20240501 Ver 1_BP9.C002 ePCN and supporting documentation_20240402

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Roy COOPER
GOVERNOR
Apri12, 2024
Mr. Steve Brumagin
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
8430 University Executive Park Drive
Charlotte, NC 28262
J.R. "JOEY" HOPKINS
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Pre -Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit 93
NCDOT Division 9 Pipe Replacement Project
Structure No. 292085 on SR 1436 (Pinebrook School Rd) over UT to Sugar
Creek (Class C), Davie County, NC
Dear Mr. Brumagin
We are requesting Section 404 Nationwide Permit (NWP) 3 authorization for work associated with
the replacement of culvert no. 292085 with a new culvert at the same location over UT to Sugar
Creek (Class C) on SR 1436 (Pinebrook School Road)) in Davie County. The project will
permanently impact 24 linear feet (0.0028 acres) of UT to Sugar Creek for bank stabilization and
will also permanently impact 13' for the culvert (0.009 ac) and 8' for the channel improvements
(0.0001ac). There will be 20 linear feet (0.0017 acres) of temporary stream impacts associated with
culvert replacement (Attachment A). NCDOT will utilize the RES Yadkin 01 Umbrella Mitigation
Bank sponsored by EBX for stream mitigation to offset the impacts associated with the project.
There will be 42-linear feet of stream mitigation debited to offset the 21-linear feet of stream
impacts associated with BP9.0002 (Attachment B).
The existing pipe is a 60" corrugated metal pipe (CMP) with a deteriorating stone headwall. The
replacement culvert is proposed to be a 72" corrugated aluminum pipe (CAP) that will be buried
one foot with a headwall. The CAP will have one -foot sills inset at a 3-foot minimum on the inlet
and outlet ends. The existing two (10-foot) lanes and two (7-foot) grassed shoulders will stay the
same width but new guardrail will be added. There will be no wetland impacts.
Section 106
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires Federal agencies to take into
account the efforts of their undertakings on historic properties. NCDOT Cultural Resource staff
reviewed the project for Historic Architectural and Archaeological Resources. A No Survey
Required Form for Historic Architecture and Landscapes was provided by a NCDOT Architectural
Historian on October 10, 2023 (Attachment Q. A No Archaeology Survey Required Form was
provided by the NCDOT Archaeologist on November 20, 2023 (Attachment Q. A letter was sent to
the Catawba Nation informing them of the proposed pipe replacement project on October 3, 2023
(Attachment Q. The Catawba Nation responded on November 1, 2023, noting no immediate
Mailing Address:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION 9
375 SILAS CREEK PARKWAY
WINSTON-SALEM, NC 27127
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Customer Service: 1-877-368-4968
Website: www.nedot.gov
Location:
375 SILAS CREEK PARKWAY
WINSTON-SALEM, NC 27127

concerns with the project. If Native American artifacts and/or human remains are located during the
ground disturbance phase of the project, the Catawba Nation will be notified.
Protected Species
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (Impact)
website lists Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) and Michaux's sumac (Rhus
michauxii) as endangered for Davie County. Additionally, the tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus -
PESU) has been proposed endangered and is included although the species is not currently
protected. A habitat assessment and structure survey were conducted on May 24, 2023, and a
Bridge Survey for Bats Memo was prepared. NCDOT, on behalf of FHWA, submitted a Section 7
Concurrence Request for tricolored bat (Attachment E). A response will be provided when
received. The action area for the project includes woody habitats that qualify as suitable habitat for
PESU. There is one perennial stream that will be impacted by the project. Therefore, PESU
foraging, commuting, and roosting behaviors may be impacted by project construction. The Section
7 Concurrence Request for tricolored bat is requesting a biological conclusion of "May Affect -Not
Likely to Adversely Affect" be rendered for tricolored bat. There is habitat in the study area for
Schweinitz's sunflower. No Schweinitz's sunflowers were found during field surveys of the study
area conducted on September 18, 2023. A search of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
(NCNHP) database, accessed September 18, 2023, found no occurrences of Schweinitz's sunflower
within 1.0 mile of the study area. A biological conclusion of "May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely
Affect" was proposed for Schweinitz's sunflower. Suitable habitat for Michaux's sumac is present
within the project study area in the form of roadsides, rights -of -way, and on the edges of artificially
maintained clearings. The plant grows in sandy or rocky open woods in association with basic soils.
However, there are no sandy or rocky woods in the project area. A survey for Michaux's sumac was
completed on September 18, 2023. This species was not identified during the survey effort. A
review of the NCNHP Winter 2024 dataset identified no known Michaux's sumac occurrences
within 1.0 mile of the PSA. Due to the absence of Michaux's sumac within the PSA and lack of
NCNHP records within 1.0 mile of the PSA, effects to this species are not likely. The Biological
Conclusion for this species is Not Likely to Adversely Affect.
Bald eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. A desktop-GIS
assessment of the study area, as well as the area within a 1.13-mile radius of the project limits was
performed by NCDOT on July 20, 2022, using the most recent color aerials. Additionally, a review
of the July 2022 NCNHP database revealed no known occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile of
the study area.
If you have any questions, comments or need additional information after reviewing this material
please contact me at [phone]. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
DocuSigned by:
Sft p�t, bravmf
125DCB05810445B...
Stephanie Braquet
Division 9 Environmental Specialist, NCDOT

Attachment A — Permit Drawings with Stormwater Management Plan
Attachment B — Mitigation Approval Letter
Attachment C — Historic Architecture and Landscapes No Survey Required Form;
Archaeological No survey Required Form; Tribal Coordination
Attachment D — Categorical Exclusion
Attachment E — Section 7 Concurrence Request for the Tricolored bat, Schweinitz's
sunflower, and Michaux's sumac; Bridge Survey for Bats Memo

NCDOT Division 9 Pipe Replacement
Structure 292085 on SR 1436 (Pinebrook School Road) over UT to Sugar Creek— PCN for NWP 3
Attachment A
Permit Drawings with Stormwater
Management Plans

Highway
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Storm
�;Rty
Highway Stormwater Program
-
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
(Version 3.00; Released August 2021)
FOR NCDOT PROJECTS
WBS Element: BP9.0002
TIP/Prof No: BR-0152
County(ies): Davie Page 1 of 2
General Project Information
WBS Element:
BP9.0002
ITIP Number:
BR-0152
I Project Type:
lBridge Replacement
I Date:
3/20/2024
NCDOT Contact:
Jeremy Keaton, PLS
Contractor / Designer:
Ernest Hahn, PE
Address:
Division 9
Address:
Century Center
375 Silas Creek Parkway
1000 Birch Ridge Drive
Winston-Salem, NC 27127
Raleigh, NC 27610
Phone:
[phone]
Phone:
[phone]
Email:
Email:
eihahnaa_ncdgLgov
City/Town:
Mocksville
County(ies):
Davie
River Basin(s):
Yadkin -Pee Dee
I
CAMA County?
No
Wetlands within Project Limits?
No
Project Description
Project Length (lin. miles or feet):
189 feet
I Surrounding Land Use:
rural agricultural and forested
Proposed Project
Existing Site
Project Built -Upon Area (ac.)
0.1
1 ac.
0.1
1 ac.
Typical Cross Section Description:
two-lane secondary road approximately twenty feet wide and with seven -foot grassed
two-lane secondary road approximately twenty feet wide and with seven -foot grassed
shoulders and new guardrail
shouldersl
Annual Avg Daily Traffic (veh/hr/day):
IDesign/Future:
I Year:
I
I Existing:
800
Year:
2021
General Project Narrative:
Culvert replacement of a 60-inch corrugated metal pipe and deteriorating stone headwall with a 72-inch corrugated aluminum pipe culvert and headwall and one -foot sills; new
(Description of Minimization of Water
guardrail also to be added
Quality Impacts)
Proposed culvert to be buried
to facilitate aquatic passage; proposed culvert also slightly realigned to better fit the existing channel with minor channel improvements at the culvert
outlet end to accomodate this
realignment. Lower outlet stream velocities anticipated due to the larger diameter of the proposed culvert and the use of Class I riprap at the outlet to
stabilize the channel.
Grassed shoulders and ditches to convey stormwater runoff from the roadway facility; ditch side slopes designed to match existing conditions or to be no steeper than 2:1

Highway North Carolina Department of Transportation
Stormwatcr
Highway Stormwater Program
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
(Version 3.00; Released August 2021) FOR NCDOT PROJECTS
WBS Element: BP9.0002 TIP/Prof No.: BR-0152 County(ies): Davie Page 2 of 2
General Project Information
Waterbody Information
Surface Water Body (1):
Unnamed Tributary (UT) to Sugar Creek
NCDWR Stream Index No.:
12-102-13-3-(2)
NCDWR Surface Water Classification for Water Body
Primary Classification:
Class C
Supplemental Classification:
None
Other Stream Classification:
None
Impairments:
None
Aquatic T&E Species?
No
I Comments:
NRTR Stream ID:
Unnamed Tributary (UT) to Sugar Creek
Buffer Rules in Effect:
N/A
Project Includes Bridge Spanning Water Body?
No
Deck Drains Discharge Over Buffer?
N/A
Dissipator Pads Provided in Buffer?
N/A
Deck Drains Discharge Over Water Body?
N/A
(If yes, provide justification in the General Project Narrative)
(If yes, describe in the General Project Narrative; if no, justify in the
General Project Narrative)
(If yes, provide justification in the General Project Narrative)
Surface Water Body (2):
1
NCDWR Stream Index No.:
NCDWR Surface Water Classification for Water Body
Primary Classification:
Supplemental Classification:
Other Stream Classification:
Impairments:
Aquatic T&E Species?
Comments:
NRTR Stream ID:
Buffer Rules in Effect:
Project Includes Bridge Spanning Water Body?
Deck Drains Discharge Over Buffer?
Dissipator Pads Provided in Buffer?
Deck Drains Discharge Over Water Body?
(If yes, provide justification in the General Project Narrative)
(If yes, describe in the General Project Narrative; if no, justify in the
General Project Narrative)
(If yes, provide justification in the General Project Narrative)
Surface Water Body (3):
1
NCDWR Stream Index No.:
NCDWR Surface Water Classification for Water Body
Primary Classification:
Supplemental Classification:
Other Stream Classification:
Impairments:
Aquatic T&E Species?
Comments:
NRTR Stream ID:
Buffer Rules in Effect:
Project Includes Bridge Spanning Water Body?
Deck Drains Discharge Over Buffer?
Dissipator Pads Provided in Buffer?
Deck Drains Discharge Over Water Body?
(If yes, provide justification in the General Project Narrative)
(If yes, describe in the General Project Narrative; if no, justify in the
General Project Narrative)
(If yes, provide justification in the General Project Narrative)

