Exhibit 21 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Farm Service Agency ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - CHATHAM COUNTY,NORTH CAROLINA Prepared By Suzanne Simpson, Farm Loan Manager September 11, 2020 ·,t> ..-v '1"'- . .. ..... .. COVERSHEET ProposedAction: Type of Document: Lead Agency: Cooperating Agencies: Further Information: Comments: The Farm Service Agency of the United States Department of Agriculture proposes to approve a guaranteed loan to finance the construction of 4 @ 66' x 600' poultry houses, located at 8804 Old US 421 S, Bear Creek, North Carolina 27207. This is a site-specific Environmental Assessment United States Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency None Suzanne Simpson, 3230 A Presson Rd, Monroe, NC 28112, 704324-9226 This Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared in accordance with USDA FSA National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementing procedures found in 7 CFR 799, as well as the NEPA of 1969 (40 CFR 1500-1508/42 US Code 4321-4347), as amended. A copy of the Draft EA was made available (for Final EA) at 3230 A Presson Road, Monroe, NC 28112 Written comments regarding thiY<~A can be submitted to the address below until September , 2020: Comments 3230 A Presson Road Monroe, NC 28112 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 8 1.1 Background ..................................................................................................................................... 8 1.2 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ................................................................................... 8 1.3 Regulatory Compliance ................................................................................................................... 8 1.3.1 Right to Farm ....................................................................................................................... 9 1.4 Public Involvement and Consultation ........................................................................................... 10 1.4.1 Public Involvement ............................................................................................................ 10 1.4.2 Agency Consultation .......................................................................................................... 10 2. Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives .......................................................................... 12 2.1 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................................ 12 2.2 No Action Alternative .................................................................................................................... 12 2.3 Alternative .................................................................................................................................... 12 3. Affected Environment and Impacts .............................................................................................. 13 3.1 Resources Eliminated from Detailed Analysis ............................................................................... 13 3.1.1 Wildlife and Habitat ........................................................................................................... 13 3.1.2 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................. 13 3.1.3 Coastal Barrier .................................................................................................................... 13 3.1.4 Coastal Zone ....................................................................................................................... 13 3.1.5 Wilderness Areas ............................................................................................................... 13 3.1.6 Wild and Scenic Rivers/Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRl)............................................... 13 3.1.7 National Natural Landmarks .............................................................................................. 14 3.1.8 Sole Source Aquifers .......................................................................................................... 14 3.1.9 Floodplains ......................................................................................................................... 14 3.1.10 Wetlands .......................................................................................................................... 14 3.1.11 Soils .................................................................................................................................. 14 3.1.12 Water Quality ................................................................................................................... 14 3.1.13 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................ 15 3.1.14 Noise ................................................................................................................................ 15 3.1.15 Important Land Resources ............................................................................................... 15 3.1.16 Socioeconomic Impacts and Environmental Justice ........................................................ 15 3.2 Resources Considered with Detailed Analysis .............................................................................. 15 3.3 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................................ 