20191577 Ver 1_USACE Permit_20200709

Strickland, Bev
From: Fuemmeler, Amanda J CIV (US) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2020 10:36 PM
To: Clement Riddle; Lee Thomason ([e-mail])
Cc: Homewood, Sue; Moore, Andrew W; Leslie, Andrea J; Hamstead, Byron A
Subject: [External] Project Ranger NWP 14 and 25 and Section 10 Approvals AID: 2019-01867
Attachments: 2019-01867_NWP14_25_copy.pdf, 20200708_Project Ranger BO (revised -signed).pdf;
Frac 4.1.20.pdf, Rive rSafetyPlan.pdf, Project Ranger MOA_Final_041520_signed.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up
Flag Status: Completed
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]
Attached is the permit authorization for this project. Please review and note the special conditions. No hardcopies will
be mailed unless requested and please let me know if you have any questions.
Amanda Jones
Regulatory Specialist
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
828-271-7980 ext. 4225
1

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT

Action ID. SAW-2019-01867 County: Buncombe

GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION

Permittee: Biltmore Farms, LLC / Attn: Mr. Lee Thomason
Address: One Town Square Blvd, Suite 330
Asheville, NC 28803

Location description: The site is located at 1600 Brevard Road, in Asheville, NC. Coordinates are 35.502510 -82.593781.

Description of projects area and activity: This permit authorizes placement of fill for the construction of a 5-lane bridge
over the French Broad River to access the Project Ranger industrial site. Impacts authorized are summarized in the
table below and are depicted on the attached plans. Attached are recommendations from the North Carolina Wildlife
Resource Commission for your consideration. See attached Special Conditions.

Resource Impact Type Permanent Impacts Temporary Impacts Permit
Authorization
Stream
Bridge Bents/Fill 25 linear feet / 0.005 acre 0 NWP 25 / Section 10
Riverbank Stabilization 114 linear feet (both sides of river) 0 NWP 14
Causeways (Phase 1 and 2) 0 138 linear feet / 0.667 ac NWP 14 / Section 10
Total Stream Impact 139 linear feet / 0.005 acre 138 linear feet / 0.667 ac
Wetlands
Bridge Approach Fill 0.067 (acres) 0 NWP 14
Total Wetland Impact 0.067 acre

Applicable Law: Section 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1344)
Section 10 (Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 USC 403)
Authorization: Regional General Permit Number or Nationwide Permit Number: 14 & 25
SEE ATTACHED RGP or NWP GENERAL, REGIONAL AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS

Special Conditions:

1. In order to mitigate adverse effects to historic properties associated with this project, the permittee will implement
the requirements of the enclosed Memorandum of Agreement (dated June 8, 2020) which includes data recovery
excavations prior to any earth disturbing work in impact areas on the west side of the French Broad River.

2. In order to mitigate adverse effects to federally listed endangered species with this project, the permittee will
implement the Terms and Conditions and Reasonable and Prudent Measures of the enclosed Biological Opinion
(dated July 8, 2020).

3. The permittee shall implement the enclosed River Safety Plan (dated March 26, 2020) prior to any work occurring in
and/or above the French Broad River.

4. Prior to any precipitation events, the permittee shall determine if high water levels are expected and remove any
equipment that is on the causeways prior to expected high water, or at the end of the work-day if high water is
expected prior to the next work-day. Following all storm events equal to or greater than a bankfull event, the
permittee shall inspect the causeways and riverbanks for signs of erosion or unstable conditions. Any debris caught
on the temporary causeways shall be immediately removed and any areas of erosion shall be immediately stabilized.

5. The permittee shall adhere to the Frac-out Contingency Plan (dated April 22, 2020) and shall immediately report
any conditions indicative of an inadvertent return or any observed inadvertent return to the Corps’ Asheville
Regulatory Field Office.

6. All wetlands, streams, and remaining cultural resource sites located within 50-feet of the construction area (to
include bridge, access road, utility and facility impact areas) shall be clearly marked prior to any land disturbing
activities and must be maintained on the property until project completion and then subsequently removed.

7. Prior to impacts occurring, a pre-construction meeting will be held between the permittee’s contractors and the
Corps’ Asheville Regulatory Field Office staff.

Your work is authorized by the above referenced permit provided it is accomplished in strict accordance with the
attached conditions, above noted special conditions, and your submitted application and attached information dated
01/06/20 and 02/28/20. Any violation of the attached conditions or deviation from your submitted plans may subject
the permittee to a stop work order, a restoration order, a Class I administrative penalty, and/or appropriate legal action.

This verification will remain valid until the expiration date identified below unless the nationwide/regional authorization is
modified, suspended or revoked. If, prior to the expiration date identified below, the nationwide/regional permit authorization
is reissued and/or modified, this verification will remain valid until the expiration date identified below, provided it complies
with all requirements of the modified nationwide/regional permit. If the nationwide/regional permit authorization expires or is
suspended, revoked, or is modified, such that the activity would no longer comply with the terms and conditions of the
nationwide/regional permit, activities which have commenced (i.e., are under construction) or are under contract to commence
in reliance upon the nationwide/regional permit, will remain authorized provided the activity is completed within twelve months
of the date of the nationwide/regional permit’s expiration, modification or revocation, unless discretionary authority has been
exercised on a case-by-case basis to modify, suspend or revoke the authorization.

Activities subject to Section 404 (as indicated above) may also require an individual Section 401 Water Quality Certification.
You should contact the NC Division of Water Resources (telephone [phone]) to determine Section 401 requirements.

For activities occurring within the twenty coastal counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA), prior to beginning work you must contact the N.C. Division of Coastal Management.

This Department of the Army verification does not relieve the permittee of the responsibility to obtain any other required
Federal, State or local approvals/permits.

If there are any questions regarding this verification, any of the conditions of the Permit, or the Corps of Engineers regulatory
program, please contact Amanda Jones at 828-271-7980, ext. 4225 or [e-mail].

Corps Regulatory Official: ___________________________ Date: July 10, 2020
Amanda Jones

Expiration Date of Verification: March 18, 2022

CF: ClearWater Environmental Consultants, Attn: Clement Riddle (via email)
Division of Water Resources / Attn: Sue Homewood and Andrew Moore (via email)
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service / Attn: Byron Hamstead (via email)
N.C. Wildlife Resource Commission / Attn: Andrea Leslie

FUEMMELER.AMA
NDA.JONES.12428
35090
Digitally signed by
FUEMMELER.AMANDA.JONES.1
242835090
Date: 2020.07.09 21:48:30
-04'00'

Action ID Number: SAW-2019-01867 County: Buncombe
Permittee: Biltmore Farms, LLC / Attn: Mr. Lee Thomason

Project Name: Project Ranger / NWP 14 and 25 / Section 10

Date Verification Issued: July 10, 2020

Project Manager: Amanda Jones

Upon completion of the activity authorized by this permit and any mitigation required by the permit,
sign this certification and return it to the following address:

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Attn.: Amanda Jones
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006

Please note that your permitted activity is subject to a compliance inspection by a U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers representative. Failure to comply with any terms or conditions of this authorization may
result in the Corps suspending, modifying or revoking the authorization and/or issuing a Class I
administrative penalty, or initiating other appropriate legal action.

I hereby certify that the work authorized by the above referenced permit has been completed in
accordance with the terms and condition of the said permit, and required mitigation was completed in
accordance with the permit conditions.

_______________________________________ ______________________
Signature of Permittee Date

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon Myers, Executive Director

Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
January 31, 2020

Amanda Fuemmeler
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006

SUBJECT: Project Ranger
French Broad River and Wetland, Buncombe County

Dear Ms. Fuemmeler:

Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) reviewed an
application to fill 0.07 acre of wetland, temporarily impact 138 ft (0.67 acres) of the French
Broad River, and permanently impact 139 ft of the French Broad River for the construction of a
bridge to access land for development in Buncombe County. NCWRC staff visited the site on
November 7, 2019. Our comments on this application are offered for your consideration under
provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 466 et. seq.) and Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d). These comments are based
on information about the project received with the Pre-construction Notification received on
11/13/2019, revised plan documents and email dated 1/6/2020, and a draft Biological
Assessment dated 1/16/2020.

Project activities should not impact wild trout and do not need to be avoided during a trout
moratorium. However, the French Broad River at this location supports Appalachian Elktoe
(Alasmidonta raveneliana, US & NC Endangered), Creeper [Strophitus undulatus, NC
Threatened (T)], and possibly Eastern Hellbender [Cryptobranchus alleganiensis, US Federal
Species of Concern, NC SC (Special Concern)]. Gray Bat (Myotis grisescens, US & NC
Endangered) is found in the project area, and Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis,
US & NC Threatened), Bog Turtle (Glyptemys muhlenbergii, US Threatened due to Similarity of
Appearance, NC T), and Mudpuppy (Necturus maculosus, NC SC) may occur in the project
vicinity. The French Broad River supports a Muskellunge (Esox masquinongy), Smallmouth
Bass (Micropterus dolomieu), and Redbreast (Lepomis auritus) fishery, and NCWRC is
beginning a 5-year Muskellunge population study. Activities involved with this project have the
potential to directly and indirectly impact these species, and we provide a number of
Project Ranger Page 2 January 31, 2020
French Broad R & wetland, Buncombe Co
recommendations to minimize these impacts as well as conserve or create habitat for these
species.
The project involves the construction of a 610-ft long 5-lane bridge across the French Broad
River, approximately 1000 ft downstream of the Blue Ridge Parkway bridge. This new bridge
will lead to a road that will be constructed to access an industrial site. Total limits of disturbance
are estimated to be 84 acres, with 80 acres of tree clearing. Components of this project include
the following:
 The bridge would have two bents, with 5 pilings each, and allow 20-30 ft of clearance above
the water surface. Installation of the bridge footings will involve drilling in the riverbed, and
bent installation may require pile-driving. In order to construct the bridge, temporary rock
causeways of Class II riprap would be constructed along both banks of the river in two
phases. Phase 1 would involve dual 114 ft causeways running parallel to river flows,
extending 80 and 70 ft into the river from the west and east banks, respectively, and filling
0.34 acre for 12 months. Phase 2 would extend the Phase 1 causeways by 24 ft in length
(parallel to flows) and 40 ft in width (each). Phase 1 causeways would be in place for 12
months, and Phase 2 causeways would be in place for 1 month of that time. During Phase 1,
37% of the river width will be blocked, but during Phase 2, 64% of the river will be blocked.
A river safety plan to warn approaching river users has been developed.
 In order to comply with Federal Emergency Management Agency no-rise requirements, the
applicant proposes to clear riparian forest along 270 ft (1.3 acres) of the west bank and 260 ft
(1.7 acres) of the east bank. It is unknown if any of this area will also be excavated, and if
so, if what means will be used to stabilize the area. An additional 3 acres of trees will be
cleared in the vicinity of the bridge to accommodate excavation and bridge construction.
Excavation will not extend to the water’s edge. Banks would be stabilized with riprap along
114 ft under the bridge. Tree clearing will be avoided during the bat maternity season of
May 15 to August 15.
 Drainage from the bridge would be directed west to grated inlets installed off the bridge and
discharged onto riprap dissipater pads at least 50 ft from the river. It is possible that a deck
drain system will be used to reduce stormwater spread on the bridge, and this would be
discharged on riprap dissipater pads at least 30 ft from the river. After leaving pads,
stormwater would be dispersed as sheet flow and infiltrate through vegetated areas.
 0.067 acre of wetland would be impacted for bridge construction.
 The bridge would connect NC 191 with a new road on Biltmore Farms property. This road
would be cleared and graded to accommodate a four-lane road, with only a two-lane road
being constructed initially.
 The road would lead to an industrial facility that will be approximately 750,000 ft2 (17.2
acres) with possible future expansion areas, which will be cleared and graded in association
with the initial phase of work. Parking for approximately 1,200 employees will be provided,
with 617 parking spaces provided initially; future parking is proposed to include another 532
spaces. Blasting (60 total blasts) may occur for site development for approximately 6
months.
 Old River Road on the Biltmore Farms property will be used to access the construction area
from Schenk Road, and an additional gravel road that crosses under the Blue Ridge Parkway
would also be used. The footprint of the roads will not be widened, but trees may be cleared
along the edges of the road to facilitate equipment movement. Existing culverts will not be
lengthened.
Project Ranger Page 3 January 31, 2020
French Broad R & wetland, Buncombe Co
 The proposed impervious area will be 41.6 acres for the manufacturing facility and parking
areas, bridge, access road and round-about, including future expansion areas. The 445-acre
tract will be 9% impervious.
 Sediment and erosion control measures will be designed for the 25-year storm. Permanent
post-construction stormwater management will treat the 1-year 24-hour storm event, and the
rate of discharge will not exceed the pre-development rate for this storm event. Two
stormwater ponds will be built at the development site, with outlets directed away from
wetlands. Velocity control measures will be designed to limit scour and erosion at the pond
outlets.

The applicant is working with US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) through the Biological
Assessment process. Conservation measures are in development to avoid/minimize effects and
to partially offset anticipated effects to federally listed species, particularly Gray Bat, Northern
Long-eared Bat, Bog Turtle, and Appalachian Elktoe. Among the conservation measures being
discussed are construction specifications to limit percussive and light impacts to bats, permanent
lighting specifications, erosion control specifications, bat roost paneling and monitoring on the
new bridge, and conservation funding for Appalachian Elktoe.

We offer the following recommendations to minimize impacts to fish and wildlife resources:
1. Work should be accomplished as quickly as possible and vigilance used in sediment and
erosion control during site preparation, construction, and clean up. Due to the presence of
listed species in the French Broad River, we ask that disturbed areas be stabilized on a tight
timeframe to minimize risk of sediment loss, namely, the disturbed areas should be seeded,
mulched and/or matted as soon as possible, preferably at the end of each work day; at a
minimum, disturbed areas should be stabilized within five working days or seven calendar
days, whichever is shorter. This tighter stabilization timeframe is of particular importance in
riparian areas and along stream banks.
2. Seeding specifications have not been provided. Seeding mixes should not include invasive
species, such as Tall Fescue and Sericea Lespedeza. Permanent seed mixes should be
comprised of native grasses and forbs. An emphasis on pollinator-beneficial species should
be made.
3. Any erosion control matting used should be free of plastic or nylon mesh, as this type of
mesh netting frequently entangles wildlife and is slow to degrade, resulting in a hazard that
may last for years.
4. We request detailed information (including maps) on the area of riparian clearing and
excavation, as well as information on how excavated areas will be stabilized.
5. Drilling within the riverbed involves a risk of frac-out. We request that the applicant develop
a frac-out contingency and containment plan.
6. Effective stormwater management is essential in minimizing impacts to downstream waters.
Instead of the stormwater management measures proposed (two large ponds), we recommend
the use of Low Impact Design techniques, such as grassed swales and pervious pavement;
curb and gutter, catch basins, and underground piping of stormwater should be avoided. As
stormwater runoff from pavement can cause short-term temperature spikes in downstream
waters, mechanisms to lower stormwater temperature should be incorporated into the
stormwater management design.
Project Ranger Page 4 January 31, 2020
French Broad R & wetland, Buncombe Co
7. We are concerned about the erosive capacity of stormwater from the bridge and the
development. Although velocity control measures will be designed to limit scour and erosion
at the pond outlets at the industrial site, we are concerned about scour and erosion
downstream of the pond outlets and ask the applicant to provide additional details as to how
this will be avoided.
8. We request that NCWRC and USFWS biologists be allowed on the Biltmore Farms site in
order to monitor rare and listed species, in particular bog turtles, gray bats, listed
salamanders, and birds. We recommend that Biltmore Farms, NCWRC, and USFWS
develop an agreement to allow periodic and long-term access to the site.
9. There are several large wetlands within the larger French Broad River floodplain on the
Biltmore Farms site that provide habitat for Bog Turtle, Mole Salamanders, and other rare
and/or listed species. We strongly recommend that conservation easements be established on
these ecologically important sites.
10. We support the discussions being held between the USFWS and the applicant to develop
conservation measures to minimize impacts to and benefit the Gray Bat. We appreciate the
applicant’s willingness to install bat panels, support monitoring of bat populations during the
project, limit percussive activities, and minimize light pollution within the river corridor and
at the industrial area.
11. The project will eliminate riparian habitat along almost 300 ft of the French Broad River.
Riparian forest is important in maintaining bank stability, treating surface water pollutants,
slowing flood stage flows, moderating river temperature, and providing in-stream habitat.
For the Gray Bat, this forested riparian area is also an important habitat, as gray bats fly
along river banks within the shelter of the trees. We ask that riparian clearing be minimized
as much as possible and large trees along the river’s edge be left to retain some habitat for
bats and provide some of the functions of riparian habitat.
12. If possible, any in-channel work should avoid disturbing large flat rock that could serve as
hellbender shelters.
13. We ask that the applicant notify NCWRC biologists Lori Williams
([e-mail]) and Luke Etchison ([e-mail]) at least 2
weeks before any in-channel work begins.

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. Please contact me at
[phone] if you have any questions about these comments.

Sincerely,

Andrea Leslie
Mountain Region Coordinator, Habitat Conservation Program

ec: Clement Riddle, ClearWater Environmental
Mary Frazier, Three Oaks Engineering
Andrew Moore, NC Division of Water Resources
Byron Hamstead, US Fish and Wildlife Service
Katherine Etchison, Luke Etchison, Gabrielle Graeter, Scott Lofits, Kendrick Weeks, and
Lori Williams, NCWRC

PROPOSED PROJECT RANGER SITE `' I---
PROPOSED DISCHARGE FROM o TO ASHEVILLE WGLA
STROMWATER POND (TYP.) \\ \ \ PROPERTY BOUNDARY PROPOSED
Engineering
FUTURE STORM WATER POND SITE
PROPOSED ALTERNATE SEWER ROUTE '• (4444, EXISTING GRAVEL e�U G WGLA ENGINEERING, PLLC
J f Rl0 724 5th AVENUE WEST
PROPOSED SEWER ROUTE ROAD (TYP.) cf PgRKw HENDERSONVILLE,NC 28739
/ /��.«` 4 y [phone]
`�►��� \ WGLA.COM
NC LICENSE P-1342
PROPOSED \\ \
BUILDING \\ \ Biltmore Park
BILTMORE West
`:�t� ®`- i �\ PARK Project Ranger
� D LIMITS OF 100 '� � � ®� ��� � �\� � �/ \�
h YR FLOODWAY � ' � ���. :! Limestone Township
-\ O
Buncombe County
North Carolina
PROPOSED STREAM IMPACT #(S3) D\ VICINITY MAP
(BANK STABILZATION):114 LF �� '` y \,\� �\ NOT TO SCALE
APPROXIMATE / y
LOCATION OF
PROPOSED \ ��
\\\ SUBSTATION \
►ice C
;o\ooQFESs�oo���;
Nozor
9 0
1 \FUTURE STORMS % a \\ II �I 11 1 Ci1�Str�1 J�p
WATER POND ► \, /���oociNEo�
� II PROPOSED �----�
II ACCESS ROAD ` F/ REVISIONS
DATE DESCRIPTION
�y
2/26/20 Revision
2 1!
PROPOSED PERMANENT WETLAND %
\ IMPACT #(W1) (FILL): ��•
1.
�o 2898 SF (0.067 AC) \\ i
PHASE I PROPOSED TEMPORARY STREAM IMPACTS #S2 a �� A Know what's below.
\\ O Call before you dig.
(TEMPORARY 12—MONTH CAUSEWAY): 114 LF (0.34 AC.) ll \
v PROJECT NUMBER: 19172
PHASE2 PROPOSED TEMPORARY STREAM IMPACTS #S2 �, \ � DATE: 01/06/20
ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY 3-MONTH CAUSEWAY 24 LF 0.327 AC. DRAWN KHC
( ( )�O CHECKED
BY: TWT
TOTAL (Phase 1 and 2) TEMPORARY CAUSEWAY IMPACTS 138 LF AND 0.667 AC. \Q
Impact Map
PROPOSED BRIDGE OVER FRENCH BROAD RIVER
GRAPHIC SCALE
PERMANENT STREAM IMPACT #(S1) 25 LF soo 0 30o soo tzoo
(BRIDGE PIERS, ASSUMING 5' DIA.): 20 SF PER AR AY ��. �1 Figure 5.0
PIER X 10 PIERS= 200 SF (0.005 AC) TOTAL ( IN FEET )
�\�, \ SCALE: 1"=600'

199519951
9
9
5
1995199519951995199519951995200020002000200020002000200020002000200520052005200520052 0 0 5200520052005
20052005200520052005200520052005200520052010
20102010 20102010201020102015201520152015 20152015202020202020 20202020202520252025 2025203020302030203020352035 20352040204020402040
20452
04
536"
C
M
P36" DI24" CI9' SOIL9'
SOIL18" C&G18" C&G30" C&G30" C&G30" C&G
30" C&G
30" C&G30" C&G30" C&GELEV.=2036.92'
LOW LINE18" C&GGRASS
CONC CONCVAULTWATER GRASS-EY--EL-5' SOIL MTLMTLMTLMTLWOODS
WOODS
WOODS
WOODS
WOODS
WOODS
WOODS
WOODS
WOODS
WOODS
BRUSH
BRUSHGRASS
BSPRING
ABAND
GAUGING STATION
WATER LEVEL
CONC EXISTING SEWER EASEMENT PER DB 1794 PG 787EXISTING SEWER EASEMENT PER DB 953 PG 18910.00'10.00'
10+00 20+0015+00
TYPE-III
TYPE-III
TYPE-III
TYPE-III
0100010202030405060202GREU TL-3
AT-1
-L- PT 10+62.50
-L- PC 10+00.00
F
F
C
C
C
FF
CC
F
C
C
C
CCF F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
C C
CLASS II RIPRAP
(24" THICK, KEYED-IN)
CLASS II RIPRAP
BANK STABILIZATION
(24" THICK, KEYED-IN)
CLASS II RIPRAP
BANK STABILIZATION
CB-G
CB-F
CB-G
CB-FCB-F
CB-G
CB-G
CB-G
DI
CB-F
CB-G15"15"15"15"15"
15"RCP15"
15" RCP
RCP
15"
RCP
15"RCP15" 15" RCP
15" RCP
L=12'
DWY. DI
JB w/MH
1 TON, 5 SY GEO
CLASS B RIPRAP
1 TON, 5 SY GEO
CLASS B RIPRAP
1 TON, 5 SY GEO
CLASS B RIPRAP
1 TON, 5 SY GEO
CLASS B RIPRAP
1 TON, 5 SY GEO
CLASS B RIPRAP
1 TON, 5 SY GEO
CLASS B RIPRAP
RIPRAP
CLASS II BENT CREEKRIVERFRENCH BROAD BROAD (S16)UT TO FRENCHW75
W76
W77
W78BROAD
(S15)FRENCHUT TO REVISIONS INCOMPLETE PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR R/W ACQUISITION
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
SHEET NO.PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
HYDRAULICSROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER ENGINEER

R/W SHEET NO.8/17/992/28/2020X:\Private Development\Biltmore Farms 2019\Hydraulics\PERMITS_Environmental\Drawings\Biltmore_Hyd_permit_psh_3-span.dgnUser:KGray10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
1,990
2,000
2,010
2,020
2,030
2,040
2,050
2,060
2,070
1,990
2,000
2,010
2,020
2,030
2,040
2,050
2,060
2,070
1.5:11.5:1TO NO MORE THAN 50% AT ONE TIME
LIMIT TOTAL STREAMFLOW BLOCKAGE
LOW SIDE LOW CHORD
ASSUMING TOTAL TAKE
2898 SF (0.067 AC)
(FILL):
PERMANENT WETLAND IMPACT GRAPHIC SCALE
0'100'100'NC 191 - BREVARD RDTO ELEV. 2006'
PROP. EXCAVATION
TO ELEV. 2006'
PROP. EXCAVATION
(24-IN. THICK, KEYED-IN)
CLASS II RIP RAP
BANK STABILIZATION
(24-IN. THICK, KEYED-IN)
CLASS II RIP RAP
BANK STABILIZATION
NORMAL WATER SURFACE=1999'
PKWY ACCESS RD
BLUE RIDGE
OF NCDOT CLASS B RIP RAP OR LARGER.
IF A CAP LAYER IS USED, IT SHALL CONSIST
OF NCDOT CLASS II RIP RAP OR LARGER.
NOTE: CAUSEWAY MATERIAL SHALL CONSIST
2-28-2020
PERMIT DRAWING
114 LF
289 SF (0.007 AC)
(BANK STABILIZATION):
PERMANENT STREAM IMPACT
200 SF (0.005 AC) TOTAL
20 SF PER PIER X 10 PIERS=
(BRIDGE PIERS, ASSUME 5' DIA.):
PERMANENT STREAM IMPACT
114 LF
1060 SF (0.024 AC)
(BANK STABILIZATION):
PERMANENT STREAM IMPACT
1.5:11.5:1(TYP.)
ELEV=2001'
BENCH
W/ CLASS II RIP RAP
1.5:1 NORMAL SLOPE
TS TS
TSTS
W/ CLASS II RIP RAP
2:1 NORMAL SLOPE
DURATION
ESTIMATED 3 MONTH
CAUSEWAYS FOR
LIMIT OF TEMPORARY
BY OTHERS
-L- STA 22+00
BEYOND
PROPOSED ROAD
BY OTHERS
-L- STA 22+00
BEYOND
PROPOSED ROAD
DURATION
FOR EST. 12 MONTH
TEMPORARY CAUSEWAY
DURATION
EST. 3 MONTH
CAUSEWAY FOR
TEMPORARY
138 LF
7232 SF (0.166 AC)
FOR 3 MONTH DURATION:
(TEMPORARY CAUSEWAY):
TEMPORARY STREAM IMPACT
114 LF
7390 SF (0.170 AC)
FOR 12 MONTH DURATION:
(TEMPORARY CAUSEWAY):
TEMPORARY STREAM IMPACT
138 LF
7032 SF (0.161 AC)
FOR 3 MONTH DURATION:
(TEMPORARY CAUSEWAY):
TEMPORARY STREAM IMPACT
114 LF
7408 SF (0.170 AC)
FOR 12 MONTH DURATION:
(TEMPORARY CAUSEWAY):
TEMPORARY STREAM IMPACT
DURATION
ESTIMATED 12 MONTH
CAUSEWAYS FOR
LIMIT OF TEMPORARY
(LOD)
DISTURBANCE
LIMITS OF
(LOD)
DISTURBANCE
LIMITS OF
(LOD)
DISTURBANCE
LIMITS OF
BY OTHERS
SITE PLAN
SHOWN ON
THIS POINT
LOD BEYOND
ELEV. 2,020.13
-L- STA. 11+49.81
BEGIN GRADE
ELEV. 2,051.64
-L- STA. 22+00.00
END GRADE
-L- STA. 13+26.53
BEGIN BRIDGE
(+)3.0004%
(+)3.0004%
(+)3.0004%
-L- STA. 19+36.53
END BRIDGE
1.5:12:1GRADE TO DRAIN
Frac-out Contingency Plan
All project personnel are responsible to report any indication of an inadvertent return or an
observed inadvertent return. If either of these conditions are reported and confirmed, operations
are to immediately cease and not to resume until cleanup procedures are complete and
appropriate agencies have been notified.
Containment and removal of drilling fluid releases to the surface from an inadvertent release of
drilling fluids will be performed where practical and where there will be a net benefit in the
reduction of total environmental impacts.
Process of Mitigation

Before the drilling occurs:
1. Notification will be sent out to Biltmore Farms upon completion of each drill and starting
date for the next drill. Biltmore Farms will then notify the Army Corps of
Engineers, the Division of Water Resources, and US Fish and Wildlife Service.
2. Silt fence will be installed around perimeter of the drill location.
3. The Contractor will hold meetings with workers involved to explain how to handle a fluid
loss situation.