0
U
U
w
0
See Sheet 1 A For Index of Sheets
1441 m
11.4
z1
150
143
1463
1410
�
c .30 1469 1
1441 11
1439 a
F
\'
;
30
j
163
'+
1
40
1438�
43
436
n
1
635
1480
�
40 �
Smith
Grove
v
1636
1675
410 ;
14]3
�
15 /
L
1635
5
r
1637 �
OFF SITE
DETOUR ROUTE
VICINITY
MAP
(NTS)
STA\,TIE �O�1F 1v�0�1f�'7C'1H[ �CAUf��0�1L1[1vA\
]DI[V][5][0ly OF 1H111G1H1WA\\,Y5
DAVI COUNTY
LOCATION CULVERT NO. 2085 OVER UT TO SUGAR CREEK
ON SR 1436 (PINEBROOK SCHOOL ROAD
TYPE OF WORK: GRADING, PAVING, DRAINA GE AND CULVERT
r
L WETLAND AND SURFACE WATER IMPACTS PERMIT
BEGIN PROJECT BP9.0002
-L- POC STA 11 +24.00
-L- PINEBROOK SCHOOL ROAD
SR 1436
Tp P�NEBRppK pR.
TO NC HWY 158
END PROJECT BP9.0002
-L- POC STA 13+ 13.00
STATE
STATE PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
SHEET
NO.
TOTAL
SHEETS
N" C.,
B P9. Co02
11
5>
STATE PROD. NO.
F. A. PROD. NO.
DESCRIPTION
BP9.0002.1
PE
BP9.0002.3
CONST
]«(CO MI P ILIETIE IP ILA�, S
IDxO NOT lU(S]E ]FOR, 1R./W A\Ct ,lU11151['] ION
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
-T-
GRAPHIC SCALES
_T_
DESIGNDATA
—7
PROJECT LENGTH
Prepared in the Office of:
HYDRAULICS ENGINEER
ADT 2021 = 800
DIVISION OFHIGH WAYS
20 1�0 0 20 40
IDS = 50 MPH
TOTAL LENGTH BP9.0002= 0.036 MILES
o 0
375 SILAS CREEK PARKWAY, WINSTON SALEM NC, 27127
2024 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
-----------------------
�Q ��
PLANS
P.E.
o
20 10 0 20 40
RIGHT OF WAYDATE.
DANIEL C. ULRICH, PE
SIGNATURE
c�
APRIL 23, 2024
ROAD WA YDESIGN ENGINEER
a
PROJECT ENGINEER
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
4 2 0 4 8
FUNC CLASS =
LETTING DATE:
DANIEL C. ULRICH, PE
o D p��Q°
PROJECT DESIGN ENGINEER
LOCAL
N OV E M B E R 12 , 2 0 2 5
SUBREGIONAL TIER
PE
PROFILE (VERTICAL)
SIGNATURE

Site
No.
Station
(From/To)
-L-
11 +79
LT to
12+38
RT
-L-
11 +85
LT to
12+04
LT
-L-
11 +95
LT to
12+04
LT
Structure
Size / Type
72" CAP
Bank Stabilization
Channel Improvements
Permanent
Fill In
Wetlands
(ac)
WETLAND AND SURACE WATER IMPACTS SUMMARY
WETLAND IMPACTS
Temp.
Fill In
Wetlands
(ac)
Excavation
in
Wetlands
(ac)
Mechanized
Clearing
in Wetlands
(ac)
Hand
Clearing
in
Wetlands
(ac)
Permanent
SW
impacts
(ac)
0.0009
0.0028
0.0001
SURFACE WATER IMPACTS
Existing
Existing
Temp.
Channel
Channel
SW
Impacts
Impacts
impacts
Permanent
Temp.
(ac)
(ft)
(ft)
0.0017
13
20
24
8
Natural
Stream
Design
(ft)
(TOTALS*: 0.00 1 0.00 1 45 1 20 1 1
*Rounded totals are sum of actual impacts
NOTES:
channel impacts measured along the centerline of the stream
channel improvements include bank excavation and fill to improve stream transition from the culvert outlet
(Revised 2018 Feb

NCDOT Division 9 Pipe Replacement
Structure 292085 on SR 1436 (Pinebrook School Road) over UT to Sugar Creek— PCN for NWP 3
Attachment 6
Mitigation Approval Letter

Scout
The Scout mitigation site is part of the RES Yadkin 01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank sponsored by EBX,
located approximately eight miles west of Clemmons and five miles northwest of Bermuda Run, in Davie
County NC. The 13.22-acre project presents 3,144 linear feet of stream restoration and enhancement
generating 2,918 warm stream mitigation units after nonstandard with buffer adjustments along Hauser
creek and two unnamed tributaries in the Upper Yadkin watershed of the Upper Pee Dee River Basin
(03040101).
NCDOT has acquired stream mitigation credits to offset the impacts associated with projects located
with HUC 03040101. EBX with be debiting the Scout mitigation site for 42 LF of stream mitigation to
offset the 21 LF of stream impacts associated with BP9.0002 The debit to the Scout mitigation site is
shown below.
F TIPDebits
PO Number
TIP
Debit Amount
Permit Date
Notes
Links
7700002059
U-5824
674
2023
90LF@1:1 LF and 2921f at 2:1 (impacts)
7700002059
BP9.0002
42
12024
21Lf impacts at 2:1

NCDOT Division 9 Pipe Replacement
Structure 292085 on SR 1436 (Pinebrook School Road) over UT to Sugar Creek— PCN for NWP 3
Attachment C
Historic Architecture and Landscapes No Survey
Required Form; Archaeological No Survey
Required Form; Tribal Coordination

Project Tracking No. (Internal Use
23-10-0002
---.r------
t HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPES
LZ NO SURVEY REQUIRED FORM
' This form only pertains to Historic Architecture and Landscapes for this project. It
is not valid for Archaeological Resources. You must consult separately with the
Archaeology Group.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No:
County:
Davie
WBSNo.:
BP9.0002
Document
Type:
Federal CE
Fed. Aid No:
Funding:
❑ State ® Federal
Federal
Permits :
® Yes ❑ No
Permit
T e s :
Project Description: Replace Culvert 2085 on SR 1436 (Pinebrook Road)
SUMMARY OF HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPES REVIEW
Description of review activities, results, and conclusions:
Review of HPO quad maps, HPO GIS information, historic designations roster, and indexes was
undertaken on October 10, 2023. Based on this review, there are no existing NR, SL, LD, DE, or
SS properties in the Area of Potential Effects, which is defined on the following maps. Properties
over fifty years of age were identified within the APE and visually surveyed through Google
Maps Street View, and from this survey it was determined that all are unremarkable and/or have
diminished integrity and do not warrant further evaluation. There are no National Register listed
or eligible properties and no survey is required. If design plans change, additional review will be
required.
Why the available information provides a reliable basis for reasonably predictinz that there
are no unidentified significant historic architectural or landscape resources in the project
area:
HPO quad maps and GIS information recording NR, SL, LD, DE, and SS properties for the
Davie County survey, Davie County GIS/Tax information, and Google Maps are considered
valid for the purposes of determining the likelihood of historic resources being present. There
are no National Register listed or eligible properties within the APE and no survey is required.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
❑Map(s) ❑Previous Survey Info. ❑Photos ❑Correspondence ❑Design Plans
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN
Historic Architecture and Landscapes -- NO SURVEY REQUIRED
NCDOT Architectural Historian Date
Historic Architecture and Landscapes NO SURVEYREQUIRED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
Page 1 of 3

. IV`
` rinubrook Sohr��`Rd
h
U
M
Study Area
Figure 1: Project Study Area
BP9.0002
N Pinebrook School Road
Davie County
0 ' 250 ' 500 US Feet
Historic Architecture and Landscapes NO SURVEYREQUIRED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
Page 2 of 3

State Historic Preservation Office GIS.
Historic Architecture and Landscapes NO SURVEYREQUIRED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
Page 3 of 3

Project Tracking No.
23-10-0002
,,•-
N O ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED FORM
'p_.
�.i
Y This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this
¢:_ •.;..,,_. -
project. It is not valid for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must
",
consult separately with the Historic Architecture and Landscapes Team.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No:
li : _7GM
Federal Aid No:
BP9.0002
Federal Permit Required?
Project Description:
County: Davie
Document.
Funding
❑ Yes ® No
Federal Categorical Exclusion
❑ State ® Federal
Permit N/A
Type:
Replace culvert 2085 under SR 1436 (Pinebrook School Rd.) in Davie County. The Area of
Potential Effects (A.P.E.), based on the study area provided by the project manager, is
approximately 160 meters (524 ft.) long and 60 meters (200 ft.) wide. The project is federally
funded and will not require federal permits, so this review is conducted pursuant to Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act.
SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEW
Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions:
The review included an examination of a topographic map, the Davie County soil survey, an aerial
photograph, and information about previously recorded sites, previous archaeological surveys, and
previous environmental reviews found on the Office of State Archaeology's (OSA) web -based GIS
service. SR 1436 is oriented approximately east -west.
The topographic map (Mocksville) shows the study area is in a small drainage valley. The study
area includes a sloped ridge side on the east side of the culvert and a level ridge on the west side.
The southwest, southeast, and northeast quadrants are depicted as cleared land. There is a structure
in the northeast quadrant. In this region, ridge side slopes have a low potential for archaeological
sites, and level ridges have a low to moderate potential depending upon the distance from and
elevation above a stream.
The Davie County web -based soil survey shows two soil types in the study area. The soil in the
majority of the study area is Mocksville sandy loam (8-15% slopes), a well drained soil found on
hillslopes on ridges. The soil at the west end of the study area is Rosalo fine sandy loam (2-8%
slopes), a well drained soil found on interfluves (ridges).
The aerial photograph (with elevation contours) shows the study area includes moderately sloped
landforms. The landuse in the study area is a mix of wooded, cleared fields, and residential/farm
yard. The land in the northwest quadrant is wooded. The southwest quadrant is wooded along the
road (drainage ditch?) and an agricultural field to the south. The southeast quadrant is also wooded
along the road and an agricultural field to the south. The northeast quadrant is a residential or barn
yard. A driveway is located at the east edge of the study area.
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED" FORM
1 of 7

