20180812 Ver 1_401 Application_20180618

Delivery via Federal Express
June 8, 2018
20180812
Paul Wojoski
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
North Carolina Division of Water Resources, 401 and Buffer Permitting Branch
512 N. Salisbury Street, Archdale Building — 9th Floor
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
CH2M
6600 Peachtree Dunwoody Road
400 Embassy Row
Suite600
Atlanta, GA 30328
O [phone]
F [phone]
www ch2m.com
FJUN1 12018
Subject: Use of Water Quality General Certification No. 4133 by Kinder Morgan for Pipeline
Protection at McGill Branch in Gaston County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Wojoski:
This application is submitted on behalf of Kinder Morgan, Inc. (Kinder Morgan) to request authorization
under the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NC DEQ) Water Quality General
Certification No. 4086 to implement pipeline protection at their Plantation Pipe Line right-of-way
crossing of McGill Branch in Gaston County, North Carolina (Location Map). High flow and subsequent
scour have caused the 14 -inch active, and 10 -inch inactive liquid petroleum pipelines to become
exposed and suspended. Exposed and suspended pipes are at risk of damage. There is a 26 -inch pipeline
in the ROW, but it is upstream of the scour area and remains buried and is not at risk.
Kinder Morgan has evaluated options for permanently addressing pipeline protection issues at this site
and selected what they consider the most viable option. The approach selected will reestablish McGill
Branch, protect the 14 -inch and 10 -inch pipelines, and stop future erosion. The work must be done in
waters of the state and Kinder Morgan is seeking authorization under the Clean Water Act Section 401
program to conduct the repairs.
This permit application also is being provided to Ms. Catherine Janiczak of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE), Wilmington District, Asheville Office, for review and approval under USACE
Nationwide Permit 3.
The proposed repair includes bank shaping, placing a Rock Shield around the 14 -inch active pipeline,
rebuilding the stream bank around the 14 -inch and 10 -inch pipelines with fill, and installing a 48 -foot -
long by 52 -foot -wide grout mat system (see Project Description). The in -stream work would be done
under dry conditions. Topsoil removed from the ROW where the grout mat would be installed would be
reserved to be used for the new topsoil along the newly created banks upstream and downstream from
the mat; silt fencing would be installed to limit sedimentation; disturbed soils would be reseeded and
mulched; and other appropriate best management practices would be utilized to protect McGill Branch.
The bank stabilization and pipeline protection activities would result in the removal of 20 cubic yards of
sediment as well as placement of approximately 28 cubic yards of fill below the ordinary high water
mark. The length of stream impacts would be approximately 85 linear feet (see Plan View Figures). The
proposed repair would eliminate future erosion issues and decrease the risk to the pipeline.

Page 2
June 8, 2018
There are two small linear wetlands and a small ephemeral channel that cross the ROW near McGill
Branch. These features are not within the proposed Work area but would be crossed to access the site.
Kinder Morgan would avoid impacts to these features by using timber mats to span the wetlands and
ephemeral channel to allow access by vehicles and equipment traveling to and from the site. The mats
would be removed at the completion of the project. No work or sidecasting would occur in the wetland.
Two federally threatened and one federally endangered species were identified as potentially occurring
in the vicinity of the project location: the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), dwarf -
flowered heartleaf (Hexostylis nonifloro), and Schweinitz's sunflower (Helionthus schweinitzii) (see
attached IPaC report). While northern long-eared bats could forage in the project area, the habitat in
the ROW is not suitable for roosting by this species. There would be clearing of trees south of the ROW,
but North Carolina Natural heritage data indicate there are no known hibernacula or maternity roost
trees within one mile of the project site. There is no suitable habitat for dwarf -flowered heartleaf or
Schweinitz's sunflower in the work or staging areas. No impacts to threatened and endangered species
are anticipated (see Project Description).
We appreciate your review of the enclosed information and processing of the permit application. If you
have any questions regarding this request or require any additional information, please call me at
678-530-4408 or email at [e-mail], or Dr. Rich Reaves at 678-530-4285.
Sincerely,
CH2M
Elizabeth Jorgensen
Environmental Scientist
c: Tom Bickel/Kinder Morgan
Attachments:
PCN Joint Application Form
Project Description
General and Topographic Location Maps
Parcel Map
Site Photograph Log
Plan View Figures
IPaC Report

II
0�ywja rF'q<�
p W <
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.4 January 2009
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A.
Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1 a.
Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
❑X Section 404 Permit ❑ Section 10 Permit
1b.
Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 3 or General Permit (GP) number:
1 c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑ Yes XN No
1d.
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
❑X 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e.
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ
401 Certification:
❑ Yes ❑X No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes ❑X No
1f.
Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for
mitigation of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank
or in -lieu fee program.
❑ Yes NX No
1 g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below.
❑ Yes ❑X No
1 h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes ❑X No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
Kinder Morgan - McGill Branch Pipeline Protection Project
2b.
County:
Gaston
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Gastonia
2d.
Subdivision name:
None
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state project no:
N/A
3.
Owner Information
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
See Project Description for Owner Information
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
3d.
Street address:
3e.
City, state, zip:
3f.
Telephone no.:
3g.
Fax no..-
o.:3h.
3h.
Email address:
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4.
Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a.
Applicant is:
❑ Agent ❑X Other, specify: KM has a ROW agreement for these properties
4b.
Name:
Tom Bickel
4c.
Business name
(if applicable):
Kinder Morgan
4d.
Street address:
1000 Windward Concourse, Suite 450
4e.
City, state, zip:
Alpharetta, GA 30005
4f.
Telephone no.:
770-751-4245
4g.
Fax no.:
4h.
Email address:
tom—[e-mail]
5.
Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a.
Name:
5b.
Business name
(if applicable):
5c.
Street address:
5d.
City, state, zip:
5e.
Telephone no.:
5f.
Fax no.:
5g.
Email address:
Page 2 of 10