In the event of a fluid loss the contractor will visually check the surface to determine location and
handle accordingly:

1. Underwater
a) A monitor will be on site at all times during drilling to continuously search visually for
observable frac‐outs. The HDD operator will continuously monitor the pressure readings
on the machine. A loss in pressure will indicate a loss in fluid; however, that does not
specifically mean the material is being released into the stream.
• The Bore‐Gel (a mixture of bentonite and water) may congeal the frac-out, which
means that it will harden in the fractures of the rock and prevent the material from
reaching the surface water.
• If pressure loss is observed, we will stop the operation temporarily and monitor to
see if Bore‐Gel hardens and plugs the leak.
b) If/when a fluid loss is observed the contractor will temporarily suspend the drill and add a
polymer to help seal the fracture.
c) Upon the stoppage of the fluid loss the contractor will pump out the containment area to
the best of our ability and take back to the recycler.

2. On Ground

a) A monitor will be on site at all times during drilling to continuously search visually for
observable frac‐outs and the HDD contractor will continuously monitor pressure
readings.
b) Immediately install silt fence around area of fluid loss to contain and then start pumping
the bore‐gel back to machine.
c) Remove deposited Bore‐Gel offsite (if any).
d) Regrade areas of Bore‐Gel deposition to original slope and contour.
e) Reseed impacted area.

Any material that can be safely and can be cleaned up via vac truck will be done so. A vac truck
will be on‐site in event to help minimize a release and assist in containment.

An alternative approach if a frac‐out occurs would be to pull the drill and attempt a second shot;
however, this could force a second release of fluid and additional impacts. Therefore, if Bore-Gel
has sealed the initial frac-out and there is no threat to public health or significant impacts to
sensitive environmental areas, drilling will continue at the initial location, which will minimize the
frac‐out’s impacts (both extent and duration).

In the event of a frac‐out, the contractor will notify the Biltmore Farms immediately following
detection. Biltmore Farms will then contact the Army Corps of Engineers, the Division of Water
Resources, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Once contact has been made, the contractor
will take the appropriate action specified above.

All effort will be put forth to mitigate the fluid losses and if further measures are deemed impractical
due to actual environmental impacts, the drilling will be completed as soon as possible. In the
event of fluid loss whether underwater or terrestrial, all environmental protection measures will
stay in place until the fluid loss has stopped.

Once the frac‐out has stopped, an incident report will be filled out and documented with pictures
before, during and after cleanup. This report will detail the time, place, and measures taken to
stop the frac‐out. This report will be furnished to Biltmore Farms, the Corps of Engineers, Division
of Water Resources, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service no later than 10 days following the
incident.

Upon completion, the Bore‐Gel will be pumped to a holding tank and stored, until it is disposed of
offsite. Being an inert material, it does not require treatment prior to disposal.

Page 1
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, BILTMORE FARMS, LLC,
AND
THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER,
FOR
PROJECT RANGER, BUNCOMBE COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA

WHEREAS, the US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (the District) is considering
issuance of a permit to Biltmore Farms, LLC, for bridge construction and associated industrial
development known as Project Ranger in Buncombe County, North Carolina (the Undertaking); and

WHEREAS, the District has determined that the Area of Potential Effects (APE) is defined as the
project construction footprint, which consists of the limits of proposed cut and fill at site
31BN1046, plus a 20-foot surrounding buffer. This APE, which extends from NC 191 on the west
to the French Broad riverbank, includes an estimated 27,900 square feet (2,590 square meters) of site
31BN1046.

WHEREAS, the District has determined that the Undertaking will adversely affect archaeological
site 31BN1046, which has been determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places (historic property); and

WHEREAS, the District has consulted with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer
(SHPO) pursuant to 36CFR800, regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA) (16 U.S.C. 470f); and

WHEREAS, Biltmore Farms, LLC (the Developer) has participated in the consultation and has
been invited by the USACE and the SHPO to be a signatory to the MOA; and,

WHEREAS, the USACE has notified the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Tribal Historic
Preservation Officer (EBCI/THPO), the Cherokee Nation Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
(CN/THPO), the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
(UKB/THPO), the Catawba Indian Nation Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (CIN/THPO), and
the Muscogee (Creek) Nation Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (MCN/THPO) of the adverse
effects and invited them to concur with this MOA; and,

WHEREAS, the USACE has notified the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) of
the adverse effects and the ACHP has declined to comment or participate in the consultation;

NOW, THEREFORE, the District, the Developer, and the North Carolina SHPO agree that
upon the District’s decision to issue a Department of the Army permit, the District shall ensure that
the Developer shall implement the following stipulations in order to take into account the effect of
the Undertaking on the historic property.

Page 2
STIPULATIONS

I. The District will incorporate by reference the following provisions as conditions in any permit, if
issued, for the Undertaking:

1) Treatment of Significant Archaeological Resources

Prior to any earth disturbing work, data recovery excavations shall be conducted to identify
potential impacts to site 31BN1046 and provide for mitigation of unavoidable impacts, in
accordance with the data recovery plan provided as Appendix A to this Memorandum of
Agreement. All data recovery work, including reporting, shall be completed by the
Developer’s consultant within eighteen (18) months of the execution of this Agreement.

A copy of the draft report shall be provided to the District and SHPO by the Developer or
their consultant for review and comment. Upon receipt of the draft report, the District and
SHPO will have sixty (60) calendar days to review and provide the Developer or their
consultant with comments on the draft report.

A final report of the data recovery investigations at site 31BN1046 addressing the comments
of the District and SHPO, and meeting the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology’s
guidelines, shall be provided to the District and SHPO by the Developer or their consultant
within sixty (60) calendar days of receipt of the comments.

The SHPO shall provide notification to the District upon completion of the data recovery
program.

2) Treatment of Human Remains and Funerary Objects

The Developer, in consultation with SHPO, the District, and the other parties to this
Agreement, shall ensure that the treatment of any human remains and associated funerary
objects discovered within the project area complies with all applicable state and federal laws.

Should human remains be encountered during the historic property investigation, all ground
disturbing activities within 10 feet of the discovery will be ceased immediately; should
human remains be encountered during construction activities, all ground disturbing activities
within 50 feet of the discovery will be ceased immediately. The remains will be treated with
respect to the deceased and shall be protected from the time of discovery from further
excavation activities pending consultation to resolve treatment of such remains.

The Developer shall immediately notify the District, the State Archaeologist, and the
Buncombe County Medical Examiner should any human remains and/or associated funerary
objects be encountered in connection with any activity covered by this agreement.

To satisfy the District’s responsibilities under Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, as amended, the District shall consult with the other parties to this
Agreement concerning the treatment and disposition of these remains. This consultation

Page 3
shall include consideration of the EBCI Treatment Guidelines for Human Remains and
Funerary Objects, attached as Appendix B.

In addition, the State Archaeologist shall consult with the Executive Director of the North
Carolina Commission of Indian Affairs regarding the treatment and disposition of the
remains, as required by North Carolina General Statute (G.S.) 70, Article 3 (The Unmarked
Human Burial and Human Skeletal Remains Protection Act).

The Developer, in consultation with SHPO, the District, and the other parties to this
Memorandum of Agreement shall ensure that those remains and artifacts are treated in a
manner consistent with the Advisory Council of Historic Preservation’s Policy Statement
Regarding Treatment of Burial Sites, Human Remains and Funerary Objects (2007). When feasible,
human remains may be preserved in place. Further, discovery and treatment of human
remains and graves other than those reasonably identified as Native American, may require
application of North Carolina G.S. 14-148 (Defacing or desecrating grave sites); G.S. 14-149,
(Desecrating, plowing over or covering up graves; desecrating human remains); G.S. 65-106
(Removal of graves; who may disinter, move, and reinter; notice; certificate filed; reinterment
expenses; due care required); in addition to G.S. 70, Article 3, (The Unmarked Human Burial
and Human Skeletal Remains Protection Act).

3) Unanticipated Discoveries

If, during the implementation of the project, a previously unidentified historic property is
encountered, or a previously identified historic property is affected in an unanticipated
manner, the District will consult with the other parties to this Agreement, and will ensure
that all work shall cease in the area of the discovery until the previously unidentified historic
property or unanticipated effect can be evaluated, and an appropriate treatment plan
developed, pursuant to 36CFR800. If human remains are discovered, consultation shall
proceed as outlined in Stipulation II, above. The location of human remains and other
cultural resources may be withheld from disclosure to the public in accordance with Section
304 of the NHPA.

4) Standards

All work carried out pursuant to this Agreement shall be conducted by or under the direct
supervision of an individual or individuals who meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional
Qualifications Standards for Archaeology (https://www.nps.gov/history/local-
law/arch_stnds_9.htm). The District and Developer shall ensure that consultants retained
for services pursuant to the Agreement meet these standards.

II. Dispute Resolution

Should the North Carolina SHPO or any other party to this Agreement object within (30)
days to any plans or documentation provided for review pursuant to this Agreement, the
District shall consult with the other parties to this Agreement to resolve the objection. If the
District determines that the objection cannot be resolved, the District will forward all
documentation relevant to the dispute to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Page 4
(Council). Within thirty (30) days after receipt of all pertinent documentation, the Council
will either:

A. Provide the District with recommendations which the District will take into account in
reaching a final decision regarding the dispute, or
B. Notify the District that it will comment pursuant to 36CFR800.7(c) and proceed to
comment. Any Council comment provided in response to such a request will be taken
into account by the District, in accordance with 36CFR800.7(c)(4) with reference to the
subject of the dispute.

Any recommendation or comment provided by the Council will be understood to
pertain only to the subject of the dispute; the Developer’s responsibility to carry out all
of the actions under this agreement that are not the subject of the dispute will remain
unchanged.

III. Amendment

Any party to this Agreement may request that it be amended or modified, whereupon
District and SHPO, in consultation with the other parties to the agreement and when
applicable, the Council, shall consult in accordance with 36CFR800.6(c)(7) to consider such
revision(s).

Any resulting amendments or addenda shall be developed and executed among the District,
the Developer, and SHPO and when applicable, the Council, in the same manner as the
original Agreement.

IV. Termination

Pursuant to 36CFR800.6(c)(8), the District, the Developer, or SHPO may terminate this
Agreement by providing 30 days notice to the other parties, provided that the parties shall
consult during the period prior to termination to seek agreement on amendments or other
actions that would avoid termination.

V. Duration

Unless terminated pursuant to Stipulation VII above, this MOA will be in effect until the
District, in consultation with the other Signatory and Concurring Party(ies), determines that
all of its terms have satisfactorily been fulfilled, or if the Developer is unable or decides not
to construct the Undertaking.

Page 5
Execution of this Agreement by the District, the Developer, and the North Carolina SHPO and its
subsequent acceptance by the Council and implementation of its terms, evidence that the District,
has afforded the Council an opportunity to comment on the Undertaking, and that the District, has
taken into account the effects of the Undertaking on historic properties.

AGREED:

By: __________________________________ Date: _______________________
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District

By: __________________________________ Date: _______________________
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer

By: __________________________________ Date: _______________________
Biltmore Farms, LLC

Execution of this Agreement by the District, the Developer, and the North Carolina SHPO and its
subsequent acceptance by the Council and implementation of its terms, evidence that the District,
has afforded the Council an opportunity to comment on the Undertaking, and that the. District, has
taken into account the effects of the Undertaking on historic properties.
AGREED:
By: Date: _
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
By: cRt� Date:
North Cap lina State H storic Preservation Officer
Bp: Date:
Biltmore Farms, LLC
Page 5

Execution of this Agreement by the District, the Developer, and the North Carolina SHPO and its
subsequent acceptance by the Council and implementation of its terms, evidence that the District,
has afforded the Council an opportunity to comment on the Undertaking, and that the District, has
taken into account the effects of the Undertaking on historic properties.
AGREED:
By: Date:
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
By: Date:
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer
ore Farms, LLC
flu, Date: 22. APftiL. 30
Fr /
Page 5

Page 6
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, BILTMORE FARMS, LLC,
AND
THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER,
FOR
PROJECT RANGER, BUNCOMBE COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA

Execution of this Memorandum of Agreement by the District, the Developer, and the North
Carolina SHPO, it subsequent filing with the Council, and implementation of its terms evidence that
the District has afforded the Council an opportunity to comment on the Undertaking and that the
District has taken into account the effects of the Undertaking on the historic properties.

CONCUR:

By: __________________________________ Date: _______________________
Principal Chief Richard Sneed
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians

Page 7
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, BILTMORE FARMS, LLC,
AND
THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER,
FOR
PROJECT RANGER, BUNCOMBE COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA

Execution of this Memorandum of Agreement by the District, the Developer, and the North
Carolina SHPO, it subsequent filing with the Council, and implementation of its terms evidence that
the District has afforded the Council an opportunity to comment on the Undertaking and that the
District has taken into account the effects of the Undertaking on the historic properties.

CONCUR:

By: __________________________________ Date: _______________________
Cherokee Nation

Page 8
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, BILTMORE FARMS, LLC,
AND
THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER,
FOR
PROJECT RANGER, BUNCOMBE COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA

Execution of this Memorandum of Agreement by the District, the Developer, and the North
Carolina SHPO, it subsequent filing with the Council, and implementation of its terms evidence that
the District has afforded the Council an opportunity to comment on the Undertaking and that the
District has taken into account the effects of the Undertaking on the historic properties.

CONCUR:

By: __________________________________ Date: _______________________
United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians

Page 9
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, BILTMORE FARMS, LLC,
AND
THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER,
FOR
PROJECT RANGER, BUNCOMBE COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA

Execution of this Memorandum of Agreement by the District, the Developer, and the North
Carolina SHPO, it subsequent filing with the Council, and implementation of its terms evidence that
the District has afforded the Council an opportunity to comment on the Undertaking and that the
District has taken into account the effects of the Undertaking on the historic properties.

CONCUR:

By: __________________________________ Date: _______________________
Catawba Indian Nation

Page 10
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, BILTMORE FARMS, LLC,
AND
THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER,
FOR
PROJECT RANGER, BUNCOMBE COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA

Execution of this Memorandum of Agreement by the District, the Developer, and the North
Carolina SHPO, it subsequent filing with the Council, and implementation of its terms evidence that
the District has afforded the Council an opportunity to comment on the Undertaking and that the
District has taken into account the effects of the Undertaking on the historic properties.

CONCUR:

By: __________________________________ Date: _______________________
Muscogee (Creek) Nation

Page 11

FILED BY:

By: __________________________________ Date: _______________________
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

RIVER SAFETY PLAN
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT RANGER BRIDGE
OVER THE FRENCH BROAD RIVER

To facilitate the safe passage of river users during the construction of the Project Ranger bridge on new
location over the French Broad River Biltmore Farms, LLC has developed this River Safety Plan (RSP).

• Coordination and signage:
o Coordinate with the recreational boating outfitters in the area to develop and provide
signage alerting users to this project/construction and recommended put in/pull out
areas.
o Coordinate with the NCDOT on this effort since similar effort has been made for the I-26
bridge demolition and construction in progress.
o Provide signage upstream and downstream of the bridge to alert river users to
construction. These signs will note that the last public pull out is at Bent Creek River
Park, 400 feet upstream of the bridge. These signs will be placed at the following
locations; all are public with the exception of the privately owned launches marked with
an asterisk (*):
 Headwaters Outfitters* – 25 Parkway Road, Rosman
 Champion Park River Access (Transylvania County Parks and Recreation) – Old
Turnpike Road, Rosman (1st public access from the headwaters)
 Hannah Ford Campground - Headwaters Outfitters* - Green Road (SR 1127),
Rosman
 Island Ford River Access (Transylvania County Parks and Recreation) – Island
Ford Road, Brevard
 Hap Simpson Park (Brevard Parks and Recreation) – 968 Greenville Hwy, Brevard
 Wilson Road River Access (Transylvania County Parks and Recreation) – Wilson
Road, Pisgah Forest
 Penrose Boat Ramp (NC Wildlife Resources Commission) – 170 Apac Drive,
Penrose
 Blantyre Park (Henderson County Parks and Recreation) – 500 Cliff Road,
Penrose
 Horse Shoe River Access Park (Henderson County Parks and Recreation) – Horse
Shoe
 Westfeldt Park (Henderson County Parks and Recreation) – 83 Old Fanning
Bridge Road, Fletcher
 Glen Bridge River Park (Buncombe County Parks and Recreation) – 77 Pinners
Road, Arden
 Corcoran Paige River Park (Buncombe County Parks and Recreation) – 9Pinners
Road, Arden
 Bent Creek River Park (Buncombe County Parks and Recreation) – 1592 Brevard
Road, Asheville
 Zen Tubing* - 1648 Brevard Road, Arden
 Hominy Creek River Park (Buncombe County Parks and Recreation) – 194
Hominy Creek Road, Asheville
 Asheville Outdoor Center* - 521 Amboy Road, Asheville
 French Broad Outfitters* - 704 Riverside Drive, Asheville
 Mills River Park (Town of Mills River) – 124 Town Center Drive, Mills River (This
park is near the confluence of Mills River and French Broad River and a common
starting point for paddlers of the French Broad River.)
o Signage on the causeways to warn river users away and prevent river users from using
the causeway as a stopping point.
• Physical restrictions
o Use of a floating navigational aide to mark the safe passage lane.
o Effort will be made to prevent construction material from falling on river users
during bridge construction. This effort includes placing temporary plywood below
bolted splices during girder erection and along the bridge deck exterior. Once
girders are in place, continuous stay-in-place metal forms will be installed on top of
the girders throughout the bridge deck footprint preventing construction materials
from falling below.
o Steady-state red lights that are solar-powered will be placed on the causeway to alert
river user to its location. Generators will not be used to provide power. These lights
will be atop permanent structures, such as a pole, on each causeway for the duration
of the project. The contractor will be responsible for maintaining these lights at all
times during construction, replacing them as necessary.
• Contractor requirements:
o Develop a river traffic plan to include below items:
 Provide one or more flaggers upstream as needed to stop river use at limited
times when working over the river (e.g. setting beams)
 Training of construction staff to teach skills in aiding a distressed boater – This is
meant as an extra precaution for both staff and river users. It does NOT imply
that the contractor will provide “lifeguard” type services.
 Must have a life vest and/or boat on site.

Biological Opinion
Project Ranger
Buncombe County, Asheville, North Carolina

FWS Log # 19-328

Prepared by:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Ecological Services Field Office
160 Zillicoa St.
Asheville, NC 28801

_____________________________________________________ ________________
Janet Mizzi, Field Supervisor Date

2

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION 8
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 8
2.1 GENERAL INFORMATION 8
2.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION AREA 9
2.3 PROPOSED ACTION 10
2.3.1 Proposed Action – Facility Design 10
2.3.1.1 Facility Design – Permanent Lighting 10
2.3.1.2 Facility Design – Stormwater Control 10
2.3.2 Proposed Action – Facility Operations 11
2.3.3 Proposed Action – Facility Construction 11
2.3.3.1 Facility Construction – Tree Clearing 11
2.3.3.2 Facility Construction – Stormwater Control 11
2.3.3.2 Facility Construction – Construction Access Roads 12
2.3.3.3 Facility Construction – Demolition of Abandoned Buildings 12
2.3.3.4 Facility Construction – Blasting 12
2.3.3.5 Facility Construction – Night Work 12
2.3.4 Proposed Action – Bridge Design 13
2.3.4.1 Bridge Design – Permanent Lighting 13
2.3.4.2 Bridge Design – Storm Water Control 14
2.3.4.3 Bridge Design – Vegetative Maintenance 14
2.3.5 Proposed Action – Bridge Construction 14
2.3.5.1 Bridge Construction – Vegetative Clearing and Excavation 14
2.3.5.2 Bridge Construction – Investigative Drilling 15
2.3.5.3 Bridge Construction – Bridge Footing Installation 15
2.3.5.4 Bridge Construction – Pile-Driving 16
2.3.5.5 Bridge Construction – Causeways 16
2.3.5.6 Bridge Construction – Night Work 16
2.3.6 Proposed Action – Access Road Design and Construction 17
2.3.7 Proposed Action – Utilities Design and Construction 18
2.3.7.1 Utilities – Sewer 18

3

2.3.7.2 Utilities – Water and Gas 18
2.3.7.3 Utilities – Electric Substation 18
2.4 CONSERVATION MEASURES 18
2.4.1 Conservation Measures – Minimization of Tree Clearing 19
2.4.2 Conservation Measures – Construction Lighting 19
2.4.3 Conservation Measures – Bridge Design and Construction 20
2.4.4 Conservation Measures – Erosion Control 21
2.4.5 Conservation Measures – Stormwater Control 22
2.4.6 Conservation Measures – Permanent Lighting 23
2.4.7 Conservation Measures – Northern Long-eared Bat 23
2.4.8 Conservation Measures – Bog Turtle 23
2.4.9 Conservation Measures – Gray Bat 24
2.4.10 Conservation Measures – Appalachian Elktoe 25
2.5 OTHER CONSULTATIONS WITHIN THE ACTION AREA 25
3. STATUS OF THE SPECIES 25
3.1 GRAY BAT 25
3.1.1 Gray Bat Species Description and Life History 25
3.1.2 Gray Bat Status and Distribution 28
3.1.3 Threats to Gray Bats 29
3.2 APPALACHIAN ELKTOE 32
3.2.1 Appalachian Elktoe Species Description and Life History 32
3.2.2 Appalachian Elktoe Status and Distribution 32
3.2.3 Threats to Appalachian Elktoe 33
4. ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE 35
4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE - GRAY BAT 35
4.1.1 Gray Bat Status and Distribution in the Action Area 35
4.1.2 Factors Affecting Gray Bat Environment in the Action Area 36
4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE – APPALACHIAN ELKTOE 36
4.2.1 Appalachian Elktoe Status and Distribution in the Action Area 36
4.2.2 Factors Affecting Appalachian Elktoe Environment in the Action Area 36
5. EFFECTS OF THE ACTION 37
5.1 EFFECTS OF THE ACTION – GRAY BAT 37
5.1.1 Factors to Be Considered – Proximity of the Action 37
5.1.2 Factors to Be Considered – Nature of the Effect 37

4

5.1.3 Factors to Be Considered – Disturbance Duration, Frequency and Intensity 38
5.2 EFFECTS ANALYSIS – GRAY BAT 39
5.2.1 Beneficial Effects 39
5.2.2 Adverse Effects – Project Construction 39
5.2.2.1 Project Construction – Tree Clearing 39
5.2.2.2 Project Construction – Noise and Vibration 40
5.2.2.3 Project Construction – Lighting 41
5.2.2.4 Project Construction – Causeways and Bridge 42
5.2.2.5 Project Construction – Water Quality/Erosion and Sediment Controls 43
5.2.2.6 Project Construction – Summary of Effects 43
5.2.3 Adverse Effects – Project Operations 44
5.2.3.1 Project Operations – Vehicle Lighting 44
5.2.3.2 Project Operations – Noise 44
5.2.3.3 Project Operations – Vehicle Collisions 45
5.2.3.4 Project Operations – Site Maintenance 45
5.2.3.5 Project Operations – Permanent Lighting 46
5.2.4 Adverse Effects – Project-Meditated Consequences 47
5.2.4.1 Consequences Affecting Gray Bat – Induced Land Development 47
5.3 EFFECTS OF THE ACTION – APPALACHIAN ELKTOE 48
5.3.1 Factors to Be Considered – Proximity of the Action 48
5.3.2 Factors to Be Considered – Nature of the Effect 48
5.3.3 Factors to Be Considered – Disturbance Duration, Frequency, and Intensity 49
5.4 EFFECTS ANALYSIS – APPALACHIAN ELKTOE 49
5.4.1 Beneficial Effects 49
5.4.2 Adverse Effects – Project Construction 50
5.4.2.1 Project Construction – Vegetation Removal 50
5.4.2.2 Project Construction – Bridge and Causeways 50
5.4.2.3 Project Construction – Water Quality/Erosion and Sediment Controls 52
5.4.2.4 Project Construction – Utility Line and Frac-Out 53
5.4.2.5 Project Construction – Inadvertent Spills 53
5.4.2.6 Project Construction – Light, Noise, and Vibration 54
5.4.3 Adverse Effects – Project Operations 54
5.4.3.1 Project Operations – Site Maintenance 54
5.4.3.2 Project Operations – Impervious Surfaces 55