Project Tracking No.
23-10-0002
A review of the information available on the OSA's web -based GIS service shows no previously
recorded archaeological sites in the vicinity of the study area. The study area is not within any
previous archaeological survey areas. The study area does not include any projects that have been
reviewed by the State Historic Preservation Office (HPO).
(This project falls within a North Carolina County in which the following federally recognized
tribes have expressed an interest: The Catawba Indian Nation. We recommend that you ensure
that this documentation is forwarded to these tribes using the process described in the current
NCDOT Tribal Protocol and PA Procedures Manual.)
Brief Explanation of why the available information provides a reliable basis for reasonably
predicting that there are no unidentified historic properties in the APE:
The landforms within the study area are moderately sloped ridges and have a low potenital for
prehistoric archaeological sites.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: ® Map(s) ❑ Previous Survey Info ❑ Photos ❑Correspondence
Other:
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST: NO ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED
Caleb Smith
NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST II
11/20/2023
Date
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED" FORM
2 of 7

Project Tracking No.
23-10-0002
Q
3
i
Rn
Ham..iny
f �
rangy °
IREDELL
YADKIN
)AVIE
3
FORSYTH K� 3
p anrn°nn -- 'ar�Ra =
U.mTs..M
Ber un
1 r;
Wdcame
DAV ID SON
Conlncnne � LeK�no�m
RONI4N
L i—d
IB�In.I14F!
+ h Ssvces'. Esr i, HERE, C.,— USC5, Int map, IHGREMEW R,, NRGss, Es ri Jspe n, s {Hong Kong), Esri VCerea, Esri [T1�s ilentll, NGCG, [c]
:..,�GpenStreetM1AeP mntri 1.t-and the GlS—Ganmunity
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED" FORM
3 of 7

Project Tracking No.
23-10-0002
.'.. Culvert 2085 Y
S!
' Mocksville " , Advance- J,<
L
a
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED" FORM
4of7

Project Tracking No.
23-10-0002
r4r
Culvert 2085 `~
t study area •
Macksrille Advance
Is
ti � a • t a •f4 � � � � � x
_ L
�• x 1
,4.
=�
r.-.- 6
Capy.gh 1311aiiorel .^-,aSraFFi�s
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED" FORM
5 of 7

Project Tracking No.
23-10-0002
3 Soil Map —Davie County, North Carolina 3
A (Davie_ 2085_sludyarea)
54�g37 5wo10 Swam 544am I'llim 544129 544140 5441m 544120 544MD
N � SY 56'N
RaB
P
iz R
F3 Wi map Maw n*t M wail d art tVs smos. (sEH
N {� 39°SY SYN
6a4UA 54461� 54409D 5410A0 54410D 544121 544M 54M 54410D 5442M
MW Scale: 1:906 if pmted m A larKb ape (11" x SS)sheet
Metes
8 N 0 10 20 40 5(1 B
A0 44 80 160 24(I
MW projection: VkbMauttar Coma dim: WGS&4 Edget c : UIN Zane 17N WCSM
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED" FORM
6 of 7

Project Tracking No.
23-10-0002
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED" FORM
7of7

Office 803-328-2427
Fax [phone]
November 1, 2023
Attention: Stephanie Braquet
NC Department of Transportation
375 Silas Creek Parkway
Winston-Salem, NC 27127
Re. THPO # TCNS # Project Description
Replacement of an existing culvert carrying Sugar Creek, with a new culvert on SR 1436
2023-193-16 in Davie County as project BP9-0002
Dear Ms. Bracquet,
The Catawba have no immediate concerns with regard to traditional cultural properties,
sacred sites or Native American archaeological sites within the boundaries of the
proposed project areas. However, the Catawba are to be notified if Native American
artifacts and / or human remains are located during the ground disturbance phase
of this project.
If you have questions please contact Caitlin Rogers at 803-328-7369, or e-mail
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
Wenonah G. Haire
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

NCDOT Division 9 Pipe Replacement
Structure 292085 on SR 1436 (Pinebrook School Road) over UT to Sugar Creek— PCN for NWP 3
Attachment D
Categorical Exclusion

Type I or II Categorical Exclusion Action Classification Form
STIP Project No.
WBS Element
Federal Project No.
A. Project Description:
BP9.0002
BP9.0002.1
N/A
The N.C. Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Structure No. 292085 on SR
1436 (Pinebrook School Road) located between 1-40 and NC 158. The coordinates for this project
(BP9.0002) are 35.965122N,-80.510814W. The existing 60" corrugated metal pipe (CMP) with a
stone headwall will be replaced with a 72" corrugated aluminum pipe (CAP) buried one foot with a
headwall. The CAP will have one -foot sills inset at a 3-foot minimum on the inlet and outlet ends. The
structure carries an unnamed tributary to Sugar Creek (Class C Yadkin River basin) in Davie County.
The existing two (10-foot) lanes will stay the same width while the 10-foot grassed shoulders will be
replaced with 7-foot grass shoulders with guardrail. The design follows subregional tier guidelines.
See Figure 1 for the vicinity map and Figure 2 for the project study area.
The project is not included in the 2024-2033 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). This
project is state funded; however, a Categorical Exclusion is being prepared in case federal funds
become available.
B. Description of Need and Purpose:
The purpose of the project is to replace a structurally deficient culvert. The culvert is considered
structurally deficient due to deterioration, erosion, and being under -sized.
C. Categorical Exclusion Action Classification:
Type I(A) - Ground Disturbing Action
D. Proposed Improvements:
23. Federally -funded projects: a) That receive less than $5,000,000 (as adjusted annually by the
Secretary to reflect any increases in the Consumer Price Index prepared by the Department of Labor)
of Federal funds; or b) With a total estimated cost of not more than $30,000,000 (as adjusted annually
by the Secretary to reflect any increases in the Consumer Price Index prepared by the Department of
Labor) and Federal funds comprising less than 15 percent of the total estimated project cost. To check
adjusted costs increases go to:
https://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/FAST_ ACT_ Section 1314_Final _Memo.asp
https://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/FAST_ACT_Section 1314_I mplementation_Guide.asp
28. Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of grade separation to
replace existing at -grade railroad crossings, if the actions meet the constraints in 23 CFR 771.117(e)
(1-6).
E. Special Project Information:
Schedule:
Right -of -Way: 4/23/2024
Construction: 11 /12/2025
v2019.2 BP9.0002 Type 11 CE Page 1

Complete Streets
NCDOT completed Stage 1 of the Complete Streets review for BR-0152. Since BR-0152 is also on
Pinebrook School Road and in close proximity, it was determined that the BR-0152 Complete Streets
review would suffice for BP9.0002. The following commitment has been added to the project
commitments. The need for and type of pedestrian and bicycle accommodations will be investigated
further due to the proximity of Pinebrook Elementary School.
Section 106:
The Catawba Nation has claimed active consultation areas that include the BP9.0002 project area within
Davie County; therefore, a coordination letter was sent on October 3, 2023. The Catawba Nation
responded on November 1, 2023, noting no immediate concerns with the proposed project. However, the
Catawba Nation should be notified if Native American artifacts and/or human remains are located during
the ground disturbance phase of this project. Correspondence with the Catawba Nation can be found on
the project's SharePoint site.
Cultural Resources
The Historic Architecture and Landscapes No Survey Required Form for BP9.0002, dated October 10,
2023, indicated there are no previously recorded historic sites within the Area of Potential Effect (APE)
and no structures over 50 years in age were identified within the APE. Therefore, a historic architecture
and landscapes survey was determined to not be required for the project.
A No Archaeological Survey Required Form for BP9.0002 was received on November 20, 2023.
Documentation of the cultural resource reviews can be found on the project's SharePoint site.
Natural resources
Jurisdictional Resources
Delineations for potential jurisdictional resources occurred in October 2023 and are documented in the
Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR) that can be found on the project's SharePoint site. Two
surface waters were delineated in the project study area, Sugar Creek, and an unnamed tributary (UT) to
Sugar Creek. Both are classified as Class C resources in the Yadkin Pee -Dee River basin. The UT to
Sugar Creek is the surface water that will be impacted by BP9.0002. No wetlands were delineated in the
study area.
Protected Species
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists the following federally protected species for the
project study area in IPAC, with protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (Table 1).
Table 1. ESA federally protected species listed within the PSA'
Scientific Name
Common Name
Federal
Status2
Habitat
Present
Biological
Conclusion
Perimyotis subflavus
Tricolored bat
PE
Yes
NLAA
Helian thus schweinitzii
Schweinitz's sunflower
E
Yes
NLAA
Rhus michauxii
Michaux's sumac
E
Yes
NLAA
USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) data checked on January 17, 2024
2 E — Endangered; PE — Proposed Endangered
3 MANLAA— May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect
v2019.2 BP9.0002 Type 11 CE Page 2

Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii)
Per USFWS IPaC site, suitable habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower is present within the project study area
in the form of roadsides, woodland edges, and utility rights -of -way. A survey for Schweinitz's sunflower
was completed on September 18, 2023. This species was not identified during this survey effort. A review
of the NCNHP Fall 2022 dataset identified no known Schweinitz's sunflower occurrences within 1.0 mile of
the PSA. Due to the absence of Schweinitz's sunflower within the PSA and the lack of NCNHP records
within 1.0 mile of the PSA, effects to this species are not likely. The Biological Conclusion for this species
is Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii)
Per USFWS IPaC site, suitable habitat for Michaux's sumac is present within the project study area in
the form of roadsides, rights -of -way, and on the edges of artificially maintained clearings. The plant
grows in sandy or rocky open woods in association with basic soils. However, there are no sandy or
rocky woods in the project area. A survey for Michaux's sumac was completed on September 18, 2023.
This species was not identified during the survey effort. A review of the NCNHP Winter 2024 dataset
identified no known Michaux's sumac occurrences within 1.0 mile of the PSA. Due to the absence of
Michaux's sumac within the PSA and lack of NCNHP records within 1.0 mile of the PSA, effects to this species
are not likely. The Biological Conclusion for this species is Not Likely to Adversely Affect.
Tricolored Bat (Perimyotis subflavus — PESU)
The tricolored bat is currently proposed for listing as endangered under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA). Bridges provide summer roosting habitat for the tricolored bat. Data collected across North
Carolina has documented tricolored bats using culverts. A North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
(NHP) data explorer report dated May 24, 2023, shows no known occurrences of the tricolored bat
within 1.0 mile of the study area. On May 23, 2023, an internal survey of the culvert for potential
tricolored bat habitat was done. No evidence of bats was observed. Any tree removal taking place for
the project will be edge habitat adjacent to the road. The project will not jeopardize the existence of the
tricolored bat. Informal consultation will be completed with USFWS prior to habitat disturbance upon
federal listing of the tricolored bat. The recommended Biological Conclusion for the Tricolored Bat may
affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect.
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
A desktop-GIS assessment of the project study area, as well as the area within a 1.0-mile radius of the
project limits, was performed on July 20, 2022, using the most recent color aerials. Water bodies large
enough to sufficiently be considered potential feeding sources were identified. Since foraging habitat is
present within the review area, a survey of the PSA and the area within 660 feet of the project limits
was conducted on September 14, 2022. No eagles or nests were identified during this survey effort. A
review of the July 2022 NCNHP dataset revealed no known occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile
of the project study area. Due to the lack of sightings, known bald eagle occurrences, and the minimal
impact anticipated for this project, it has been determined that this project will not affect this species.
v2019.2 BP9.0002 Type 11 CE Page 3