B.
Project Information and Prior Project History
1.
Property Identification
1a.
Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
N/A
1 b.
Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
I Latitude: 35.195142 Longitude: -81.246797
1 c.
Property size:
14.68 acres
2.
Surface Waters
2a.
Name of nearest body of water to proposed project:
McGill Branch
2b.
Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
Class C
2c.
River basin:
Catawba
3.
Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The work area is primarily within the ROW and is also in McGill Branch. The existing ROW would be used as a staging area. Access would be
from an existing public road, and the Kinder Morgan ROW. (See Project Description for additional details for 3a and for details for
3b, and 3c).
3b.
List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
3c.
List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The work is proposed to protect the petroleum pipelines that are exposed in the Kinder Morgan ROW and are at risk of corrosion and impact damage.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
See attached project description.
4.
Jurisdictional Determinations
4a.
Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (includingall prior phases)in the past?
❑ Yes 0 No ❑ Unknown
Comments:
4b.
If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made?
❑ Preliminary ❑ Final
4c.
If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known):
Agency/Consultant Company:
Other:
4d.
If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
5.
Project History
5a.
Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
El Yes ❑X No El Unknown
5b.
If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6.
Future Project Plans
6a.
Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes ❑X No
6b.
If yes, explain.
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
❑ Wetlands ❑X Streams —tributaries ❑ Buffers ❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
Wetland impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
2b.
Type of impact
2c.
Type of wetland
2d.
Forested
2e.
Type of jurisdiction
Corps (404,10) or
DWQ (401, other)
2f.
Area of
impact
(acres)
W1
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
-
W2
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
W3
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
W4
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
W5
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
W6
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
2g. Total Wetland Impacts:
2h. Comments:
Wetlands in the project vicinity would be avoided during the work.
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
Stream impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
3b.
Type of impact
3c.
Stream name
3d.
Perennial (PER) or
intermittent (INT)?
3e.
Type of
jurisdiction
3f.
Average
stream
width
(feet)
3g.
Impact
length
(linear
feet)
S1 P
Fill
McGill Branch
PER
Corps
20
67
S2
Choose one
S3
Choose one
S4
Choose one
S5
Choose one
S6
Choose one
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
67
3i. Comments:
Page 4 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then indivi ually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
Open water
impact number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
4b.
Name of waterbody
(if applicable)
4c.
Type of impact
4d.
Waterbody
type
4e.
Area of impact (acres)
01
Choose one
Choose
02
Choose one
Choose
03
Choose one
Choose
04
Choose one
Choose
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments: NO open waters occur in tne project vicinity.
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, the complete the chart below.
5a.
Pond ID number
5b.
Proposed use or
purpose of pond
5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
5d. 5e.
Stream Impacts (feet) Upland
(acres)
Flooded
Filled Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
P1
Choose one
P2
Choose one
5f. Total:
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a. Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar -Pamlico ❑X Catawba ❑ Randleman ❑ Other:
6b.
Buffer Impact
number –
Permanent (P) or
T
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Stream name
6e.
Buffer
mitigation
required?
6f.
Zone 1
impact
(square
feet)
6g.
Zone 2
impact
(square
feet
—Temporary
B1 P
Yes/No
B2
Yes/No
B3
Yes/No
B4
Yes/No
B5
Yes/No
B6
Yes/No
6h. Total Buffer Impacts:
6i. Comments: The Catawba Basin specifies protected riparian buffers as being along the Catawba River mainstem below Lake James and along
mainstem lakes from Lake James and downstream. While the proposed project area is in this basin it is outside these areas.
Page 5 of 10

D.
Impact Justification and Mitigation
1.
Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
See Project Description for details.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
See Project Description for details.
2.
Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a.
Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
❑ Yes ❑X No
2b.
If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
2c.
If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
❑ Mitigation bank
❑ Payment to in-lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3.
Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a.
Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type: Choose one
Type: Choose one
Type: Choose one
Quantity:
Quantity:
Quantity:
3c. Comments:
4.
Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Pro ram
4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached.
❑ Yes
4b.
Stream mitigation requested:
linear feet
4c.
If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
Choose one
4d.
Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
square feet
4e.
Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4f.
Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4g.
Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4h. Comments:
5.
Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a.
If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 6 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation?
Yes QX No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
Zone
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 7 of 10

E.
Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1.
Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a.
Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes ❑X No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b.
If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
❑ Yes ❑ No
2.
Stormwater Management Plan
2a.
What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
60%
2b.
Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes No
2c.
If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
The project area is less than 0.15 acre in size. The staging area will be within a dirt road/existing ROW. There would be minimal disturbed surface and
minimal exposure of soils to stormwater during work. Therefore, a stormwater management plan is not needed.
2d.
If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
2e.
Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
3.
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a.
In which localgovernment's jurisdiction is thisproject?
Gaston county
❑ Phase II
❑ NSW
3b.
Which of the following locally -implemented stormwater management programs
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply):
❑X Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑X No
attached?
4.
DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑Coastal counties
❑HQW
4a.
Which of the following state -implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ORW
(check all that apply):
❑Session Law 2006-246
❑ Other:
4b.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑X No
attached?
5.
DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a.
Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b.
Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑X Yes ❑ No
Page 8 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the
❑ Yes ❑X No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
❑ Yes ❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
❑ Yes ❑ No
letter.)
Comments:
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑Yes Q No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after -the -fact permit application?
❑ Yes Q No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
❑ Yes No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
Exposed pipes in the creek are at risk of impact damage. The protection measures selected will protect the active 14 -inch pipeline.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non -discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
Page 9 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
X Yes No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
❑ Yes ❑X No
impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
-
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
USFWS IPaC and North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Species/Community search.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes ❑X No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
NOAA Essential Fish Habitat Mapper
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
❑ Yes ❑X No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
NC State Historical Preservation Office HPOWEB GIS Service
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA -designated 100 -year floodplain?
❑X Yes ❑ No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
The project is located in McGills Branch and along the banks (considered Zone AE) and is a pipeline protection project with permanent impacts. It
would not alter flood conveyance.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
FEMA Flood Map Service Center
Tom Bickel
J
6-6-18
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
Date
Applicant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization
letter from the applicant isprovided.)
Page 10 of 10