5

5.4.4 Consequences Affecting Appalachian Elktoe 56
5.4.4.1 Consequences Affecting Appalachian Elktoe – Induced Land Development 56
6. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 57
7. CONCLUSION 57
7.1 GRAY BAT 57
7.2 APPALACHIAN ELKTOE 58
8. INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT 58
8.1 GRAY BAT 58
8.2 APPALACHIAN ELKTOE 60
8.3 REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES 61
8.4 TERMS AND CONDITIONS 61
9. MONITORING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 63
10. REINITIATION NOTICE 63
11. CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS 64
12. LITERATURE CITED 65
APPENDIX A Figures
APPENDIX B Biltmore Farms Notification for Tree Clearing Activities
APPENDIX C Frac-Out Contingency Plan and Plans for Directional Drilling
APPENDIX D Approval for Proposed Sediment and Erosion Control Measures
APPENDIX E NCDOT Bridge and Roadway Conveyance Letter
APPENDIX F Skybax Bat Habitat Evaluation
APPENDIX G Water Quality Baseline
APPENDIX H Freshwater Mussel Survey

6

CONSULTATION HISTORY

The Service was first contacted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) on October 8,
2019, wherein we were notified of Biltmore Farms’ (Applicant) intent to construct a bridge over
the French Broad River to accommodate an undisclosed industrial development. Although there
has been a significant exchange of information and resources between the Service and the
Applicant, to date, Biltmore Farms has not disclosed what the proposed 1,000,000 square foot
facility would produce, who would operate, or who would employ its estimated 1,200
employees. The Applicant refers to the proposed action as “Project Ranger” and describes it as
an economic development project with an extremely sensitive construction schedule. In October
and November 2019, the Applicant indicated that the undisclosed industrial developer was
considering multiple construction locations throughout the southeastern U.S. It is unclear when,
or if the undisclosed industrial developer has committed to development of the project.
The USACE initiated informal consultation by email dated November 18, 2019, and the Service
has reviewed multiple draft Biological Assessments (BA) since the first was submitted in
December 2019. Since then, the proposed project description, conservation measures, and action
area have been modified. At this time, the Applicant has accomplished some work for the
proposed project including the majority of proposed tree-clearing activities, but the current status
of project construction activities is unclear.
The USACE accepted the Applicant’s Final BA and initiated formal consultation by email dated
May 8, 2020. The list below provides a timeline of some consultation events to date.
CONSULTATION TIMELINE
● October 4, 2019 – A mussel survey in the proposed bridge footprint detected a live
Appalachian elktoe mussel (Alasmidonta raveneliana). USFWS and NCWRC were
notified.
● October 23, 2019 – Pre-Application meeting including representatives from Biltmore
Farms, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS, Service), USACE, National Park
Service (NPS), North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), North
Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ), North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT), TGS Engineers, WGLA, and ClearWater Environmental
(CWE).
● October 28, 2019 – Biological Assessment coordination meeting represented by
Biltmore Farms, USFWS, NCWRC, TGS Engineers, WGLA, CWE, and Three Oaks
Consultants.
● November 7, 2019 – Onsite meeting with CWE, USFWS, and NCWRC.
● November 11, 2019 – Draft project description provided by Three Oaks to USFWS.
● November 19, 2019 – Draft conservation measures provided by Three Oaks to USFWS.
● December 6, 2019 – Draft BA provided to USACE, USFWS, and NCWRC by
ClearWater Environmental.
● December 31, 2019 – Biltmore Farms revise proposed conservation measures for
USFWS review.
● January 9, 2020 – Biltmore Farms notifies USFWS, USACE, and NCDWR that tree
clearing for the proposed project will begin on January 20, 2020; road clearing would

7

begin approximately January 15, 2020; and that clearing for bridge and road is intended
to be complete by April 15, 2020 at the recommendation of the Service to avoid potential
impacts to gray and northern long-eared bat.
● January 17, 2020 – USACE responds to January 9, 2020 notice from Biltmore Farms.
● January 17, 2020 – Meeting with USFWS, USACE, Biltmore Farms, TGS Engineers,
WGLA, ClearWater Environmental, and Three Oaks to discuss conservation measures
and outstanding issues with project description.
● January 24, 2020 – USFWS provides comments on Draft BA to USACE, Three Oaks,
and NCWRC.
● February 5, 2020 – USFWS provides technical assistance to Biltmore Farms to identify
prudent conservation measures for gray bat. USFWS provides purpose, description and
estimated budget (depending on construction duration) for proposed gray bat monitoring
effort to Biltmore Farms, Three Oaks, USACE, and NCWRC.
● February 11, 2020 – NCDOT issues letter to Biltmore Farms indicating their
commitment to accept the proposed access road and bridge over the French Broad River
to the state system of maintenance once constructed.
● February 18, 2020 – NCDWR issues public notice for public hearing scheduled for
March 19, 2020 for the issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification for the proposed
Project.
● February 26, 2020 – Meeting with USFWS, Biltmore Farms, USACE, TGS Engineers,
WGLA, CWE, and Three Oaks to discuss outstanding issues with draft BA. Biltmore
Farms agrees to fund gray bat monitoring conservation measure as proposed.
● March 24, 2020 – USFWS and Three Oaks discuss several outstanding issues and needs
for clarification within draft BA.
● April 1, 2020 – Three Oaks submits BA to USACE and USFWS.
● May 8, 2020 – USACE provides the Service with final BA and initiates formal
consultation.
● May 19, 2020 – USFWS acknowledges receipt of final BA and request for formal
consultation indicating that we intend to issue a biological opinion by mid-June, but no
later than September 20, 2020.

8

BIOLOGICAL OPINION
1. INTRODUCTION
Biltmore Farms (Applicant) proposes to construct a 1,000,000 square foot undisclosed
manufacturing development and appurtenances on approximately 445 forested acres in
Asheville, Buncombe County, NC. The Applicant refers to their proposed project as “Project
Ranger”.
The site is located between Interstate I-26, the Blue Ridge Parkway (BRP), and the French Broad
River (Appendix A, Figures 1 and 2). Currently, unimproved roadways (Old River Road)
provide limited access to the site from Schenk Parkway and Biltmore Park developments. The
Applicant proposes to construct a bridge over the French Broad River located approximately
1,000 feet downstream (north) of the existing Blue Ridge Parkway crossing to provide site
access from Brevard Road (NC-191).
Certain project details remain uncertain. Biltmore Farms has not disclosed what the proposed
1,000,000 square foot facility would produce or who would employ its estimated 1,200
employees. In October and November 2019, the Applicant described Project Ranger as an
economic development project with an extremely sensitive construction schedule but also
indicated that the undisclosed industrial developer was considering multiple construction
locations throughout the southeastern U.S. It is unclear when, or if, the undisclosed industrial
developer has committed to development of the project at the Asheville location. The project
description, associated activities, and action area has evolved since the Service reviewed the
initial draft Biological Assessment (BA) in December, 2019. The current BA (accepted by the
USACE May 2020) indicates that construction activities will begin on August 1, 2020 and take
14 months to complete. However, some project activities (including tree clearing) began in
January, 2020 and are nearly complete.
This Biological Opinion (BO) considers the effects of the action on the following federally
protected species: Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana), and gray bat
(Myotis grisescens, MYGR).
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
2.1 GENERAL INFORMATION
The proposed project would be located in the Southern Blue Ridge Mountain physiographic
region of North Carolina, Buncombe County (Appendix A, Figure 1). Topography in the project
vicinity is diverse, composed of steep slopes, rolling intermountain hills, narrow to wide valleys,
and flood plains associated with the French Broad River and its tributaries. Elevations in the
Action Area range from 1,995 feet above sea level (at French Broad River) to 2,210 feet.
The site is located between I-26, the BRP, and the French Broad River (Appendix A, Figures 1
and 2). Site access is currently limited to an existing narrow right-of-way under the BRP and I-
26, Old River Road, and a network of unimproved, unmaintained roadways within the Action

9

Area (Appendix A, Figures 2 and 11). Existing roadways do not provide direct access to the site
from Brevard Road (NC-191) that lies west of the French Broad River. To accommodate site
access from NC-191, Biltmore Farms proposes to construct a new bridge over the French Broad
River approximately 1,000 feet downstream (north) of the existing BRP bridge. The proposed
bridge would support up to five lanes of traffic and a pedestrian walkway. By letter dated
February 11, 2020, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) expressed their
intent to continue coordination with the Applicant and the North Carolina Department of
Commerce, and add the new access road and bridge to the state system of maintenance once
constructed (Appendix E).
2.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION AREA
The Action Area as defined in 50 CFR 402.02 includes all areas in which federally listed species
will be affected by the Proposed Action. Under section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act
(Act), “effects of the action” to be analyzed in this BO are all consequences to listed species or
critical habitat that are caused by the proposed action, including the consequences of other
activities that are caused by the proposed action.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE, Action Agency) indicated on November 18, 2019,
that its permit area would include the proposed bridge, entrance road, and building pad site.
However, the Action Area considered in the Biological Assessment (BA) is composed of the
immediate project footprint, including work areas, staging areas, and access areas, as well as
adjacent areas affected by project-mediated disturbances such as light, noise, and vibration. As
stated in the BA, the Action Area is larger than the USACE permit area in order to sufficiently
encompass all areas that are subject to the effects of the action, that is, all areas where project-
mediated impacts to federally protected species may occur.
Specifically, the Action Area (Appendix A, Figures 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13) includes the
following:
• A 445-acre forested tract located north of the BRP, with existing utility easement areas,
unimproved roadways, and approximately 7,000 linear feet of French Broad River
frontage (primarily right-descending bank);
• The construction footprint for the proposed roadway and bridge across the French Broad
River including associated clearing, excavation, and grading to satisfy Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requirements for a “no-rise” certification;
• A reach of the French Broad River, 0.25 river miles upstream and 0.5 river miles
downstream from riparian areas subject to effects of the action;
• A section of Old River Road and adjacent 25-foot wide buffer area (each side) located
south of the BRP, extending from Shenck Parkway to the 445-acre tract to be used as a
haul road to facilitate site access during construction;
• A section of Old River Road and adjacent 25-foot wide buffer area (each side) located
north of the BRP, extending from the 445-acre tract to I-26 to be used as a haul road to
facilitate site access during construction; and
• A section of an unnamed gravel road and adjacent 25-foot wide buffer are (each side)
located south of the BRP, extending from Old River Road to the 445-acre tract to be used

10

as a haul road to facilitate site access during construction (includes an easement under the
BRP).
2.3 PROPOSED ACTION
Certain project details remain uncertain. The Applicant describes Project Ranger as an economic
development project with an extremely sensitive construction schedule. The Applicant has not
disclosed what the proposed industrial development would produce or who would operate the
facility. The Applicant indicates that it will plat and dedicate an 89-acre tract of land for the
undisclosed manufacturing facility, but it is unclear when this would occur and who would own
this property. According to the BA, the proposed action consists of the design and construction
of the following elements:
2.3.1 Proposed Action – Facility Design
According to the BA, the Applicant indicates that the proposed project would require
approximately a 750,000 square feet manufacturing facility with future expansion plans for an
additional 250,000 square feet. The facility footprint would include space for manufacturing,
operations, office space, and storage. The expansion areas would be cleared and graded during
the initial phase of work (Appendix A, Figures 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7). To accommodate parking for
approximately 1,200 employees, project plans provide for 617 parking spaces initially, with
expansion potential for an additional 532 parking spaces. The manufacturing facility would be
situated on relatively high ground in the western half of the 445 acre tract, between several
streams (Appendix A, Figures 3 and 11).
The proposed impervious area on the Biltmore Farms Tract north of the BRP will be 41.57 acres
for the undisclosed manufacturing facility, parking areas, bridge, access road, and roundabout
(including future expansion areas).
2.3.1.1 Facility Design – Permanent Lighting
The BA indicates that permanent lighting for Project Ranger would comply with Buncombe
County lighting standards, which are intended to minimize light pollution, light trespass and
glare, and promote energy efficiency (Buncombe County, 2019). The Project would use warmer
color temperature lighting (CCT < 3,000K), utilize LED light fixtures with lumen output equal to
or less than Buncombe County requirements, and employ downward-facing fully shielded
lighting. The mounting height of all outdoor area lighting would not exceed 25 feet above the
lowest adjacent elevation.
2.3.1.2 Facility Design – Stormwater Control
Permanent post-construction stormwater control measures will be designed to meet Buncombe
County standards which require treatment of the 1-year, 24-hour storm event. County standards
also require that the design rate of discharge not exceed the pre-development rate of discharge
for this same storm event. To meet these standards, Biltmore Farms proposes to construct two
stormwater ponds during the initial phase of construction (Appendix A, Figure 3). These

11

structures are intended to accommodate future site expansion. The outlets for these ponds will
be directed away from wetlands and will be located on high ground at least 500 linear feet from
the French Broad River. Their discharge will be into non-jurisdictional conveyances that drain
into jurisdictional streams.
2.3.2 Proposed Action – Facility Operations
Once the undisclosed manufacturing facility is completed in February 2022, traffic in the Action
Area will begin as approximately 1,200 employees will travel across the proposed bridge and
roadway, daily. Traffic speed on the proposed bridge and roadway would be 35-40 mph and
would accommodate approximately 2,000 vehicles per day. Although it is unknown what the
facility would produce, the Applicant indicates that deliveries and shipments associated with
Project Ranger operations would entail one large transport truck per day.
The following activities may be conducted as maintenance of the bridge, access road and the
manufacturing facility: pavement maintenance, including patching potholes and cracks;
vegetation management including mowing, landscaping, use of herbicides in selected areas, and
removal of hazardous trees; winter maintenance, such as plowing, salting, and brining; bridge
and facility maintenance; removal of trash; and maintaining ditches and storm water control
devices.
2.3.3 Proposed Action – Facility Construction
The BA indicates that construction of the undisclosed manufacturing facility would begin
August, 2020 and would be completed by February 2022 (Appendix A, Figure 5). However, the
Applicant indicated by letter that site preparation and tree clearing activities would begin in
January, 2020 (Appendix B; and Section 2.3.3.1 for a description of tree clearing activities
associated with facility construction). The construction of the facility would be composed of the
following component activities:
2.3.3.1 Facility Construction – Tree Clearing
The BA indicates that tree clearing began for Project Ranger in January, 2020, and that by March
25, 2020 approximately 65 acres has been cleared. The Applicant indicates that an additional 15
acres of tree clearing will be required, but this work has not been completed at this time. Exact
locations of completed tree clearing are unknown, as are exact locations for all areas that are to
be cleared. However, the BA states that Biltmore Farms will notify the Service prior to any tree
clearing conducted after April 15, 2020.
2.3.3.2 Facility Construction – Stormwater Control
The Applicant would put sediment and erosion control measures in place during facility
construction. These controls are designed to accommodate 25-year storm events. Permanent
stormwater measures will also be installed post-construction (Section 2.4). The Applicant’s
approved sediment and erosion control plan are detailed in Appendix D, and include the
following provisions:

12

• Each sediment storage device must be inspected after each storm event.
• Maintenance and/or clean-out is required any time the device is at 50% capacity.
• If approved sediment and erosion control measures prove insufficient, the Applicant must
take additional steps to prevent sediment from leaving the construction site.
The North Carolina Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Management requested site-specific
additional measures detailed in (Sections 2.4.4 and 2.4.5 and Appendix D).
2.3.3.2 Facility Construction – Construction Access Roads
Access to the construction site would utilize Old River Road (existing gravel road), an unnamed
unimproved road that crosses under the BRP, and an unimproved unnamed roadway that
connects the site to I-26 (Appendix A, Figures 2 and 11). These roads may require
improvements to accommodate construction equipment and materials. Roads may require gravel
amendments, and tree clearing within 25 feet of either side of the roads. Vegetative clearing in
these areas would not involve grubbing stumps or grading to widen roads. No culverts would be
replaced at existing stream and wetland crossings.
2.3.3.3 Facility Construction – Demolition of Abandoned Buildings
Three abandoned buildings would be demolished prior to facility construction. The Applicant
indicates that the structures would be inspected 30 days before demolition begins for evidence of
bat use. If bats are present within the structures, the Biltmore Farms will provide 30 days to
accomplish bat removal prior to building demolition.
2.3.3.4 Facility Construction – Blasting
Blasting may be required to develop the undisclosed industrial facility. Blasting activities would
begin in August 2020 and continue as needed until March 2021(Appendix A, Figure 5). The
Applicant indicates that 60 total blasts would be required during this time period. Noise levels
from blasting can reach 126 decibels (NRC, 2012). Blast mats may be used to suppress noise
and dust in areas where small quantities of rock or trench rock are blasted. Blast mats are
unlikely to be used for mass blasting, which may be required in areas of high rock, such as the
proposed parking lot.
2.3.3.5 Facility Construction – Night Work
Temporary construction lighting would be used to facilitate night work to accomplish
construction deadlines. Nighttime lighting used within 50 feet of the French Broad River
between March 15 and November 15 would be aimed directly at the work area to avoid lighting
the river and potentially adversely affecting the gray bat. The Applicant indicates that clearing,
grubbing, and installation of base material for the manufacturing facility would not exceed three
total nights during the bat maternity season (May 15 – August 15).
Construction of the manufacturing facility may include additional night work during the bat
maternity season to accomplish concrete pours, placement of panel walls, plumbing and piping,

13

and setting the roof structure. The Applicant is unable to estimate the amount of night work
required for facility construction. Electrical and plumbing work would occur after the building
shell is constructed and would not require exterior lights.
The Applicant indicates that night work for all construction activities, not including facility
construction, would not exceed 22 total nights during the bat maternity season (see section 2.4
regarding this and other proposed conservation measures).
2.3.4 Proposed Action – Bridge Design
The proposed bridge over the French Broad River would be located approximately 1,000 linear
feet downstream (north) from the existing BRP bridge. The bridge would be approximately 610
feet in length and constructed to have approximately 20 to 30 feet of clearance above normal
water surface elevation (Appendix A, Figures 3 and 4). According to the information provided,
the Applicant anticipates a three-span bridge (two bents in the river), with concrete deck, on
continuous steel girders. The center span is anticipated to be approximately 240 feet in length,
situated approximately at the center of the river. To address potential concerns for aesthetics and
impacts to the view shed from the existing BRP bridge, guardrail design is being coordinated
with the National Park Service.
The proposed bridge would initially be striped to accommodate three lanes of traffic, but is
designed to support future construction of up to five lanes of traffic and a pedestrian walkway.
The BA indicates that the bridge and access road would be turned over to the NCDOT for
upkeep beginning March, 2021. The NCDOT expressed their intent to add the proposed access
road and bridge into the state system of maintenance following construction (Appendix E).
Therefore, the proposed roadway and bridge are designed to meet minimum NCDOT standards.
2.3.4.1 Bridge Design – Permanent Lighting
The permanent lighting design for the French Broad River bridge calls for two lights at the center
of the bridge, and two additional lights (six lights total) at each of the bridge abutments
(Appendix A, Figure 7). The bridge and roadway would use Type II LED light fixtures with a 1-
0-1 BUG rating which are designed to minimize light spill (See section 2.4 for more information
about this and other proposed conservation measures). Additional permanent lighting would be
constructed near the bridge intersection with NC-191 on the west side of the river (Appendix A,
Figure 7).
The BA indicates that permanent lighting for Project Ranger would comply with Buncombe
County lighting standards, which are intended to minimize light pollution, light trespass and
glare, and promote energy efficiency (Buncombe County, 2019). The Project would use warmer
color temperature lighting (CCT < 3,000K), utilize LED light fixtures with lumen output equal to
or less than Buncombe County requirements, and employ downward-facing fully shielded
lighting. The mounting height of all outdoor area lighting would not exceed 25 feet above the
lowest adjacent elevation.

14

2.3.4.2 Bridge Design – Storm Water Control
The proposed bridge would have no direct discharge into the French Broad River. Stormwater
runoff from the bridge would flow west to grated inlets installed just off the bridge and then
would discharge into riprap dissipater pads at non-erosive velocities at least 50 linear feet from
the French Broad River. A deck drain system may be installed to reduce stormwater spread on
the bridge. The deck drain system would consist of PVC lines running along the outer faces of
the bridge, conveying bridge runoff to the west bridge approach, then would discharge into
riprap dissipater pads at least 30 linear feet from the French Broad River. Dispersed sheet flow
would then infiltrate through relatively flat vegetated areas and/or vegetated swales that
discharge into the French Broad River. (Appendix A, Figure 4)
2.3.4.3 Bridge Design – Vegetative Maintenance
Landscape maintenance plans of the bridge and roadway areas would be developed in
coordination with NCDOT prior to turning facility operations over to an undisclosed
owner/operator. Elements of native plantings and avoidance of invasive species will be
incorporated per Buncombe County ordinances. Disturbed areas associated with the bridge
construction would be inspected and treated for invasive species annually for three years post-
construction.
2.3.5 Proposed Action – Bridge Construction
The BA indicates that investigative drilling for bridge construction would begin and be
completed in April 2020. All other bridge construction activities would begin August, 2020 and
would be completed by October 2021 (Appendix A, Figure 5). However, the Applicant
indicated by letter that site preparation and tree clearing activities would begin in January, 2020
(Appendix B). The construction of the bridge would be composed of the following component
activities:
2.3.5.1 Bridge Construction – Vegetative Clearing and Excavation
Tree clearing for bridge construction would total approximately 3.0 acres. On the west side of
the French Broad River, approximately 270 linear feet of riparian vegetative clearing (1.3 acres)
would be required. Approximately 260 linear feet of riparian vegetative clearing (1.7 acres)
would be required along the east side of the river. Tree clearing would extend to the river edge
at the bridge construction site. Denuded riverbanks would be stabilized with riprap to minimize
erosion potential.
Areas adjacent to the French Broad River would be excavated (Appendix A, Figure 4) to comply
with FEMA requirements to offset the reduction in flood storage capacity caused by the
proposed river crossing. Excavation would occur within 0.6 acres total. Excavation would not
extend to the water’s edge. Riprap would be installed beneath the bridge at bridge endwalls and
along the shoreline (Appendix A, Figure 4). Vegetative clearing limits would extend 83 linear
feet from both bridge faces on both river banks to accommodate the minimum clearance for
roadway and bridge maintenance.