F. Project Impact Criteria Checklists:
F2. Ground Disturbing Actions — Type I (Appendix A) & Type II (Appendix B)
Proposed improvement(s) that fit Type I Actions (NCDOT-FHWA CE Programmatic Agreement,
Appendix A) including 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 12, 18, 21, 22 (ground disturbing), 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, &/or 30;
&/or Type 11 Actions (NCDOT-FHWA CE Programmatic Agreement, Appendix B) answer the project
impact threshold questions (below) and questions 8 — 31.
• If any question 1-7 is checked "Yes" then NCDOT certification for FHWA approval is required.
• If any question 1-31 is checked "Yes" then additional information will be required for those questions
in Section G.
PROJECT IMPACT THRESHOLDS
Yes
No
(FHWA signature required if any of the questions 1-7 are marked "Yes".)
1
Does the project require formal consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
❑
2
(USFWS) or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)?
2
Does the project result in impacts subject to the conditions of the Bald and Golden
❑
R1
Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA)?
3
Does the project generate substantial controversy or public opposition, for any
❑
R1
reason, following appropriate public involvement?
4
Does the project cause disproportionately high and adverse impacts relative to low-
❑
R1
income and/or minority populations?
5
Does the project involve a residential or commercial displacement, or a substantial
❑
R1
amount of right of way acquisition?
6
Does the project require an Individual Section 4(f) approval?
❑
[1
Does the project include adverse effects that cannot be resolved with a
7
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) under Section 106 of the National Historic
❑
R1
Preservation Act (NHPA) or have an adverse effect on a National Historic
Landmark (NHL)?
If any question 8-31 is checked "Yes" then additional information will be required for those questions in
Section G.
Other Considerations
Yes
No
8
Is an Endangered Species Act (ESA) determination unresolved or is the project
R1
❑
covered by a Programmatic Agreement under Section 7?
9
Is the project located in anadromous fish spawning waters?
❑
[1
Does the project impact waters classified as Outstanding Resource Water (ORW),
10
High Quality Water (HQW), Water Supply Watershed Critical Areas, 303(d) listed
❑
[1
impaired water bodies, buffer rules, or Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV)?
11
Does the project impact Waters of the United States in any of the designated
❑
R1
mountain trout streams?
12
Does the project require a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Individual
❑
R1
Section 404 Permit?
13
Will the project require an easement from a Federal Energy Regulatory
❑
Commission FERC licensed facility?
v2019.2 BP9.0002 Type 11 CE Page 4

Other Considerations for Type I and II Ground Disturbing Actions (continued)
Yes
No
Does the project include Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
14
(NHPA) effects determination other than a No Effect, including archaeological
❑
2
remains?
15
Does the project involve GeoEnvironmental Sites of Concerns such as gas
❑
2
stations, dry cleaners, landfills, etc.?
Does the project require work encroaching and adversely affecting a regulatory
16
floodway or work affecting the base floodplain (100-year flood) elevations of a
❑
water course or lake, pursuant to Executive Order 11988 and 23 CFR 650 subpart
A?
17
Is the project in a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) county and substantially
❑
2
affects the coastal zone and/or any Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
18
Does the project require a U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) permit?
❑
2
19
Does the project involve construction activities in, across, or adjacent to a
❑
2
designated Wild and Scenic River present within the project area?
20
Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) resources?
❑
[1
21
Does the project impact federal lands (e.g. U.S. Forest Service (USFS), USFWS,
❑
R1
etc.) or Tribal Lands?
22
Does the project involve any changes in access control or the modification or
❑
R1
construction of an interchange on an interstate?
23
Does the project have a permanent adverse effect on local traffic patterns or
❑
R1
community cohesiveness?
24
Will maintenance of traffic cause substantial disruption?
❑
[1
25
Is the project inconsistent with the STIP, and where applicable, the Metropolitan
❑
R1
Planning Or anization's MPO's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)?
Does the project require the acquisition of lands under the protection of Section 6(f)
of the Land and Water Conservation Act, the Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Act,
26
the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA),
❑
R1
Tribal Lands, or other unique areas or special lands that were acquired in fee or
easement with public -use money and have deed restrictions or covenants on the
property?
27
Does the project involve Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) buyout
❑
R1
properties under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program HMGP ?
28
Does the project include a de minimis or programmatic Section 4(f)?
❑
[1
29
Is the project considered a Type I under the NCDOT Noise Policy?
❑
[1
30
Is there prime or important farmland soil impacted by this project as defined by the
R1
Farmland Protection Policy Act FPPA ?
31
Are there other issues that arose during the project development process that
❑
R1
affected the project decision?
v2019.2 BP9.0002 Type 11 CE Page 5

G. Additional Documentation as Required from Section F (ONLY for questions marked `Yes'):
Response to Question 8.
The project will not jeopardize the existence of the tricolored bat. Informal consultation will be completed
with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) prior to habitat disturbance upon federal listing
of the tricolored bat.
For the purpose of the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) farmland includes prime farmland, unique
farmland, and land of statewide or local importance. The project does include land classified as Farmland
of Statewide Importance. In accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations 7CFR 658, FPPA, the AD-
1006 was initiated. The form was completed, and it is attached below.
v2019.2 BP9.0002 Type 11 CE Page 6

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
COMMITMENTS FROM PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN
Division Environmental Staff - ESA consultation
InformaIcon sultation will be completed with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) prior to habitat disturbance upon federal listing
of the tricolored bat.
Project Management (PMU/SMU/Division) - Pedestrian and Bike Accommodations
The need for and type of pedestrian and bicycle accommodations will be investigated further due to the proximity of Pinebrook Elementary
School
COMMITMENTS FROM PERMITTING
No commitments developed during project permitting.
*****END OF PROJECT COMMITMENTS*****

H. Categorical Exclusion Approval:
STIP Project No.
WBS Element
Federal Project No.
Prepared By:
03/18/2024
Date
BP9.0002
BP9.0002.1
N/A
—DocuSigned 1by: 'gyp N/�VArnI, IN/`e�l1r
S�,p t' Y
125DCB05810445B...
Stephanie Braquet, Division 9 Environmental Specialist
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Reviewed By: DocuSigned by,
03/19/2024�-
CB53851D524244B...
Date Amy Euliss, Division 9 PDEA Engineer
North Carolina Department of Transportation
• If NO grey boxes are checked in Section F (pages 2
[1 Approved and 3), NCDOT approves the Type I or Type II
Categorical Exclusion.
• If ANY grey boxes are checked in Section F (pages 2
❑ Certified and 3), NCDOT certifies the Type I or Type II
Categorical Exclusion for FHWA approval.
• If classified as Type III Categorical Exclusion.
DocuSigned by:
03/19/2024 P�
—2806B7F259ECA43A...
Date S.P. Ivey, r.t., uivision 9 Engineer
North Carolina Department of Transportation
FHWA Approved: For Projects Certified by NCDOT (above), FHWA signature required.
N/A
Date Yolonda K. Jordan, Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Note: Prior to ROW or Construction authorization, a consultation may be required (please see
Section Vll of the NCDOT-FHWA CE Programmatic Agreement for more details).
v2019.2 BP9.0002 Type 11 CE Page 7

USDA
United States Department of Agriculture
Natural Resources March 15, 2024
Conservation Service
Stephanie Braquet, Division 9 Environmental Specialist
North Carolina North Carolina Department of Transportation
State Office 375 Silas Creek Parkway
4407 Bland Rd. Winston Salem, NC 27127-7167
Suite 117 Office: 336 747 7800
Raleigh
North Carolina 27609 Dear Stephanie Braquet:
Voice [phone]
Fax [phone] The following information is in response to your request soliciting comments regarding the
Pinebrook School Road pipe replacement project in Davie County, NC.
Projects are subject to Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) requirements if they may irreversibly
convert farmland (directly or indirectly) to nonagricultural use and are completed by a Federal agency
or with assistance from a Federal agency.
For the purpose of FPPA, farmland includes prime farmland, unique farmland, and land of statewide
or local importance. Farmland subject to FPPA requirements does not have to be currently used for
cropland. It can be forest land, pastureland, cropland, or other land, but not water or urban built-up
land. Farmland means prime or unique farmlands as defined in section 1540(c)(1) of the Act or
farmland that is determined by the appropriate state or unit of local government agency or agencies
with concurrence of the Secretary to be farmland of statewide of local importance.
"Farmland" does not include land already in or committed to urban development or water storage.
Farmland "already in" urban development or water storage includes all such land with a density of
30 structures per 40-acre area. Farmland already in urban development also includes lands identified
as "urbanized area" (UA) on the Census Bureau Map, or as urban area mapped with a "tint overprint"
on the USGS topographical maps, or as "urban -built-up" on the USDA Important Farmland Maps.
See over for more information.
The area in question does include land classified as Farmland of Statewide Importance. In
accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations 7CFR 658, Farmland Protection Policy
Act, the AD-1006 was initiated. NRCS has completed Parts 11, IV, V of the form, and
returned for completion by the requesting agency.
If you have any questions, please feel free to email me at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Ryan Janway
Natural Resource Specialist
cc:
Randy Blackwood, supervisory soil conservationist, NRCS, NC
Michael Jones, state soil scientist, Raleigh, NC
The Natural Resources Conservation Service
is an agency of the Department of Agriculture's
Farm Production and Conservation (FPAC).
An Equal Opportunity Provider, Employer, and Lender

