from certain types of development or activities (e.g. offshore energy development or
longline fishing).
Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made, in
particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of
rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and
minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics.
Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects
For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and
groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data
Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/TRWOMIKDFVG7VDV763XAVA5ASA/resources 9/12

3/10/23, 12:22 PM IPaC:Explore Location resources
you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird model results files underlying the portal
maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird
Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.
Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the
year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this information. For additional
information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study_and the nanotag studies or contact
Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring.
What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating
the Eagle Act should such impacts occur.
Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report
The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of
priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what
other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC use to generate the migratory
birds potentially occurring in my specified location". Please be aware this report provides the "probability
of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s)that overlap your project; not your exact project
footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look carefully at the survey effort(indicated by the black
vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator(a red horizontal bar). A high survey effort is
the key component. If the survey effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as
more dependable. In contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a
lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for
identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there,
and if they might be breeding(which means nests might be present).The list helps you know what to look
for to confirm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement conservation measures to
avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities, should presence be confirmed.To learn
more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell me about conservation measures I can implement
to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources
page.
Facilities
National Wildlife Refuge lands
Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must
undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the
individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns.
This location overlaps the following National Wildlife Refuge lands:
LAND ACRES
https:Hipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/TRWOMIKDFVG7VDV763XAVA5ASA/resources 10/12

3/10/23, 12:22 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
GREAT DISMAL SWAMP NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 113,985.4 acres
Fish hatcheries
There are no fish hatcheries at this location.
Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory
(NWI)
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.
For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local
Engineers District.
Wetland information is not available at this time
This can happen when the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map service is unavailable, or
for very large projects that intersect many wetland areas. Try again, or visit the NWI map to
view wetlands at this location.
Data limitations
The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level
information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of
high altitude imagery. Wetlands are identified based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A
margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on-the-ground inspection of any particular
site may result in revision of the wetland boundaries or classification established through image analysis.
The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image
analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth verification work
conducted. Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any
mapping problems.
Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or field work. There
may be occasional differences in polygon boundaries or classifications between the information depicted
on the map and the actual conditions on site.
Data exclusions
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/TRWOMIKDFVG7VDV763XAVA5ASA/resources 11/12

3/10/23, 12:22 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of
aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or
submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and
nearshore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef communities(coral or tuberficid worm reefs) have also
been excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial
imagery.
Data precautions
Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may define and describe
wetlands in a different manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or
products of this inventory, to define the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local
government or to establish the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies.
Persons intending to engage in activities involving modifications within or adjacent to wetland areas should
seek the advice of appropriate Federal, state, or local agencies concerning specified agency regulatory
programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may affect such activities.
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/TRWOMIKDFVG7VDV763XAVA5ASA/resources 12/12

-------------------------------------------------------
Catawba Indian Nation
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
1536 Tom Steven Road
Rock Hill,South Carolina 29730
Office 803-328-2427
Fax [phone]
April 8, 2021
Attention: Ryan Shook
NC Department of Transportation
113 Airport Drive, Suite 100
Edenton, NC 27932
Re. THPO# TCNS# Project Description
Improvements to US 158 from Acorn Hill Road to the Pasquotank County line in
2021-193-85 Gates County TIP Number R-5808
Dear Mr. Shook,
The Catawba have no immediate concerns with regard to traditional cultural properties,
sacred sites or Native American archaeological sites within the boundaries of the
proposed project areas. However, the Catawba are to be notified if Native American
artifacts and / or human remains are located during the ground disturbance phase
of this project.
If you have questions please contact Caitlin Rogers at 803-328-2427 ext. 226, or e-mail
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
cZ_Cf�t
Wenonah G. Haire
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