15 3.3.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................. 15 3.3.2 Impacts of Proposed Action ............................................................................................... 16 3.3.3 Impacts of No Action .......................................................................................................... 16 3.4 Water Quality ................................................................................................................................ 16 3.4.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................. 16 3.4.2 Impacts of Proposed Action ............................................................................................... 16 3.4.3 Impacts of No Action .......................................................................................................... 16 3.5 Air Quality ..................................................................................................................................... 16 3.5.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................. 16 3.5.2 Impacts of Proposed Action ............................................................................................... 17 3.5.3 Impacts of No Action .......................................................................................................... 17 4. Cumulative lmpacts ..................................................................................................................... 18 4.1 Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions ..................................................................... 18 4.2 Cumulative Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 18 4.2.1 Resource A ......................................................................................................................... 18 4.2.2 Resource B ......................................................................................................................... 18 4.2.3 Resource C ......................................................................................................................... 19 5. List of Preparers and Persons and Agencies Contacted ................................................................. 20 6. References .•.•.•.•.•..••.•.•..•.•.•.••.•..••..•..•.•.•....•..•.•.•.•.•....•.•••.•....•.•..•.•...••.•..•...•.•.•.....•.••.•••..••.••.•••.•••• 21 APPENDICES A Maps A-1 Project Location Aerial Map A-la Aerial Map A-2 Project Location Topography Map B Site Photos C Consultation Letters C-1 SHP0 Consultation Letter C-2 SHP0 Response D Applicable M0As E Required Permits F Wildlife and Habitat/ Supporting Documentation F Endangered Species -Atlantic Pigtoe, Harperella Ptilimnium, Red Cockaded Woodpecker, Cape Fear Shiner F-1 IPaC Map G Cultural Resources Supporting Documentation H Coastal Barrier Supporting Documentation Coastal Zone Supporting Documentation J Wilderness Areas Supporting Documentation K Wild and Scenic Rivers/ Nationwide Rivers Inventory Supporting Documentation L National Natural Landmark Supporting Documentation M Sole Source Aquifer Supporting Documentation N Floodplains Supporting Documentation N-lFloodplain Map 0 Wetlands Supporting Documentation 0-1 Hydric Rating by Map Unit- Web Soil Survey 0-2 Wetland Determination. P Soils Supporting Documentation P-1 Web Soil Survey Map Q Water Quality Supporting Documentation Q-1 Conservation Plan (WMP WQMP NMP) R S T U Air Quality Supporting Documentation Noise Supporting Documentation Important Land Resources Supporting Documentation Socioeconomic Impacts and Environmental Justice Supporting Documentation U-1 NEPAAssist U-la Demographics U-lb Census Demographics U-2 Right to Farm law (state specific) V Other Supporting Documentation W Public Comment Advertisements 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Farm Service Agency (FSA)proposes to approve a if guaranteed loan in conjunction with Q J I¼ construct 4@ 66' x 600' poultry houses on a 64 acre tract of land situated in Chatham County at 8804 Old US421 S, Bear Creek, NC 27207 . This endeavor will create a large CAFO.The total farm capacity for the new construction will be 211,200 broiler sized birds. The tract is located 15 miles northwest of Sanford on the west side of Old US 421 S. approximately 0.30 miles southeast of the intersection of Old US421 Sand Campbell Rd, Bear Creek, NC. The project site is located at Latitude 35'.36'47" N and Longitude -79'.21'34" W. 1.2 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action The purpose of the Proposed Action is to provide the applicant credit and management assistance to assist them to become an operator of a family size farm. The need for the action is to fulfill FSA's responsibility to carry out its mission of ensuring the well-being of American agriculture, the environment and the American public. FSApromotes its mission by equitably and efficiently administering programs and activities to protect the economic stability of American farmers, to ensure a stable and safe supply of food and fiber, and to promote the conservation of natural resources including our land, water, air, wildlife, and elements of historic value. FSA'sguaranteed loan program will provide credit and management assistance to the eligible applicants so that they can become an owner operator of a family-size farm. The FSAassistance will also allow them to use their land, labor, and other resources to improve their living and financial condition so that they can ultimately obtain credit elsewhere without a government guarantee. I ar Mountaire has agreed to contract wit1 • I 9 IQ Is ar1ff'' Is,to grow broilers. Mountaire has a good reputation among its peers and contract growers. The poultry industry is an integral part of North Carolina agriculture. Cash receipts from broilers is the leading farm commodity in the state accounting for nearly 29.7% of farm commodity income in 2015. N.C. broiler production are eligible applicants and FSAsupports their proposal. ranks fourth nationally. Mr. and Mrs .... 