15

2.3.5.2 Bridge Construction – Investigative Drilling
Investigative drilling for bridge footings within the French Broad River would require two 6-inch
diameter borings for each bent. Therefore, a maximum of four investigative borings would occur
in the riverbed. The total affected riverbed area would be less than two square-feet. All
investigative drilling in the river would be conducted within the causeway footprint. A drill rig
would be situated on the riverbank or barge surrounded by a containment boom to minimize
turbidity. Drill cores would be contained within a steel casing. Once retrieved, drill cores would
be removed and analyzed in a laboratory. In April 2020, investigative drilling in the French
Broad River would take approximately two weeks to accomplish including set-up time
(Appendix A, Figure 5).
2.3.5.3 Bridge Construction – Bridge Footing Installation
Once investigative drilling is complete, 10 five-foot diameter concrete drilled shafts for piers
would be drilled into the river bottom (i.e. five shafts at both bent locations, totaling
approximately 200 square-feet of direct disturbance to the riverbed). Construction drilling would
begin in September 2020, and take up to eight weeks to complete (Appendix A, Figure 5).
The drilling process would begin by placing a 60-inch diameter, 0.5-inch thick, steel casing
vertically into the shaft. The casing would be clean, smooth, un-corrugated, watertight steel of
ample strength to withstand handling and installation stresses and pressures imposed by concrete,
earth, backfill, and fluids. The drill rig would twist and drive the casing vertically into the
riverbed until rock is encountered (approximately 1 to 5 feet below the riverbed). The top of the
permanent steel casing would remain at or above the elevation of the temporary causeway (see
Section 2.3.5.5 for a description of proposed construction activity). A watertight catch pan
would be placed on the causeway adjacent to the shaft location that would be used to retain drill
spoil.
A 60-inch diameter auger contained within the steel casing would be driven vertically into the
riverbed until it encounters rock and is no longer able to proceed. The auger would be used to
remove sediment spoil from within the casing. Spoil would be placed within a watertight catch
pan adjacent to the shaft location. A rock auger or rock hammer contained within the casing
would then be used to continue excavation into the rock. The steel casing would be twisted and
driven further into the riverbed as rock is excavated to maintain a watertight seal, which typically
occurs when the bottom of the casing is approximately two-feet into rock. Rock would be drilled
and the casing would be driven to approximately 11 to 15 feet into rock (approximately 15 to 20
feet below the streambed). As drilling proceeds to this ultimate depth, spoils would be removed
from the casing and placed into an adjacent catch pan as described above. The catch pan would
be transported across the temporary causeway to an upland disposal area at least 30 feet from the
river edge where the spoils would be treated through an approved NC Department of
Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) erosion control device.
Once rock excavation is complete, remaining spoils and water within the shaft would 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 river edge where it would be treated through an approved NCDEQ
erosion control device. Drilling of bridge footings would not require the use of slurry or drilling

16

fluids except for a small amount of water to cool machinery that would be contained within the
watertight steel casing. Steel reinforcement would then be placed within the shaft and concrete
would be pumped directly into the watertight permanent steel casing lining the shaft. Portions of
this activity associated with concrete pouring may require night work (see Section 2.3.5.6 below
for more detail about proposed nightwork for bridge construction).
2.3.5.4 Bridge Construction – Pile-Driving
Pile-driving may be required at end bents to provide sufficient structural support. Pile-driving
would begin September 2020, continue for two weeks, require no night work, and would be
accomplished from land, not causeways. Noise levels from pile driving can reach 110 decibels
(NRC, 2012). No blasting would occur at the bridge construction site.
2.3.5.5 Bridge Construction – Causeways
Temporary rock causeways would be required to construct portions of the proposed bridge
located in the French Broad River. Causeways would be placed in the river in August 2020, and
remain for 12 months to accommodate the drilling of concrete piers (Section 2.3.5.3),
constructing concrete caps at each bent, and setting the spans.
Temporary causeways would be approximately 114 linear feet wide, and extend into the French
Broad River 80 feet and 70 feet from the west and east banks, respectively, (0.34 acre total)
(Appendix A, Figure 4). However, the centermost girder span (approximately 100-feet long),
would require that both causeways be extended an additional 24 feet downstream and 40 feet
into the river for three months to accommodate the positioning of cranes. This girder section
would be installed last and would create an additional 0.33 acre of temporary impact to the
French Broad River.
Causeway materials would consist of class II riprap (maximum size of 24-inch) or larger.
Causeways may require a cap or surface layer composed of class B riprap (maximum size of 12-
inch) or larger. Causeways would be installed such that total streamflow blockage would not
exceed 64% at any time. Causeway footprints would be the minimum needed to construct the
bridge and side slopes would be maximized (1.5:1) to reduce their size.
Solar-powered red safety lighting will be used on the causeways and the public will be notified
prior to causeway placement to ensure boater safety.
The Applicant considered the use of a temporary work bridge but deemed it not practical and
more costly due to the shallow depth of rock below the riverbed, which would require drilling
temporary concrete piers at eight temporary bent locations.
2.3.5.6 Bridge Construction – Night Work
The Applicant indicates that night pours of concrete are required during hot weather to achieve a
proper cure. Concrete pours for bridge construction are the primary work activities that may
occur at night. Night pours may occur twice per week, each lasting 10 hours per night. Total

17

night work for concrete pours for bridge construction would not exceed 10 nights during the bat
maternity season (May 15 – August 15).
Night pours would be required for bridge deck construction and would require the most lighting
of all construction activities associated with Project Ranger. Each night pour for bridge decking
may take 10 hours, beginning at midnight. The Applicant indicates that this work would require
no long-term consecutive nights of operation. The majority of lighting would be positioned at
bridge deck level, with lights shining toward the bridge rather than toward the river. Two to four
light plants on the bridge deck would be used to illuminate the work area. Small lights, similar
to headlights would be used to illuminate the screed (concrete surface) as needed to ensure a
proper cure. Headlights from pump trucks and delivery trucks on the deck surface and
causeways would be used to illuminate work areas.
Night pours may also be required for the construction of bridge footings, bent caps, end bents,
and barrier rail walls. The use of lighting for each night pour would be less than six hours in
duration and restricted to relatively small work areas. Lights would be set on the causeway,
directed upward at the bridge member being poured. Lighting from headlights on pump trucks
and concrete trucks located on the bridge deck and causeway would also be present during night
pours.
Solar-powered red safety lighting will be used on the causeways to ensure boater safety.
2.3.6 Proposed Action – Access Road Design and Construction
The proposed access road to the facility would intersect Brevard Road (NC-191), bridge the
French Broad River, then approach the facility parking lot from the south (Appendix A, Figures
2 and 3).
The proposed access road will be cleared and graded to accommodate a four-lane road in the
future. However, only two lanes would be paved initially (Appendix A, Figure 3). The
Applicant indicates that additional lanes would be paved to accommodate future development
needs onsite and any additional traffic. Design plans call for the grading of an area along the
roadway to accommodate future construction of round-about (Appendix A, Figure 3). The BA
states that grading for this round-about would be accomplished during the initial phase of
development to avoid future disruption of Project Ranger operations, and that the roundabout
would allow future traffic from the south to return to the proposed bridge without entering the
Project Ranger facility. No plans (conceptual, draft, final, or otherwise) for onsite or offsite
development associated with this bridge and roadway have been provided at this time.
The BA indicates that the bridge and access road would be turned over to the NCDOT for
upkeep beginning March, 2021. The NCDOT expressed their intent to add the proposed access
road and bridge into the state system of maintenance following construction (Appendix E).
Therefore, the proposed roadway and bridge are designed to meet minimum NCDOT standards.
Based on the information provided, future development associated with the proposed project is
reasonably certain to occur but it is unclear what exactly will necessitate the expansion of this
roadway or when it would occur.

18

2.3.7 Proposed Action – Utilities Design and Construction
According to the BA, several aspects of design and construction timing for requisite utilities
remain unknown (but see Appendix A, Figures 3, 4, 5, and 6). However, based on the
information provided, appurtenant utilities would be composed of the following component
activities:
2.3.7.1 Utilities – Sewer
A Metropolitan Sewerage District (MSD) sewer line runs parallel to the French Broad River
along its eastern bank (Appendix A, Figures 3 and 6). The Applicant indicates that the proposed
undisclosed development would not require an expansion of existing MSD collector lines. A 50-
foot wide right-of-way (ROW) would extend approximately 800 linear feet from the existing
sewer line to the northwest corner of the facility. Alternatively, the proposed sewer line and its
ROW would extend along an existing logging road (Appendix A, Figure 6). The BA indicates
that proposed tree clearing for either option is approximately the same.
2.3.7.2 Utilities – Water and Gas
Proposed water and gas lines would tie into existing lines at the NC 191 interchange and would
attach to the proposed bridge and run along the road alignment depicted in design plans
(Appendix A Figures 3 and 4). Alternatively, the water supply and gas utility lines would be
directionally bored under the French Broad River (minimum depth of six feet) at the bridge
crossing location, then run along the road alignment depicted in design plans (Appendix A,
Figures 3 and 4; Appendix C).
The Applicant has prepared a frac-out contingency plan to contain spilled drilling fluid and
minimize environmental impacts (Appendix C). Notably, the frac-out contingency plan calls for
a vacuum truck to remain onsite to facilitate containment in case of an inadvertent spill.
2.3.7.3 Utilities – Electric Substation
The undisclosed development would require an electric substation that will require
approximately three acres of tree clearing. The location of the proposed substation is
undetermined at this time, but would be located at least 400 linear feet from the French Broad
River (Appendix A, Figure 3)
2.4 CONSERVATION MEASURES
The Applicant has committed to the following measures to avoid, minimize, or offset potential
project-mediated effects to MYGR and Appalachian elktoe. These conservation measures fall
into two general categories:
1. Measures to avoid/minimize effects
2. Measures to compensate for, or partially offset anticipated effects

19

Some of these efforts directly benefit one species or the other, but many are beneficial to both
species.
2.4.1 Conservation Measures – Minimization of Tree Clearing
• Tree-clearing has begun for Project Ranger in order to remove trees in winter, reducing
potential effects to bats. Biltmore Farms will notify the USFWS prior to any tree clearing
after April 15.
• In the area between the Blue Ridge Parkway and NC 191 (Brevard Road), no trees will
be cleared beyond what will be necessary to construct the permanent project footprint, to
establish associated sediment and erosion control devices, and to construct and maintain
the bridge and approaches.
• At the French Broad River, tree-clearing will be limited to what is needed for excavation
and bridge construction. Tree-clearing in the vicinity of the bridge will total 3.0 acres.
Tree-clearing is necessary along 83 ft. from each bridge face to allow for roadway/bridge
safety and maintenance. On the west side of the river, clearing will run approximately
270 linear ft. (1.3 ac.). On the east side of the river, clearing will run approximately 260
linear ft. (1.7 ac.).
• Excluding the bridge construction site, tree-clearing limits will extend no closer than 400
ft. from the French Broad River for the manufacturing facility.
• There will be a 60+ ft buffer to the near (north) side of Bent Creek (measured to top of
bank), 80+ ft buffer to near side of S15, and 10+ ft buffer to near side of S16. Riparian
buffers will help to stabilize streambanks, shade streams (during the day and during
nightwork), and prevent colonization by invasive plants.
• Access to the construction site and the river will be along existing roads: NC 191
(Brevard Road) to the west, and two existing gravel roads on Biltmore property to the
south (Appendix A, Figure 2) and will not require complete clearing of forested areas.
Existing gravel roads may require limited clearing along road edges as part of the project,
which would be limited to the clearing of trees and/or limbs and would not involve
grubbing of stumps or grading to widen the roads.
• Areas disturbed for bridge construction will be inspected/treated for invasive species
annually for three years post-construction.
2.4.2 Conservation Measures – Construction Lighting
• Biltmore Farms will limit all construction-related lighting to whatever is necessary to
maintain safety in active work areas closest to the French Broad River.
• Construction-related lighting will be indirect in nature and will not project into adjacent
forested areas or over the water surface of the French Broad River or Bent Creek,
whenever practicable.
• Night work will be limited, and no nighttime lighting will be directed away from the
work area within 50 ft. of the French Broad River, between March 15 and November 15.
• Night pours at the bridge construction site will not exceed 10 nights during the MYGR
maternity period.

20

• No more than 22 total nights of work may be necessary during the 2020 and 2021
maternity seasons, excluding night work that may need to occur at the manufacturing
facility.
• If total maternity season night work will exceed 22 nights, the Service will be notified
(not counting night work occurring in the manufacturing facility interior, once
constructed).
2.4.3 Conservation Measures – Bridge Design and Construction
• The minimum number and size of piers necessary to support the bridge will be used in
the French Broad River.
• Stormwater runoff from the proposed bridge will flow west to grated inlets installed just
off the bridge and then be discharged on riprap dissipater pads at non-erosive velocities at
least 50 ft. away from the river. After leaving pads, stormwater will then be dispersed to
sheet flow and infiltrate through relatively flat vegetated areas, where practical.
Vegetated swales will carry the water downgrade to the river or other jurisdictional areas.
• Biltmore Farms will conduct visual inspections of riprap dissipater pads once per week
and after a rainfall event of one-half inch or greater until construction is complete.
Inspections will occur monthly post-construction until the bridge is conveyed to NCDOT.
• If a deck drain system is needed to reduce spread on the bridge, it will likely consist of
PVC trunk lines running along the outer faces of the bridge and flowing to the west
bridge approach, where it will be discharged on riprap dissipater pads at non-erosive
velocities at least 30 ft. away from the river. All proposed stormwater runoff will be
discharged as far away from the river and at the lowest velocities as practicable.
• The primary phase causeways (estimated at no longer than 12 months) will not restrict
more than 50% of the existing channel width of the French Broad River at a given time
and are estimated to block up to 37% of the flow area. Short term duration causeways
(estimated at 3 months) are estimated to block up to 64% of the flow area.
• Causeway footprints will be the minimum necessary to construct the bridge, and side
slopes will be maximized (approx. 1.5:1) to reduce their size and temporary impact to the
river.
• The contractor will use clean rock (free of debris and pollutants) for the construction of
the causeways to minimize unnecessary sediment input into the river.
• Causeway material will be removed to the extent practicable and either disposed of
offsite or used in areas that require permanent stone protection after project completion.
• Causeway placement will be staged. Causeway material will be added/removed as
needed for each stage to minimize the causeway footprint over the length of the project.
• To minimize disturbance to the riverbed, all readily detectible causeway material will be
removed, to the extent practicable, while removing as little of the original riverbed as
possible.
• Construction fabric will not be used under the causeway material, as it tends to tear into
pieces and float downstream during removal.
• The causeway will consist of Class II riprap (maximum size of 24 in.) or larger, to
minimize loss during storm events. If a cap or surface layer is used, it will consist of class
B riprap (maximum size of 12 in.) or larger to minimize loss downstream.

21

• Concrete barriers (barrier rail) may be placed along the downstream edge of each
causeway to limit the downstream movement of causeway material during high flow
events, if needed.
• Biltmore Farms will place solar-powered, steady-state red lights on the causeways to alert
river users to their locations. This type of red lighting has been shown to cause a
minimum amount of disturbance for Myotis bats (Downs 2003). Generators will not be
used to provide power, so as to avoid additional noise that may disturb bats flying
through the work zone.
• The Service and NCWRC will be notified one week prior to removal of causeway
material in the interest of maintaining/improving mussel habitat wherever possible.
• When constructing drilled piers for the French Broad River bridge, 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.
• Construction of bridge will be accomplished in a manner that prevents uncured concrete
from coming into contact with water entering or flowing in the river.
• A frac-out contingency plan for directional boring has been developed and is provided in
(Appendix C).
• When conducting the directional bore for utilities, drilling fluid 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.
2.4.4 Conservation Measures – Erosion Control
• When needed, combinations of erosion control measures (such as silt bags in conjunction
with a stilling basin) will be used to ensure that the most protective measures are
implemented.
• Sedimentation and erosion control measures that will be in place during construction of
the facility have been designed to accommodate 25-year storm events, instead of the
typical design for a 10-year event.
• If the approved sediment and erosion control measures prove insufficient to prevent
sediment from leaving the construction site, the Applicant will take additional steps to
prevent this from happening (Appendix D).
• Each sediment storage device must be inspected after each storm event during
construction.
• Maintenance and/or clean-out is necessary any time the sediment and erosion control
device reaches 50% capacity.
• Sediment fencing will be installed a minimum of 10 ft. off the toe of the embankment to
provide additional room for sediment storage and maintenance activities.
• Slope drains (with rock inlet protection) will be added down the embankments of
proposed temporary skimmer sediment basins at multiple locations, as specified by the
Letter of Approval from the NC Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
(DEMLR).
• To protect the existing wetland areas during grading operations, a double row of silt
fence will be used at multiple locations, as specified by DEMLR (see Appendix D for
details).

22

• Safety fencing will enclose undisturbed areas near several erosion control measures, as
specified by DEMLR.
• The contractor will notify Biltmore Farms and consult with the Geotechnical Engineer if
ground water is encountered during the construction of sediment basin #1, as specified by
DEMLR.
• For stream protection, a double row of sedimentation fence will be used at several
locations, as specified by DEMLR.
• A Construction Project Inspector will monitor sediment and erosion control devices
weekly, or after each rainfall event of one-half inch or greater for the life of the project.
• Following high water events, any debris observed to be caught on temporary causeways
will be removed.
• Riverbanks will be inspected for signs of erosion once per week and after a rainfall event
of one-half inch or greater during construction. If erosion is found, it will be stabilized in
coordination with USFWS, NCWRC, and USACE.
• Any equipment that is placed on the causeways will be removed any time throughout a
work day when the water level rises or is expected to rise overnight.
• Any machinery to be used on causeways will be clean and free of leaks.
• Prior to construction, a limited qualitative evaluation will be made of the riverbanks
immediately upstream and downstream of the proposed project to establish a baseline in
the event future erosion is caused by this project. Riverbank inspections will occur once
per week and after a rainfall event of one-half inch or greater until construction is
complete.
• Riprap will be used to stabilize areas of excavation beneath the bridge at bridge end walls
and along the shoreline, (Appendix A, Figure 4).
• Natural fiber coir matting will be used for erosion control.
• Elements of native planting and the avoidance of invasive species will be incorporated
per Buncombe County zoning ordinances.
2.4.5 Conservation Measures – Stormwater Control
• The permanent post-construction stormwater measures will be designed to meet
Buncombe County stormwater management standards, which require treatment of the 1-
year, 24-hour storm event.
• The rate of discharge will not exceed the pre-development rate of discharge for this same
storm event.
• Two stormwater ponds will be built with the initial phase of construction to
accommodate future expansion. The outlets for the two proposed stormwater ponds will
be directed away from wetlands and will be at least 500 ft. away from the river. Velocity
control measures will be designed to limit scour and erosion at the outlets.
• Stormwater outfalls and conveyances will be monitored for stability during construction.
• Inspections will occur once per week and after a rainfall event of one-half inch or greater
until construction is complete. Riprap or other measures will be used as necessary to
prevent scouring and sedimentation.
• Stormwater detention structures will be designed for the slow discharge of storm water
and will not be installed within any stream or wetland.

23

2.4.6 Conservation Measures – Permanent Lighting
• The project will use warmer lighting with correlated color temperature (CCT) of <
3,000K in perpetuity.
• The project will use LED light fixtures with a lumen output equal to or less than
Buncombe County requirements.
• On the bridge and roadway, the project will use Type II LED light fixtures with a 1-0-1
BUG rating to minimize lighting spill in perpetuity.
• The project will use downward-facing, full cut-off lights (fully shielded) in perpetuity,
which will comply with Buncombe County lighting standards.
• The mounting height of all outdoor area lighting shall not exceed 25 ft. above the lowest
adjacent grade in perpetuity.
• The proposed French Broad River bridge will have two lights at the center of the bridge.
• Additional lights will be near the intersection with NC 191 on the west side of the river
and near the limits of the flood plain on the east side of the river. The placement of the
lights will provide safety on the bridge and approaches, while keeping the edges of the
river as dark as possible for commuting and foraging bats.
• Remaining lighting along the access road will likely be limited to intersections only.
• Permanent lighting for Project Ranger will comply with Buncombe County lighting
standards, which minimize light pollution, light trespass and glare, and promote energy
efficiency.
2.4.7 Conservation Measures – Northern Long-eared Bat
• For the duration of Project Ranger Construction, no alterations of a known hibernacula
entrance or interior environment if it impairs an essential behavioral pattern, including
sheltering Northern Long-eared Bats (January 1 through December 31);
• For the duration of Project Ranger Construction, no tree removal within a 0.25-mile
radius of a known hibernacula (January 1 through December 31); and
• For the duration of Project Ranger Construction, no cutting or destroying a known,
occupied maternity roost tree, or any other trees within a 150 ft. radius from the known,
occupied maternity tree during the period from June 1 through and including July 31.
• Tree-clearing has begun for Project Ranger in order to remove trees in winter, reducing
potential effects to bats. By March 25, the manufacturing site had been cleared, which
makes up 65 of the 80 acres to be cleared. Remaining areas consist of the access road,
bridge and utility locations, and floodplain excavation area.
• Biltmore Farms will notify the USFWS prior to any tree clearing after April 15.
2.4.8 Conservation Measures – Bog Turtle
• Biltmore Farms will coordinate with USFWS and NCWRC to limit potential effects to
Bog Turtles due to maintenance on the existing gravel roadway (River Road) during
project construction. If any wetlands are within 25 ft. of the road, safety fencing will be
installed around the wetland perimeter to avoid potential impacts while preparing for
construction equipment access (Appendix A, Figure 8).

24

• Biltmore Farms will avoid impacting the wetland to be affected by bridge construction
until May 15, 2020 thereby allowing NCWRC to survey the wetland for Bog Turtles in
early May with the request that they provide email notification one week prior to arrival.
Notification goes to Lee Thomason, [e-mail]. Contact Biltmore
dispatch for gate access at 828-225-1581. On May 7, 2020, the NCWRC evaluated
wetlands within proposed impact area. While these wetlands support salamander species,
no turtles of any kind were detected at that time.
• Biltmore Farms will provide access to wetlands to NCWRC and USFWS biologists for
the purpose of long-term monitoring of bog turtle populations. This entails summertime
inspections for a period of five years with the ability to renew for three years if mutually
agreeable. Biltmore Farms requests a minimum of two weeks prior email notification, a
single point of contact, and pre-registration of individuals to be on-site. Notification goes
to Lee Thomason, [e-mail]. Contact Biltmore dispatch for gate
access at 828-225-1581.
2.4.9 Conservation Measures – Gray Bat
• Installation of bat roost panels at bridge once construction is complete. These will be
approved by NCDOT in writing prior to installation.
• Bat roost panel monitoring, to be coordinated with USFWS. Monitoring will be
conducted annually between May 15 – August 15 by a trained bat biologist until the
bridge is turned over to NCDOT.
• Gray Bat monitoring for populations within the Action Area during construction to be
coordinated with USFWS to aid in the recovery and conservation of this listed species.
Biltmore Farms will pay an amount not to exceed $127,000 for Gray Bat monitoring
while project construction is underway. Details on scope of work and payment will be
finalized prior to construction.
• Abandoned buildings/structures in the Action Area will be inspected for bat activity at
least 30 days before demolition. Biltmore Farms is amenable to providing access to these
structures, with the request that the designated bat biologist provide email notification
one week prior to arrival. Should bats be present, Biltmore Farms will provide 30 days
for bat removal before the buildings are demolished.
• Biltmore Farms will provide access to the property to NCWRC, Indiana State University
(or designated bat biologist), NCDOT, NV5 (NCDOT contractor) staff and USFWS
biologists for the purpose of monitoring bat populations for the duration of Project
Ranger and NCDOT I-26 construction projects. Since the site will be an active
construction area for some of this duration, there will need to be additional safety
restrictions on access times and personnel to the building site. With the understanding
that more flexibility is needed with monitoring bats, Biltmore Farms is amenable to
substitute conditions for pre-qualification meetings and email notifications 24 hours prior
to site activity. Each agency will provide a single point of contact, and pre-registration of
individuals to be onsite. Contractors should additionally provide a Certificate of
Insurance, which lists Biltmore Farms, LLC as “additionally insured.” Notification goes
to Lee Thomason III, [e-mail]. Contact Biltmore dispatch for gate
access at 828-225-1581.

25

2.4.10 Conservation Measures – Appalachian Elktoe
• Biltmore Farms will provide $15,000 in funding to the North Carolina Nongame Aquatic
Projects Fund for the French Broad River Conservation Plan (FBRCP) proposed by
USFWS, which will aid in the recovery and conservation of Appalachian Elktoe and
other associate freshwater mussel fauna of the French Broad River. The funding will be
held by the NCWRC. A multi-agency/organization group of mussel species experts,
including USFWS, will determine how to expend the funds.

2.5 OTHER CONSULTATIONS WITHIN THE ACTION AREA
No previous consultations pursuant to section 7 of the Act have been completed within the
Action Area for Project Ranger.
3. STATUS OF THE SPECIES
3.1 GRAY BAT
This section summarizes best available data about the biology and current condition of the gray
bat (Myotis grisescens - gray bat) throughout its range that are relevant to formulating an opinion
about the Action. The USFWS published its decision to list the gray bat as endangered on April
28, 1976. There is no designated critical habitat for this species.
3.1.1 Gray Bat Species Description and Life History
The gray bat is one of the largest species in the genus Myotis in eastern North America, with a
forearm length of 40 to 46 millimeters, a weight of 7 to 16 grams (usually 8 to 11 grams), and a
wingspan of 27.4 to 30 centimeters (Barbour and Davis 1969). Gray bats can most readily be
distinguished from other Myotis by their wooly, unicolored dorsal fur, which may seem paler on
the bats’ bellies. The fur appears gray after the mid-summer molt, becoming chestnut brown or
bright russet leading to the next molt (Gore 1992). Another diagnostic morphological character
is the gray wing membrane which connects to the foot at the ankle rather than the base of the
toes (Barbour and Davis 1969, Gore 1992). The nails on the feet are notched and the calcar is
unkeeled (Harvey et al. 1981, Sealander 1979).
The range of the gray bat is concentrated in the cave regions of Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky,
Missouri and Tennessee, with smaller populations found in adjacent states, including a
growing population in a quarry in Clark County, Indiana (Harvey et al. 1981, Brack et al.
1984, Harvey 1992, Harvey 1994, Mitchell 1998). 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). In winter, gray bats hibernate in deep vertical caves that trap large volumes of
cold air and the species typically forms large clusters with some aggregations numbering in the
hundreds of thousands of individuals (Harvey 1994, Tuttle and Kennedy 2005). The species

26

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.

There are some exceptions to this cave-specific roosting strategy. Many bat species use
bridges 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 bat bachelor and maternity colonies
have been found in culverts in Arkansas (Harvey and McDaniel 1988, Timmerman and
McDaniel 1992), Kentucky (Hays and Bingham 1964), and Kansas (Decher and Choate 1988).
Culvert conditions can mimic those found in natural caves in terms of high levels of humidity
and clear running water. 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). We are continually expanding our knowledge of where gray bats can roost, and
bridge and culvert roosts are more common than previously thought.

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). At 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).

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 weigh approximately one-third
of their mother’s weight and 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. Nursery colonies typically form on domed ceilings of caves that are capable of

27

trapping the combined body heat from clustered individuals and where the temperature ranges
between 14° and 25° C (Harvey 1992, Harvey 1994, Tuttle and Kennedy 2005 and Martin
2007). All other individuals not actively mating, both male and female, occupy caves on the
outlying edge of the home range (Tuttle 1976b).

Gray bats f eed 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 Turtle 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) indicate 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). At foraging sites, Tuttle
(1976b) estimated that gray bats forage within roughly three meters of the water’s surface.
Abbreviated instances of bad weather in early spring and late fall are generally the onl y 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).
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 (USFWS 1982). In addition, young often feed and take shelter in forest areas near
the entrance to cave roosts (Tuttle 1979). 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

28

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).
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 travelled 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
(Gunier and Elder 1971). While survivorship among juveniles is relatively high (Saugey
1978), only 50 percent of gray bats reach maturity (USFWS 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).
3.1.2 Gray Bat Status and Distribution
The gray bat largely occupies a limited geographic range in karst areas of the southeastern
United States. They are mainly found in Alabama, northern Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, and
Tennessee. A few can be found in northwestern Florida, western Georgia, southeastern Kansas,
southern Indiana, southern and southwestern Illinois, northeastern Oklahoma, northeastern
Mississippi, western Virginia, and western North Carolina.
In the late 1970s, Tuttle (1979) estimated the total population to be approximately 2.25 million.
The population was estimated at only 1.6 million in the early 1980s (Brady et al. 1982) and fell
to 1.5 million within the next 10 years (Harvey 1992). By 2001, the population increased to 2.3
million (Mitchell and Martin 2002), and again to 2.5 million in 2003 (Harvey et al. 2004). This
is a net increase in population size of approximately 10 percent between the 1970’s and 2003,
and an increase of 40 percent from the smallest population estimate. The status of hibernating
populations of gray bats was further reviewed in 2006 (Harvey and Currie 2007). At that time,
the population was estimated at 3,377,100 – an estimated increase of 104 percent from 1982
(Harvey and Currie 2007).
As defined in the Gray Bat Recovery Plan, Priority 1 (P1), hibernacula include caves occupied
now or in the past by more than 50,000 gray bats in northern Alabama and Tennessee, and
25,000 elsewhere (USFWS 1982). Most of the 17 current P1 caves were designated in the
recovery plan, but several additional caves have been identified as having significant winter
populations more recently. From 2013 -2015 many of the 17 P1 hibernacula were surveyed,
however not all caves were surveyed in the same winter. In 2017, winter surveys of all P1s were
conducted, including the largest hibernaculum, Fern Cave, in Alabama. This coordinated,

29

rangewide effort provided the best opportunity in decades to estimate the gray bat population,
now estimated at approximately 4,358,263.
3.1.3 Threats to Gray Bats
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, USFWS 1982, USFWS
2009b), 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 (USFWS 1982, USFWS 2009b).
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). Approximately 20 to 30 days of stored energy is depleted with each arousal
(Daan 1973). Losing these fat stores can cause bats to leave the roost prematurely in search of
food during unsuitable circumstances, which may result in high mortality rates. During the first
hour of arousal, individuals may lose up to 0.48 g of body weight; a significant amount when
contrasted with the typical hibernation losses of 0.01 g per day (Brady et al. 1982). When this
human interference occurs in maternity caves it is typically most devastating in late spring and
early summer (May to July), as non-volant offspring are in the roost. Thousands of bats may die
from a single disruption (USFWS 1982). 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). Recently-volant young are especially susceptible to the effects of
deforestation, as they require the protection of forest cover while becoming proficient fliers.
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. The
longevity, high metabolic rate, and insectivorous diet of bats increases their likelihood of
exposure to bioaccumulating chemicals in the environment. 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 (USFWS 1982).
Tuttle (1979) presented a correlation between a decline in gray bat numbers and an increase in
sedimentation in several Alabama and Tennessee waterways.