V. Q,
�B Nnv M.la�
QIMM VN
North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M.Bartos,Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper Office of Archives and History
Secretary Susi H.Hamilton Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
March 20, 2020
Kyle Barnes kyle.w.barnesgusace.army.mU
Washington Regulatory Field Office,
2407 West Fifth Street
Wake Forest,North Carolina 27587
Re: U.S. 158 improvements from Acorn Hill Road to the Pasquotank County Line in Gates County,
SAW-2018-01073, Gates County,ER 20-0513
Dear Mr. Barnes:
We have reviewed the above-referenced Public Notice and would like to comment. One archaeological site,
31 GA49,is a poorly delineated site located on the south side of U.S. 158 west of the Great Dismal Swamp
National Wildlife Refuge (GDSNWR). We are concerned that the site could be impacted by the undertaking.
We, therefore, recommend that an archaeological survey be conducted within the APE on property owned by
George Briggs (pin7928499504) to determine if archaeological resources eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places will be impacted. If significant archaeological resources are discovered, mitigation in
the form of additional data recovery may be needed.
We have determined that the project as proposed will not have an effect on any historic structures.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-814-6579 or
environmental.review(kncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project,please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
�3kamona Bartos,Deputy
State Historic Preservation Officer
cc: Paul Williams,North Carolina DOT,Division 1 pcwilliams cgncdot.gov
Matt Wilkerson,NCDOT mtwilkerson cgncdot.gov
Location:109 East Jones Street,Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address:4617 Mail Service Center,Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax:[phone]-6599

Project'I racking No.(Internal Use)
18-01-0051
a` t HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPES
NO SURVEY REQUIRED FORM
This form only pertains to Historic Architecture and Landscapes for this project. It
is not valid for Archaeological Resources. You must consult separately with the
Archaeology Group.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No: R-5808 County: Gates
WBS No.: 46972.1.1 Document
Type.-
Fed.Aid No: Funding: X State Federal
Federal X Yes No Permit USACE
Permits): Type(s):
Project Description: Improve US 158 from SR 1002 (Acorn Hill Road) to the Pasquotank
county line no off-site detourspecified in review request).
SUMMARY OF HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPES REVIEW
DESCRIPTION OF REVIEWACTIVITIES,RESULTS,AND CONCLUSIONS:HPOWeb reviewed on 29 January
2018 and yielded no NR, SL, DE, SS, or LID properties in the Area of Potential Effects (APE). Gates and
Pasquotank Counties current GIS mapping, aerial photography, and tax information indicated an APE of
mostly woodland and wetland with several residential and agricultural resources dating to the first half of
the twentieth century and the 2000s (viewed 29 January 2018). Pre-1970 resources are unexceptional
examples of their types. A circa-1900 house and its associated outbuildings stand approximately 975 feet
south of the US 158, screened by woodland and cultivated fields and beyond likely project impact(65
Acorn Hill Road, Parcel No. 600503). Google Maps"Street View"confirmed the absence of critical
architectural and landscape resources in the APE (viewed 29 January 2018).
No architectural survey is required for the project as currently defined.
WHY THE A VAILABLE INFORMATION PROVIDES A RELIABLE BASIS FOR REASONABLY PREDICTING THAT
THERE ARE NO UNIDENTIFIED SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL OR LANDSCAPE RESOURCES IN
THEPROJECTAREA: APE extends 200 feet from either end of the proposed four-mile project length (E-
W) and 100 feet to either side of the US 158 centerline (N-S)to encompass anticipated construction
activities. The comprehensive architectural surveys of Gates (1986-7) and Pasquotank(1984-5) Counties
and related publications, as well as later studies recorded no resources in the APE (Thomas Butchko, Forgotten
Gates: The Histonca/Architecture of Rural North Caro/Ina County(n.p.,Gates County Historical Society, 1991)and On the Shores
of the Pasquotank: The Architectural Heritage of Elizabeth City and Pasquotank County,North Carolina(Elizabeth City: Museum of
the Albemarle, 1989)). County GIS and other visuals illustrate the absence of significant architectural and
landscape resources in the APE. No National Register-listed properties are located within the APE.
Should the funding, permitting, or any aspect of the project design change,
lease notify NCDOT Historic Architecture as additional review may be necessary.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
X Map(s) ❑Previous Survey Info. ❑Photos ❑Correspondence ❑Design Plans
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN
Histo *c Architecture and Lan seapes --NO SURVEY REQUIRED
NCDOT Architectural Historian D to
Historic Archaeaure and Landscapes NO SURVEY REOUIRI;D form for Motor Transportation Proiecis as Oaaliijied in the 2007 Progrnnanalic Agreement.