1.3 Regulatory Compliance This Environmental Assessment is prepared to satisfy the requirements of NEPA(Public Law 91-190, 42 United States Code 4321 et seq.); its implementing regulations (40 CFR1500-1508); and FSA implementing regulations, Environmental Quality and Related Environmental Concerns - Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (7 CFR799). The intent of NEPAis to protect, restore, and enhance the human environment through well informed Federal decisions. A variety of laws, regulations, and Executive Orders (EO) apply to actions undertaken by Federal agencies and form the basis of the analysis. Acronyms and Abbreviations NEPA National Environmental Policy Act SHPO FSA APE NCCES State Historic Preservation Office Farm Service Agency Area of Potential Impact North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service ;;.·•· ,.. .. . .... ·~ 1.3.1 Right to Farm All fifty states have enacted right-to-farm laws that seek to protect qualifying farmers and ranchers from nuisance lawsuits filed by individuals who move into a rural area where normal farming operations exist, and who later use nuisance actions to attempt to stop those ongoing operations. The Right to Farm law for North Carolina include the following protections: STATEOF NORTH CAROLINA N.C. Gen. Stat.§§ 106-700 to 106-701 Currentthrough Chapters93, 95 to 99 and 101 of the 2016 RegularSession of the GeneralAssembly, pending changes receivedfrom the Reviserof Statutes. § 106-700. Legislative determination and declaration of policy It is the declared policy of the State to conserve and protect and encourage the development and improvement of its agricultural land and forestland for the production of food, fiber, and other products. When other land uses extend into agricultural and forest areas, agricultural and forestry operations often become the subject of nuisance suits. As a result, agricultural and forestry operations are sometimes forced to cease. Many others are discouraged from making investments in farm and forest improvements. It is the purpose of this Article to reduce the loss to the State of its agricultural and forestry resources by limiting the circumstances under which an agricultural or forestry operation may be deemed to be a nuisance. § 106-701. When agricultural and forestry operation, etc., not constituted nuisance by changed conditions in or about the locality outside of the operation (a) No agricultural or forestry operation or any of its appurtenances shall be or become a nuisance, private or public, by any changed conditions in or about the locality outside of the operation after the operation has been in operation for more than one year, when such operation was not a nuisance at the time the operation began. (al) The provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall not apply when the plaintiff demonstrates that the agricultural or forestry operation has undergone a fundamental change. A fundamental change to the operation does not include any of the following: (1) A change in ownership or size. (2) An interruption of farming for a period of no more than three years. (3) Participation in a government-sponsored agricultural program. (4) Employment of new technology. (5) A change in the type of agricultural or forestry product produced. (a2) The provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall not apply whenever a nuisance results from the negligent or improper operation of any agricultural or forestry operation or its appurtenances. (b) For the purposes of this Article, "agricultural operation" includes, without limitation, any facility for the production for commercial purposes of crops, livestock, poultry, livestock products, or poultry products. (bl) For the purposes of this Article, "forestry operation" shall mean those activities involved in the growing, managing, and harvesting oftrees. (c) The provisions of subsection (a) shall not affect or defeat the right of any person, firm, or corporation to recover damages for any injuries or damages sustained by him on account of any pollution of, or change in condition of, the waters of any stream or on the account of any overflow of lands of any such person, firm, or corporation. (d) Any and all ordinances of any unit of local government now in effect or hereafter adopted that would make the operation of any such agricultural or'forestry operation or its appurtenances a nuisance or providing for abatement thereof as a nuisance in the circumstance set forth in this section are and shall be null and void; provided, however, that the provisions of this subsection shall not apply whenever a nuisance results from the negligent or improper operation of any such agricultural or forestry operation