KINDER MORGAN - MCGILL BRANCH PIPELINE PROTECTION PROJECT
GASTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Kinder Morgan — McGill Branch Pipeline Protection Project — Project Description
Directions to Project Site
From Interstate 85 North, take exit for NC -161 toward Kings Mountain and travel 0.3 mile. Turn right
onto NC -161 S/York Road and follow for 0.3 mile before turning slight left onto Lake Montonia Road.
Lake Montonia Road turns into Pinnacle Road after 0.9 mile. Follow for another 2.6 miles and turn right
onto Sparrow Springs Road. After 0.9 mile, turn left onto Lewis Road and travel for 1.1 miles. Turn right
onto Bethany Road and travel for 1.6 miles before turning left onto Chapel Grove School Road. Travel for
0.4 mile until you reach the Kinder Morgan right-of-way (ROW). Travel west along the Kinder Morgan
ROW for approximately 0.21 mile to reach the project site.
Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates provided (35.195142, -81.246797) on the preconstruction
notification form use the World Geodetic Survey (WGS) 1984 datum and are centered on the exposed
pipelines.
Project Description
The project will consist of pipeline protection activities on Kinder Morgan's Plantation Pipe Line
petroleum products pipelines that cross McGill Branch in Gaston County, North Carolina. High flow and
scour have caused the 14 -inch active pipeline and the 10 -inch inactive pipeline to become exposed and
suspended. The additional 26 -inch active pipeline is buried. The exposed pipes are at risk of impact
damage and corrosion.
Kinder Morgan has evaluated options for permanently addressing pipeline protection issues at this site
and selected what they consider the most viable option. The approach selected will protect the pipelines
and stop future erosion. The work must be done in waters of the United States and Kinder Morgan is
seeking authorization under the Clean Water Act Section 404 Nationwide Permit 3.
McGill Branch is a perennial creek that crosses the Kinder Morgan ROW flowing north to south. The
Kinder Morgan ROW at this location is 50 feet wide. It is measured from the center 10 -inch inactive line
(15 feet to the south/downstream and 35 feet to the north/upstream). Normal and high flows in McGill
Branch have resulted in the 14 -inch active pipeline becoming exposed and suspended for approximately
13 feet, and the 10 -inch inactive pipeline becoming exposed and suspended for 10 feet and exposed for
another 6 feet. The ordinary high water mark (OHWM) was at 1.5 to 2 feet above the stream bottom,
which averages 685 feet in elevation. At the 14 -inch exposed pipeline in the downstream portion of the
proposed protection area, McGill Branch is approximately 30 feet wide and 7 feet deep at the top of
bank and 20 feet wide with varying depths at the OHWM. At the 10 -inch exposed pipeline crossing in
the middle portion of the proposed protection area, the creek is approximately 20 feet wide and 6 feet
deep at the top of bank and 16 feet wide and 1.5 feet deep at the OHWM. At the 26 -inch non -exposed
pipeline in the upstream portion of the proposed protection area, McGill Branch is approximately 20
feet wide and 5 feet deep at the top of bank and 9 feet wide and 8 inches deep at the OHWM. The
stream is of a normal width upstream and downstream of the 10 -inch and 14 -inch pipelines but
redirection of flow due to the suspended pipeline has resulted in a large scour hole between these two
pipelines. Upstream the banks were generally vertical and downstream one bank was vertical or
undercut and the other was sloped. Substrates in the project area consist of sand and small gravel. The
drainage area is 1.34 square miles.
The project would be within waters of the United States, as McGill Branch is a reasonably permanent
water that flows into Crowders Creek, which then flows into Lake Wylie along the Catawba River, and is
jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act.