dp
OAS �
DANIEL-S'R
e�
O /
r9�
158
\v
N
G1 Q
" ;\A
o \
i
Z z
p
1
Miles `,_
0 0.75 1.5 3 \
GATES
COUNTY
NORTH Og90 PROPOSED ALIGNMENT �" _j COUNTY BOUNDARY FIGURE 1: VICINITY MAP
H y M STUDY AREA CAMDEN COUNTY NCDOT PROJECT NO: R-5808
t7!1 GREAT DISMAL SWAMP GATES COUNTY U.S. ROUTE 158
STREAMS(NCDEQ) PASQUOTANK COUNTY ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
PERQUIMANS COUNTY GATES COUNTY
OF TRAN�'�
-D I 6051

Project Tracking No.
NO NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
0
IRS ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
PRESENT FORM to
*";
Wy This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this project.
It is not valid for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must consult
separately with the Historic Architecture and Landscapes Team.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No: R-5808 County Gates
WBS No: 46972.1.1 Document: MCC
F.A. No: n/a Funding: M State ❑ Federal
Federal Permit Required? 0 Yes F-1 No Permit Type: NVvT 3 /NWP 14
Project Description: Improve US 158 from SR 1002 to the Pasquotank County line in Gates
County, North Carolina. The archaeological Area of Potential Effects (APE) measures 4.0 miles
in length and 400ft in width (200 ft from each side of the US 158 center-line. Since there is no
archaeological site potential through the swamp, the survey will focus on the location of a
previously documented site situated near the southwestern project terminus.
SUMMARY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDINGS
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)Archaeology Team has reviewed
the subject project and determined:
There are no National Register listed ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES within the project's area
of potential effects. (Attach any notes or documents as needed.)
❑ No subsurface archaeological investigations were required for this project.
Subsurface investigations did not reveal the presence of any archaeological resources.
Subsurface investigations did not reveal the presence of any archaeological resources
considered eligible for the National Register.
❑ All identified archaeological sites located within the APE have been considered and all
compliance for archaeological resources with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and GS 121-12(a)has been completed for this project.
Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions:
Permitting and funding information was reviewed for determining the level of archaeological input
required by state and federal laws. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act will apply
because the project requires federal permitting. The United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) will serve as the lead federal agency. Next, construction design and other data was
examined (when applicable) to define the character and extent of potential impacts to the ground
surfaces embracing the improvement work. At this juncture, the APE was designed to capture all
areas of potential impact within the project study area. Because no archaeological survey was
necessary through the swamp margins of the project, the location of the previously recorded
archaeological site,which may fall within the federal permit area,was the focus of the archaeological
investigation. Yet,the entire project area was subject to both a windshield survey and selected walk-
overs in a good faith effort to re-locate a previously recorded site or any other archaeological
resources.
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"FORM
1 of