or any of its appurtenances. Provided further, that the provisions shall not apply whenever a nuisance results from an agricultural or forestry operation located within the corporate limits of any city at the time of enactment hereof. (e) This section shall not be construed to invalidate any contracts heretofore made but insofar as contracts are concerned, it is only applicable to contracts and agreements to be made in the future. (f) In a nuisance action against an agricultural or forestry operation, the court shall award costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees·, to: (1) The agricultural or forestry operation when the court finds the operation was not a nuisance and the nuisance action was frivolous or malicious; or (2) The plaintiff when the court finds the agricultural or forestry operation was a nuisance and the operation asserted an affirmative defense in the nuisance action that was frivolous and malicious. 1.4 Public Involvement and Consultation 1.4.1 Public Involvement A notice of the availability of the Final EA for public review and comment was published in The Chatham New+ Record on August XX, 2020, and August XX, 2020. The Draft EA was made available by request to FSAfor public review and comments were accepted for 30 calendar days from August XX, 2020 to September XX, 2020. 1.4.2 Agency Consultation USDA undertook the following efforts and research to aid in determining the potential impacts of the proposed action: • Researched the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)- Information, Planning, and Conservation System (IPaC) about the project's potential to affect federally listed species, and has completed a biological field review relative to the potential species presence as required by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 • Consulted with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)to ensure the requirements of 54 U.S.C. 306108 (Commonly known as Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act) were properly addressed. • Researched the Web Soil Survey website of NRCSand determined that the tract does not show any characteristics of a wetland and does not have hydric soils. 2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2.1 Proposed Action The Proposed action • Located on a 64- acre tract on the north east Side of US421 S, Bear Creek NC in south eastern Chatham County. Located at Latitude 35'.36'47" N and Longitude -79'.21'34" W. • Construct four 66' ft. X 600 ft. Mountaire Broiler Houses on this tract of land. The dry poultry litter will be spread on neighboring farms in the community in accordance with best management practices as described in the Poultry Dry Litter Management Plan developed by Richard Goforth with the NC Cooperative Extension Conservation Service. • The Poultry Dry Litter Management Plan will utilize best management practices to avoid possible impact to water and ESAspecies. 2.2 No Action Alternative The "No Action" alternative would result in denial of the requested financial assistance. Denial of federal financial assistance does not necessarily prevent completion of the project through other financing sources. Completion of the project through non-federal financing would not be subject to many of the federal environmental requirements and scrutiny for FSAfinancing. The "NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE"is contrary to the mission of FSA. 2.3 Alternative Alternative Designs - Not feasible, to produce broilers, the design of the project must meet current integrator specifications. Changing the design would jeopardize the availability of broiler placements, and could create further expense to the integrator. Alternative projects having similar benefits, an example of this would be to sell the farm and purchase an existing 4 house farm. Impacts to the air and water quality would be minimal. 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND IMPACTS 3.1 Resources Eliminated from Detailed Analysis 3.1.1 Wildlife and Habitat The USFWSIPaCsystem was utilized to obtain an official species list for the Area of Potential Effect {APE). There are Four (4) listed endangered species that may occur within the proposed project area. However, a thorough review of the listed species and their habitat characteristics indicate that there is not a suitable habitat for these species at the site of the proposed action, therefore there would be no impact to threatened and endangered species. 3.1.2 Cultural Resources Effects to cultural resources were eliminated from detailed analysis because the project does not involve any ground disturbing activities or alternations to structures that are older than 50 years. 3.1.3 Coastal Barrier Effects to coastal barriers were eliminated from detailed analysis because Chatham County does not have designated coastal barriers areas. 3.1.4 Coastal Zone Effects to coastal zone were eliminated from detailed analysis because Chatham County does not have designated coastal zone management area. 3.1.5 Wilderness Areas Effects to wilderness areas were eliminated from detailed analysis. The nearest wilderness area is Birkhead Mountains Wilderness, it is located 42.0 miles from the project location and will not be impacted. 