KINDER MORGAN - MCGILL BRANCH PIPELINE PROTECTION PROJECT
GASTON COUNTY. NORTH CAROLINA
The ROW would be used for the access route and staging area. There are two small linear wetlands and
a small ephemeral channel that cross the ROW near McGill Branch. These features would be spanned by
a timber mat resulting in no impacts to the wetlands or ephemeral channel. The mats would be
removed in their entirety at the completion of the project. No work or sidecasting would occur in the
wetlands.
The proposed project includes Rock Shield cover for the 14 -inch active pipeline, placement of fill
material, bank shaping, and installation of an Ercoform Grout Mat. The work will be done in phases and
under dry conditions. To create a dry work site, a coffer dam would be used to access the creek where
the project would be implemented. The dam would be installed across McGill Branch upstream of the
bank shaping and upstream of the still -buried 26 -inch pipe. Water would be pumped or flumed around
from above the dam to the stream below the work area.
All loose debris would be removed to clean up the area around the exposed and suspended pipelines.
The stream would be shaped to prepare for the fill and grout mat. Approximately 20 cubic yards (yd') of
sediment would be removed below the OHWM as part of the bank shaping. This includes clearing of
brush and trees on the downstream end of the project area outside the ROW. This would create a more
uniform substrate in McGill Branch to prepare for placement of the ROW protection.
The exposed pipes have been at risk of damage and it will be necessary to inspect them for damage to
either the pipe or its anti -corrosion coating prior to implementing the proposed ROW protection.
Typically, at least a portion of the coating must be replaced, which requires dry conditions. To minimize
bottom disturbance, temporarily sidecast material would be placed on the banks behind silt fencing. If
dewatering is necessary, water would be pumped to uplands and discharged through a filtration system
to minimize the potential for sediments and turbidity reaching the downstream portions of McGill
Branch.
If damage to the protective coating is found and the pipe is undamaged, repairs would consist of
removing any damaged protective coating through sandblasting and replacing the coating. The coating
cures in less than 24 hours. If damaged pipe is found, the protective coating would be removed, an
appropriate repair implemented, and the coating replaced. If the inspection determines that no damage
to the pipe or protective coating has occurred, then ROW protection would be implemented with coffer
dams in place.
A Rock Shield, which is a thin (approximately 0.5 -inch), flexible plastic blanket that prevents rock and
debris from coming into direct contact with the coating, will be placed around the 14 -inch active
pipeline. Fill will be placed around the 14 -inch and 10 -inch pipelines, in the scour area, to rebuild the
stream to pre -exposure conditions and provide a stable base for the installation of the grout mat.
An Ercoform E-60 Grout Mat System measuring 48 feet long (linear feet along channel) by 52 feet wide
will extend along the stream channel. The mat will be keyed into the substrate on the upstream and
downstream sides of the repair.
The E-60 Grout Mat consists of a double -layer synthetic fabric woven into a matrix of rectangular
compartments. The compartments will contain high tensile strength polyester cable such that when
filled with concrete, the blocks will be mechanically connected in both directions, creating an
articulating mat. The slope will be prepared and geotextile fabric will be installed to protect the
prepared area. The area will be covered with the E-60 Grout Mat and pumpable concrete will be
introduced into the mat while in place. The mat will have a maximum thickness of 8.5 inches, an average
thickness of 5.5 inches, and will weigh 60 pounds per square foot. Each individual block weight will be
approximately 90 pounds. The mat will be anchored and keyed into the substrate to prevent subsequent

KINDER MORGAN - MCGILL BRANCH PIPELINE PROTECTION PROJECT
GASTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
erosion. All work will be done in dry conditions through use of the dam and the concrete will be fully
cured before being exposed to stream flow.
The stream stabilization and ROW protection activities would result in placement of 28 yd' of fill
(compacted fill [15 yd'] and grout mat [13 yd3]) below the OHWM. While much of the bank shaping
would be above the OHWM, some of the stream preparation activities would result in removal of 20 yd
of sediment below the OHWM. The length of stream impacted would be approximately 85 linear feet
(see Plan View Figures).
The proposed protection would extend outside of the Kinder Morgan ROW. Placement of the mat would
extend approximately 5 feet downstream of the ROW and bank shaping would extend an additional 20
feet outside the ROW along both banks downstream of the ROW. Kinder Morgan will coordinate with
the property owners prior to any construction.
Threatened and Endangered Species
Two federally threatened and one federally endangered species were identified as potentially occurring
in the vicinity of the project location: the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), dwarf -
flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora), and Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii).
The fungus associated with white -nose syndrome has been confirmed in North Carolina; however, no
white -nose syndrome -infected hibernacula have been found in Gaston County. White -nose syndrome -
infected hibernacula have been identified in adjacent counties in South Carolina, including York County,
which borders Gaston County to the south (USFWS, 2018a). While the threatened northern long-eared
bat may forage or travel over the project area, there is no suitable winter roosting habitat in this area
and no suitable summer roosting habitat within the proposed work area. According to U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) and North Carolina Natural Heritage Program records, there are no confirmed
northern long-eared bat hibernacula or maternity roost sites in Gaston County (USFWS, 2018b; NCNHP,
2018). Suitable summer roosting habitat likely occurs in the vicinity of the project area and several trees
would be cleared as a result of the bank shaping resulting in potential impacts to potential roost trees.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program was contacted to confirm there are no known northern
long-eared bat hibernacula or maternity roost trees near the proposed project site. No hibernacula are
known within 0.25 mile of the proposed project site and there are no known maternity roost trees
within 150 feet of the proposed project area (North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural
Resources, 2018). Work would be scheduled outside the June 1 to July 31 period when the northern
long-eared bat may be rearing pups. While the northern long-eared bat could be exposed to
environmental changes as a result of the proposed action, a "no effect" determination is warranted.
Pursuant to the Final 4(d) Rule for the northern long-eared bat, no consultation with the USFWS is
necessary under the section 7 process.
Dwarf -flowered heartleaf is a threatened species that occurs in acidic soils on north -facing slopes of
ravines and along bluffs and hillsides in boggy areas next to streams. These plants are typically found in
oak -hickory -pine forests of the upper Piedmont. The portion of the ROW where the work would occur is
surrounded by loblolly pine forest, not oak -pine -hickory forest. There are no ravine, bluffs, or boggy
areas within the proposed work area or along the access route. Dwarf -flowered heartleaf would not
occur within the proposed work area and no impacts to this species or its habitat are expected.
Schweinitz's sunflower is an endangered species that occurs on moist to dryish clays, clay-loams, or
sandy clay-loams that often have a high gravel content in clearings and edges of upland oak -pine -hickory
woods and Piedmont longleaf pine forests. Most known occurrences of Schweinitz's sunflower are
located within roadsides and powerline clearings. The portion of the ROW where the work would occur
is surrounded by loblolly pine forest, not upland oak -pine -hickory woods or Piedmont longleaf pine