U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Date Of Land Evaluation Request February 8, 2024
Name of Project Plnebrook School Road
Federal Agency Involved FHWA
Proposed Land Use roadway
County and StateDavle County, North Carolina
PART II (To be completed by NRCS)
Date Request Received By
NRCS 2/8/2024
son Completing Form:
*anJanway
Does the site contain Prime, Unique, Statewide or Local Important Farmland?
(If no, the FPPA does not apply - do not complete additional parts of this form)
YES NO
0
Acres Irrigated
0
Average Farm Size
�1130
Major Crop(s)
Corn
Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction
Acres: 84.38 % 144,151
Amount of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
Acres: 84.38 % 144,151
Name of Land Evaluation System Used
Davie County LESA
Name of State or Local Site Assessment System
NA
Date Land Evaluation Returned by NRCS
3/15/2024
PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Alternative Site Rating
Site A
Site B
Site C
Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
0.07
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
0
C. Total Acres In Site
0 07
PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland
0
B. Total Acres Statewide Important or Local Important Farmland
07
C. Percentage Of Farmland in County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted
0.00%
D. Percentage Of Farmland in Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value
71.48%
PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value of Farmland To Be Converted Scale of 0 to 100 Points
61
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Site Assessment Criteria
(Criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5 b. For Corridor ro ect use form NRCS-CPA-106)
Maximum
Points
Site A
Site B
Site C
Site D
1. Area In Non -urban Use
(15)
15
2. Perimeter In Non -urban Use
(10)
9
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
(20)
0
4. Protection Provided By State and Local Government
(20)
0
5. Distance From Urban Built-up Area
(15)
15
6. Distance To Urban Support Services
(15)
0
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
(10)
10
8. Creation Of Non-farmable Farmland
(10)
0
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services
(5)
5
10. On -Farm Investments
(20)
20
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
(10)
0
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use
(10)
0
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS
160
74
0
0
0
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V)
100
61
0
0
0
Total Site Assessment (From Part VI above or local site assessment)
160
74
0
0
0
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines)
260
135
0
0
0
Site Selected:A
Date Of Selection February 8, 2024
Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
YES❑ NO
Reason For Selection:
The new pipe is an upgrade to the structurally deficient existing pipe.
Name of Federal agency representative completing this form: Date:
(See Instructions on reverse side) Form AD-1006 (03-02)

STEPS IN THE PROCESSING THE FARMLAND AND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING FORM
Step 1 - Federal agencies (or Federally funded projects) involved in proposed projects that may convert farmland, as defined in the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)
to nonagricultural uses, will initially complete Parts I and III of the form. For Corridor type projects, the Federal agency shall use form NRCS-CPA-106 in place
of form AD-1006. The Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) process may also be accessed by visiting the FPPA website, htty://fppa.nres.usda.gov/less/.
Step 2 - Originator (Federal Agency) will send one original copy of the form together with appropriate scaled maps indicating location(s)of project site(s), to the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) local Field Office or USDA Service Center and retain a copy for their files. (NRCS has offices in most counties in the
U.S. The USDA Office Information Locator may be found at http://offices.usda. ovg /scripts/ndISAPI.dll/oip public/USAmap, or the offices can usually be
found in the Phone Book under U.S. Government, Department of Agriculture. A list of field offices is available from the NRCS State Conservationist and State
Office in each State.)
Step 3 - NRCS will, within 10 working days after receipt of the completed form, make a determination as to whether the site(s) of the proposed project contains prime,
unique, statewide or local important farmland. (When a site visit or land evaluation system design is needed, NRCS will respond within 30 working days.
Step 4 - For sites where farmland covered by the FPPA will be converted by the proposed project, NRCS will complete Parts II, IV and V of the form.
Step 5 - NRCS will return the original copy of the form to the Federal agency involved in the project, and retain a file copy for NRCS records.
Step 6 - The Federal agency involved in the proposed project will complete Parts VI and VII of the form and return the form with the final selected site to the servicing
NRCS office.
Step 7 - The Federal agency providing financial or technical assistance to the proposed project will make a determination as to whether the proposed conversion is consistent
with the FPPA.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING FORM
(For Federal Agency)
Part I: When completing the "County and State" questions, list all the local governments that are responsible for local land
use controls where site(s) are to be evaluated.
Part III: When completing item B (Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly), include the following
1. Acres not being directly converted but that would no longer be capable of being farmed after the conversion, because the
conversion would restrict access to them or other major change in the ability to use the land for agriculture.
2. Acres planned to receive services from an infrastructure project as indicated in the project justification (e.g. highways,
utilities planned build out capacity) that will cause a direct conversion.
Part VI: Do not complete Part VI using the standard format if a State or Local site assessment is used. With local and NRCS
assistance, use the local Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA).
1. Assign the maximum points for each site assessment criterion as shown in § 658.5(b) of CFR. In cases of corridor -type
project such as transportation, power line and flood control, criteria #5 and #6 will not apply and will, be weighted zero,
however, criterion #8 will be weighed a maximum of 25 points and criterion #11 a maximum of 25 points.
2. Federal agencies may assign relative weights among the 12 site assessment criteria other than those shown on the
FPPA rule after submitting individual agency FPPA policy for review and comment to NRCS. In all cases where other
weights are assigned, relative adjustments must be made to maintain the maximum total points at 160. For project sites
where the total points equal or exceed 160, consider alternative actions, as appropriate, that could reduce adverse
impacts (e.g. Alternative Sites, Modifications or Mitigation).
Part VII: In computing the "Total Site Assessment Points" where a State or local site assessment is used and the total
maximum number of points is other than 160, convert the site assessment points to a base of 160.
Example: if the Site Assessment maximum is 200 points, and the alternative Site "A" is rated 180 points:
Total points assigned Site A 180 X 160 = 144 points for Site A
Maximum points possible = 200
For assistance in completing this form or FPPA process, contact the local NRCS Field Office or USDA Service Center.
NRCS employees, consult the FPPA Manual and/or policy for additional instructions to complete the AD-1006 form.

NCDOT Division 9 Pipe Replacement
Structure 292085 on SR 1436 (Pinebrook School Road) over UT to Sugar Creek— PCN for NWP 3
Attachment E
Section 7 Concurrence Request for the
Tricolored bat, Schweinitz's sunflower, and
Michaux's sumac; Bridge Survey for Bats
Memo

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Roy COOPER
GOVERNOR
March 4, 2024
Ms. Holland Youngman
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801
J.R. "JOEY" HOPKINS
SECRETARY
Subject: Section 7 Concurrence Request for the Tricolored bat, Schweinitz's
sunflower and Michaux's sumac for the proposed replacement of pipe number 292085
on Pinebrook School Road (SR 1436) in Davie County. WBS No. BP9.0002.1
Dear Ms. Youngman:
Please accept this Section 7 Concurrence Request for the Tricolored bat, Schweinitz's
sunflower, and Michaux's sumac for the proposed replacement of pipe number 292085
on Pinebrook School Road (SR 1436) in Davie County.
The project proposes to replace the existing 60" x 63.5 linear feet (LF) corrugated metal
pipe (CMP) with stone headwall with a 72" x 72 linear feet corrugated aluminum pipe
(CAP) buried one foot with a headwall. The CAP will have one -foot sills inset at a 3-foot
minimum on the inlet and outlet ends. The structure carries an unnamed tributary to Sugar
Creek (class C Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin).
IPAC identifies two species for the USACE action area as endangered: Schweinitz's
sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) and Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii). It also
identifies the Tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus) as proposed endangered in the project
area. NCDOT wishes to consult on the Schweinitz's sunflower, Michaux's sumac, and
tricolored bat.
The project is state funded; however, a Categorical Exclusion is being prepared in case
federal funds become available. The FHWA is the anticipated lead federal agency.
The project is scheduled to Let for construction in January 2025.
Bat Survey Report is attached.
Mailing Address:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION 9
375 SILAS CREEK PARKWAY
WINSTON SALEM, NC 27127
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Customer Service: 1-877-368-4968
Website: ncdot.gov
Location:
375 SILAS CREEK PARKWAY
WINSTON-SALEM, NC 27127

Effects to the Tricolored Bat
Foraging, Commuting, and Roosting behavior for PESU/Tree Clearing
The Tricolored bat (PESU) utilizes a variety of structures, including culverts, bridges, and
abandoned structures for roosting in the summer. Maternity roosts are found in a variety
of terrestrial habitats, including live and dead trees, live and dead foliage and lichens in
the tree canopies (NatureServe 2022). There is element occurrence data for the tricolored
bat approximately 30 miles from the action area at Boone's Cave Site 1 in Davidson
County. This site element occurrence data represents a known hibernaculum of PESU
(Katherine Etchison, NCWRC-email communication).
PESU primarily utilizes abandoned caves and underground mines for their hibernacula in
the winter. They can be found emerging from the hibernacula in the spring and fall.
For PESU, habitat types that were assessed for impacts associated with the project
include roosting locations in caves, mines, and foraging/commuting locations in a variety
of woody habitats. The action area for the project includes woody habitats that qualify as
suitable habitat for PESU. There are streams but no wetlands that will be impacted by the
project. Therefore, PESU foraging, commuting, and roosting behaviors may be impacted
by project construction.
There are no bridges or abandoned structures in the action area. There is a single 60"
pipe that is greater than 60' long that will be replaced by the project. This structure meets
the minimum requirements for surveys in the 2023 NCDOT Bat SOP. It was surveyed for
bats on May 23, 2023, and no evidence of bats was found.
Based on the most circuitous alternative and widest slope stakes, the total limits of tree
clearing are estimated to be 0.5 acres in the project study area. There will be clearing
along the road corridor and clearing along the streams and wetlands. Because the suitable
habitat for PESU is so broadly defined, the potential effect that clearing of woody
vegetation anywhere within the project study area may have on PESU commuting,
foraging, and roosting behavior cannot be completely ruled out. However, effects from a
reduction in commuting and foraging areas are expected to be discountable and
insignificant due to the availability of alternative forested areas in the surrounding
landscape. NCDOT will commit to a tree clearing moratorium from April I to October
15 effective with the listing of the tricolored bat. NCDOT will utilize Method III clearing.
The clearing limits will be marked for the contractor to meet the requirements of the
NCDOT Standards.
Roosting, Foraging & Commuting behavior of PESU/Lighting:
There is no existing street lighting and there will be no new permanent lighting in the
project area. There will be no night work, so there will be no need for temporary lighting.
There will be no effects from lighting.

