20201996 Ver 1_Tribute Rocky Point Biological Assessment_20210203

Tribute Rocky Point
Biological Assessment
Prepared using IPaC
January 28, 2021
The purpose of this Biological Assessment (BA) is to assess the effects of the
proposed project and determine whether the project may affect any Federally
threatened, endangered, proposed or candidate species. This BA is prepared in
accordance with legal requirements set forth under Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1536 %Z.
In this document, any data provided by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is based on data as of January
25, 2021.
Prepared using IPaC version 5.55.3

Tribute Rocky Point Biological Assessment
Table Of Contents
1 Description of the action
1.1 Project name
1.2 Executive summary
1.3 Project description
1.3.1 Location
1.3.2 Description of project habitat
1.3.3 Project proponent information
1.3.4 Project purpose
1.3.5 Project type and deconstruction
1.3.6 Anticipated environmental stressors
1.4 Action area
1.5 Conservation measures
1.6 Prior consultation history
1.7 Other agency partners and interested parties
1.8 Other reports and helpful information
2 Species effects analysis
2.1 American Alligator
Justification for exclusion
2.2 Cooley's Meadowrue
Justification for exclusion
2.3 Golden Sedge
Justification for exclusion
2.4 Green Sea Turtle
Justification for exclusion
2.5 Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle
Justification for exclusion
2.6 Leatherback Sea Turtle
Justification for exclusion
2.7 Loggerhead Sea Turtle
Justification for exclusion
2.8 Northern Long-eared Bat
Justification for exclusion
2.9 Piping Plover
Justification for exclusion
2.10 Red Knot
Justification for exclusion
5
5
5
6
6
7
7
7
8
10
11
12
12
12
12
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
15
15
15
15
2

2.11 Red -cockaded Woodpecker
Justification for exclusion
2.12 Rough -leaved Loosestrife
Justification for exclusion
2.13 Seabeach Amaranth
Justification for exclusion
2.14 West Indian Manatee
Justification for exclusion
3 Critical habitat effects analysis
4 Summary Discussion, Conclusion, and Effect Determinations
4.1 Effect determination summary
4.2 Summary discussion
4.3 Conclusion
15
15
15
15
15
15
16
16
17
18
18
18
19
3

I Description Of The Action
1.1 Project Name
Tribute Rocky Point
1.2 Executive Summary
After reviewing the current status of the NLEB, the effects of the proposed action and
cumulative effects, the project, as proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of the NLEB. No critical habitat has either been proposed for or designated for
the NLEB; therefore, none will be affected.
This non -jeopardy opinion is based on the following rationale:
1. Eastern North Carolina is on the periphery of the NLEB's range, and it is no known
that NLEBs are actually in the project area.
2. Based on available data, NLEBs appear to occur, in low numbers, within Pender
County.
3. There are no known NLEB hibernacula and almost no caves in eastern North
Carolina.
4. The loss of trees, from the proposed activity, will not result in a shortage of available
roosts or foraging opportunities for NLEB since forested habitat is abundant in eastern
North Carolina and is not likely a factor limiting the numbers or reproduction of NLEB
populations.
5. The likelihood of the project having an adverse effect on the NLEB is likely low.
6. Most of the adverse effects that do occur will occur as non -lethal harassment. The
probability of the proposed project, causing NLEB mortality, is likely very low.
SEGi is requesting guidance, from the USFWS, to make a final determination on
potential, adverse affects on the bat. The project may adversely effect the Northern
Long-eared Bat but it is relying upon the USFWS to determine if the project site
provides suitable habitat or is known to be within the project limit.
Effect determination summary
5

1.3 Project Description
1.3.1 Location
xq
r,; r

LOCATION
Pender County, North Carolina
1.3.2 Description of project habitat
The project site is approximately 300 acres of mostly grassy, unused agricultural land,
which is bisected by Turkey Creek. The project consist of developing the property into
300 lot, single family, residential subdivision, with roads, utilities and amenities.
Relevant documentation
• FALLS MIST MDP 092220
1.3.3 Project proponent information
Provide information regarding who is proposing to conduct the project, and their contact
information. Please provide details on whether there is a Federal nexus.
Requesting Agency
Southern Environmental Group, Inc. (SEGi)
FULL NAME
DANALUTHERAN
STREET ADDRESS
5315 South College Road
Suite E
CITY STATE
Wilmington NC
PHONE NUMBER E-MAIL ADDRESS
[phone] [e-mail]
Lead agency
Lead agency is the same as requesting agency
1.3.4 Project purpose
Provide single family dwellings to meet local market demand.
ZIP
28412
7

1.3.5 Project type and deconstruction
This project is a single family access road project.
1.3.5.1 Project map
M

LEGEND
❑ Project footprint
r , Wetland Road Crossing: Road crossing (structure)
L J