KINDER MORGAN - MCGILL BRANCH PIPELINE PROTECTION PROJECT
GASTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
forest. Schweinitz's sunflower would not occur within the proposed work area and no impacts to this
species or its habitat are expected.
Property Owners
Access Route:
John Carl Falls
5014 Lewis Road, Gastonia, NC 28052
Brenda P Boyd
4040 Chapel Grove School Road
Gastonia, NC 28052
James Edward Boyd
2230 Donnabrook Lane, Gastonia, NC 28052
Nancy B McWhirter, Johnny B McWhirter
7215 Allen Black Road, Charlotte, NC
Terry E Boyd, Nevada P Boyd
112 Whetstine Road, Kings Mountain, NC 28086
Work Area:
Terry E Boyd, Nevada P Boyd
112 Whetstine Road, Kings Mountain, NC 28086
Nancy B McWhirter, Johnny B McWhirter
7215 Allen Black Road, Charlotte, NC
References
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP). 2018. Species/Community Search.
https://www.ncnhp.org/data/species-community-search
North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Natural Heritage Program. NCNHDE —
6179: NLEB Hibercaculum/Roost Tree Request for Kinder Morgan Project in Gaston County. June 4,
2018.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2018a. Northern Long -Eared Bat Final 4(d) Rule, White -Nose
Syndrome Zone Around WNS/Pd Positive Counties/Districts. Updated January 2018.
https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/pdf/WNSZone.pdf
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2018b. Northern Long-eared bat — What it Means for Your
Project. https://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmis/prosect review/NLEB in WNC.html

1� ,.
t
�� •_ ^ I ProjgCharlotftte
`
• ^� 1 i`�. - -"� v - R Hill
- Ktoo
J f`
.J
• �r.
i} s
1, .. � � -�' � • '/ off}
�,�� /) � � ~�� f •� mss, ✓ � _ �" �
}
LtGtNU A rigure 1.
STs Project Location McGill Branch Pipeline Maintenance
o eoo 1,0100 2000 Topographic Site Map, Gaston County
USGS US Topo 7.5 -minute Map for Gastonia South, NC -SC Feet Kinder Morgan C41w(�, _ _ _ •
Last Updated. DRAFT20180515
Mc G i I Is Branch_ NC _ ProjectLocat io n To po
Source Data: MARIS Aenals, ESRI, Walthall Courtly. Sources: Esn, HERE. DeLorme. USGS. Intermap, INCREMENT P. NRCan, Esn Japan. METI, Esn China (Hong Kong), Esn Korea. Esn (Thailand). Mapmylndia. NGCC. © OpenStreetMap conMbutors. and the GIS User Community

N
LEGEND
Figure 2.
• Project Location 0 500 1,000 2000,McGill Branch Pipeline Maintenance
Feat Project Site Map, Gaston Co&2AM-
McGlIsBranch-NC-ProjectSfteMap
Kinder Morgan
Source Data: MARIS Aerials, ESRI, Warfhall County, Sources: Esti, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esd China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), Mapmylndia, NGCC, 0 OpenStreefMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

McGill Branch
.►„N� Printed On: 5/30/2018 N
Disclaimer: The information provided is not to be considered as a legal Document or Description.
The Map & Parcel Data is believed to be accurate, but Gaston County does not guarantee its accuracy. Values shown are as of January 1, 2015.
https://gis.gastongov.com/GastonGIS/PrintMap.aspx[5/30/2018 7:25:38 PM]

�1 i
w,.

i 1i'
I tit },; w
1
1
Y � }
t\. 4
v
VYY
)i
� 1.
���. 7
�►..
r -
a.
i

PHOTOGRAPH LOG - MCGILL BRANCH
Photo 5: Facing across McGill Branch
Photo 6: Downstream view — suspended pipelines in foreground — area outside the ROW that will be cleared
3

PHOTOGRAPH LOG - MCGILL BRANCH
0
Photo 7: Closeup of suspended 14 -inch pipeline
Photo 8: Suspended and exposed 10 -inch pipeline facing upstream
4

Not to scale when printed as 8.5" x 11"
11
i 690
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
0 5 10 20 'w
LEGENDW�
LEGEND
HIGH BANK a_o tO 2
_. PROPOSED Cb
HIGH BANK N y x
----I—i— SLOPE BREAK 1 c t
En 0 U
_.....—.... TOE
-- -- 60 - - EXISTING CONTOUR
- — — — — — - EXISTING PIPELINE
z
0
PROPOSED
® ARMORSTONE v
PROPOSED
ARTICULATING o
BLOCK MAT Z
W
FLOW z ? o
0
Oa r
ZaN Z
O z
cZi 0 J
0 CL
Z
itP W
ri
�z ~
Lr
aa�
�J5
W
W
W
N
y W
d ?
69
�
Vert: 1" = 10'
m
is
Horz: 1" = 10'
PRELIMINARY
0
T \ /
Sheet No:
NOT FOR
1 of 3
1NACi `i i
o
Z
PI-1N�
-697
I---_--
�14
11
i 690
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
0 5 10 20 'w
LEGENDW�
LEGEND
HIGH BANK a_o tO 2
_. PROPOSED Cb
HIGH BANK N y x
----I—i— SLOPE BREAK 1 c t
En 0 U
_.....—.... TOE
-- -- 60 - - EXISTING CONTOUR
- — — — — — - EXISTING PIPELINE
z
0
PROPOSED
® ARMORSTONE v
PROPOSED
ARTICULATING o
BLOCK MAT Z
W
FLOW z ? o
0
Oa r
ZaN Z
O z
cZi 0 J
0 CL
Z
itP W
ri
�z ~
Lr
aa�
�J5
W
W
W
N
y W
d ?
Drawing Scale:
Vert: 1" = 10'
m
is
Horz: 1" = 10'
PRELIMINARY
0
Sheet No:
NOT FOR
1 of 3
CONSTRUCTION
o
Z