3.1.6 Wild and Scenic Rivers/Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI) Effects to Wild and Scenic Rivers/National Rivers Inventory were eliminated from detailed analysis because the project area is located 94.9 miles from the Lumber River. This is the nearest river found on the National Rivers Inventory or Wild and Scenic Rivers System and clearly will not be impacted by this project. 3.1. 7 National Natural Landmarks Effects to national natural landmarks were eliminated from detailed analysis because the nearest national landmark is Orbicular Diorite and is located 90.2 miles from the project location. The landmark will not be impacted by this project. 3.1.8 Sole Source Aquifers Effects to sole source aquifers were eliminated from detailed analysis because Chatham County does not have any sole source aquifers or sole source aquifer recharge areas located beneath the surface. 3.1.9 Floodplains Effects to floodplains were eliminated from detailed analysis because there are no floodplains located in the project area. 3.1.10 Wetlands Effects to wetlands were eliminated from detailed analysis because no wetlands lay within the project area. A field review by completing an FSA858 indicated the project does not impact waters or wetlands. If applicant converted wetland prior to December 23, 1985 applicant is exempt due to the converted wetland provision. 3. 1.11 Soils HEL is not present within the project area. Applicant has certified they will maintain compliance with the HEL/WC provisions. 3.1.12 Water Quality Surface Water Quality Effects to surface water quality were eliminated from detailed analysis because the project is not located near a body of water or will not result in a discharge into a water body. Groundwater Quality Effects to groundwater quality were eliminated from detailed analysis because the proposed project was reviewed was determined to have no impact on waters or wetlands. The project site is surrounded by woods which will act as a filter to control erosion, runoff and sedimentation to protect water quality. Ground water would be the sole source of water supply for the proposed operation. The operation will have wells to supply the poultry facility. There is an abundance of ground water available and adherence to the best management practices of the poultry dry litter management plan will prevent this project from affecting the quality of ground water. 3.1.13 Air Quality Effects to air quality were eliminated from detailed analysis because emissions or degradation to air quality are not permanent in nature and will be limited to the duration of the construction activity. Any potential impacts during construction can be minimized by the implementation of standard construction control measures. The proposed poultry broiler operation will emit a limited amount of dust, odor and ammonia. The prevailing winds in Chatham County are from the SW to the NE. There are no homes directly downwind. The project site is surrounded by wood land which will filter the air from the proposed operation 3.1.14 Noise Effects on noise were eliminated from detailed analysis becausethe project will not create noise that will interfere with communication, is intense enough to damage hearing, or is otherwise annoying. 3.1.15 Important Land Resources The CmB soils have 2 to 6 percent slopes and are considered farmland of statewide importance. The area where the poultry houses are to be constructed consists of 1 soil type. Since the proposed project involves construction of a poultry facility which qualifies as an on-farm structure necessaryfor the farm operation, it is exempt from the farmland provisions of the Farmland Protection Policy Act, NRCS's Implementation Rule, and Departmental Regulation 9500-3, Land Use Policy. 3.1.16 socioeconomic Impacts and Environmental Justice The proposed action will not cause any adverse human health or environmental effects as defined in Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations" . 3.2 Resources Considered with Detailed Analysis 3.3 Cultural Resources 3.3.1 ExistingConditions The site is currently in grass and trees. The proposed 4 new houses will be running east/west direction . 3.3.2 Impacts of ProposedAction The project was reviewed to determine any adverse effects in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office was contacted and Renee Gledhill-Earley advised in her letter to our office dated August 20, 2020 that her office was not aware of any historic resources that would be affected by the project. 3.3.3 Impacts of No Action If the Proposed Action is not implemented, then the existing conditions for Cultural Resources on the site would continue and no impacts would occur. 3.4 Water Quality 3.4.1 ExistingConditions The proposed site is located 8804 Old US 421 S, Bear Creek, NC. The construction site will be on the north west sections of the tract. 3.4.2 Impacts of ProposedAction The proposed project was reviewed was determined to have no impact on jurisdictional waters or wetlands. The project site is surrounded by woods on two sides which will act as a filter to control erosion, runoff and sedimentation to protect surface water quality. Ground water would be the sole source of water supply for the proposed operation. The operation will have wells to supply the poultry facility. There is an abundance of ground water available and adherence to the best management practices of the poultry dry litter management plan will prevent this project from affecting the quality of ground water. 