Project Tracking No.
nc�e an APE w—�eine , a map review situ e search Was conducted at the Office of State
Archaeology. One previously documented archaeological site (31GA49) is located adjacent to the
project study area and may extend into the APE.This prehistoric resource consists of a surface scatter
of Archaic lithic debitage and a few bifaces and projectile points in a landowner collection. 31 GA49
is assessed for National Register of Historic Places(NRHP) eligibility and found to be insignificant
and not eligible. However, the original assessment only accounted for surface finds and did not
include any subsurface testing. Also, the site form indicated that the location of the site was
unreliable. For these reasons, a revisit to the site is necessary. It is unclear if surface and subsurface
portions of the site extend into the presently defined APE. Therefore, an archaeological
reconnaissance or subsurface survey is recommended prior to construction in order to determine if
these sites are in the APE, and to determine the cultural components and significance, if any.
Next,the APE was referenced on topographic,geologic,flood boundary,lidar and NRCS soil survey
maps for the evaluation of environmental, geomorphological, hydrological, and other correlatives
that may have resulted in past occupation in the project corridor. Also, aerial photographs(NCDOT
Spatial Data Viewer & other on-line sources) were examined and the Google Street View map
application was utilized (when amenable) for gaining a virtual, first-hand perspective of the overall
study area and for assessing disturbances, both natural and human induced, which compromise the
integrity of archaeological sites/deposits.
31 GA49 is mapped adjacent to, and may extend into, the current APE limits. Since this resource's
NRHP eligibility is questionable, as is it's originally plotted location, an archaeological survey of
the APE is recommended prior to construction activities. All documented sites within the APE will
be evaluated for NRHP eligibility.
An archaeological survey of the project area and APE was completed on Wednesday, March 10,
2021. First, a windshield survey of the entire project corridor occurred in order to note
disturbances/impacts to the APE and project area, and decide where to place subsurface shovel test
pits relating to the reidentification of 31 GA49. Upon general location of the originally plotted
31 GA49, south and west of the Great Dismal Swamp, a thorough inspection of all APE ground
surfaces, as well as those areas adjacent to the APE, was completed. This included the original
location of 31GA49 and areas north, east, and west. Surface visibility was fair at best and judged to
be about 15% though there were a few larger areas (loft by loft) of 100% visibility in the fallo
soybean field. Absolutely no cultural artifacts were observed during the surface inspection of the
APE and those areas adjacent. The landowner informed us that he had found quartz projectile points
(2) in a garden located next to his house, at least 200ft south and east of 31 GA49's plotted location.
This information suggests that 31 GA49 was indeed plotted in the wrong location on the original site
form.
Subsurface shovel testing was conducted on a single transect established approximately 75ft south
of the US 158 center-line. The transect began at the western project terminus and extended east to
the Great Dismal Swamp. The first several test pit locations were situated in wet,poor soils and were
therefore not dug due to no potential for artifact recovery. In total, eight (8) shovel tests were
excavated along the transect,all at 30m(100ft)intervals from one another. Further,the transect was
located in a fallow soybean field. All excavated shovel test pits were dug to 45cmbs and revealed
relatively sandy and clayey sand deposits. The first three tests excavated were nearly identical in
terms of soil profiles. Layer one consisted of a 10YR3/2 loamy sand to 25-35cmbs atop a second
stratum of 10YR6/6 clayey sand to 40-45cmbs. The remaining five excavated shovel tests, located
on slightly higher ground, closer to the swamp margins, were also similar in soil profile. The first
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"FORM
2 of 3

Project Tracking No.
11.8 .01 -Oo
layer comprised 10YR5/3 sand to 35cmbs, followed by a second layer consisting of clayey sand to
45cmbs. No cultural artifacts or features were encountered during shovel testing of the 31 GA49 site
area.
(This project falls within a North Carolina County in which the following federally recognized tribes
have expressed an interest: Catawba Indian Nation. We recommend that you ensure that this
documentation is forwarded to these tribes using the process described in the current NCDOT Tribal
Protocol and PA Procedures Manual.)
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: ® Map(s) ❑ Previous Survey Info ❑ Photos ❑Correspondence
Other:
Signed:
SCOTT HALVORSEN 3/17/2021
NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST Date
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGRI,'EMEN7'ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"FORM
3 of3

Ret ground
shovel . . .
fieldEntire area surtace inspected for
�' �.,..,.--' ,`Sources: Esr,H RE,Garmin,USGS,Intermap,t «R M NT
NRCan, Esri Japa ETI,Esri China(Hong Kong), i Kore ,
E-sri(Thailan ) ACC,©OpenStreetMap contributors,and the
GIS User Co niAy Source:Esri,DigitalGiobe,GeoEye,
-`_ Earthstar Geograp ics,CNE}S/Airbus DS,USDA,USGS,
AeroGRID IGN a d the GIS User Commuunity
ARC-GIS aerial image relating the boundaries and location
of the archaeological APE and location of surveyed areas in Gates County, North Carolina.