Noise and PESU
Percussive activities for the project include blasting, guardrail installation and road
grading. While these activities are anticipated for the project, these activities are not
anticipated within 0.5 mile of a known PESU maternity roost. Furthermore, there are no
known PESU hibernacula within 30 miles of the action area, and there are no
underground mines located within the project study area or within 0.5 mile of the project
study area. No impacts to PESU roosting habitat are anticipated from noise.
Known winter roost data was provided by NCWRC. This agency surveys areas they have
determined have potential for hibernacula. The reason that blasting information is
provided is to demonstrate due diligence for evaluating impacts associated with this
activity on habitat (winter and summer). Hibernacula locations and underground mine
data were reviewed to determine if this activity may impact winter roosting habitat for
cave dwelling bat species. This is because of the vibratory nature of percussive activities;
the percussive activity imparts energy into the substrate which may cause an impact to
bats roosting underground. This cave/subsurface mine habitat does not exist within the
project area. In addition, WRC's records do not indicate they have found any hibernacula
for PESU within the project study area. This addresses a lack of winter habitat
(hibernacula) in the area. As far as the summer roosting habitat (trees) because the spectra
of traffic and construction noise do not appreciably overlap with most bat echolocation
calls or their hearing of them, echolocation in most species of bats is likely not affected
by highway noise. In addition, the dBA of natural background sounds are within the same
dBA range of the traffic and construction sounds except for the most extreme sound level
for explosives. The maximum noise level for activities that will occur as part of this
project is 112 dBA, is rock blasting. See comparison tables from Caltrans Effects of
Traffic Noise and Road Construction on Bats report 2016.
All noise attenuates (diminishes) with distance from the source (see California
Department of Transportation 2013 & 2016 for technical analysis procedures). This
occurs through geometric spreading and signal reduction from ground and atmospheric
absorption. Attenuation also varies with source type -point sources (e.g., construction
equipment) or linear sources (e.g., highway traffic). Noise from point sources traveling
over a hard site (e.g., bare soil or rock substrate) attenuates at approximately 6 dBA for
each doubling of distance. Noise from linear sources traveling over the same site
attenuates at approximately 3 dBA per doubling of distance. If the noise travels through a
soft site (e.g., a forest or meadow), these values are reduced further by 1.5 dBA, giving
standard attenuation rates of 7 .5 dBA and 4.5 dBA, respectively, for point and linear
sources. The point source attenuation equation for determining noise levels at specific
distances from a source (construction) is dBA2 = dBAI + 10 * log10 (DO / D) 2+ a
Assuming listed bat species are roosting in nearby trees and percussive activities will
occur (105 dBA, Table 4 below), then it has been determined that the noise level at a
potential bat tree roost in the surrounding forest that is 250 feet from the project
generating the noise is 95 dBA. Therefore, we anticipate that bats exposed to the blasting
(and other percussive activities) noise associated with this project will not respond in a
meaningful or detectable manner as this is within the dBA for naturally occurring sounds

in the surrounding environment (Table 1). Please note that rock blasting noise has been
used since it generates the highest noise decibels, and we do not anticipate any other
construction noises to cause the bats to respond in a meaningful or detectable manner.
Table 1. Natural Background sounds
Sound dBA
Thunderclap
120
Thunder
110
Stream, water flowing
73
Surf, pounding
70
Wind, breeze through trees
62
Binds, singing
60
Wind, gusty, with rusding tree foliage
55
Rainfall, moderate
So
Rainfall, light
40
Rustling leaves
4[l
Olympic National Forest
40
Mountaintop
35
Wilderness ambient
35
Lake, quiet
30
Meadow, low wind conditions
30
Insects
2 5
Mountain slope, open
23
Rustling leaves
20
Grand Canyon, remote trail
15
Grand Canyon at night
10
Haleakala volcano crater, no wind
S
Source: Federal Highway Adrninisiration 2011_
dBA = A•weighted decibels
Table 2. Background Noise Associated with Urban Areas of Different Population
Densities
Population Density (people/sq. mi.) dRA
30,000 +
65
10,000 -3 0,000
60
3,000-10,0 00
55
1,000-3,00 0
50
300-1,00 0
45
100-300
40
Source: Federal TransitAdrninistration 2006-
1-y = background noise level
dBA = A•weighted decibels

Table 3. Traffic Noise Levels (dBA) at 50' at Various Speeds and Traffic Volumes
Traffic
Vehicle Speed (mph)
Volume (vph)
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
125
53
55
57
58
60
61
62
64
65
66
250
56
58
60
61
63
64
65
67
68
69
540
59
61
63
64
66
67
68
70
71
72
1,000
62
64
66
67
69
74
71
73
74
75
2,000
65
67
69
70
72
73
74
76
77
7S
3,000
67
69
71
72
74
75
76
77
78
79
4,000
6,8
70
72
73
75
76
77
79
80
81
5,000
6,9
71
73
74
76
77
78
80
81
82
6,000
7,0
72
74
75
77
78
79
80
81
82
Nate: Noise calculations are based on the total acoustic energy generate by traffic on a straight roadway on flat,
acoustically hard terrain with 100% automobiles and no trucks_ Typical Freeway lanes are limited to about 2,000
passenger cars per lanes per hour. These calculations do not take into account the effect of traffic on m ult[p] e
lanes_
dBA =A -weighted decibels
1-q = Background noise level
vph = vehicles per hour
mph = miles per hour

Table 4. Average maximum noise levels (Leq at 50 feet) for common construction
equipment
(Colors indicate relative sound level: red = extreme, orange = very high; yellow = high; green =
moderate; blue = law; purple = very low; mauve = background. Asterisks shove impact noise
sources.,
Low
Noise (dBA)
High lmpactx
Explosives
f,._
1GZ
Rock Blast
12
112
Pneumatic Tools, Iackhamrners & Pile Driver
101
11.
Track Hoe
91
0 106
Impact Pile Driver
96
106
Guardrail Installation and Pile Drivi❑g
95 105
Truck Horn
104
Pile Driving
74
Rock Drill and diesel Generator
S0
99
Rock Drill
85
98
Dump Truck
82
98
Rock Drills and jackhammers
S2
97
Pneumatic Wrenches, Rock drills
86
97
Vibratory (Sonic) Pile Driver
95
96
Diesel Truck
85
96
Pneumatic Chipper
91
95
Hydromuicher
87
94
Clam Shovel
93
93
Slurry Machine
82
91
Pneumatic Riveter
91
91
Circular Saw (hand held)
91
91
Mounted Impact Hammer Hoe -Ram
85
98
Concrete Saw
90
90
Compressor
80
90
Scraper
85
89
Paver
S0
89
Large Truck
84
89
Jackhammer
74
89
'
Drill Rig
S5
88
Dozer
84
88
Crane
85
88
Pumps, Generators, Compressors
S1
87
Front-end Loader
$0
87
Large diesel Engine
86
86
Gradall
85
86
Chain saws
75
86
Road Grader
83
85

Table 4 contd.
Noise (dBA)
Low
High lmpactx
Pump
77
85
Impact Wrench
85
85
Concrete Truck
81
85
Concrete Mixer
80
85
Auger Drill Rig
85
Flat Bed Truck
84
84
Backhoe
BO
84
Generator
52
84
Ground Compactor
80
83
Concrete Pump
82
83
Cat Skidder
81
81
Roller
Horizontal Boring Hydraulic lack
So
80
Concrete Vibrator
76
76
Welder
73
Pickup Truck
55
71
Yelling
70
70
Background Sound Level —Forst Habitats
25
i 1
Speech (normal)
41
i 1
Source. us. Fish and wildlife Service 2406.
Impact noise = sudden, loud impulsive sound
dSA=A-weiEhteddecibels
Biological Conclusion for PESU
Noise, vibration, and removal of woody vegetation are anticipated as part of construction
activities associated with the project. The project effects are expected to be insignificant,
as explained above. Construction of the project is not anticipated to have adverse impacts
to commuting, foraging, and breeding or roosting habitat for PESU. The closest known
element occurrence data for the Tricolored bat is approximately 30 miles from the project
study area at Boone's Cave Site 1 in Davidson County. The following Avoidance and
Minimizations Measures will be utilized to reduce impacts to the PESU:
1. A tree clearing moratorium will be implemented for the USACE project study area
during the maternity season, April 1-October 15 to protect bats during the active
season effective with the federal listing of the tricolored bat.
2. There will be no night work.
3. There will be no new permanent lighting.
4. The clearing limits will be marked for the contractor to meet the requirements of the
NCDOT Standards.
5. NCDOT will ensure tree removal is limited to that specified in project plans and
ensure that contractors understand clearing limits and how they are marked in the

field. Clearing limits follow the most recent version of the NCDOT Manual for
Construction Layout and are typically marked by placing blue and white stripped
flagging on 36-inch stakes or trees.
NCDOT requests concurrence on a "May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect" for
the PESU.
Effects to and Biological Conclusion for Schweinitz's sunflower
Habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower is present within the project action area. The project
was surveyed on September 18, 2023, and none were found. There are no populations
within one mile of the project study area. The recommended biological conclusion is
"May Affect Not Likely to Adversely Affect."
6. NCDOT commits to updating Schweinitz's sunflower in accordance with the most up
to date NCDOT Protected Species Protocol if habitat has not been disturbed prior to
the 2025 survey window.
Effects to and Biological Conclusion for Michaux's sumac
Habitat for Michaux's sumac is present within the project action area. The project was
surveyed on September 18, 2023, and none were found. There are no populations within
one mile of the project study area. The recommended biological conclusion is "May
Affect Not Likely to Adversely Affect."
7. NCDOT commits to updating Michaux's sumac in accordance with the most up to
date NCDOT Protected Species Protocol if habitat has not been distributed prior to
the 2025 survey window.
NCDOT believes that the requirements of Section 7 (a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied
and hereby request your concurrence on a May Affect Not Likely to Adversely Affect
determination for the Tricolored bat, Schweinitz's sunflower and Michaux's sumac.
Thank you for your assistance with this project. If you have any questions or need
additional information please contact me at [phone] or at scbraquet(a�ncdot.gov.
Sincerely,
DocuSigned by:
Sf c p�(, br"VA{
125DCB05810445B...
Stephanie Braquet
Division 9 Environmental Specialist, NCDOT
Cc:
Daniel Dagenhart, NCDOT Division 9 Bridge Program Manager
Cheryl Knepp, NCDOT Biological Surveys Group
Steve Brumagin, USACE