3.4.3 Impacts of No Action If the Proposed Action is not implemented, then the existing conditions for Water Quality on the site would continue and no impacts would occur. 3.5 Air Quality 3.5.1 ExistingConditions There are no homes within 1000' of the project site but there do appear to be houses within 1500' of the project site. There is 1 CAFO's within .75 miles of the project site. 3. 5.2 Impacts of ProposedAction The proposed poultry broiler operation will emit a limited amount of dust, odor and ammonia. The prevailing winds in Chatham County are from the SW to the NE. There are no homes directly downwind. The project sites are surrounded by wood land on two sides which will filter the air from the proposed operation 3.5.3 Impacts of No Action If the Proposed Action is not implemented, then the existing conditions for Air Quality on the site would continue and no impacts would occur. 4. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The cumulative impacts analysis is important to understanding how multiple actions in a particular time and space (e.g., geographic area) impact the environment. The CEQ regulations define cumulative effects as " ...the impact on the environment, which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such actions" (40 CFR§ 1508.7). Whereas the individual impact of one project in a particular area or region may not be considered significant, the result of numerous projects in the same area or region may cumulatively result in significant impacts. Cumulative impact analysis is subject to interpretation in analyzing the magnitude of impacts to a particular area or region. For this EA, the analysis area for cumulative impacts is Chatham County. Confinement livestock and poultry farms are common in the area. There is one CAFOwithin a three quarters mile radius of the project site. The farm is bordered on by woodland, the site is off the road and at least lS00'away from any house from the project site. The project is buffered by woodland protecting surface waters from runoff and sedimentation. The poultry facilities will not have significant cumulative impacts. 4.1 Past, Presentand ReasonablyForeseeableActions Federal, State, local, and private activities that are currently taking place, have occurred in the past, or may reasonably be assumed to take place in the future in the cumulative effects area include the following: The past and present actions for this project site have been fallow land and trees. The site currently is in fallow land and trees. The proposed project includes building four 66' x 600' Mountaire broiler houses. There is one CAFOwithin 1 mile of the project site. 4.2 CumulativeAnalysis 4.2.1 Cultural Resources The project was reviewed to determine any adverse effects in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office was contacted and Renee Gledhill-Earley advised in her letter to our office dated August 20, 2020 that her office was not aware of any historic resources that would be affected by the project. 4.2.2 Water Quality The proposed project was reviewed and it was determined to have no impact on jurisdictional waters or wetlands. The project site is surrounded by woods on two sides which will act as a filter to control erosion, runoff and sedimentation to protect surface water quality. Ground water would be the sole source of water supply for the proposed operation. The operation will have wells to supply the poultry facility. There is an abundance of ground water available and 5. LIST OF PREPARERS AND PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONTACTED Name and Title Suzanne Simpson, Farm Loan Manager Name and Title Renee Gledhill-Earley Richard Goforth Listof Preparers Educationand Experience Environmental training- 30 years FSA, -BA UNC Chapel Hill Personsand AgenciesContacted Affiliation SHPO NC Cooperative Extension Service adherence to the best management practices of the poultry dry litter management plan will prevent this project from affecting the quality of ground water 4.2.3 Air Quality The past and present air quality has not experienced any harmful emissions. The existing poultry house and the four proposed poultry broiler operation will emit a limited amount of dust, odor and ammonia. The prevailing winds in Chatham County are from the SW to the NE. There are no homes directly downwind. The project site is surrounded by wood land which will filter the air from the proposed operation. 6. REFERENCES USFWS2017. IPaC-lnformation, Planning and Conservation System. Listed and Sensitive Species in Anson County, North Carolina. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Environmental Conservation Online System. Available online at: http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. CEQ 1997. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. Environmental Justice Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act. December 10. CEQ 1997. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act. January. CEQ 2016. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 2016. Final Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change in National Environmental Policy Act Reviews. August 1. Old US 421 S, Bear Creek, NC '14/2020 3:42:25 PM :::JOverride 1 0 0.25 0 0.4 1 mi 0.8 1.6 km USGS The National Map : Ortho1magery. Data refreshed April 2020 Appendix A-1 Old US 421 S, Bear Creek, NC Ir .~ . ~\~-. ~ ~-~~-~..( ' "-I'\ \ ~~- '14/2020 3:43:42 PM ::J Override 1 \~-:.