30

Tied to increased waterway siltation is impoundment of streams and rivers to create reservoirs.
While it was originally suspected that this practice would increase suitable foraging habitat for
gray bats, it was ultimately found that the opposite is true (USFWS 1982). Disturbance to
roosting bats using caves adjacent to these impoundments has also been observed. Noise from
passing watercraft increased, as did access to cave roosts previously far from population centers
and roads (USFWS 1982).
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. As
temperatures rise, conditions within gray bat hibernacula and maternity caves could change,
making them less suitable. In addition, the increase in overall temperatures may lead to earlier
arousal from hibernation, resulting in higher energy expenditure and potentially premature
parturition (Sherwin et al. 2013). Changes in precipitation is also of concern. Under drought
conditions, bats have to travel further distances for food and more rainfall could inhibit insect
flight and decrease prey availability. These changes could have particularly adverse effects on
nursing females, as the energy costs associated with traveling longer distances for food and water
result in longer lactation times, slowing overall juvenile development (Tuttle 1976b, Adams
2010). Furthermore, increased frequency of severe storms could lead to flooding of important
roost sites.
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. Mortality rates in afflicted bats often exceed 90 percent
(Thogmartin et al. 2013). Bats that have been infected with WNS display erratic changes in
behavior including day-time flying and increased frequency of arousal during hibernation (Cryan
et al. 2013).
In 2012, USFWS confirmed the first instance of WNS in gray bats (USFWS 2012b). The full
impact of WNS on overall gray bat populations is still being determined. It seems plausible that
WNS would pose a serious threat to a species like the gray bat, where individuals overwinter in
few high-density hibernacula, should it infect those colonies. However, some studies have found
that P. destructans may not spread through gray bat colonies as quickly as once expected, nor be
as substantial a threat to the species as initially suspected (Flock 2014, USFWS 2012). 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). Several behavioral traits, such as preferred microclimates within hibernacula and
sustained activity and foraging throughout winter (Bernard and McCracken 2017) may enable
this species to prevent or minimize the colonization of P. destructans during torpor.
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).

31

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 MYGR for the use
or avoidance of lighted areas that may occur along roadways. Research by Rydell and Baagøe
(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 MYGR.
Type and color of artificial lighting has been shown to impact bat species differently. Studies
have shown a significant decrease in Myotis foraging activity levels under white and green light
(4000K and higher) (Spoelstra et al. 2017). Red light (approximately 3000K) has been shown to
cause a minimum amount of disturbance activity levels of Myotis bats when compared to dark
foraging areas (Downs 2003).
Bats’ eyes have evolved to function in low light and are less effective in brightly lit areas, and
some groups of bats, including three species of Myotis occurring in North America, can detect
ultra-violet (UV) light (Gorresen et al. 2015). Artificial lighting of any kind can cause a delay in
emergence and increase the overall duration of emergence (Stone et al. 2009; Rydell et al. 2017).
This in turn decreases available foraging time, juvenile growth rates, and the overall colony
health (Stone et al. 2015). Studies have shown that bats using roosts lit by artificial light exhibit
delayed emergence (Stone et al. 2009; Rydell et al. 2017); while one study has noted an overall
drop in bat activity at artificially lit sites (Linley 2017). The presence of artificial lighting may
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).
Artificial roost sites lit omnidirectionally, leaving no dark corridor to and from the roost, show
high colony loss (Rydell, et al. 2017). Additionally, Myotis sp. have shown an increased
avoidance of drinking areas lit by LED lighting (Russo et al. 2017). But both High Pressure
Sodium (HPS) and LED light disturbance caused spatial avoidance of preferred commuting
routes by R. hipposideros and Myotis spp. (Stone et al. 2009).
LED lights produce a small amount of light in the UV range, when compared to other light
sources like fluorescent, HPS, and metal halide (MH) (Lewanzik and Voight 2017, Wakefield et
al. 2016, Wakefield et al. 2018). Insect activity has been shown to increase with the presence of
UV light (Wakefield et al. 2016; Lewanzik and Voight 2017). More specifically, Wakefield et
al. (2018) found greater numbers of insects were attracted to MH streetlights and a greater
diversity of insects were attracted to white LEDs compared with long-wavelength-dominated
HPS lights. While UV-producing lights may attract a larger number or greater diversity of
insects, Lewanzik and Voight (2017) found that the number of Myotis calls increased after MH
streetlights were backfitted with LED lights. This may be because of their sensitivity to UV light
(Gorresen et al. 2015), causing them to avoid those areas.

32

3.2 APPALACHIAN ELKTOE
This section summarizes best available data about the biology and current condition of
Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana) throughout its range that are relevant to
formulating an opinion about the Action. The USFWS published its decision to list Appalachian
elktoe as endangered on September 3, 1993. There is no designated critical habitat for this
species in the Action Area.
3.2.1 Appalachian Elktoe Species Description and Life History
Lea (1834) described the Appalachian elktoe from the French Broad River system in North
Carolina. Its shell is thin but not fragile, oblong, and somewhat kidney-shaped, with a sharply
rounded anterior margin and a broadly rounded posterior margin. Parmalee and Bogan (1998)
cite a maximum length of 8 cm. However, individuals from the Little River (French Broad River
basin) in Transylvania County and West Fork Pigeon River (French Broad River Basin) in
Haywood County measured more than 9.9 cm in length (USFWS 2009b). The periostracum
(outer shell) of the Appalachian elktoe varies in color from dark brown to yellowish-brown in
color. Rays may be prominent in some individuals, usually on the posterior slope, and nearly
obscure in other specimens. The nacre (inside shell surface) is a shiny bluish white, changing to
salmon color in the beak cavity portion of the shell. A detailed description of the shell
characteristics is contained in Clarke (1981). Ortmann (1921) provides descriptions of the soft
anatomy.
The reproductive cycle of the Appalachian elktoe is similar to that of other native freshwater
mussels. Males release sperm into the water column, which is then taken in by the female
through their siphons during feeding and respiration. The females retain the fertilized eggs in
their gills until the larvae (glochidia) fully develop. The mussel glochidia are released into the
water, and within a few days they must attach to the appropriate species of fish, which they
parasitize for a short time while they develop into juvenile mussels. Juveniles then detach from
their fish host and sink to the stream bottom where they may continue to develop, provided that
suitable substrate and water conditions are present (USFWS 2002). The Appalachian elktoe is a
bradytictic (long-term) brooder, with the females retaining glochidia in their gills from late
August to mid-June (USFWS 2009b). Glochidia are released in mid-June, attaching to either the
gills or fins of a suitable fish host species. Transformation time for Appalachian elktoe occurs
within 18 to 22 days where mean temperatures are 18°C. Appalachian elktoe mussels use a
variety of common fish hosts but appear to specialize on darters and sculpins, which are common
in the Action Area.
3.2.2 Appalachian Elktoe Status and Distribution
The Appalachian elktoe is known only from the mountain streams of western North Carolina and
eastern Tennessee. It is found in gravelly substrates often mixed with cobble and boulders, in
cracks of bedrock, and in relatively silt-free, coarse sandy substrates (USFWS 1996).
Although the complete historic range of the Appalachian elktoe is unknown, available
information suggests that the species once lived in the majority of the rivers and larger creeks of
the upper Tennessee River system in North Carolina, with the possible exception of the

33

Hiwassee and Watauga River systems. In Tennessee, the species is known only from its present
range in the main stem of the Nolichucky River. At the time of listing, two known populations
of the Appalachian elktoe existed: the Nolichucky River, including its tributaries (the Cane
River and the North Toe River); and the Little Tennessee River and its tributaries. The record in
the Cane River was represented by one specimen found just above its confluence with the North
Toe River (USFWS 1996). Since listing, the Appalachian elktoe has been found in additional
areas. These occurrences include extensions of the known ranges in the Nolichucky River
(North Toe River, South Toe River, and Cane River) and the Little Tennessee River
(Tuckasegee River and Cheoah River) as well as a rediscovery in the French Broad River basin
(Pigeon River, Little River, Mills River, and the main stem of the French Broad River). Many
of these newly discovered populations are relatively small in numbers and range.

The Appalachian elktoe has experienced declines in two populations across its range. A sudden
die-off in the Little Tennessee River, (once considered the largest and most secure population of
this animal), occurred from 2005 – 2015. During that time, periodic monitoring efforts failed to
find any live individuals. Surveys during 2016 also failed to produce any observations of
Appalachian elktoe, but surveys in 2017, 2018 and 2019 produced very low numbers, indicating
a remnant population, but the population is limited and only a tiny fraction of its previous size.
Appalachian elktoe also have declined in the lower portion of the Nolichucky River.
Appalachian elktoe were once common in all three tributaries of the Nolichucky River: North
Toe, South Toe and Cane River. In 2008, a fish kill linked to a waste water plant failure resulted
in the death of most of the Appalachian elktoe in the Cane River. Beginning in 2013, the
Appalachian elktoe population in the lower South Toe River declined steeply. This decline
coincided with a major highway construction project and only occurred downstream of receiving
streams in the project footprint. Appalachian elktoe are still present in the South Toe River, but
at reduced densities. Appalachian elktoe are still present in the North Toe River, but at low
densities. It appears that the North Toe population is limited by urban runoff and mining effects
to the river. The other populations of Appalachian elktoe appear to be stable (Tuckasegee,
Cheoah, and Pigeon Rivers) or expanding (French Broad River). A remnant population known
in the Cheoah River since the early 2000's is presently being augmented by the NCWRC with
hatchery-propagated individuals sourced from the Tuckasegee River. This effort appears to be
successful in bringing this population back to a viable state. Prior to 2004, the French Broad
River population appeared to be confined to two tributary streams (Little River, Mills River), but
over the last few years the known range of Appalachian elktoe in the main stem of the French
Broad River has expanded and it now appears to be well established, albeit at low density, over a
broad area.
3.2.3 Threats to Appalachian Elktoe
The decline of the Appalachian elktoe throughout its historic range has been attributed to a
variety of factors, including sedimentation, point and nonpoint-source pollution, and habitat
modification (impoundments, channelization etc.). The low numbers of individuals and the
restricted range of most of the surviving populations make them extremely vulnerable to
extirpation from a single catastrophic event or activity. Catastrophic events may consist of
natural events, such as flooding or drought, as well as human influenced events, such as toxic
spills associated with highways or railroads.

34

Natural flooding events combined with alteration of watersheds can lead to large fluctuations in
abundance observed in Appalachian elktoe populations. Portions of the French Broad River
basin and most of western North Carolina experienced catastrophic flooding in late summer 2004
as a result of Tropical Storms Francis, Ivan, and Jeanne. Numerous dead mussels, including the
Appalachian elktoe, were observed in over-wash areas along the Little Tennessee River after the
flood events. Additionally, surveys conducted in the Little Tennessee River after the flooding
yielded noticeably lower catch per unit effort of live mussels, including the Appalachian elktoe,
compared to past survey efforts in this section of the river (USFWS 2009).
Siltation resulting from improper erosion control of various types of land use, including
agriculture, forestry, road construction, and development, has been recognized as a major
contributing factor to the degradation of mussel populations (USFWS 1996). Siltation has been
documented to be extremely detrimental to mussel populations by degrading substrate and water
quality, increasing potential exposure to other pollutants, and direct smothering of mussels (Ellis
1936, Marking and Bills 1979). Sediment accumulations of less than an inch have been shown to
cause high mortality in most mussel species (Ellis 1936). The abrasive action of sediment on
mussel shells has been shown to cause erosion of the outer shell, which allows acids to reach and
corrode underlying layers (Harman 1974).
Sewage treatment effluent has been documented to significantly affect the diversity and
abundance of mussel fauna (Goudreau et al. 1988). Goudreau et al. (1988) found that recovery of
mussel populations might not occur for up to 2 RM (3.22 km) below points of chlorinated
sewage effluent. Most of the water bodies where Appalachian elktoe still exist have relatively
few point source discharges within the watershed and are rated as having "good" to "excellent"
water quality (NCDWR 2012, USFWS 1996).
The introduction of exotic species, such as the Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea) and zebra
mussel (Dreissena polymorpha), has also been shown to pose significant threats to native
freshwater mussels. The Asian clam is now established in most of the major river systems in the
United States (Fuller and Powell 1973). At the time the Appalachian elktoe was listed, the Asian
clam was not known from the stretch of the Little Tennessee River that it occupies; however, it
has been observed in the Little Tennessee River in recent years and, as mentioned earlier, may be
a contributing factor to the decline of that population. Concern has been raised over competitive
interactions for space, food, and oxygen between this species and native mussels, possibly at the
juvenile stages (Neves and Widlak 1987). When the Appalachian elktoe was listed, it was
speculated that, due to its restricted distribution, it "may not be able to withstand vigorous
competition" (USFWS 1996).
Another exotic species that has the potential to adversely impact aquatic species, including
Appalachian elktoe, is the Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica). The plant is considered to be
an invasive species that can reproduce from its seed or from its long, stout rhizomes. It can
tolerate a variety of conditions, such as full shade, high temperatures, high salinity, and drought.
It can be spread by wind, water, and soil movement to an area where it quickly forms dense
thickets that exclude native vegetation and greatly alter the natural ecosystem. This species has
become established in riparian habitats throughout western North Carolina. The species has a
very shallow root system; because of this shallow root system and its preclusion of other

35

vegetation, areas where this species has been established may be susceptible to erosion during
flood events.
4. ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE
Environmental baseline refers to the condition of the listed species or its designated critical
habitat in the action area, in the absence of project-mediated consequences to the listed species or
designated critical habitat. 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. The consequences to listed species or
designated critical habitat from ongoing agency activities or existing agency facilities that are not
within the agency’s discretion to modify are part of the environmental baseline.
4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE - GRAY BAT
4.1.1 Gray Bat Status and Distribution in the Action Area
The best available information concerning the status of MYGR in the Action Area have been
collected in association with proposed NCDOT developments in the project vicinity (see Section
2.4). Indiana State University (ISU) is conducting multi-year research of MYGR in the French
Broad River Basin sponsored by the NCDOT in association with these transportation projects.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) conducts regular and
supplemental monitoring for this and other bats species in the Project vicinity.

Emergence counts conducted by ISU at known roosts in western North Carolina in 2018 and
2019 suggest that there are at least 1900-2300 MYGR in the French Broad River Basin. At this
time, no MYGR hibernacula are known to occur in North Carolina, but a known primary roost is
located within the Action Area for Project Ranger. Gray bats are present in the Asheville area
from mid-March to mid-November (i.e. the MYGR active season). Monitoring efforts show that
MYGR activity peaks during the last two weeks of July as pups become volant.

Bat acoustic monitoring data collected for NCDOT-sponsored developments recorded MYGR
calls at the bridges upstream and downstream from Project Ranger (NCDOT 2019). Moreover,
in 2016, 2017, and 2018, the NCWRC and ISU captured and transmittered MYGR from known
roosts within and adjacent to the project Action Area for radio telemetry tracking (BA Fig 9 of
Appendix A). Tracking data show that MYGR move between roosts located north and south of
Asheville, presumably flying through the Project Ranger Action Area (NCWRC 2017, Joey
Weber pers. comm.). Bats appear to primarily forage over water, (i.e. the French Broad River
and its tributaries), but animals were also detected in upland areas not associated with water
(Weber et al. 2018). Acoustic monitoring data also suggest that MYGR activity is higher along
the French Broad River than along its tributary creeks (NCDOT 2019). Gray bats that were
captured at the roost within the Project Ranger Action Area typically returned to the roost each
night, but did not consistently return to the same forage areas (NCDOT 2019a). Animals tracked
from this roost were detected foraging north of Long Shoals Road, Hominy Creek, Bent Creek,

36

Long Valley Lake (on Biltmore Estate property), and various locations along the French Broad
River (NCWRC 2017).

Three abandoned buildings within the Project Action Area were inspected in March 2019, but no
evidence of bats was detected at that time (Appendix F).
4.1.2 Factors Affecting Gray Bat Environment in the Action Area
The main factor that could negatively impact gray bats in the Action Area is increasing
urbanization. Development directly adjacent to the FBR has fragmented gray bat habitat by
removing vegetation, increasing noise disturbances, and creating more artificially lighted areas
that the bats must avoid as they commute from roost areas to forage areas. However, other
factors in the Action Area could have a positive impact on the species. Improvements in water
quality in the FBR have likely increased the prey base and improved the overall ability of bats to
feed over the river. See Appendix G for baseline watershed conditions.
4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE – APPALACHIAN ELKTOE
4.2.1 Appalachian Elktoe Status and Distribution in the Action Area
Since 2004, the known range of Appalachian elktoe in the main stem of the French Broad River
has expanded and now appears to be established at low density over a broad area (USFWS
2017). Prior to 2017, Element Occurrence (21150) of this species within the French Broad River
was considered historic (first observed in 1840) and only extended up to the I-40 crossing. In
2017, records were found that extended the previously known range of this species 32 river miles
upstream.
Appalachian elktoe were detected in the Action Area within the French Broad River during
surveys conducted October 4, 2019 (Appendix H). This survey was conducted from 400 meters
downstream from the proposed bridge crossing to 100 meters upstream from the proposed
bridge. Within that survey area, four surveyors targeted the highest quality habitat (based on
best professional judgment). Surveyors conducted two passes of the survey reach, followed by a
concentrated effort within the proposed bridge footprint. The survey effort detected one live
Appalachian elktoe in 20.80 person-hours (catch per unit effort is 0.05/hr).
4.2.2 Factors Affecting Appalachian Elktoe Environment in the Action Area
French Broad River water quality in the Action Area historically suffered from industrial and
agricultural pollution. Beginning in the 1970’s, efforts were begun to reduce pollution and
sediment entering the River. While the FBR is much cleaner today than in the past century, there
are still threats from ongoing development. Portions of the FBR and several of the larger
tributaries are on the 303d list of impaired waters. See Appendix G for baseline watershed
conditions.

37

5. EFFECTS OF THE ACTION
5.1 EFFECTS OF THE ACTION – GRAY BAT
Under section 7(a)(2) of the Act and the recent update to the regulations, effective October 28,
2019, “effects of the action” are all consequences to listed species or critical habitat that are
caused by the proposed action, including the consequences of other activities that are caused by
the proposed action. A consequence is caused by the proposed action if it would not occur but for
the proposed action and it is reasonably certain to occur. Effects of the action may occur later in
time and may include consequences occurring outside the immediate area involved in the action.
The federal agency is responsible for analyzing these effects. The effects of the proposed action
are added to the environmental baseline to determine the future baseline, which serves as the
basis for the determination in this Opinion. Should the effects of the federal action result in a
situation that would jeopardize the continued existence of the species, we may propose
reasonable and prudent alternatives that the federal agency can take to avoid a violation of
section 7(a)(2).
5.1.1 Factors to Be Considered – Proximity of the Action
Based on acoustic and telemetry surveys within the Action Area, the gray bat occurs throughout
the Action Area from mid-March through mid-November. One MYGR roost occurs within the
Action Area. Multiple roosts have also been identified in the vicinity of Project Ranger.
Radio-tracking data show that MYGR from offsite roosts also travel through, and likely forage in
the Action Area. NCWRC telemetry studies in 2016 and 2017 (NCWRC 2017) and ISU
telemetry work in 2018 (Weber et al. 2018) reveal that MYGR originating from the roost within
the Action Area are using the French Broad River for commuting and foraging, although some
individuals abandoned the river, choosing to fly over land or along large tributaries to the French
Broad River such as Hominy Creek and Bent Creek. A smaller number of individuals also
foraged in locations that were more unusual for the species, such as heavily wooded areas along
the Blue Ridge Parkway, and partially wooded areas like the Riverside Cemetery, with no
associated water sources.
Acoustic and telemetry studies suggest that MYGR are present throughout the Action Area. They
primarily use large waterways (the French Broad River) but are also present on smaller
tributaries. Any work conducted over waterways when bats are present will impact the
population. Although measures to avoid and minimize impacts to gray bats are included in the
project plans, implementation of the project will result in unavoidable impacts to habitat and
individual bats.
5.1.2 Factors to Be Considered – Nature of the Effect
Disturbances from construction activities will temporarily impact foraging habitat and roosting
MYGR within the Action Area. Once construction is complete, new permanent lighting,
increased traffic, and project operations associated with Project Ranger will continue to impact
commuting and foraging habitat.

38

• Temporary construction disturbances that occur during the MYGR active season may
cause roosting bats to vacate the primary roost within the Action Area. MYGR may
leave this roost during daylight hours to find alternate roosts, or attempt to forage after
being woken from torpor when sufficient food is not available, which could reduce
fitness or result in mortality.
• Lighting and noise from construction equipment, blasting, and drilling activities may
repel some bats, potentially causing them to find other areas for foraging and commuting.
The addition of new structures in the waterways and new lighting may also impact
MYGR behavior. Bats may be forced to fly over the highways or through other open
areas making them more susceptible to vehicle strikes or predation.
• Commuting and foraging habitat within the Action Area will be cleared during
construction, some of this habitat may be allowed to revegetate yet some of this habitat
may be permanently lost.
• Riparian vegetation removed during construction will allow more light and noise from
traffic and existing development to reach the river and tributaries, potentially repelling
foraging and commuting bats.
• Activities within the footprint of the proposed bridge will impact aquatic invertebrate
communities and their habitats during construction, and for some time after the
construction is completed. There will be some permanent loss of in-stream habitat due to
the presence of new bridge bents in the river and tributaries.
• Water quality impacts from construction and increased impervious surface runoff may
decrease food and drinking water quality for foraging MYGR.
• Bats repelled from their forage areas and commuting routes may expend additional
energy finding new foraging and commuting areas, which could result in lower fitness.
Pregnant and lactating females will be particularly susceptible to impacts given the
increased energy demands during this time period and could lose pups due to longer
flight distances to forage.
5.1.3 Factors to Be Considered – Disturbance Duration, Frequency and Intensity
Gray bats in the Action Area will be affected by construction activities during the MYGR active
season (mid-March through mid-November). The construction duration for Project Ranger is 14
months.
Disturbance from elevated nighttime lighting and noise associated with construction will be
temporary, but will exist until construction is complete. After the construction causeways are
removed from the FBR, the substrate and its invertebrate population will continue to recover for
some period of time as the river has bankfull flows that resort the riverbed and reestablish the
riffle section. The new river crossings are likely to result in more permanent impacts from noise
associated with an increase in vehicles and the addition of permanent lighting, which may impact
foraging and commuting bats, including bats traveling to and from the roosts within, and outside
of the Action Area. Tree clearing associated with the project will further fragment habitat and
may leave openings that act as a barriers in certain locations since Myotis are reluctant to cross
wide, open areas and some species of bats avoid lights and large roads (Berthinussen and
Altringham 2012). Bats may temporarily abandon the onsite roost during project construction

39

due to project-mediated disturbances including increased noise, vibration, lighting, and/or habitat
loss.
5.2 EFFECTS ANALYSIS – GRAY BAT
5.2.1 Beneficial Effects
Beneficial effects have contemporaneous positive effects without any adverse effects to the
species or habitat. The installation of bat panels at the proposed bridge may create additional
roosting habitat for gray bat. Proposed monitoring during project construction would allow for
the detection of alterations to MYGR foraging and/or roosting behavior, and inform prudent
conservation measures intended to protect or enhance this population (see Section 2.4 for
descriptions of these and other proposed conservation measures).
5.2.2 Adverse Effects – Project Construction
Construction activities associated with Project Ranger will include, tree clearing, grubbing,
grading, installation of base material, installation of pavement, construction of access roads,
construction of causeways, blasting, pile driving, and lighting associated with night work.
MYGR are present in the Action Area and most vulnerable to effects from associated
construction activities during the MYGR active season (mid-March to mid-November) when
flying adjacent through active construction areas and when commuting to and from the onsite
roost. Stressors from project construction are generally short term in nature near the French
Broad River, but short-term effects could occur periodically during the construction process
(Appendix A, Figure 5).
5.2.2.1 Project Construction – Tree Clearing
The Applicant indicates that Project Ranger would require up to 84 acres of tree clearing. Tree
clearing along the French Broad River would total three acres. All other tree clearing activities
would not occur within 400 linear feet of the French Broad River. However, tree-
trimming/limbing would occur along construction access roadways (within 25 feet on either
side). Some of this limbing activity for construction road widening would occur within 400
linear feet of the French Broad River, but no clearing or grubbing would occur in these areas.
Tree clearing has begun for Project Ranger. By March 25, 2020, 65 acres have been cleared and
the Applicant intended to accomplish as much tree clearing during winter as possible, to avoid
impacts during the MYGR active season. Tree clearing up to four acres for an electrical
substation may occur during the MYGR active or maternity season. While the exact location for
the substation has not been determined, the Applicant indicates that its location would occur
greater than 400 linear feet from the French Broad River to avoid loss of MYGR forage and
commuting habitat.
MYGR are forest bats that typically forage and commute in or near forested areas. The removal
of riparian forest adjacent to foraging habitat could influence bats to abandon existing foraging
areas, locate new foraging areas, or abandon adjacent roosts. MYGR may be forced to expend

40

increased energy to establish new foraging areas or new travel corridors between roosting and
foraging. Additionally, they may be subject to an increase in inter- and intra-specific
competition. Bats with high site fidelity to certain foraging areas may continue to cross through
newly cleared areas in the activity footprint and may have an increased risk of mortality from
predation, although this risk is not detectable or measurable. It is unclear whether MYGR that
regularly forage in the Action Area will have difficulty establishing new foraging areas due to
the availability of remaining suitable habitat in the surrounding landscape.
Forested areas in the Action Area are largely intact and undisturbed by surrounding development
activities. Along the French Broad River, there is generally a continuous, (albeit narrow in some
places) riparian buffer. This buffer is important for blocking light from developments and roads
on the water bodies and for providing cover for commuting and foraging bats. Tree clearing, and
especially tree clearing adjacent to the French Broad River may extend the reach for project-
mediated lighting disturbances (temporary or permanent) into MYGR habitats. This could result
in diminished fitness of adults and/or reduced survivorship of pups and/or adults. Bats continuing
to use the roost could be susceptible to increased predation because of the lack of cover.
5.2.2.2 Project Construction – Noise and Vibration
The use of heavy equipment is anticipated to cause noise disturbance during construction
activities within the Action Area. Noise will be generated primarily from work using heavy
equipment and activities such as blasting, drilling, jackhammering, operating generators, and pile
driving over the 14 month construction period.
The Applicant estimates that construction of Project Ranger would require 60 total blasts over
six months (August 2020 – March 2021). Noise levels from blasting can reach 126 decibels
(NRC 2012). These disturbances would occur during the MYGR active season and possibly
within the MYGR maternity season (Appendix A, Figure 5). Pile driving is anticipated for the
installation of bridge end bents and would likely occur during the MYGR maternity season. The
Applicant estimates that pile driving would take two weeks for each of the two bents, (four
weeks total; Appendix A, Figure 5). Noise from pile driving can reach 110 decibels (NRC
2012).
Investigative drilling for bridge construction would occur during MYGR active season. This
activity would be conducted for approximately 10 hours each day and take two weeks to
complete. Once investigative drilling is complete, construction drilling would take up to eight
weeks to complete and would occur during the MYGR maternity season (Appendix A, Figure 5).
Drilling noise and vibration will vary depending on depth of drilling bit, depth of water, and
presence of sediment/silt of other substrates above underlying bedrock.
Although the majority of construction will occur during the day, some construction activities will
occur at night. Daytime and nighttime noise associated with these activities is expected to affect
roosting, foraging, and commuting MYGR within the Action Area. Noise from nighttime
construction activities will impact MYGR flying over or adjacent to construction locations. At
these locations MYGR may be exposed to noise intensity that they may not have previously
experienced in those locations and potentially for long durations during the MYGR active or
maternity seasons.