E
4
u
t
7
3
3
May 24, 2023 �F
MEMORANDUM TO: Amy Euliss — NCDOT Division 9 Environmental Officer
A�
FROM: David Cooper — VHB
SUBJECT: Culvert Survey for Bats — E2085 60" CMP / UT to Sugar Creek
Pinebrook School Rd. (SR 1436)
Davie County, NC
NCDOT Project BP9.0002(C.4)
This memo serves to update the status of habitat and structure surveys for bats for the above -referenced
project.
Species: Tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus) and little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus)
Survey Date: 5/23/2023
Background Information and Survey Methodology: The tricolored bat is currently proposed for listing as
Endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The little brown bat may be proposed for listing in the
near future. The study are is located entirely outside of the 12-digit hydrologic units that the USFWS
Asheville Field Office has determined to be representative of an area that may require consultation for the
northern long-eared bat (NLEB), and NLEB is not listed in the IPaC species list for the project vicinity dated
May 24, 2023.
Bridges provide summer roosting habitat for the tricolored bat and little brown bat. Data collected across
North Carolina has documented tricolored bats using culverts. In anticipation of the listing of the tricolored
bat, NCDOT has reduced the minimum culvert survey threshold to 3' in height and 60' in length. Due to the
risk involved in surveying culverts under 5' in height, survey type (internal vs. flashlight) for smaller culverts
is left at the discretion of the surveyor. Culverts 5' in height and larger are surveyed by internal survey.
This memorandum reports the results of the survey of the 60-inch pipe under Pinebrook School Road
(Fig.1). This culvert is a single barrel metal pipe totaling approximately 75' in length. Approximately 3 inches
of sediment and cobble is accumulated in portions of the pipe. The pipe carries an unnamed tributary to
Sugar Creek, and is immediately surrounded by forested habitat.
Survey Information and Results: A North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) data explorer report
dated May 24, 2023 shows no known occurrences of tricolored bat or little brown bat within 1.0 mile of the
study area.
On May 23, 2023, VHB Environmental Scientists David Cooper and Heather Smith conducted an internal
survey of the culvert for potential bat habitat following the 2023 NCDOT Standard Operating Procedures
(SOP) for surveying culverts. The SOP now includes the recommended NC Wildlife Resources Commission
white -nose syndrome decontamination protocol for culvert surveys in divisions 9-14. The BP9.0002(C.4)
Venture I
940 Main Campus Drive, Suite 500
Engineers I Scientists I Planners J Designers Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
P 919.829.0328
F 919.833,0034

culvert was the only culvert surveyed on May 23, 2023, and no other counties or projects were visited. No
evidence of bats (bats, staining, or guano) was observed. Survey information was documented in the
5/2/2023 version of the Bat Habitat Assessment Form — NCDOT Culverts data form and is provided in the
appendix.
Table 1. Structures Surveved for Bats 2023
Structure
Location
I Survey Type
Bat Evidence
E2085 60" CMP
I Pinebrook Sch. Rd. / UT to Su ar Creek
I Internal
No
For the proposed action, NCDOT has committed to the conservation measures listed below:
1) No alterations of a known hibernaculum's entrance or interior environment if it impairs an essential
behavioral pattern, including sheltering northern long-eared bats (January 1 through December
31).
2) No tree removal within a 0.25-mile radius of a known hibernacula (January 1 through December
31); and
3) No cutting or destroying a known, occupied maternity roost tree, or any other trees within a 150-
foot radius from the known, occupied maternity tree during the period from June 1 through and
including July 31.
Biological Conclusions:
Tricolored bat — Not required at this time, recommend Not Likely to Adversely Affect for the culvert if the
species is listed before construction completion
Little brown bat — Not required at this time, recommend Not Likely to Adversely Affect for the culvert if the
species is listed before construction completion
If you have any questions, please contact David Cooper at [e-mail] or [phone].
Sincerely,
VHB
_Pe76*04--
David G. Cooper
Senior Environmental Scientist

1,000 500 0 1,000
Feet
Legend
BP9.0002 Bat Survey
Area
ove
USGS The National Map: National Boundaries Dataset, 3DEP Elevation
Program, Geographic Names Information System, National Hydrography
Dataset, National Land Cover Database, National Structures Dataset, and
National Transportation Dataset; USGS Global Ecosystems; U.S. Census
Bureau TIGER/Line data; USFS Road Data; Natural Earth Data; U.S.
Department of State Humanitarian Information Unit; and NOAA National
Centers for Environmental Information, U.S. Coastal Relief Model. Data
refreshed April, 2023.
NORT/{ C 0 County: Davie
y `y\ NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT Division: 9
*) OF TRANSPORTATION BAT HABITAT SURVEY Figure
q o DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS STUDY AREA
DIVISION 9 NCDOT PROJECT BP9.0002 Project: BP9.0002 1
�NTOF TRpNSQO USGS National Map Date: May 2023

NCDOT Bat Culvert Habitat Assessment Form
Updated 5/2/23
Bat Habitat Assessment Form
AVW.
Observers: David Cooper, Heather Smith
Date: May 23, 2023
County: Davie
Name of the feature culvert is carrying (stream): UT to Su
NCDCIT Culverts
TIP or DOT project number: BP9•C002 (C.4)
Road Name above culvert: Pinebrook School Rd.
Structure #: E2085 60" CMP
Rar Creek
Surrounding habitat w/in 1 mi. Urban/commercial 0 Suburban/residential 20
of project footprint (approx) Herb/Shrub/Grassland 15 Agricultural 40
Deciduous/Evergreen/Mixed Forest 20
Woody Wetland/Herb Wetland/Open Water 5
Any trees >_3" DBH within project footprint? N/A es no
Complete this section for Indiana bat counties (Cherokee, Clay, Graham, Haywood, Jackson, Macon, Swain,
Rutherford: Bat Cave/Lake Lure area only)
Any trees or snags >6' DBH with exfoliating (shag) bark or crevices? N/A yes no
If yes to shag/snag, how much sunlight do they receive during the day? N/A 1-3 hours 4-6 hours 7+ hours
If yes to shag/snag, list spp of habitat trees >_5" dbh
If large hollow trees or snags >_5"DBH are present in sunlit areas, provide photos and location.
Presence of: In project footprint In vicinty (0.5 mi)
caves yes no yes no
abandoned mines yes no yes no
if'yes' to any of the above, provide description and location.
Major water source in project footprint: N/A river stream/creek pond lake swamp
Suitable drinking habitat in the form of non stagnant, smooth or slack water areas? es no N/A
Structure specific questions:
Guard rails none concrete timber metal
Culvert material concrete timber metal plastic
Number of barrels: 1 (double, triple, etc.)
Culvert height: 60" Culvert width: 60" Culvert length: approx. 75'
If culvert is buried/crushed/sedimentation, observed narrowest opening height: 57"
Culvert type pipe box arch
Openings protected from high winds yes no
Crevices present: yes no
Rough surfaces, imperfections, bird nests yes no
Human disturbance in culvert high med low
Depth of water in culvert (if applicable) 2"
other
none
Below section completed only if bats/evidence of bats observed: Evidence of bats using? yes no
Emergence count performed? (If yes, complete form) yes no
Evidence of bats using bird nests, if present? yes no
Type of evidence guano staining bats
Roost material concrete metal other:
Bat species present:
Notes (include description of bat location within culvert, sedimentation buildup, drainage inlets inside culvert, etc.)

NCDOT Bat Culvert Habitat Assessment Form
PHOTO APPENDIX
60-inch CMP interior, looking downstream at surrounding forested area
� ' . .
AW
J 1
;
UT to Sugar Creek upstream of 60-inch CMP, looking upstream
NCDOT Project BP9.0002(C.4) Culvert

NCDOT Bat Culvert Habitat Assessment Form
Interior of 60-inch CMP, showing resinous coating
One of several typical crevices present at adjoining pipe sections
NCDOT Project BP9.0002(C.4) Culvert

NCDOT Bat Culvert Habitat Assessment Form
�r �a>
,v�j rye s }
O
4 �
Rock headwall with crevices, looking upstream at 60-inch CMP outlet
Pinebrook School Road over 60-inch CMP and surrounding forested area
NCDOT Project BP9.0002(C.4) Culvert

4/2/24, 1:08 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
IPaC resource list
This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical habitat (collectively referred to as
trust resources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near
the project area referenced below. The list may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but that
could potentially be directly or indirectly affected by activities in the project area. However, determining the likelihood and
extent of effects a project may have on trust resources typically requires gathering additional site -specific (e.g.,
vegetation/species surveys) and project -specific (e.g., magnitude and timing of proposed activities) information.
Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for the USFWS office(s) with jurisdiction
in the defined project area. Please read the introduction to each section that follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds,
USFWS Facilities, and NWI Wetlands) for additional information applicable to the trust resources addressed in that section.
Location
Davie County, North Carolina
k6
GI
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/5P6J43JCZJEK7DLVILV3HRN2DU/resources 1/16

4/2/24, 1:08 PM
IPaC: Explore Location resources
Local office
Asheville Ecological Services Field Office
t. [phone]
JEJ [phone]
160 Zillicoa Street, Suite B
Asheville, NC 28801-1082
0904%.
Co
A
0
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/5P6J43JCZJE K7DLVI LV3H RN2D U/resources
1811 V'

4/2/24, 1:08 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
Endangered species
This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of project level impacts.
The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each species. Additional areas of
influence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside of the species range if the species could be
indirectly affected by activities in that area (e.g., placing a dam upstream of a fish population even if that fish does not occur
at the dam site, may indirectly impact the species by reducing or eliminating water flow downstream). Because species can
move, and site conditions can change, the species on this list are not guaranteed to be found on or near the project area. To
fully determine any potential effects to species, additional site -specific and project -specific information is often required.
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary information whether any
species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of such proposed action" for any project that is
conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any Federal agency. A letter from the local office and a species list which fulfills
this requirement can only be obtained by requesting an official species list from either the Regulatory Review section in IPaC
(see directions below) or from the local field office directly. 74 \
For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC website and request an official
species list by doing the following: %or
1. Draw the project location and click CONTINUE.
2. Click DEFINE PROJECT.
3. Log in (if directed to do so).
0
4. Provide a name and description for your projec�
5. Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST.
Listed species and their critical habitats are managed by the Ecological Services Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) and the fisheries division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheries ).
Species and critical habitats under the sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown on this list. Please contact NOAA
Fisheries for species under their jurisdiction.
*&. X kh'. -)
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/5P6J43JCZJEK7DLVILV3HRN2DU/resources 3/16

4/2/24, 1:08 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also shows species that are
candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing status page for more information. IPaC only shows species that are
regulated by USFWS (see FAQ).
2. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.
The following species are potentially affected by activities in this location:
Mammals
NAME
Tricolored Bat Perimyotis subflavus
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/10515
STATUS
Proposed Endangered
Insects
NAME TATUS
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus CandidatE
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Flowering Plants
NAME
Michaux's Sumac Rhus mic6lau \0'*4P-
Cl
Wherever found
No critical habitat has bee signated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5217
St.- \ �— -)
STATUS
Endangered
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/5P6J43JCZJEK7DLVILV3HRN2DU/resources 4/16