ECODYNE-CIM PROJECT NO. 943
Z
0
0
N
00
d
0)
7
N
7
7
OL
0)
N
PD
01
01 W W
O
J 00
N O
O
O
O
O
f
m m
Dr
A
N
I
O
O
A it
C1 x
Z
O m
vm
Ao
A
(�
z
m
m
m m
r
m
z
A
O
m
c
z
D
C�
m �
r j
m
no
A
+
cm
o
D
M
yI
0
1
m
i ¢
+
J
A m
N O
110
O
i
�
O
M
w
>
C
y 3
D
S
z
n
wLnx
=aa
OD
m
No
Date
Revisions
App.
z
m
m
m
N
o'
oI m
0
KINDER MORGAN ENERGY PARTNERS • GASTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
02-26-18
N
?
F
McGILLS BRANCH • 14" CNF PIPELINE
Eco dyne
Survey $I
O O
CO
LAT. 35.195078 LONG: 81.247028
Drawn OP
C
PROFILE VIEW
—CGR.H¢►rtOR.MAHAQMBI-
w
ooR01
FAIRBANKS N. HOUSTON RO.
Check HT
C
13 USTON,-FM 71]010
TEl ]13 060.1801 A% 31B0.8713
ECODYNE-CIM PROJECT NO. 943
Z
0
0
N
00
d
0)
7
N
7
7
OL
0)
N
PD
01

01 m 0 m
U O 0 O
W
O
0
0
0
m
A
O A
O
C A
�m
I
0
0
C
O
0
0 0
J
(O
W
'0
0 x
m
z
m
vm On
m O 2
z m
m m
0
0
J
J
Cn
wI I w
0 0
m m
J 00 m 03
(n O N O
A O
m
r >
�3a
cJiO
o Z n
a
� � D
m
No. Date Revisions App.
z
m
m
m
N
s p m @ KINDER MORGAN ENERGY PARTNERS • GASTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA 0Z_Z18
w ^ a McLAT. 3 BRANCH • 14" CNF PIPELINE E cr dyne
O C -t-t 0 LAT. 35.195078 LONG -81.247028 Survey $I
w cn Drawn OP CWIWl6YiN
CROSS SECTION VIEWS aR,A�ANA6ABO-
O O T101 FAIRBANX3 N. HOUSTON RD,
Cheok HT HOUSTON, TEXAS 77010
TEL 713 A801B0l - FAX [phone]
ECODYNE-CIM PROJECT NO.

Not to scale when printed as 8.5" x 11"
_ / A
—691
I \\ \ i i
FCt
pIPELIN�
JA
690-
52' WIDE X 48' LONG
ERCOFORMTM E-60
GROUT MAT
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
0 5 10 20
LEGEND
HIGH BANK
PROPOSED
HIGH BANK
—I—I—I—I—I SLOPE BREAK 1
••••—••• TOE
60 EXISTING CONTOUR
_ — — — — — - EXISTING PIPELINE
PROPOSED
ARMORSTONE
PROPOSED
ARTICULATING
BLOCK MAT
FLOW
Q
Q
Q
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION Z
W Vo
Lu
z
J
LU �
CL N Z
zo
U
z J
_.0 a
cc) W
z o
m L6 (I
(n M
J F-
!)
I �
Drawing Scale:
Vert: 1"=10'
Horz: 1" = 10'
Sheet No:
1 of 3
_d
co
0
O
I 2
N
C
Y
o
3
co
0
U
Lu
z
J
LU �
CL N Z
zo
U
z J
_.0 a
cc) W
z o
m L6 (I
(n M
J F-
!)
I �
Drawing Scale:
Vert: 1"=10'
Horz: 1" = 10'
Sheet No:
1 of 3

ECODYNE-CIM PROJECT NO. 94;
rn
rn
rn
V
OD
LO
O
(T
O
O
O
O
O
D r
ED ---I }
;0
C7
c
O
N
O
- 0
_O
n
(7 T`
z Cn
O =
m
r
m
(7
r
�
z
m
m �,
m
F
r
O
T1
r
m
0
z
D
C7
--I
m
r
m
;U
z
m
0 0
;0m
O
OC
+
x
A.
D m
I
rn
O
i
TI
r
O
O
+
rn
rn
rn
LTI
o 0
M
O
m
0
C)
CO3 C
r
D
a
�_
W
Z
o
a
D
r
m
No.
Date
Revisions
App.
z
m
m
N
S
o= c<D
0
KINDER MORGAN ENERGY PARTNERS • GASTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
02-26-18
N
N
a
McGILLS BRANCH • 14" CNF PIPELINE
Z
� �
�
LAT. 35.195078 LONG. -81.247028
Survey
SiS�
�'
W
O
_Ecodyne
��
0
PROFILE VIEW
Drawn
OP
COMPLIANCE INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT
o o
�
7201 FAIRBANKS N. HOUSTON RD.
Check
HT
HOUSTON, TEXAS 77040
TEL [phone] - FAX 713,460 8713
ECODYNE-CIM PROJECT NO. 94;