41

Project-mediated noise and vibration during the MYGR active and maternity seasons may
increase stress on pregnant and lactating females, leading to reduced fitness and pup
survivorship. Noise disturbances may create an acoustic barrier that may affect foraging and
commuting behavior. It is anticipated that MYGR will modify their preferred foraging and
commuting areas due to increased noise associated with construction activities. If MYGR avoid
areas that are noisier than they are accustomed to, and particularly if they must do so for an
extended time while construction is underway, this may lead to increased travel time/distance
between their roosts and foraging areas, potentially resulting in diminished fitness of adults
and/or reduced survivorship of pups and/or adults.
The proposed duration and intensity of noise and vibration disturbances from construction
activities may reduce the suitability of the MYGR roost within the action area. Bats may
abandon this roost and seek an alternate, resulting in diminished fitness of adults and/or reduced
survivorship of pups and/or adults.
5.2.2.3 Project Construction – Lighting
Although the majority of construction will occur during the day, the use of temporary lighting
after sunset will be necessary to complete some aspects of construction. Lighting associated
with construction activities will be brighter than ambient light generated by headlights or nearby
overhead lighting around interchanges or near developed areas. Project-mediated disturbances
from night lighting will occur during the MYGR maternity and active seasons. Construction
activities requiring night work during the maternity season are as follows:
• Grubbing, grading, installation of base material at the facility site not to exceed three
nights total.
• Earthwork to provide level roadbed and construction area not to exceed three nights total.
• Use of earth-moving and road building equipment, including cranes and dump trucks not
to exceed three nights total.
• Concrete pours up to twice per week, 10 hours per night, not to exceed ten nights total.
• Facility construction may require an undefined amount of night work. Based on the
limited information provided by the Applicant for this undisclosed development, it is not
currently possible for the Service to predict or estimate the duration of this activity.
Myotis sp. are light averse (Voigt 2018) and the addition of night lighting will likely repel some
foraging or commuting bats from lit work areas and nearby habitats. It is likely that the MYGR
occupying the primary roost located within the Action Area would be exposed to this light
stressor as well as bats that commute and forage from other roost sites in the region.
It is likely that MYGR activity within the Action Area is highest along the French Broad River
where MYGR are foraging and commuting. Therefore, construction lighting in riparian areas
would likely result in the greatest light-mediated impact to bats. However, a smaller proportion
of MYGR have been documented to forage or commute in heavily wooded areas along the Blue
Ridge Parkway, partially wooded uplands, and areas with no associated water sources,
suggesting that construction lighting in upland areas may also affect MYGR.

42

Bridge construction activities will occur within the highest quality foraging and commuting
habitats within the Action Area for MYGR. Construction activities that illuminate the river or
riparian areas, especially on the causeways at the river level, may deter bats from their typical
foraging and commuting areas for the duration of the project construction. If MYGR avoid areas
that are brighter than baseline conditions, and for an extended period of time, this may lead to
increased travel time/distance between their roosts and foraging areas. Although night work
lighting will be somewhat limited as described above, these disturbances may still contribute
stress to pregnant and lactating females, leading to reduced fitness and pup survivorship. These
activities are anticipated to have long term impacts on the local MYGR population.
Since construction lighting will likely create a visual barrier, it is anticipated that MYGR will
avoid or modify their preferred foraging and commuting areas, and potentially their roosting
areas influenced by this disturbance. If MYGR avoid areas that are brighter than they are
accustomed to, and particularly if they must do so during the entire 14 month construction
duration, this may lead to increased travel time/distance between their roosts and foraging areas.
This could result in diminished fitness of adults and/or reduced survivorship of pups and/or
adults. Bats that continue to utilize areas that are brightly lit may experience higher levels of
predation.
The proposed construction lighting may reduce the suitability of the MYGR roost site. Bats may
abandon this roost and seek an alternate, resulting in diminished fitness of adults and/or reduced
survivorship of pups and/or adults. Bats continuing to use the roost may be susceptible to
increased predation due to increased visibility.
5.2.2.4 Project Construction – Causeways and Bridge
It is anticipated that the temporary fill associated with the causeways in the French Broad River,
will have some effect on MYGR since these activities will occur within the highest quality
foraging and commuting habitats for MYGR within the Action Area. It is difficult to predict
whether the potential changes to flow velocities, and any associated increases in sedimentation
produced by the temporary causeways will affect MYGR that utilize these areas for foraging or
commuting. However, the causeways will temporarily reduce the available habitat for aquatic
invertebrates in these streams, where MYGR are known to forage. If the prey base in this area is
reduced while causeways are in place, and MYGR are forced to find other foraging areas, this
may lead to increased travel time/distance between their roosts and other foraging areas. We
anticipate that temporary stream fill may remain in place in various locations throughout the
Action Area and may cause some MYGR to seek alternative foraging locations. However, we
do not anticipate being able to measure this effect, and believe it will be insignificant.
There is concern that if the hydrology of the French Broad River is altered, either temporarily
during construction, or permanently as a result of construction, MYGR may find the roost site
within the Action Area less desirable and abandon it. However, the Applicant has committed to
ensuring that temporary causeways do not occlude greater that 64-percent of stream discharge at
any given time. It is unknown how roosting, foraging, and commuting MYGR or their
macroinvertebrate prey source may respond to this temporary flow alteration. However, we do
not anticipate being able to measure this potential effect.

43

5.2.2.5 Project Construction – Water Quality/Erosion and Sediment Controls
The Applicant has made an effort to minimize impacts to surface waters and wetlands.
However, several project-mediated impacts to water quality are still likely to occur within the
Action Area. These effects are anticipated to be short term in nature, and may include:

● temporary sedimentation from land-clearing and earth moving activities such as
preparation, installation of drainage features, utility installation, and grading activities;
● temporary sedimentation from in-water work associated with bridge construction
activities such as investigative and construction drilling for bridge footings, installation
and removal of temporary causeways, and construction drilling; and
● accidental spills of petrochemicals, drilling fluid, uncured concrete, et cetera.

The proposed project would directly impact (fill) 0.067 acre of wetland and 277 linear feet of the
French Broad River. At least 13,500 linear feet of stream and 2.891 acres of wetland occur
within the Action Area. Most of these are small streams and wetlands, which MYGR do not
typically utilize for foraging and commuting, but indirect impacts to these features associated
with construction activities may contribute to diminished water quality within the Action Area.
Diminished water quality caused by sedimentation, contamination, and the destruction of
wetlands and stream habitats where MYGR are present may reduce the availability of certain
aquatic invertebrates and/or reduce the quality of suitable drinking sources. Insects associated
with aquatic habitats comprise a large portion of the MYGR diet. Many species of aquatic
insects are intolerant of even subtle perturbations to water quality and physical habitats.
Therefore, a change in water quality may affect a portion of the prey base of the species.
Although water quality impacts may cause a reduction in specific portions of the prey base and
diminish the quality of drinking sources for MYGR, adverse effects will be temporary, and are
likely to be undetectable due to the availability of alternative prey and drinking sources in the
surrounding landscape. MYGR diet has been found to coincide most directly with the
predominantly available prey species in the foraging area (including both terrestrial and aquatic
species). This suggests that bats may be capable of sufficiently modifying their diet and forage
areas to adapt to changes in hydrology and any associated changes to community structure of
invertebrate prey. Therefore, we do not anticipate any measurable effect on MYGR due to
potentially diminished water quality.
5.2.2.6 Project Construction – Summary of Effects
Lighting, noise, removal of woody vegetation, reduced water quality, stream fill and associated
aquatic habitat alteration/destruction, could adversely impact MYGR. Project-mediated impacts
to the primary roost within the Action Area and to riparian and instream habitats associated with
the French Broad River are anticipated to have the most significant effects on MYGR as these
areas represent the highest quality habitats for the species. Specifically, construction lighting,
noise, vibration, and the removal of woody vegetation for the construction of the proposed bridge
are anticipated to be the activities resulting in the greatest impact to MYGR. Reduced water
quality, stream fill, and modifications to hydrology have effects to MYGR that are not as well
understood, and harder to quantify, but are nevertheless predicted to have some negative effect.
In total, construction effects from these stressors are likely to adversely affect MYGR by

44

potentially diminishing the fitness of adults and/or reducing the survivorship of pups and/or
adults. Mortality is possible if roosting bats are disturbed from torpor in March and after
October 15th from associated work.
5.2.3 Adverse Effects – Project Operations
The nature of project operations is unknown as the Applicant has not disclosed several key
aspects of its proposed development including what it will produce and how the facility would be
operated. The Applicant describes Project Ranger as an economic development project with an
extremely sensitive construction schedule. The Applicant indicates that it will plat and dedicate
an 89-acre tract of land for the undisclosed manufacturing facility, but it is unclear when this
would occur and who would own this property. Based on the information provided, we can
surmise the following project-mediated effects to MYGR from Project Ranger operations.
5.2.3.1 Project Operations – Vehicle Lighting
Once the proposed roadway is in operation, traffic volume and ambient light from headlights will
increase from baseline conditions to support approximately 1,200 employees and any additional
traffic that may use the Action Area as a thoroughfare in the future.
MYGR travelling across or adjacent to the roadway, particularly in areas near the French Broad
River would be most susceptible to impacts associated with increased ambient light. Myotis sp.
are light averse (Voigt 2018) and additional ambient lighting will likely repel some foraging or
commuting bats from affected areas. If bats choose to avoid newly lit areas, they will need to
find new travel corridors and foraging areas and could be impacted for some amount of time
post-construction. Potential impacts include increased energy expenditure affecting fitness and
reproductive success.
5.2.3.2 Project Operations – Noise
Once Project Ranger is operational affects from noise associated with increased traffic volume
and project operations will become permanent and will likely increase from baseline conditions.
Since little has been disclosed about Project Ranger operations, it is not currently possible to
predict how noise levels associated with project operations will increase from baseline conditions
once the project becomes operational. Although, we surmise that MYGR travelling across or
adjacent to the roadway during the MYGR active and maternity seasons would be exposed to
increased noise, and project-mediated noise disturbances that occur after sunset (night traffic or
night operations) may be most harmful to the species.
While there are no studies that quantify a noise tolerance threshold that elicits a deleterious
response to foraging, commuting or roosting MYGR, some studies suggest that roosting Myotis
sodalis (MYSO, congener) may be able to tolerate noise disturbance from vehicle traffic near
large airports (Sparks et al. 2009). It should be noted that MYGR using roosts in bridges near
the Action Area (Appendix A, Figure 9) are accustomed to at least some level of noise
disturbance which is commensurate with baseline traffic and development conditions. However,

45

most of these known bridge roosts are located on two-lane roads with lower traffic volumes than
those anticipated with this project.
Since Project Ranger operations have not been disclosed, and little is currently known about the
relationship between noise disturbances and MYGR behavior, it is not currently possible to
predict how additional noise disturbance may affect roosting, foraging, and commuting MYGR
within the Action Area over the lifetime of the project. However, we are reasonably certain that
project-mediated noise disturbance will increase from baseline conditions within the Action Area
once the project becomes operational.
5.2.3.3 Project Operations – Vehicle Collisions
Bats attempting to cross the Action Area will encounter a wider opening between areas of
vegetated refugia compared to baseline conditions, and will encounter new openings and
obstacles where the bridges are constructed. MYGR attempting to cross the roadway could be
struck by passing vehicles. Bats may be more likely to collide with cars when they are first
confronted with the new bridge and roadway, potentially deciding to fly over them. Collisions
would be more likely to occur with lower bridges and the risk would likely decrease as bats
adjust to the structures. Bat mortality caused by impacts with passing vehicles is well
documented (Kiefer et al. 1995, Lesiński 2007, Gaisler et al. 2009, Russell et al. 2009, Lesinski
et al. 2010, Medinas et al. 2013). Bat mortality may occur within the Action Area if bats fly too
low in traffic when crossing over a bridge or roadway, typically when they are commuting.
MYGR are probably less susceptible to vehicle collisions while foraging, because they typically
forage within 6.5 to 10 ft. of the water surface (Tuttle 1976b, 1979, LaVal et al. 1977). Bat injury
and mortality from vehicle strikes is likely to increase within the Action Area from baseline
conditions due to increased traffic. Direct impacts to MYGR from vehicle collisions would
likely result in death or injury. Bats that choose to avoid areas with increased traffic may seek
new travel corridors, foraging areas, or roosts, which may require that they expend additional
energy affecting fitness and reproductive success.
5.2.3.4 Project Operations – Site Maintenance
Although the Applicant has not disclosed key aspects of Project Ranger operations, forested
areas that are cleared as part of the construction process will likely need to be maintained in low
growing or herbaceous vegetation after construction completion. Potential effects to MYGR
from woody vegetation removal are described in Section 5.2.2.1. Maintenance of cleared areas
near water will result in a permanent increase in lighting from road work and facility operation
and reduced cover for foraging and commuting bats. Openings in forest cover will be relatively
small in size within 400 linear feet of the French Broad River, where the highest quality habitats
for foraging and commuting MYGR occur within the Action Area. Based on the information
available, it is difficult to fully assess how the maintenance of these open spaces will affect
MYGR within the Action Area. However, we anticipate that bats will eventually adjust to
vegetation changes and will likely find alternative dark corridors for commuting and foraging, as
needed.
Additionally, tree trimming and hazardous tree removal activities would likely occur along
roadsides to reduce safety hazards from falling trees or limbs, or to improve line-of-sight issues.

46

Hazardous tree-removal would likely occur on an as-needed basis, so quantifying the amount of
habitat lost from this activity is not practicable. No MYGR roosts are anticipated to be impacted
by this activity, and any clearing of this type along waterways where MYGR might be foraging
or commuting is expected to be minimal.
Based on the information provided, we do not anticipate any detectable effects mediated by site
maintenance on MYGR that occur in the Action Area.
5.2.3.5 Project Operations – Permanent Lighting
The BA indicates that permanent lighting for the Project Ranger facility would comply with
Buncombe County lighting standards, which are intended to minimize light pollution, light
trespass and glare, and promote energy efficiency (Buncombe County, 2019). The Project would
use warmer color temperature lighting (CCT < 3,000K), utilize LED light fixtures with lumen
output equal to or less than Buncombe County requirements, and employ downward-facing fully
shielded lighting. The mounting height of all outdoor area lighting would not exceed 25 feet
above the lowest adjacent elevation.
The permanent lighting design for the French Broad River bridge calls for two lights at the center
of the bridge, and two additional lights (six lights total) at each of the bridge abutments
(Appendix, Figure 7). The bridge and roadway would use Type II LED light fixtures with a 1-0-
1 BUG rating which are designed to minimize light spill. Additional permanent lighting would
be constructed near the bridge intersection with NC-191 on the west side of the river (Appendix
A, Figure 7).
The baseline condition for much of the foraging and commuting habitat on the French Broad
River is unlit, with some small areas of light from existing bridges and private development.
Light does not typically reach all the way across any of the waterways.
Once the Project Ranger construction is complete, MYGR travelling across or adjacent to the
Action Area, will be exposed to new lighting. Since Myotis sp. are light averse (Voigt 2018),
additional ambient lighting will likely repel some foraging or commuting bats from affected
areas. If bats choose to avoid newly lit areas, they will need to find new travel corridors and
foraging areas and could be impacted for some amount of time post-construction. Potential
impacts include increased energy expenditure affecting fitness and reproductive success.
Permanent lighting at the project may reduce site suitability to the extent that MYGR abandon
the roost located within the action area. Bats may abandon this roost and seek an alternate,
resulting in diminished fitness of adults and/or reduced survivorship of pups and/or adults. Bats
continuing to use the roost may be susceptible to increased predation due to increased visibility.

The Applicant proposes to monitor this MYGR population while Project Ranger construction is
underway (Section 2.4.9). More importantly, the NCDOT proposes to monitor this MYGR
population while construction of nearby roadway projects are underway (estimated 2022-2027
according to BA), which coincides with the start of Project Ranger operations. Biltmore Farms
has committed to allow access to the site for the purposes of monitoring bat populations for the
duration of Project Ranger and NCDOT I-26 construction projects (Section 2.4.9). This

47

monitoring effort is intended to document potential population declines, roost abandonment,
roost establishment, and/or roost re-establishment that may occur.
5.2.4 Adverse Effects – Project-Meditated Consequences
Effects of the action are all consequences to listed species or critical habitat that are caused by
the proposed action, including the consequences of other activities that are caused by the
proposed action. A consequence is caused by the proposed action if it would not occur but for the
proposed action and it is reasonably certain to occur. Effects of the action may occur later in time
and may include consequences occurring outside the immediate area involved in the action. (See
§ 402.17).
5.2.4.1 Consequences Affecting Gray Bat – Induced Land Development
The Applicant describes Project Ranger as an economic development project with an extremely
sensitive construction schedule but also indicated that the undisclosed industrial developer was
considering multiple construction locations throughout the southeastern U.S. It is unclear when,
or if the undisclosed industrial developer has committed to development of the project. At this
time, Biltmore Farms has not disclosed what the 1,000,000 square foot facility would produce,
who would employ its estimated 1,200 employees, or described project operations with detail.
However, we believe that Project Ranger will likely induce changes in surrounding land use
based on the information provided in the BA. Specifically, the proposed bridge/roadway
alignment and design, significant employee recruitment, and the Applicant’s intent to bolster
additional economic development suggest that Project Ranger would facilitate additional
development activities in the vicinity of the Action Area.
Design plans call for the grading of an area along the roadway to accommodate a round-about
that could provide future roadway access to an undeveloped tract of Biltmore Farms property
south of the Blue Ridge Parkway (Appendix A, Figure 3). The Applicant indicates that grading
for this round-about would be accomplished during the initial phase of development to avoid
disruption of Project Ranger operations in the future, and that the roundabout would allow future
traffic from the south to return to the proposed bridge without entering the Project Ranger
facility. The Applicant also indicates that the bridge and access road would be turned over to the
NCDOT for upkeep beginning March, 2021. The NCDOT expressed their intent to add the
proposed access road and bridge into the state system of maintenance once construction is
complete (Appendix E). Therefore, the proposed roadway and bridge are designed to meet
minimum NCDOT standards.
No plans (conceptual, draft, final, or otherwise) for onsite or offsite development associated with
Project Ranger have been provided at this time. Based on the information provided by the
Applicant and summarized above, future development associated with the proposed project is
reasonably certain to occur but it is unclear what exactly will necessitate the expansion of this
roadway, when it would occur, and what future development activities it would accommodate.
At this time, it is not possible to measure the effects that induced development activities may
have on roosting, foraging, or commuting MYGR. However, we anticipate that project-mediated
induction of additional residential and commercial developments in the area would have at least
some negative impact on MYGR. Impacts to MYGR from induced development would likely be

48

similar in nature to those described above, and development activities would have the greatest
impact during the MYGR active and maternity seasons and within areas along the French Broad
River (particularly the primary roost site within the Action Area).
5.3 EFFECTS OF THE ACTION – APPALACHIAN ELKTOE
Under section 7(a)(2) of the Act and the recent update to the regulations, effective October 28,
2019, “effects of the action” are all consequences to listed species or critical habitat that are
caused by the proposed action, including the consequences of other activities that are caused by
the proposed action. A consequence is caused by the proposed action if it would not occur but for
the proposed action and it is reasonably certain to occur. Effects of the action may occur later in
time and may include consequences occurring outside the immediate area involved in the action.
The federal agency is responsible for analyzing these effects. The effects of the proposed action
are added to the environmental baseline to determine the future baseline, which serves as the
basis for the determination in this Opinion. Should the effects of the federal action result in a
situation that would jeopardize the continued existence of the species, we may propose
reasonable and prudent alternatives that the federal agency can take to avoid a violation of
section 7(a)(2).
5.3.1 Factors to Be Considered – Proximity of the Action
Appalachian elktoe occurs within a portion of the Action Area, specifically the main stem of the
French Broad River (Figure 8 of Appendix A). Freshwater mussel surveys were conducted
October 4, 2019. The survey area was conducted from approximately 400 meters downstream of
the proposed bridge footprint to 100 meters upstream from the proposed bridge footprint.
Approximately 21 person-hours detected two mussel species including, one live Appalachian
elktoe mussel (catch-per-unit-effort was 0.05 Appalachian elktoe/hr).
5.3.2 Factors to Be Considered – Nature of the Effect
Project-mediated construction disturbances will impact Appalachian elktoe habitat and may
directly impact (kill, crush, bury) individual mussels within the Action Area. Once construction
is complete, project operations associated with Project Ranger will continue to impact
Appalachian elktoe habitat within the French Broad River. The nature of project-mediated
effects to Appalachian elktoe are summarized below:
• Riparian vegetation removed during construction will increase the risk of erosion and
sedimentation to instream habitats occupied by Appalachian elkote. Maintenance of
these cleared areas (preventing natural revegetation of deep rooting native woody
species) once Project Ranger is operational will also maintain the risk of erosion and
sedimentation of instream habitats.

• Activities within the footprint of the proposed bridge will impact the mussel community
and their habitats during construction, and for some time after the construction is
completed. There will be some permanent loss of in-stream habitat due to the presence of
new bridge bents in the river and tributaries.

49

• Lighting, noise, and vibration from construction equipment, blasting, and drilling
activities may cause mussels to retract siphons and close valves which may disrupt
feeding, respiration, and reproductive behaviors, including those associated with their
fish symbionts.

• Water quality impacts from construction and project operations will increase impervious
surface runoff and may decrease physical habitats and water quality for Appalachian
elktoe.
5.3.3 Factors to Be Considered – Disturbance Duration, Frequency, and Intensity
Appalachian elktoe within the Action Area may be affected during the entire 14 month
construction duration for Project Ranger, but bridge and causeway construction activities are the
most likely to cause direct impacts to this species (Appendix A, Figure 5). The causeways for
construction and demolition will be in place for the length of time needed to construct and
demolish the bridges. Although there will be direct impacts to the riverbed associated with the
causeways, the construction of the causeways will be phased to limit the amount of causeway in
the river at any one time, and only the causeways needed for an activity will be in place during
that activity and will be removed when the action is completed. There will be temporary impacts
to river hydrology both upstream and downstream of the causeways. The Applicant has
committed to ensuring that temporary causeways do not occlude greater that 64-percent of
stream discharge at any given time.
After the construction causeways are removed from the French Broad River, the benthic
community will continue to recover for some period of time as physical habitats endure seasonal
bankfull flows that resort the riverbed and reestablish meso-habitats. Therefore, the intensity of
this project-mediated disturbance would attenuate over time following project completion.
Project-mediated disturbances to uplands have potential to induce erosion and sedimentation of
Appalachian elktoe habitat within the Action Area throughout the entire construction duration
(Appendix A, Figure 5). Water supply and gas utility lines may be directionally bored under the
French Broad River (minimum depth of six feet) at the bridge crossing location (Appendix C),
and may impact Appalachian elktoe in the case of an inadvertent spill of drilling fluid However,
appropriate sediment and erosion control measures and a frac-out contingency plan (Appendix
C), would reduce the probability for large inputs of sediment or spilled fluid into the French
Broad River, thereby reducing the intensity of these effects to Appalachian elktoe.
5.4 EFFECTS ANALYSIS – APPALACHIAN ELKTOE
5.4.1 Beneficial Effects
The Applicant, Biltmore Farms, has committed to provide $15,000 in funding to the North
Carolina Nongame Aquatic Projects Fund for the French Broad River Conservation Plan
(FBRCP) proposed by USFWS, which will aid in the recovery and conservation of Appalachian
Elktoe and other associated freshwater mussel fauna of the French Broad River.