1.3.5.2 road crossing
Structure completion date
May 27, 2021
Removal/decommission date (if applicable)
Not applicable
Stressors
This activity is not expected to have any impact on the environment.
Description
The crossing will be approximately 300' x 60', where crossing through forested
wetlands and stream. Clean earthen fill will be used as the road bed. Strict sediment
and erosion control measures will be installed prior to undertaking land disturbing
activities. Additional S&EC BMPs will dictate the timing of the construction, within the
wetlands and stream.
1.3.6 Anticipated environmental stressors
Describe the anticipated effects of your proposed project on the aspects of the land, air
and water that will occur due to the activities above. These should be based on the
activity deconstructions done in the previous section and will be used to inform the
action area.
10

1.4 Action Area
11

1.5 Conservation Measures
Describe any proposed measures being implemented as part of the project that are
designed to reduce the impacts to the environment and their resulting effects to listed
species. To avoid extra verbiage, don't list measures that have no relevance to the
species being analyzed.
Vo conservation measures have been selected for this project.
1.6 Prior Consultation History
None
1.7 Other Agency Partners And Interested Parties
USACE Wilmington District
1.8 Other Reports And Helpful Information
Relevant documentation
• FALLS MIST MDP 09222
12

2 Species Effects Analysis
This section describes, species by species, the effects of the proposed action on listed,
proposed, and candidate species, and the habitat on which they depend. In this
document, effects are broken down as direct interactions (something happening directly
to the species) or indirect interactions (something happening to the environment on
which a species depends that could then result in effects to the species).
These interactions encompass effects that occur both during project construction and
those which could be ongoing after the project is finished. All effects, however, should
be considered, including effects from direct and indirect interactions and cumulative
effects.
2.1 American Alligator
This species has been excluded from analysis in this environmental review
document.
Justification for exclusion
No suitable habitat
2.2 Cooley's Meadowrue
This species has been excluded from analysis in this environmental review
document.
Justification for exclusion
No suitable habitat
2.3 Golden Sedge
This species has been excluded from analysis in this environmental review
document.
Justification for exclusion
No suitable habitat
13

2.4 Green Sea Turtle
This species has been excluded from analysis in this environmental review
document.
Justification for exclusion
No suitable habitat
2.5 Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle
This species has been excluded from analysis in this environmental review
document.
Justification for exclusion
No suitable habitat
2.6 Leatherback Sea Turtle
This species has been excluded from analysis in this environmental review
document.
Justification for exclusion
No suitable habitat
2.7 Loggerhead Sea Turtle
This species has been excluded from analysis in this environmental review
document.
Justification for exclusion
No suitable habitat
2.8 Northern Long -Eared Bat
This species has been excluded from analysis in this environmental review
document.
Justification for exclusion
Are requesting USFWS to conduct assessment
14

2.9 Piping Plover
This species has been excluded from analysis in this environmental review
document.
Justification for exclusion
No suitable habitat
2.10 Red Knot
This species has been excluded from analysis in this environmental review
document.
Justification for exclusion
No suitable habitat
2.11 Red -Cockaded Woodpecker
This species has been excluded from analysis in this environmental review
document.
Justification for exclusion
No suitable habitat
2.12 Rough -Leaved Loosestrife
This species has been excluded from analysis in this environmental review
document.
Justification for exclusion
No suitable habitat
2.13 Seabeach Amaranth
This species has been excluded from analysis in this environmental review
document.
Justification for exclusion
No suitable habitat
15

2.14 West Indian Manatee
This species has been excluded from analysis in this environmental review
document.
Justification for exclusion
No suitable habitat
16

3 Critical Habitat Effects Analysis
Vo critical habitats intersect with the project action area.
17

4 Summary Discussion, Conclusion, And Effect
Determinations
4.1 Effect Determination Summary
SPECIES SCIENTIFIC LISTING PRESENT IN EFFECT
(COMMON NAME STATUS ACTION ARE DETERMINATION
NAME)
American Alligator Alligator
mississippiensis
Cooley's Meadowrue
Thalictrum cooleyi
Golden Sedge
Carex lutea
Green Sea Turtle
Chelonia mydas
Kemp's Ridley Sea
Lepidochelys kempii
Turtle
Leatherback Sea Turtle
Dermochelys coriacea
Loggerhead Sea Turtle
Caretta caretta
Northern Long-eared
Myotis septentrionalis
Bat
Pining Plover
Charadrius melodus
Red Knot
Calidris canutus rufa
Red -cockaded
Picoides borealis
Woodpecker
Rough -leaved
Lysimachia
Loosestrife
asperulaefolia
Seabeach Amaranth
Amaranthus pumilus
West Indian Manatee
Trichechus manatus
Similarity of
Appearance
(Threatened)
No
NE
Endangered
No
NE
Endangered
No
NE
Threatened
No
NE
Endangered
No
NE
Endangered
No
NE
Threatened
No
NE
Threatened
No
NE
Threatened No NE
Threatened No NE
Endangered No NE
Endangered No NE
Threatened No NE
Threatened No NE
4.2 Summary Discussion
In summary, SEGi is only concerned with the Northern Long-eared Bat, as a species
that may be present in the project area and is requesting the USFWS provide a
determination on the affect the project may have on the species.
We

4.3 Conclusion
After reviewing the current status of the NLEB, the effects of the proposed action and
cumulative effects, the project, as proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of the NLEB. No critical habitat has either been proposed for or designated for
the NLEB; therefore, none will be affected.
19