ECODYNE-CIM PROJECT NO. S
0)
Ln
CF)
DO
OD
i
0
0
i
i
m
m
m
I
O
-Ti
O
n
n
C
Tl
�
-n
D
(7
C
D
C7
I
0
I
0
0
O
c0
�
W
m
n
m
00
00
;V _9
00
00
Am
ym
I
o'
O
rn
0
c7
�
C
-0
c7 �
F
O
O
Z
F
r
=
y
>] m
I
m�
z
C
z
m
m
0
0
0
rn
v
rn
Do
rn rn
OD co
Ln
o
UI o
O
n
m
I
0
C3.
Z
c
r
D
-i y
+
0)
a
0
Z
(T
00
O
OD
Ln
O
o
Z
a
rn D
r
m
No.
Date
Revisions
App.
z
m
m
N
3
0 m
-
KINDER MORGAN ENERGY PARTNERS • GASTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
02-26-18
WCD
a
g
McGILLS BRANCH • 14" CNF PIPELINE
Ecodyne
Survey
SI
O Z
— (a
—U)
LAT. 35.195078 LONG. -81.247028
0
1
CROSS SECTION VIEWS
Drawn
O P
COMPLIANCE !INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT
7201 FAIRBANKS N. HOUSTON RD.
Check
HT
HOUSTON, TEXAS 77040
TEL [phone] - FAX [phone]
ECODYNE-CIM PROJECT NO. S

5/29/2018 IPaC: Explore Location
IPaC U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
IPaC resource list
This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical habitat
(collectively referred to as trust resources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS)
jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced below. The list
may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but that could potentially be
directly or indirectly affected by activities in the project area. However, determining the likelihood
and extent of effects a project may have on trust resources typically requires gathering additional
site-specific (e.g., vegetation/species surveys) and project -specific (e.g., magnitude and timing of
proposed activities) information.
Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for the USFWS
office(s) with jurisdiction in the defined project area. Please read the introduction to each section
that follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS Facilities, and NWI Wetlands) for
additional information applicable to the trust resources addressed in that bon.
Location
Gaston County, North Carolina
(PW*0
Local office
Asheville Ecological Services Field Office
[phone]
16 [phone]
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801-1082
http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/countyfr.html
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/5BHP2G3POND3JCOR17FZ50BB6Q/resources 1/10

5/29/2018 IPaC: Explore Location
Endangered species
This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of
project level impacts.
The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each species.
Additional areas of influence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside of
the species range if the species could be indirectly affected by activities in that area (e.g., placing a
dam upstream of a fish population, even if that fish does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly
impact the species by reducing or eliminating water flow downstream). Because species can move,
and site conditions can change, the species on this list are not guaranteed to be found on or near
the project area. To fully determine any potential effects to species, additional site-specific and
project -specific information is often required.
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary
information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area
of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any
Federal agency. A letter from the local office and a species list which fulfills this requirement can
only be obtained by requesting an official species list from either the Regulatory Review section in
IPaC (see directions below) or from the local field office directly.
For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC website
and request an official species list by doing the following:
1. Draw the project location and click CONTINUE.
2. Click DEFINE PROJECT.
3. Log in (if directed to do so).
4. Provide a name and description for your project.
S. 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 (NOAH Fisheries).
Species and critical habitats under the sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown on this
list. Please contact NOAA Fisheries for species under their jurisdiction.
1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also shows
species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing status page for more
information.
2. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.
The following species are potentially affected by activities in this location:
Mammals
NAME STATUS
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/5BHP2G3POND3JCORI7FZ5OBB6Q/resources 2/10

5/29/2018
IPaC: Explore Location
Northern Long-eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9045
Flowering Plants
NAME
Dwarf -flowered Heartleaf Hexastylis naniflora
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2458
Schweinitz's Sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3849
Critical habitats
Threatened
STATUS
Threatened
Endangered
Potential effects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analy ed along with the endangered
species themselves.
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS AT THIS LOCATION.
0\**\
Migratory birds
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act! and the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act -Z.
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory
birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing
appropriate conservation measures, as described below.
1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.
2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
Additional information can be found using the following links:
Birds of Conservation Concern http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/
birds-of-conservation-concern.php
Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds
http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/project-assessment-tools-and-guidance/
conservation-measures.php
Nationwide conservation measures for birds
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/management/nationwidestandardconservationmeasures.pdf
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/5BHP2G3POND3JCOR17FZ50BB6Q/resources 3/10

5/29/2018
IPaC: Explore Location
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, click on the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY at
the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your
project area.
NAME BREEDING SEASON (IF A
BREEDING SEASON IS INDICATED
..................... ..... _..._..............................._..............
FOR A BIRD OfYOUR LIST, THE
IRD M%YbREED IN YOUR
.................................................................................
ECT AREA SOMETIME WITHIN
THE TIMEFRAME SPECIFIED,
........................................................................................
WHICH IS A VERY LIBERAL
Gp�
................................................................................
ESTIMATE OF THE DATES INSIDE
WHICH THE BIRD BREEDS
ACROSS ITS ENTIRE RANGE.
_....................... —__...... .... ...................._.. _...
"BREEDS ELSEWHERE" INDICATES
.............................................................................................................
THAT THE BIRD DOES NOT LIKELY
BREED IN YOUR PROJECT AREA.)
Blue -winged Warbler Vermivora pinus Breeds May 1 to Jun 30
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird
Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA
Eastern Whip -poor -will Antrostomus vociferus Breeds May 1 to Aug 20
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in
the continental USA and Alaska.
Kentucky Warbler Oporornis formosus Breeds Apr 20 to Aug 20
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in
the continental USA and Alaska.
Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor Breeds May 1 to Jul 31
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in
the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/5BHP2G3POND3JCOR17FZ50BB6Q/resources 4/10