50

5.4.2 Adverse Effects – Project Construction
Construction activities associated with Project Ranger will include, tree clearing, grubbing,
grading, installation of base material, installation of pavement, construction of access roads,
including a new bridge across the French Broad River, construction of causeways, blasting, pile
driving, and lighting associated with night work.
The Action Area includes a reach of the French Broad River that is occupied by Appalachian
elktoe and instream construction activities may result in direct impacts to this species.
Additionally, the majority of uplands within the Project Area also drain into the French Broad
River. Therefore, certain construction disturbances occurring in riparian areas and uplands may
also affect the Appalachian elktoe and its habitats. Appalachian elktoe present in the Action
Area may be most vulnerable to disturbance effects from associated construction activities when
females prepare to release maturing glochidia to infest susceptible fish symbionts.
5.4.2.1 Project Construction – Vegetation Removal
The Applicant indicates that Project Ranger would require up to 84 acres of tree clearing. Tree
clearing along the French Broad River would total three acres. No other tree clearing activities
would occur within 400 linear feet of the French Broad River. However, tree-trimming/limbing
would occur along construction access roadways (within 25 feet on either side). Some of this
limbing activity for construction road widening would occur within 400 linear feet of the French
Broad River, but no clearing or grubbing would occur in these areas.
Forested areas in the Action Area are largely intact and undisturbed by surrounding development
activities. Along the French Broad River, there is generally a continuous, (albeit narrow in some
places) riparian buffer. This buffer is important for maintaining instream and riparian habitats as
it stabilizes streambanks, catches and filters runoff, maintains suitable air and water
temperatures, and provides a source of coarse woody debris and allochthonous organic matter to
maintain physical habitat diversity and the aquatic food web. Reduced function of the adjacent
forested riparian corridor may lead to short-term perturbations to water quality and physical
habitats that could reduce fitness of individuals.
Tree clearing, and especially tree clearing adjacent to the French Broad River may extend the
reach for project-mediated lighting disturbances (temporary or permanent) into Appalachian
elktoe habitats. Lighting disturbances may cause mussels to retract siphons and close valves
which could disrupt feeding, respiration, and reproductive behaviors, (including those associated
with their fish symbionts), and could reduce fitness of individuals. Prolonged exposure to
lighting disturbances exceeding baseline conditions may influence animals to expend resources
or prematurely abort glochidia which could reduce reproductive success and increase
susceptibility to predation or otherwise reduce fitness.
5.4.2.2 Project Construction – Bridge and Causeways
Construction work in or adjacent to the French Broad River has a greater potential to affect
Appalachian elktoe due to its immediate proximity to occupied habitat, compared to construction

51

activities within uplands that drain into the river. The following activities associated with bridge
construction may adversely affect the Appalachian elktoe.
During investigative drilling for bridge footings, any mussels present in the drilling area, (less
than two sq. ft. in the French Broad River), will be killed. The cuttings (rock dust) from drilling
could potentially smother any mussels that occur in the area. Given the rarity of Appalachian
elktoe within the French Broad River, the chances of an individual occurring within the location
of the borings is small but cannot be completely discounted.
Bridge construction would include temporary impacts to 0.67 acres of the French Broad River
for causeways, <0.01 acre of permanent fill for bridge footings, and 0.03 acre of permanent bank
stabilization (riprap) on both banks. Any mussels present in the bridge construction areas could
be killed by drilled shafts or placement of footings, placement of causeways, and/or the removal
of causeways.
Bridge Construction – Causeways
The placement and removal of causeways will likely have the greatest impact to Appalachian
elktoe of all proposed construction activities. Causeway installation and removal activities may
directly kill, crush, or bury individual mussels and may cause temporary negative effects to
physical habitats.
Causeways would constrict river discharge and therefore modify the hydrology and physical
habitat conditions upstream and downstream of the construction area to an extent that will
depend on flow conditions. High-flow events will likely exacerbate the influence of causeways
to alter baseline hydrology and physical habitat conditions. Rock causeway material may be
washed away during high flow events, which may kill, crush or bury individuals or otherwise
degrade mussel habitat.
The Applicant has committed to ensure that temporary causeways do not occlude greater that 64-
percent of stream discharge at any given time. Still, causeways will increase the risk of stream
bed and bank scour within the Action Area. The area downstream of the causeways will
experience higher velocities while causeways are in place and may experience higher rates of
scour as a result. Scouring could affect any mussels in the riverbed, washing them downstream
and/or causing shell erosion. Mussels that occur upstream or downstream of temporary
causeways may be involuntarily displaced by higher flow conditions or may voluntarily relocate
to find more favorable conditions for feeding or reproductive behaviors. Animals that expend
energy adapting to altered baseline habitat conditions may increase susceptibility to predation or
otherwise experience a reduction in fitness or reproductive success. Since habitat in the French
Broad River is bedrock dominant, the Service believes this habitat will likely revert back to its
present suitability within a few years post construction.
Temporary causeways may also act as physical, and high-velocity barriers to fish movement.
The disruption of fish movement could impact the Appalachian elktoe if its fish hosts are unable
to move freely in the French Broad River. Disruptions to fish movement may cause loss in
mussel recruitment in upstream or downstream areas for the period of time the causeways are in
place. Fish hosts traveling upstream are more likely to encounter this disruption than those

52

traveling downstream. Although this impact could affect the reproductive success of
Appalachian elktoe within the Action Area, the Service believes that project-mediated impacts to
its host fish would be minor.
All potential impacts to Appalachian elktoe mentioned above associated with bridge construction
activities may induce erosion and sedimentation within the Action Area. However, land
disturbances associated with accessing the river for construction is likely to be the greatest
source of sedimentation.
5.4.2.3 Project Construction – Water Quality/Erosion and Sediment Controls
The Applicant has proposed measures to minimize impacts to surface waters and wetlands.
However, several project-mediated impacts to water quality are still likely to occur within the
Action Area. These effects are anticipated to be short term in duration, and may include:

● temporary sedimentation from land-clearing and earth moving activities such as
preparation and installation of drainage features, utility installation, and grading
activities;
● temporary sedimentation from in-water work associated with bridge construction
activities such as investigative and construction drilling for bridge footings, installation
and removal of temporary causeways, and construction drilling; and
● accidental spills of petrochemicals, drilling fluid, uncured concrete, or other construction
liquids.

The proposed project would directly impact (fill) 0.067 acre of wetland and 277 linear feet of the
French Broad River. At least 13,500 linear feet of stream and 2.891 acres of wetland occur
within the Action Area. Most of these are small streams and wetlands, which Appalachian
elktoe do not occupy. However, impacts to conveyances that drain into the French Broad River
may degrade water quality and physical habitats within the Action Area.
All construction activities that expose soil create an opportunity for soil erosion and
sedimentation into the French Broad River. This can negatively impact aquatic species,
including the Appalachian elktoe. Given the extent of project-mediated disturbance, Project
Ranger has significant potential to cause widespread, negative effects to Appalachian elktoe and
its habitat during project construction. Two previous population declines of this species
coincided with erosive events. In the Little Tennessee River, hurricanes Frances and Ivan in
2004 caused major flooding resulting in landslides and chronically unstable banks throughout the
watershed. Over the next few years, the population of Appalachian elktoe declined precipitously
and is now critically imperiled. On the South Toe River, starting in 2013 a major road widening
project began affecting dozens of tributaries of the South Toe River. Subsequently, the
Appalachian elktoe population immediately downstream of this disturbance declined.
Investigations into the mechanism that caused the decline are ongoing, but the proximity to
potential erosive sources suggests that this species is particularly sensitive to elevated levels of
fine sediment.

53

The distribution of Appalachian elktoe in the French Broad River currently places most of them
in the upper portions of the river (mainstem and tributaries in Henderson and Transylvania
Counties, North Carolina). At this time, Appalachian elktoe appears to be expanding its range in
the French Broad River. Species occurrence records suggest that downstream expansion of the
Appalachian elktoe will continue unless external factors halt the population expansion. Due to
the above mentioned losses in two other populations, the long term stability of the French Broad
River population is critical for species recovery.
The erosion control measures incorporated into the proposed action will reduce the levels of
sedimentation into the French Broad River, but these measures have a design limit based on the
amount of rainfall received at the project area. Rainfall events that are greater than the erosion
control design limits will result in sediment loss into the river. The baseline levels of suspended
sediment in the French Broad River are elevated due to cumulative activity in the watershed.
However, this baseline suspended sediment has not prevented recent population expansion. In
2018 the Asheville region experienced the highest level of rainfall on record. Until that time, the
previous record year was 2013. Since the frequency of record high rainfall events in the area
seem to be increasing, it is possible that periods of significant rainfall will occur during the
construction period (Appendix A, Figure 5).
5.4.2.4 Project Construction – Utility Line and Frac-Out
Project design plans are not complete at this time, but the Applicant anticipates that water supply
and gas utility lines would be directionally bored under the French Broad River (minimum depth
of six feet) at the bridge crossing location, then run along the road alignment depicted in design
plans (Appendix A, Figures 3 and 4; Appendix C).
Inadvertent frac-out and/or spill of drilling fluid may suffocate, injure, or otherwise reduce
fitness of mussels occurring within a localized area of effect. The Applicant has prepared a frac-
out contingency plan that requires contractors to contain any spilled drilling fluid and minimize
environmental impacts (Appendix C). Notably, the frac-out contingency plan calls for a vacuum
truck to remain onsite to facilitate containment in case of an inadvertent spill.
Spills associated with frac-outs are rare and depend on underlying geology and drilling methods.
Given the apparently low density of Appalachian elktoe within the French Broad River, and
proposed measures to contain an inadvertent spill of drilling fluid, the probability of this impact
is very low but cannot be completely discounted.
5.4.2.5 Project Construction – Inadvertent Spills
The inadvertent spill or discharge of toxic pollutants, such as diesel fuel, hydraulic oil, and
uncured concrete into the French Broad River could result in mortality of Appalachian elktoe.
Spills of construction fluids are not uncommon, and the duration of heavy equipment use
adjacent to waterways increases the possibility that a spill or discharge could occur. However,
the Applicant has committed to conservation measures that reduce the likelihood of a spill or
discharge reaching the river (see Section 2.4 for a description of this and other proposed
conservation measures). Spills could also take place near any other waterway within the Action
Area and subsequently have an effect further downstream.

54

The type, timing, amount, and proximity to a water source of any accidental spills would
determine the magnitude of effect to Appalachian Elktoe, but may result in death, disrupt feeding
or reproductive behaviors, influence animals to expend energy to relocate to more favorable
habitats, or otherwise reduce fitness. Significant spills resulting from negligent operation are
possible, but unlikely to occur.
5.4.2.6 Project Construction – Light, Noise, and Vibration
Freshwater mussels can detect and respond to changes in light. Studies suggest that mussels may
react more to rapid changes in ambient light levels (e.g. passing shadows from adjacent activity)
than to gradual changes in light levels (Braun and Faust 1954, Imlay 1968). Some mussels may
release glochidia (possibly prematurely) in response to changes in ambient light, noise, and/or
vibration (B. Hamstead pers. comm.).
Lighting, noise, and vibration disturbances may cause mussels to retract siphons and close valves
which could disrupt feeding, respiration, and reproductive behaviors, (including those associated
with their fish symbionts), and could reduce fitness of individuals. Prolonged exposure to these
disturbances exceeding baseline conditions may influence animals to expend additional resources
to relocate or prematurely abort glochidia which could reduce reproductive success and increase
susceptibility to predation or otherwise reduce fitness.
5.4.3 Adverse Effects – Project Operations
The nature of project operations is unknown as the Applicant has not disclosed several key
aspects of its proposed development including what it will produce and how the facility would be
operated. The Applicant describes Project Ranger as an economic development project with an
extremely sensitive construction schedule. The Applicant indicates that it will plat and dedicate
an 89-acre tract of land for the undisclosed manufacturing facility, but it is unclear when this
would occur and who would own this property. Based on the information provided, we can
surmise the following project-mediated effects to Appalachian Elktoe from Project Ranger
operations.
5.4.3.1 Project Operations – Site Maintenance
Although the Applicant has not disclosed key aspects of Project Ranger operations, forested
areas that are cleared as part of the construction process will likely need to be maintained in low
growing or herbaceous vegetation after construction completion. Potential effects to
Appalachian elktoe from vegetation removal are described in Section 5.4.2.1. Openings in forest
cover will be relatively small in size within 400 linear feet of the French Broad River. Based on
the information available, it is difficult to fully assess how the maintenance of these open spaces
will affect Appalachian elktoe within the Action Area. Siltation and chemical contaminants
including pesticides are recognized as a threat to freshwater mussels (Williams et al. 1993,
Bringolf et al. 2007). The use of herbicide near conveyances to the French Broad River has the
potential to adversely effect the water quality through drift or direct runoff into the river, which
may affect fitness of individuals.

55

5.4.3.2 Project Operations – Impervious Surfaces
The proposed impervious area on the Biltmore Farms Tract north of the Blue Ridge Parkway
will be 41.57 acres to accommodate the manufacturing facility, parking areas, bridge, access
road, and roundabout (including future expansion areas) (Appendix A, Figures 3 and 4). The
addition of this impervious surface drainage to baseline conditions will affect water quality and
physical habitats within the French Broad River indefinitely. Impervious surfaces from
roadways and developments increase the rate of runoff into the river, causing potential
destabilization of sensitive habitat within. Roadway and parking lot runoff contains pollutants
that may affect aquatic species at high concentrations. The Applicant has incorporated
stormwater control measures into the design of Project Ranger (Appendix A, Figure 3; Sections
2.3.1.2 and 2.4).
The Applicant indicates that permanent post-construction stormwater control measures would be
designed to meet Buncombe County standards which require treatment of the 1-year, 24-hour
storm event. Buncombe County standards also require that the design rate of discharge not
exceed the pre-development rate of discharge for this same storm event. To meet these
standards, Biltmore Farms proposes to construct two stormwater ponds during the initial phase of
construction (Appendix A, Figure 3; Sections 2.3.1.2 and 2.4). These structures are intended to
accommodate future site expansion. The outlets for these ponds will be directed away from
wetlands and will be located on high ground at least 500 linear feet from the French Broad River.
Their discharge will be into non-jurisdictional conveyances that drain into jurisdictional streams.
While proposed stormwater control measures are intended to reduce some of the deleterious
effects of project-mediated stormwater to habitat conditions within the French Broad River, they
are not designed to completely eliminate stormwater-mediated shift to baseline habitat
conditions, especially when rainfall surpasses design specifications. We anticipate that the
proposed increases to impervious surfaces will elicit a flashier response to streamflow in project
receiving waters. Increased stream velocities may have adverse erosive effects on jurisdictional
or non-jurisdictional conveyances resulting in additional sedimentation in the river. Moreover,
project-mediated runoff will likely degrade water quality conditions in receiving waters when
rainfall events exceed the capacity of the stormwater ponds.
Numerous pollutants have been identified in runoff from roadways, parking lots, and other
impervious surfaces associated with developments, including various metals (e.g., lead, zinc,
iron), sediment, pesticides, de-icing salts, nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus), and petroleum
hydrocarbons and many of these can be harmful to mussels. Mussels present in the Action Area
may experience locally increased exposure to runoff from Project Ranger. The effects from
project-mediated runoff will be long-lasting, spanning the life of the development, but significant
deleterious effects will likely be sporadic and localized. The long term effects of chronic
exposure to roadway pollutants to mussels are poorly understood. The proposed conservation
funding committed to by the Applicant for activities aiding in the conservation of Appalachian
elktoe will be expended to further study the health of the watershed, as well as the elktoe, to aid
in recovery of the species.
Project operations will also increase the probability for inadvertent toxic spills over the life of the
development that could affect Appalachian elktoe habitat. The project-mediated effect will
depend on what the undisclosed development may produce, and the frequency and means by

56

which it would be transported offsite. The effect of toxic spills from additional vehicle traffic is
also difficult to predict, but the Applicant estimates the addition of approximately 2,000 vehicles
per day to baseline conditions. Depending on the substance, quantity, and duration of exposure,
and other unforeseen factors, toxic spills may have acute or chronic effects to Appalachian elktoe
that may cause death or otherwise reduce fitness.
5.4.4 Consequences Affecting Appalachian Elktoe
Effects of the action are all consequences to listed species or critical habitat that are caused by
the proposed action, including the consequences of other activities that are caused by the
proposed action. A consequence is caused by the proposed action if it would not occur but for the
proposed action and it is reasonably certain to occur. Effects of the action may occur later in time
and may include consequences occurring outside the immediate area involved in the action. (See
§ 402.17).
5.4.4.1 Consequences Affecting Appalachian Elktoe – Induced Land Development
The Applicant describes Project Ranger as an economic development project with an extremely
sensitive construction schedule but also indicated that the undisclosed industrial developer was
considering multiple construction locations throughout the southeastern U.S. It is unclear when,
or if the undisclosed industrial developer has committed to development of the project. At this
time, Biltmore Farms has not disclosed what the 1,000,000 square foot facility would produce,
who would employ its estimated 1,200 employees, or described project operations with detail.
However, we believe that Project Ranger will likely induce changes in surrounding land use
based on the information provided in the BA. Specifically, the proposed bridge/roadway
alignment and design, significant employee recruitment, and the Applicant’s intent to bolster
additional economic development suggest that Project Ranger would facilitate additional
development activities in the vicinity of the Action Area.
Design plans call for the grading of an area along the roadway to accommodate a round-about
that could provide future roadway access to an undeveloped tract of Biltmore Farms property
south of the Blue Ridge Parkway (Appendix A, Figure 3). The Applicant indicates that grading
for this round-about would be accomplished during the initial phase of development to avoid
disruption of Project Ranger operations in the future, and that the roundabout would allow future
traffic from the south to return to the proposed bridge without entering the Project Ranger
facility.
The Applicant also indicates that the bridge and access road would be turned over to the NCDOT
for upkeep beginning March, 2021. The NCDOT expressed their intent to add the proposed
access road and bridge into the state system of maintenance once construction is complete.
Therefore, the proposed roadway and bridge are designed to meet minimum NCDOT standards
(Appendix E).
No plans (conceptual, draft, final, or otherwise) for onsite or offsite development associated with
Project Ranger have been provided at this time. Based on the information provided by the
Applicant summarized above, future development associated with the proposed project is

57

reasonably certain to occur but it is unclear what exactly will necessitate the expansion of this
roadway, when it would occur, and what future development activities it would accommodate.
At this time, it is not possible to measure the effects that induced development activities may
have on Appalachian elktoe. However, we anticipate that project-mediated induction of
additional residential and commercial developments in the area would have at least some
negative impact on water quality and physical aquatic habitats associated with an increase in
impervious surfaces, stormwater conveyances into the French Broad River, untreated runoff, and
toxic spills. Impacts to Appalachian elktoe from induced development would likely be similar in
nature to those described above, and development activities would have the greatest impact
within areas adjacent to the French Broad River.
6. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
Gray bat and Appalachian elktoe
Cumulative effects are defined under the ESA 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 ESA.

The Applicant describes its undisclosed development as an economic development project that
would employ its estimated 1,200 employees and is therefore likely to induce changes in
surrounding land use. Specifically, the proposed bridge/roadway alignment and design,
significant employee recruitment, and the Applicant’s intent to bolster additional economic
development suggest that Project Ranger would accommodate and/or incentivize future
residential, commercial, and industrial development in the area. Additional development
activities and associated impacts to MYGR and Appalachian elktoe mediated are reasonably
certain to occur and these activities would likely result in similar impacts to those described
above. However, we anticipate that the majority of future development activities large enough in
scope to adversely affect MYGR and Appalachian elktoe would likely require federal
authorization or funding requiring their own ESA Section 7 consultation, and would not be
considered a cumulative effect under the ESA. However, the French Broad River corridor
throughout the action area continues to experience heavy growth, with many small developments
contributing non-point source pollution to the river in the form of sedimentation during
construction and/or increased runoff carrying pollutants from the roads or private lands during
rain events.
7. CONCLUSION
7.1 GRAY BAT
After reviewing the current status of the gray bat; the environmental baseline for the action area;
the effects of construction and operation of Project Ranger; conservation measures incorporated
into the proposed action; effects from consequences of the action; and any cumulative effects, it

58

is the USFWS’s opinion that implementing this project is not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of the gray bat. The gray bat population utilizing the FBR basin is estimated at 1,900
to 2,300, and the entire gray bat population is conservatively estimated at 4,358,263. This project
will impact less than 0.001% of the gray bat population. Therefore, it is the opinion of the
USFWS that Project Ranger is not likely to result in jeopardy to the gray bat. No critical habitat
for gray bat exists within the Action Area, therefore, none will be affected.
7.2 APPALACHIAN ELKTOE
After reviewing the current status of the Appalachian elktoe; the environmental baseline for the
action area; the effects of construction and operation of Project Ranger; conservation measures
incorporated into the proposed action; effects from consequences of the action; and any potential
cumulative effects, it is the USFWS’s opinion that implementing this project is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of the Appalachian elktoe. Only a very small amount of in
stream habitat will be permanently lost due to the bridge construction. Due to the extent and
duration of this project, it is possible Appalachian elktoe in the Action Area will be affected by
habitat degradation from sediment eroded from the project and from the degradation of channels
receiving additional stormwater from the project. However, while we anticipate that
Appalachian elktoe within the Action Area may be harmed by the presence of turbidity or
settling of sediment in depositional portions of its habitat, we expect this effect to be non-lethal
temporary harm to adults that will not reach a level that prevents recolonization of the Action
Area after construction. No critical habitat for Appalachian elktoe exists within the Action Area,
therefore, none will be affected.
8. INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT
Section 9 of the Act and federal regulations pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act prohibit the
taking of endangered and threatened species, respectively, without special exemption. Take is
defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to
engage in any such conduct. Harm is further defined by the USFWS to include significant
habitat modification or degradation resulting in death or injury to listed species by significantly
impairing essential behavioral patterns, such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Harass is
defined by the USFWS as intentional or negligent actions that create the likelihood of injury to
listed species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns that include,
but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Incidental take is defined as take that is
incidental to, and not for the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Under
the terms of section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2), incidental take is not prohibited under the Act,
provided it is in compliance with the terms and conditions of this incidental take statement.
8.1 GRAY BAT
MYGR have established a primary roost within the Action Area. The USFWS anticipates
incidental take of gray bats may occur as a result of impacts to this roost despite efforts to avoid
and minimize the probability for take.

59

All or some portion of these bats may temporarily or permanently abandon the roost due to
disturbance from construction and tree clearing. Most of the take associated with impacts to this
roost will be in the form of harm and harassment, but mortality of adult bats is possible. Noise
and vibrations associated with construction near the roost may cause bats to be more active and
expend more energy, leading to diminished fitness. If disruptive enough, noise and vibrations
could also cause all or a portion of the bats to abandon the roost. If bats are aroused from torpor
due to noise from the nearby activities in March and after October 15th, when food may be
limited, they could deplete fat reserves, which could lead to decreased fitness and even death.
The USFWS also anticipates incidental take of gray bats may occur as a result of impacts to
foraging and commuting habitat from the construction and operation of Project Ranger. During
construction, individual bats may be repelled from forage areas in the bridge footprints, along the
French Broad River and tributaries, potentially reducing adult and juvenile fitness and affecting
pup birth and health before they are able to fly and forage on their own. Additionally, more bats
may be killed due to predation and car strikes if they are repelled from areas of active
construction and forced to fly over the highway or through more open areas. Permanent changes
in lighting may reduce suitable forage and commuting areas so that the number of bats utilizing
the area decreases over the long term if bats avoid the elevated light levels. The number of gray
bats using the French Broad River and its tributaries within and near the action area is estimated
at 1900 to 2300 individuals. An unknown number of these will be affected by the construction
activities (including: temporary lighting, noise, causeways, decrease in water quality, and loss of
woody vegetation). Most of the take associated with impacts to commuting and foraging habitat
will be in the form of harm and harassment, but some mortality of adult bats and newly-volant
juveniles is possible. Additionally, some loss of recruitment is expected due to stress on
pregnant and lactating females and subsequent loss of pups. This harm is not expected to cause
mortality of all individuals within the Action Area, but could reduce fecundity and recruitment
within the Action Area for the duration of project construction. This project could have long-
term impacts on the bat population in this area.

Data used to determine the number of gray bats in the Action Area is a conservative estimate,
and gray 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.
Additionally, it is difficult to measure take of gray bats resulting from the action. Due to these
reasons, the amount of incidental take will be monitored during construction over and adjacent to
the river. The Applicant indicates that project construction will begin in August 2020 and take
14 months to complete. The amount of incidental take will be exceeded if 1) construction
activities exceed 14 months, 2) if tree clearing limits exceed 84 total acres, or 3) if nightwork
exceeds 22 nights during the MYGR maternity roost season.
The population utilizing the FBR basin is estimated at 1,900 to 2,300, and the entire gray bat
population is conservatively estimated at 4,358,263. This project will impact less than 0.001% of
the gray bat population. Therefore, it is the opinion of the USFWS that the level of take is not
likely to result in jeopardy to the gray bat. In addition to the subsequent measures listed in the
Reasonable and Prudent Measures and Terms and Conditions sections of this Opinion, the
measures listed in the Conservation Measures section of this opinion must be implemented for
this determination to remain valid.