4/2/24, 1:08 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
Schweinitz's Sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii Endangered
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3849
Critical habitats
Potential effects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the endangered species themselves.
There are no critical habitats at this location.
1\v
You are still required to determine if your project(s) may have effects on all above listed species.
Bald & Golden Eagles\\00
Bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act' and the Migratory Bird Treaty Actz.
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to bald or golden eagles, or their
habitats3, should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as
described in the links below. Specifically, please review the "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles".
Additional information can be found using the following links:
• Eagle Management https://www.fws.gQv/ ram/eagle-management
• Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-
incidental -take -migratory -birds
• Nationwide conservation measures for birds https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/nationwide-standard-
conser ation-measures.pdf
*4, \ %
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/5P6J43JCZJEK7DLVILV3HRN2DU/resources 5/16

4/2/24, 1:08 PM
IPaC: Explore Location resources
Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https://www.fws.gov/media/supplemental-information-
nilgratory-birds-and-bald-and-golden-eagles-may-occur-project-action
There are likely bald eagles present in your project area. For additional information on bald eagles, refer to Bald Eagle
Nesting and Sensitivity to Human Activity
For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to
migratory birds on your list, see the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY below to see when these birds are most likely to
be present and breeding in your project area.
NAME
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention
because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain
types of development or activities.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626
Probability of Presence Summary
BREEDING SEASON
Breeds Sep 1 to Jul 31
4 *<%
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area.
This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make
sure you read "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles", specifically the FAQ section titled "Proper
Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report.
Probability of Presence( )
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a
particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species
presence. The survey effort (see below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have
higher confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high.
How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:
1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was
detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/5P6J43JCZJEK7DLVILV3HRN2DU/resources 6/16

4/2/24, 1:08 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is
0.25.
2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the
probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the
probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is
the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is
0.05/0.25 = 0.2.
3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible
values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score.
To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.
Breeding Season( ) 044
NS\
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time -frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are
no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area.
Survey Effort (1)
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species
in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64
surveys.
To see a bar's survey effort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.
No Data ( ) .41vo Zik .40W
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.
Survey Timeframe _%
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to
this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is
currently much more sparse.
probability of presence breeding season I survey effort — no data
SPECIES 40 ]AN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Bald Eagle -4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i t I Jill 011' +- i I I I I I i- i I I +4-
Non -BCC Vul erable
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/5P6J43JCZJE K7DLVI LV3H RN2D U/resources
ri`r

4/2/24, 1:08 PM
IPaC: Explore Location resources
What does IPaC use to generate the potential presence of bald and golden eagles in my specified location?
The potential for eagle presence is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN).. The AKN data is based on a growing
collection of survey., banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the
10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in
that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply). To see a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the Rapid
Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool.
What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs of bald and golden eagles in my specified location?
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC). and other species that may warrant special
attention in your project location.
The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based
on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as
occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a
BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or
development.
Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not representative of all birds that
may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator
(RAIL) Tool.
What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts
occur. Please contact your local Fish and Wildlife Service Field Office if you have questions.
Migratory birds r4
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act' and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act2.
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory birds, eagles, and their
habitats3 should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described
in the links below. Specifically, please review the "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles".
%;t
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/5P6J43JCZJEK7DLVILV3HRN2DU/resources 8/16

4/2/24, 1:08 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.
2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
Additional information can be found using the following links:
• Eagle Management https://www.fws.gov//program/eagle-management
• Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-
incidental-take-migratory-birds
• Nationwide conservation measures for birds https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/ documents/nationwide-standard-
conservation-measures.pdf
• Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in lPaC.https://www.fws.gov/media/supplemental-informati(%-
migratory -birds -and -bald -and -golden -eagles -may -occur -project -action
The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS Birds of Conservation
Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location. To learn more about the levels of concern for birds
on your list and how this list is generated, see the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may find in this location, nor a
guarantee that every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders and the
general public have sighted birds in and around your project area, visit the E-bird data mapping tool (Tip: enter your location,
desired date range and a species on your list). For projects that occur off the Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models
detailing the relative occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list are available. Links to additional information
about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your migratory bird list, including how to properly
interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be found below.
For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to
migratory birds on your list, see the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY below to see when these birds are most likely to
be present and breeding in your project area. 1k.
NAME %00; BREEDING SEASON
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocep a us Breeds Sep 1 to jul 31
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention
because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain
types of development or activities.
https:// fws.gov/ecp/species/l626
air.- \
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/5P6J43JCZJEK7DLVILV3HRN2DU/resources 9/16

4/2/24, 1:08 PM
IPaC: Explore Location resources
Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
and Alaska.
Prothonotary Warbler Protonotaria citrea
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
and Alaska.
Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
and Alaska.
Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions
(BCRs) in the continental USA
Breeds Mar 15 to Aug 25
Breeds Apr 1 to Jul 31
Breeds May 10 to Sep 10 14
Breeds elsewher,* \ 0
.< t�%k\
Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina Breeds May 10 to Aug 31
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
and Alaska. 160
Probability of Presence Summary
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area.
This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make
sure you read "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles", specifically the FAQ section titled "Proper
Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report.
Probability of Presence( )
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a
particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species
presence. The survey effort (see below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have
higher confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high.
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/5P6J43JCZJEK7DLVILV3HRN2DU/resources 10/16

4/2/24, 1:08 PM
IPaC: Explore Location resources
How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:
1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was
detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey
events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is
0.25.
2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the
probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the
probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is
the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is
0.05/0.25 = 0.2.
3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible
values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score.
To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.
Breeding Season( ) 4 0 NtN_
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time -frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are
no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area.
Survey Effort (1) \\*40
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species
in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64
surveys. rN\
44
To see a bar's survey effort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.
No Data ( )
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.
Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to
this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is
currently much more sparse.
% probability of presence breeding season I survey effort no data
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/5P6J43JCZJEK7DLVILV3HRN2DU/resources 11/16

4/2/24, 1:08 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Bald Eagle 7111 1�11 ++++
Non -BCC Vulnerable
Chimney Swift ++++ ++++ ++++ +111 Jilt Jill 1111 11+1 Jill 1-++ ++++ ++++
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Prothonotary Warbler ++++ ++++ ++++ Ifil
gill
Jill ++++ +—++ ++++ +—++ ++++ ++++
BCC Rangewide (CON) ����
Red-headed i F++ ++++ ++++ ++++ + t +� ++1+ +'++ ++++ ++++
Woodpecker �� ��■ ����
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Rusty Blackbird i ++++ ++++ ++++ +++— + I I I I i 1 I "++
BCC - BCR
Wood Thrush i ++ ++11 1111 1111 I l,l I I I I 1 ++ -1 + +++
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds.
.,.4%.\ \
Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at any location year round.
Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding
in the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure. To see
when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures or
permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present on your
project site. rMINVII'll'o
What does IPaC use to generate the list of migratory birds that potentially occur in my specified location?
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS BirI;J� ja�-fonservation Concern (BCC). and other species that may warrant special
attention in your project location.
The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN).. The AKN data is based
on a growing collection of survey., bandin? aid citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as
occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a
BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or
development.
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/5P6J43JCZJEK7DLVILV3HRN2DU/resources 12/16

4/2/24, 1:08 PM
IPaC: Explore Location resources
Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not representative of all birds that
may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator
(RAIL) Tool.
What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location?
The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN).
This data is derived from a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets.
Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available. To learn more about how the
probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me
about these graphs" link.
How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering or migrating in my area?
w1khl'i-
To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating or year-round), you may query your
location using the RAIL Tool and look at the range maps provided for birds in your area at the bottom of the profiles provided for each bird in
your results. If a bird on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your project area,
there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed
in your project area.
What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:
1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range anywhere within the USA
(including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands);
2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and
3. "Non -BCC -Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements
(for eagles) or (for non -eagles) potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities (e.g. offshore
energy development or longline fishing). ZOL %0
Imar-
Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made, in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to
the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can
implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics.
Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects
\lJ
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/5P6J43JCZJEK7DLVILV3HRN2DU/resources 13/16

4/2/24, 1:08 PM
IPaC: Explore Location resources
For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of bird species within your
project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa
besides birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird model results files underlying the portal
maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the
Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.
Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the year, including migration. Models relying
on survey data may not include this information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study and the
nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring.
What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts
occur.
Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report
The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority concern. To learn more about how
your list is generated, and see options for identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC use to
generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location". Please be aware this report provides the "probability of presence"
of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look
carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high
survey effort is the key component. If the survey effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In
contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list is
not perfect; it is simply a starting point for identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be
there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you know what to look for to confirm presence, and
helps guide you in knowing when to implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities,
should presence be confirmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell me about conservation measures I can
implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page.
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/5P6J43JCZJEK7DLVILV3HRN2DU/resources 14/16

4/2/24, 1:08 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
Facilities
National Wildlife Refuge lands
Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a 'Compatibility
Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns.
There are no refuge lands at this location.
Fish hatcheries
There are no fish hatcheries at this location.
Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act,
or other State/Federal statutes. T Ilk .0
For more information please contact theRegulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District.
IMW
This location did not intersect any wetlands mapped by NWI.
NOTE: This initial screening does not replace an on -site delineation to determine whether wetlands occur. Additional
information on the NWI data is provided below.
Data limitations J
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/5P6J43JCZJEK7DLVILV3HRN2DU/resources 15/16

4/2/24, 1:08 PM
IPaC: Explore Location resources
The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information on the location, type and
size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery. Wetlands are identified based on vegetation, visible
hydrology and geography. A margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on -the -ground inspection of any particular site may
result in revision of the wetland boundaries or classification established through image analysis.
The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts, the amount and quality of the
collateral data and the amount of ground truth verification work conducted. Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source
imagery used and any mapping problems.
Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or field work. There may be occasional differences in
polygon boundaries or classifications between the information depicted on the map and the actual conditions on site.
Data exclusions
Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial imagery as the primary data
source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal
zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tuberficid worm reefs) have also been excluded
from the inventory. These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery.
Data precautions
Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may define and describe wetlands in a different manner than that
used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this inventory, to define the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of
any Federal, state, or local government or to establish the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies. Persons
intending to engage in activities involving modifications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate Federal, state,
or local agencies concerning specified agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may affect such activities.
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/5P6J43JCZJEK7DLVILV3HRN2DU/resources 16/16