5/29/2018
IPaC: Explore Location
Prothonotary Warbler Protonotaria btrea Breeds Apr 1 to Jul 31
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in
the continental USA and Alaska.
Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus Breeds May 10 to Sep 10
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in
the continental USA and Alaska.
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.
Probability of Presence Summary
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most lik y t
present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule r r ec
activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read a un rst d the FAQ
"Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before u ' o ting to
interpret this report.
Probability of Presence (s)"`
Each green bar represents the bird's relative proba ili r ence in the 10km grid cell(s) your
project overlaps during a particular week of t ar 1s represented as 12 4 -week months.)
A taller bar indicates a higher probabilit Asl cie p sence. The survey effort (see below) can be
used to establish a level of confidence i the nce score. One can have higher confidence in the
presence score if the correspo n su ort is also high.
How is the probability f res score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:
1. The proba ' ' o ese a for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the
wek r he sp ies was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that
. Fo x ple, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was
)e:,
of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25.
2. o operly 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 (A)
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.
hftps:Hecos.fws.gov/ipac/Iocation/5BHP2G3POND3JCOR17FZ50BB6Q/resources 5/10

5/29/2018 IPaC: Explore Location
Survey Effort (1)
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys
performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of
surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.
To see a bar's survey effort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.
No Data (—)
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.
Survey Timeframe
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.
SPECIES
Blue -winged
Warbler
BCC - BCR (This is a
...................
Bird of Conservation
..................................................
Concern (BCC) only in
particular Bird
Conservation Regions
(BCRs) in the
continental USA)
Eastern Whip -
poor -will
BCC Rangewide
(CON) (This is a Bird
of ConsI.ervation
Concern (BCC)
...................................
throughout its range
..................................................
in the continental
USA and Alaska.)
Kentucky Warbler
BCC Rangewi
(CONI (This a B
of Con ry ion
Concern
throughout its range
in the continental
USA and Alaska.)
Prairie Warbler
BCC Rangewide
(CON) (This is a Bird
of Conservation
Concern (BCC)
throughout its range
in the continental
...........................................
USA and Alaska.)
.................................
Prothonotary
Warbler
BCC Rangewide
....................................
(CON) (This is a Bird
of Conservation
.......................................
Concern (BCC)
...................................
throughout its range
inthe continental
...........................................
USA and Alaska.)
.........................................
probability of presence breeding season I survey effort — no data
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
I�— i i i IIIA I -- - — — -- ,.-— - — —- -•- -----1?'4**
-
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/5BHP2G3POND3JCOR17FZ50BB6Q/resources 6/10

5/29/2018
Red-headed
Woodpecker
BCC Rangewide
......................................
(CON) (This is a Bird
of Conservation
Concern (BCQ
throughout its range
in the continental
USA and Alaska.)
Wood Thrush
BCC Rangewide
(CON) (This is a Bird
................................................
of Conservation
Concern (BCC)
...................................
throughout its range
in the continental
................................... _ ......
USA and Alaska.)
.........................................
IPaC: Explore Location
Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds.
Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at
any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds are most likelyto
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 and/or
permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or
bird species present on your project site.
What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location?
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of LISFWS 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 (Lagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore
activities or development.
Again, Mig tory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not
rehpresebta 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.E-bird Explore Data 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, migrating or present year-round in my project area?
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/5BHP2G3POND3JCOR17FZ50BB6Q/resources 7/10

5/29/2018
IPaC: Explore Location
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 refer to the following resources: The Cornell Lab of Ornithology All About Birds Bird Guide, or
(if you are unsuccessful in locating the bird of interest there), the Cornell Lab of Ornithology Neotropical Birds
guide. If a bird on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur
in your project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds
elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area.
What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:
1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range
anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands);
2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the
continental USA; and
3. "Non -BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of
the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non -eagles) potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from
certain types of development or activities (e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing).
Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made, in particular, to
avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of rangewide concern. For
more information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird
impacts and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics.
Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects
For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of
bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal
also offers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to 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
https://ecos.%vs.gov/ipac/location/5BHP2G3POND3JCORI7FZ50BB6Q/resources 8/10

5/29/2018
IPaC: Explore Location
confirm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement conservation measures to avoid or
minimize potential impacts from your project activities, should presence be confirmed. To learn more about
conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize
impacts to migratory birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page.
Facilities
Wildlife refuges and fish hatcheries
REFUGE AND FISH HATCHERY INFORMATION IS NOT AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME
Wetlands in the National Wetlands Invento0A
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404
of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.
For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. ArmyCorps of
Engineers District.
Please note that the NWI data being shown may be out of date. We are currently working to update
our NWI data set. We recommend you verify these results with a site visit to determine the actual
extent of wetlands on site.
This location overlaps the following wetlands:
RIVERINE
R2UBH
R4SBC
A full description for each wetland code can be found at the National Wetlands Inventory website
Data limitations
The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level
information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of high
altitude imagery. Wetlands are identified based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A margin of error
is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on -the -ground inspection of any particular site may result in
revision of the wetland boundaries or classification established through image analysis.
The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts,
the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth verification work conducted.
Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems.
Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or field work. There may be
occasional differences in polygon boundaries or classifications between the information depicted on the map and
the actual conditions on site.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/5BHP2G3POND3JCOR17FZ50BB6Q/resources 9/10

5/29/2018
Data exclusions
IPaC: Explore Location
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://ecos.fws.gov/ipaOocation/5BHP2G3POND3JCOR17FZ5OBB6Q/resources 10/10