60

8.2 APPALACHIAN ELKTOE
The USFWS anticipates incidental take of the Appalachian elktoe may occur as a result of
project-mediated impacts to the French Broad River. Appalachian elktoe are present within the
Action Area. During construction, individual mussels may be crushed, harmed by siltation or
other water quality degradation, or dislocated because of physical changes in their habitat.
The survey data is not sufficient to populate a robust population model, but in an effort to
estimate potential take, the USFWS estimates an Appalachian elktoe density of 0.0005 mussels
per square meter in the Action Area.
Our knowledge of the density and distribution of Appalachian elktoe is based on a small number
of documented occurrences. The survey data is not sufficient to populate a robust population
model, but in an effort to estimate potential take, the USFWS applied a simple model
incorporating survey effort and catch rates to estimate a baseline density for Appalachian elktoe
in the Project Ranger Action Area. We estimated an experienced surveyor could reasonably
cover 400 square meters in an hour of surveying. The mussels are not always at the surface, and
due to difficulty seeing the small apertures in the substrate, surveyors are not likely to find every
mussel. To compensate for this we estimated that a capture efficiency of 25% was reasonable
based on previous experience with mussel survey techniques, i.e. the number of mussels found
reflect 25% of the total mussels in a given area. Therefore, the model estimates an Appalachian
elktoe density of 0.0005 mussels per square meter in the Project Ranger Action Area.
This project proposes to directly affect around 30,500 square feet of habitat that will be covered
by rock causeways and bridge footings. Based on the estimated density, we expect around two
Appalachian elktoe to be in the area to be buried by bridge construction.
Due to the extent and duration of this project, it is possible Appalachian elktoe in the Action
Area will be affected by habitat degradation from sediment eroded from the project and from the
degradation of channels receiving additional stormwater from the project. Applying the model
density to the area of habitat in the Action Area returns an estimated population of 94 adult
Appalachian elktoe. In order for the population to remain stable, recruitment in the action area
needs to equal natural mortality in the population. Appalachian elktoe are estimated to live about
12 years with about 10 years of reproductive lifespan. That requires a recruitment rate of 0.10
annually, in this case approximately 1 new recruit per year that could be affected by project
related effects.
Due to the extent and duration of this project, it is possible Appalachian elktoe in the Action
Area will be affected by habitat degradation from sediment eroded from the project and from the
degradation of channels receiving additional stormwater from the project. Conservation
measures outlined in the BA are intended to minimize effects due to sedimentation in the French
Broad River. However, even under standard construction conditions, we expect Appalachian
elktoe within the Action Area may be harmed by the presence of turbidity or settling of sediment
in depositional portions of its habitat. We expect this effect to be non-lethal harm to adults that
could result in temporarily reduced recruitment throughout the duration of the project. We do
not anticipate that the effects of sediment pollution within the Action Area will reach a level that
prevents recolonization of the Action Area after construction.

61

Therefore, in this Opinion, the USFWS has determined that this level of take is not likely to
result in jeopardy to the Appalachian elktoe. In addition to the subsequent measures listed in the
Reasonable and Prudent Measures and Terms and Conditions sections of this Opinion, the
measures listed in the Conservation Measures section of this opinion must be implemented for
this determination to remain valid.
8.3 REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES
The USFWS believes the following reasonable and prudent measures are necessary and
appropriate to minimize take of the gray bat and Appalachian elktoe. These non-discretionary
measures include, but are not limited to, the commitments in the BA and the terms and
conditions outlined in this Opinion.
1. Biltmore Farms will notify the Service and USACE of any project modifications,
especially modifications that may exceed incidental take thresholds described in the
Incidental Take Statement above (Section 8).
2. Biltmore Farms will install and monitor bat roost panels at the proposed bridge so that it
may serve as an alternate roost for gray bat disturbed by Project Ranger.
3. Biltmore Farms will provide funding, not to exceed $127,000, to monitor gray bat
activity at the primary roost within the action area.
4. Biltmore Farms will inspect abandoned structures located within the Action Area before
demolition.
5. Biltmore Farms will provide reasonable site access to biologists for the purposes of
monitoring bat activity during the construction duration for Project Ranger and NCDOT
I-26 projects.
6. Biltmore Farms will minimize impacts to roosting bats to the extent possible for work
occurring between March and mid-November.
7. Biltmore Farms will minimize permanent lighting of waterways to the extent possible, as
well as permanent lighting at the undisclosed manufacturing facility.
8. Biltmore Farms will provide $15,000 in funding to appropriately respond to any project-
mediated changes that may affect the health and recovery of the French Broad River
population of Appalachian elktoe.
8.4 TERMS AND CONDITIONS
In order for the exemptions from the take prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the ESA to apply, the
Army Corps of Engineers must comply with the following terms and conditions, which
implement the reasonable and prudent measures described previously, and outline required
reporting and/or monitoring requirements. These terms and conditions are non-discretionary. As
necessary and appropriate to fulfill this responsibility, the Army Corps of Engineers must require

62

any permittee, Contractor, or grantee to implement these Terms and Conditions through
enforceable terms that are added to the permit, contract, or grant document.
1. Biltmore Farms will adhere to all measures listed in the Conservation Measures section
of the BA and summarized in the proposed action section of this opinion.
2. Biltmore Farms will simultaneously notify USACE and USFWS of any permit
modification requests.
3. USFWS will call for a meeting with Biltmore Farms at any time to evaluate and discuss
erosion control effectiveness and identify corrective measures, as appropriate.
4. Bat roost panels will be designed and installed in coordination with the USFWS and
NCDOT. Bat panel design must have explicit approval from NCDOT prior to
installation. Biltmore Farms will monitor gray bat activity at the panels in coordination
with USFWS until the NCDOT incorporates the bridge into the North Carolina state
system of maintenance.
5. Biltmore Farms will monitor gray bat activity in the Action Area during the entire
construction duration. The Applicant has committed to fund a monitoring effort up to
$127,000 during project construction which they indicate will begin August 2020, and
endure for 14 months. Biltmore Farms intends to employ biologists from Indiana State
University (ISU) to accomplish this monitoring effort. At this time, the scope of this
work and contract between the Applicant and ISU is under review, but must be finalized
prior to construction.
6. To accomplish RPM 4, Biltmore Farms will inspect abandoned structures within the
Action Area at least 30 days prior to demolition. Should bats be present within these
structures, Biltmore Farms will forego demolition for 30 days to for removal of bats.
7. Biltmore Farms will provide monitoring access to their property for biologists from North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), ISU, NCDOT, NCDOT contractors
(NV5 staff), and USFWS while construction activities for Project Ranger and nearby
NCDOT I-26 projects are underway. It is understood that Project Ranger will be an
active construction site for some of this duration and there may be restrictions to site
access to accommodate safety requirements. Each agency or institution will provide a
single point of contact to Biltmore Farms, and pre-register with notification to Lee
Thomason III, [e-mail]. Biltmore Farms will provide gate access
to biologists via their dispatch staff: 828.225.1581.
8. To accomplish RPM 8, Biltmore Farms will provide $15,000 to the North Carolina
Nongame Aquatic Projects Fund to administer the French Broad River Conservation
Plan. Funding will be held by NCWRC. A multi-agency/organization group of mussel
experts, including USFWS staff will determine best use of fund expenditure.

63

9. MONITORING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
In order to monitor the impacts of incidental take, the USACE must report the progress of the
proposed action and its impacts on the species to the USFWS. Biltmore Farms must notify the
Service when the following construction activities begin and are completed: Tree clearing,
construction of temporary causeways, blasting, bridge construction, shaft drilling, pile driving,
and construction of the manufacturing facility. Biltmore Farms must notify the Service of any
deviations to the construction timeline or project description as soon as those changes become
foreseeable. Biltmore Farms must provide the Service with a description of the total acres of
trees cleared, and total area of impervious surface installed post-construction so that we may
amend the baseline conditions for future consultations. Biltmore Farms shall provide a final
report to the Service that details findings of the proposed MYGR monitoring effort within three
months of project completion. Biltmore Farms must notify the Service immediately if MYGR
monitoring detects evidence of roost abandonment, or sudden/significant population declines.
As necessary and appropriate to fulfill this responsibility, the USACE must require any
permittee, contractor, or grantee to implement these Terms and Conditions through enforceable
terms that are added to the permit, contract, or grant document. Such enforceable terms must
include a requirement to immediately notify the USACE and USFWS if the amount or extent of
incidental take specified in this Incidental Take Statement is exceeded during action
implementation.
Biltmore Farms and the USACE will provide notice to the USFWS at any point when the
proposed project is modified in a manner not previously considered which may include, but is
not limited to changes in proposed design, construction methods, construction timing and
implementation of the Project. Biltmore Farms will provide notice to the USFWS and USACE
when project construction begins, and at any point when construction delays are reasonably
certain to occur, as construction duration affects gray bat monitoring requirements described
above.
10. REINITIATION NOTICE
Formal consultation for Project Ranger is concluded. All work should stop and the USFWS
should be contacted immediately to reinitiate consultation if:

1. the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded. That is, if construction activities
cannot be completed within 14 months;

2. new information reveals that the Action may affect listed species or designated critical
habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this BO;

3. the Action is modified in a manner that causes effects to listed species or designated
critical habitat not considered in this BO; or

4. a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that the action may affect.

64

11. CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS
We offer the following recommendations in the interest of protecting natural resources, many of
which may benefit rare or imperiled species known to occur in the vicinity of Project Ranger:
Bog Turtle
Bog turtle occurs in the project vicinity and suitable habitats for this species may occur within or
adjacent to the action area. While bog turtle is not subject to consultation under section 7 of the
Act, we request that the Applicant install silt fencing along the access roads and disturbance
areas to ensure that silt, fine sediment, and construction equipment does not go into wetlands.
Contractors should be made aware of the potential for encountering this animal traveling over
construction access roads and make every effort to avoid collisions. We request that any bog
turtle encounters be reported to this office.

Erosion and Sediment Control
Measures to control sediment and erosion should be installed before any ground-disturbing
activities occur. Grading and backfilling should be minimized, and existing native vegetation
should be retained (if possible) to maintain riparian cover for fish and wildlife. Disturbed areas
should be revegetated with native vegetation as soon as the project is completed. Ground
disturbance should be limited to what will be stabilized quickly, preferably by the end of the
workday. Natural fiber matting (coir) should be used for erosion control as synthetic
netting can trap animals and persist in the environment beyond its intended purpose.

Low Impact Development
The Service is concerned about the potential stormwater-mediated impacts to receiving streams
and wetlands. Detention structures should be designed to allow for the slow discharge of storm
water, attenuating the potential adverse effects of storm-water surges; thermal spikes; and
sediment, nutrient, and chemical discharges. Since the purpose of storm-water-control is to
protect streams and wetlands, no storm-water-control measures or best management
practices should be installed within any stream (perennial or intermittent) or wetland. We
recommend that retention ponds be located at least 750 feet from small wetlands to minimize
hydrologic disturbance and ecological function.

We also recommend that consideration be given to the use of pervious materials (i.e., pervious
concrete, interlocking/open paving blocks, etc.) for the construction of roads, driveways,
sidewalks, etc. Pervious surfaces minimize changes to the hydrology of the watershed and can
be used to facilitate groundwater recharge. Pervious materials are also less likely to absorb and
store heat and allow the cooler soil below to cool the pavement. Additionally, pervious concrete
requires less maintenance and is less susceptible to freeze/thaw cracking due to large voids
within the concrete.

Pollinator Habitat

Pollinators, such as most bees, some birds and bats, or other insects, including moths and
butterflies, play a crucial role in the reproduction of flowering plants and in the production of

65

most fruits and vegetables. Declines in wild pollinators are a result of loss, degradation,
fragmentation of habitat, and disease. The rusty-patched bumble bee (Bombus affinis)
historically occurred in North Carolina’s Mountain and Piedmont provinces. Although not
required, we encourage Biltmore Farms to consider our recommendations below which may
benefit the rusty-patched bumble bee and other pollinators. Moreover, the creation and
maintenance of pollinator habitats at this site may increase the value of the project for the
community and help reduce the spread of invasive exotic plants. Please consider the following:
1. Sow native seed mixes in disturbed areas or in designated pollinator areas with plants
that bloom throughout the entire growing season.
2. Taller growing pollinator plant species should be planted around the periphery of the
site and anywhere on the site where mowing can be restricted during the summer
months. Taller plants, left un-mowed during the summer, would provide benefits to
pollinators, habitat to ground nesting/feeding birds, and cover for small mammals.
3. Low growing/groundcover native species should be planted in areas that need to be
maintained. This would provide benefits to pollinators while also minimizing the
amount of maintenance such as mowing and herbicide treatment. Milk weed species
are an important host plant for monarch butterflies.
4. Avoid mowing of flowering plants. Designated pollinator areas show be mow only
50% of the plant height, but no lower than 8 inches.
5. Avoid mowing outside the active season for rusty-patched bumble bee and other
pollinators (April 15 – October 15).
6. Leave slash piles, mulch piles, or loose dirt piles along woodland edges. These areas
provide nesting habitats and/or nest materials for some pollinators.
7. Avoid the use of pesticides and specifically neonicotinoids.
8. Additional information regarding plant species, seed mixes, site preparation, and
pollinator habitat requirements can be provided upon request.
12. LITERATURE CITED

Adams, R. A. 2010. Bat reproduction declines when conditions mimic climate change
projections for western North America. Ecology. 91(8):2437–2445.

AECOM. 2016. Traffic Forecast Report, TIP Project No. I-2513, I-26 Asheville
Connector. Prepared by AECOM and Clearbox for North Carolina Department of
Transportation. July 2016.

Barbour, R. W., and W. H. Davis. 1969. Bats of America. The University of Kentucky
Press, Lexington, Kentucky.

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.

Bernard R.F. and G.F. McCracken. 2017. Winter behavior of bats and the progression of
white‐nose syndrome in the southeastern United States. Ecol Evol. 7:1487–1496.

66

Bernard, R. F., E. V. Willcox, K. L. Parise, J. T. Foster, and G. F. McCracken. 2017.
White-nose syndrome fungus, Pseudogymnoascus destructans, on bats captured emerging
from caves during winter in the southeastern United States. BMC Zoology, 2(1):12.

Berthinussen A. and Altringham, J. 2012. The effect of a major road on bat activity and
diversity. Journal of Applied Ecology, 49: 82-89.

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 of Mammalogy. 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.

Brack, V., Jr., R. E. Mumford, and W. R. Holmes. 1984. The gray bat (Myotis grisescens)
in Indiana. American Midland Naturalist. 111:205.

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 of Mammalogy. 87:7-
18.

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.

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.

Clark, D. R., Bagley, F.M., and Waynon Johnson, W. W., 1988. Northern Alabama
colonies of the endangered grey bat Myotis grisescens: organochlorine contamination and
mortality,
Biological Conservation. 43(3): 213-225.

Clarke, A. H. 1981. The tribe Alasmidontini (Unionidae: Anodontinae), Part I: Pegias,
Alasmidonta, and Arcidens. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology. 326:101

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.

67

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.

Daan, S. 1973. Activity during natural hibernation in three specie of vespertilionid bats.
Netherlands Journal of Zoology. 23:1-77.

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.

Ellis, M. M. 1936. Erosion silt as a factor in aquatic environments. Ecology. 17:29-42.
Engineering ToolBox. 2004. Illuminance - Recommended Light Level. [online] Available
at:
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/light-level-rooms-d_708.html [Accessed March 25,
2019].

Flock, B. 2014. Bat Population Monitoring and White-Nose Syndrome Surveillance.
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. TWRA Wildlife Technical Report 14-07.
Accessed on October 17, 2017.
http://www.tnbwg.org/Files/1407%202014%20Bat%20Hibernacula
%20Surveys%20and%20WNS%20Monitoring.pdf.

Fuller, S. L. H. and C. E. Powell. 1973. Range extensions of Corbicula manilensis
(Philippi) in the Atlantic drainage of the United States. Natilus. 87(2):59.

Gaisler, J., Z. Řehák, and T. Bartonička. 2009. Bat casualties by road traffic (Brno-
Vienna). Acta Theriologica. 54 (2):147.

Goebel, A. B. 1996. Temporal variation in movement patterns of adult female Myotis
grisescens (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae). M.S. thesis, Auburn University, Alabama.

Gore, J. A. 1992. Gray bat. Pages 63-70 in S. R. Humphrey and A. E. Ashton, Jr. (eds.)
Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Vol. 1, Mammals. University Press of Florida,
Gainesville.

Gorresen, P. M., Cryan, P. M., Dalton, D. C., Wolf, S., & Bonaccorso, F. J. 2015.
Ultraviolet Vision May be Widespread in Bats. Acta Chiropterologica, 17(1), 193-198.
doi:10.3161/15081109ACC2015.17.1.017

Goudreau, S. E., R. J. Neves, and R. J. Sheehan. 1988. Effects of sewage treatment
effluents on mollusks and fish of the Clinch River in Tazewell County, Virginia. Final
Rep., U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. 128 pp.

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.

68

Hall, J. S., and N. Wilson. 1966. Season population movements of the gray bat in the
Kentucky area. American Midlands Naturalist. 75:317-324.

Harman, W. N. 1974. The effects of reservoir construction and channelization on the
mollusks of the upper Delaware watershed. American Malacological Union. 1973:12-14.

Harvey, M. J. 1975. Endangered Chiroptera of the southeastern United States.
Southeastern Association of Game and Fish Commissioners. 29:429-433.

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, 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. 1992. Bats of the eastern United States. Arkansas Game and Fish
Commission, Little Rock.

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.

Harvey, M. J., and R. R. Currie. 2007. Gray bat (Myotis grisescens) status review.
Unpublished working paper, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville, NC. March 2007.

Hays, H. A. and D. C. Bingman. 1964. A colony of gray bats in southeastern Kansas.
Journal of Mammalogy. 45:150.

Herreid, C. F., II. 1963. Temperature regulation of Mexican free-tailed bats in cave
habitats. Journal of Mammalogy. 44:560-573.

Herreid, C. F., II. 1967. Temperature regulation, temperature preferences and tolerance,
and metabolism of young and adult free-tailed bats. Physiological Zoology. 40:1-22

Humphries, M. M., D. W. Thomas, and J. R. Speakman. 2002. Climate-mediated
energetic constraints on the distribution of hibernating mammals. Nature 418: 313–316.

Keeley, B. W. and M. D. Tuttle. 1999. Bats in American bridges. Bat Conservation
International, Inc., Resource Publication No. 4, 40 pp.

Kiefer, A., H. Merz, W. Rackow, H. Roer, and D. Schlegel. 1995. Bats as traffic
casualties in Germany. Myotis. 32(33):215-220.

69

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.

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 of Mammalogy. 58:592-599.

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.

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.

Lea, I. 1834. Observations on the naiads and descriptions of new species of that and
other families. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society. 5: 23-119, plates 1-
19.

Lesiński, G. 2007. Bat road casualties and factors determining their number. Mammalia.
71(3): 138-142.

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.

Lewanzik, D., & Voigt, C. C. 2017. Transition from conventional to light-emitting diode
street lighting changes activity of urban bats. Journal of Applied Ecology, 54(1), 264-271.

Linley, G. D. 2017. The impact of artificial lighting on bats along native coastal
vegetation. Australian Mammalogy, 39(2), 178-184. doi:10.1071/am15047

Marking, L. L., and T. D. Bills. 1979. Acute effects of silt and sand sedimentation on
freshwater mussels. Pp. 204-211 in J.L. Rasmussen, ed. Proc. of the UMRCC symposium
on the Upper Mississippi River bivalve mollusks. UMRCC. Rock Island IL. 270 pp.

Martin, C. O. 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.

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.

70

Miller, R. E. (1939), The reproductive cycle in male bats of the species Myotis lucifugus
lucifugus and Myotis grisescens. J. Morphol., 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.

Mitchell, W. A. and C. O. Martin. 2002. Cave- and Crevice-Dwelling Bats on USACE
Projects: Gray Bat. ERDC TN-EMRRP-SI-25, 11 pp.

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.

Neves, R. J. and J. C. Widlak. 1987. Habitat ecology of juvenile freshwater mussels
(Bivalvia: Unionidae) in a headwater stream in Virginia. American Malacological
Bulletin. 1(5):1-7.

North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). 1995. Phase I Environmental
Analysis – Asheville Urban Area. North Carolina Department of Transportation,
Statewide Planning Branch. April 1995.

North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). 2014a. Asheville Regional
Cumulative Effects Study – Final. 96 pp.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). 2014b. Post-Construction
Stormwater Program - Post-Construction Stormwater Controls for Roadway and Non-
Roadway Projects. Hydraulics Unit. Raleigh, April 2014.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). 2019. Biological Assessment
for I-26 Connector, I-40 to US 19/23/70 North of Asheville, Buncombe County,
Asheville, North Carolina.

North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). 2020. I-26 Asheville Connector.
Final Environmental Impact Statement.

Ortmann, A. E. 1921. The anatomy of certain mussels from the Upper Tennessee. The
Nautilus. 34(3):81-91.

Parmalee, P. W. and A. E. Bogan. 1998. Freshwater Mussels of Tennessee. University
of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

71

Powers, K. E., R. J. Reynolds, W. Orndorff, B. A. Hyzy, C. S. Hobson, W. M. and 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.

Rabinowitz, A. R. and M. D. Tuttle. 1982. A test of the validity of two currently used
methods of determining bat prey preferences. ACTA TheriologicaI. 27. 21:283-293.

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.

Russo, D., L. Ancillotto, L. Cistrone, N. Libralato, A. Domer, S. Cohen and C.
Korine, Effects of artificial illumination on drinking bats: a field test in forest and desert
habitats, Animal Conservation, 22, 2, (124-133), (2018).

Rydell, J. 1992. Exploitation of insects around streetlamps by bats in Sweden.
Functional Ecology. 6:744–750.

Rydell, J. and H. J. Baagøe. 1996. Gatlampor ökar fladdermössens pre-dation på fjärilar
[Streetlamps increase bat predation on moths]. Entomologisk Tidskrift. 117:129–35.

Rydell, J., Eklof, J., & Sanchez-Navarro, S. 2017. Age of enlightenment: long-term
effects of outdoor aesthetic lights on bats in churches. Royal Society Open Science, 4(8),
8.

Saugey, D. A. 1978. Reproductive biology of the gray bat, Myotis grisescens, in north-
central Arkansas. M.S. Thesis, Arkansas State University, Jonesboro.

Sealander, J. A. 1979. A guide to Arkansas mammals. River Road Press, Conway. 313
pp.

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, Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.

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.

Shauna Marquardt, USFWS Gay bat species lead biologist. Columbia Missouri Field
Office. Phone conversation 11 February, 2019.

Sherwin, H. A., W. I. Montgomery, and M. G. Lundy. 2013. The impact and
implications of climate change for bats. Mammal Review. 43:171-182.
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2907.2012.00214.x.

72

Sparks, D. W., V. Brack, Jr., J. O. Whitaker, Jr., and R. Lotspeich. 2009. Reconciliation
ecology and the Indiana Bat at Indianapolis International Airport, Chapter 3. in Airports:
Performance, Risks, and Problems, (P. B. Larauge and M. E. Castille, eds.) Nova Science
Publishers, Inc., Hauppauge, New York.

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: light-shy 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 of Mammalogy. 62(2):244-257.

Stone, E. L., G. Jones, and S. Harris. 2009. Street lighting disturbs commuting bats.
Current Biology. 19:1123–1127.

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.

Thogmartin, W. E., C. Sanders-Reed, J. A. Szymanski, R. A. King, L. Pruitt, P. C.
McKann, M. C. Runge, and R. E. Russell. 2013. White-nose syndrome is likely to
extirpate the endangered Indiana bat over large parts of its range. Biological
Conservation. 160:162-172.

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

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.

Tuttle, M. D. 1975. Population ecology of the gray bat (Myotis grisescens): factors
influencing early growth and development. Occasional Papers of the Museum of Natural
History, University of Kansas. 36:1-24.

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.

73

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. 1977. An analysis of migration as a mortality factor in
the gray bat based on public recoveries of banded bats. American Midland Naturalist.
91(1):235-240.

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 (USFWS). 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 (USFWS). 1982. Gray Bat Recovery Plan.
Minneapolis, MN, 26 pp.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1996. Appalachian Elktoe
(Alasmidonta raveneliana) Recovery Plan. Atlanta, Georgia, 30 pp.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002. Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants: Designation of Critical Habitat for the Appalachian Elktoe. CFR,
Vol. 67, No. 188.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009a. Gray bat (Myotis grisescens)
5-year Review. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Columbia, MO. 23 pp. + appendices.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009b. Appalachian Elktoe
(Alasmidonta raveneliana) 5-Year Review. Asheville, North Carolina, 22 pp

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2012. White-nose Syndrome
Confirmed in Federally Endangered Gray Bats. Accessed on September 12, 2017.
https://www.fws.gov/external-affairs/public-affairs/.

Voigt, C C, A. C, Dekker, J, Ferguson, J, Fritze, M, Gazaryan, S, Hölker, F, Jones, G,
Leader, N, Lewanzik, D, Limpens, H J G A, Mathews, F, Rydell, J, Schofield, H,
Spoelstra, K and Zagmajster, M (2018) Guidelines for consideration of bats in lighting
projects. Technical Report. UN Environment, UNEP/EUROBATS Secretariat, Bonn,
Germany.

74

Wakefield, A., Broyles, M., Stone, E. L., Jones, G., & Harris, S. 2016. Experimentally
comparing the attractiveness of domestic lights to insects: Do LEDs attract fewer insects
than conventional light types? Ecology and Evolution, 6(22), 8028-8036.
Wakefield A, Broyles M, Stone EL, Harris S, Jones G. 2018. Quantifying the
attractiveness of broadspectrum street lights to aerial nocturnal insects. J Appl Ecol. 55,
714–722. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13004