•·· . 1:36, 112 0 0.25 0.5 1 mi 0 0.4 0.8 1.6 km Copyright :C 2013 National Geographic Society . i-cubed Appendix A-2 Old US 421 S, Bear Creek, NC ...Jl ,:;;."O Q.' .:::. ~ -:, ~ ..., r:e+,,. t 'g ~ ·;ti ~ ~ 0-6Us, a1 't,,. ' ·1,;;, . s ".; ,t, ~ ...? 0.zi: r., ~-~ cl' 011, . '<' u,, •121 S ~ ~❖ ~ .f.,s:-.· ::ifl,,_, ...,. ""llllc~,Sc~i0,0J Rd y "' ,.s,' ~-: Q • .-!' -~...... '(;;. ~ ~- 1,, ,J.?5,, ti1:,i! 1s,.., ,s;. q, ¢.,!~ c;,::,•-:f- ,....~... ~\ i'-...6 R(I SI llil-:r:: C\,~1•c,\'R• O·,ur •:n RO w111te1u1moet1Ro ~ ::,, Goldston ,,, -sI,~. Bt.i, C .,...i:r ''<11r) I.I; -~,(' cfJ~·• '14/2020 3:45:21 PM ::J Override 1 1 :36, 112 0 0.25 0.5 1 mi 0 0.4 0.8 1.6 km Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, lntermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, US FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Japan , METI. Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreet~ap contributors, and GIS User Community Appendix A-2 USDAUnited States ')epartment of ~ - Agriculture Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services Farm Service Agency Union County Farm Service Agency 3230 A Presson Road Monroe , NC 28112-9196 July 14, 2020 TO: State Historic Preservation Officer 4617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-4617 FROM: Suzanne Simpson Farm Loan Manager SUBJECT : Request for Concurrence The USDA, Farm Service Agency (FSA) is completing an environmental review of a proposed poultry operation to be located in Chatham County located off Old US 421 South approximately 1.75 miles northwest of Goldston. The applicant plans to construct 4 @ 66' x 600' broiler houses for Mountaire. The capacity for the proposed operation is approximately 211,200. The site where the poultry houses are to be built is currently in woodlands. In considering FSA's responsibilities pursuant 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and its implementing regulations in 36 CFR Part 800, "Protection of Historic Properties (Section 106), we are requesting your assistance in identifying historic properties and/ or other cultural resources that might be affected by this undertaking. FSA has reviewed the National Register of Historic Places list and our State Environmental Guide . To the best of our knowledge there is no indication of the presence, or probability of a historic property or cultural resource at the site. Attached for reference are: Location map Aerial view of property for its current use FEMA flood map (site is divided into 2 flood maps) GIS topo map Soils map FSA has made a finding that no effect by this proposed project. Your concurrence with this determination is requested within thirty (30) days of the email delivery receipt or delivery of this letter based on standard United States Post Office delivery schedules not to exceed 5 days from the related post mark. If we do not hear from you within the specified time frame it will be assumed that you are in agreement and have not further interest in this matter. Please feel free to contact me at (704)324-9226 or email me at Suzanne.simpson@nc.usda.gov should you have any questions or need further information. Correspondence may be sent to: my email address or this office at 3230 A Presson Rd, Monroe, NC 28112-9196 . USDA is an equal opportunityproviderand employer.Appendix C-1 Sincerely, Suzanne Simpson Farm Loan Manager Attachments USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Appendix C-1 North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office Ramo11a M . Bartos, Administrator Covemor R'?)ICooper Secretary Susi H. Hamilton Office of Archives and History Deputy Secretary &vti1 Cherry August 20, 2020 suzanne.simpson @usda.gov Suzanne Simpson USDA- Farm Service Agency 3230 A Presson Rd Monroe, NC 28112-9196 Re: Construct 4 broiler houses, Old US 421 South, l. 75 miles northwest of Goldston, Chatham County , ER 20-1604 Dear Suzanne Simpson: Thank you for your email of July 30, 2020, concerning the above project. We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed. The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Thank you for your cooperation and consideration . If you have questions concerning the above comment contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-814-6579 or environmental.review@ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number. Sincerely, LaR, amona Bartos, Deputy D ·State Historic Preservation Officer Location: 109 East]o11esStrut, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-1617 Telephone/Fax: (919~8"'Bl'Jc'@~J99 WIKIPEDIA Ptilimnium nodosum Ptilimnium nodosum (synonym=Harperella nodosa), common names piedmont mock bishopweed[ 2 1 and harperella, is a plant native to ~iparian environments in the Southeastern United States, found at sites in West Virginia, Ma!Yland, several Southeastern states such as Alabama and North Carolina, and the Ouachita National Forest in Arkansas and Oklahoma.[ 3 1[4 l[S][GJ[7 l Harperella Ptilimniumnodosumwas placed on the United States' Endangered Species List in 1988.[81 · References 1. Tro icos, Ptilimnium nodosum (Rose) Mathias (b!!p://ww w.tro picos. org/Name/50080418 2. "Ptilimnium nodosum" htt s://plants.usda.gov/core/profil e?symbol=PTNO .· Natural Resources Conservation Service PLANTS Database. USDA. Retrieved 15 October 2015. 3. Godfrey, R. K. & J. W. Wooten . 1981. Aquatic and Wetland Plants of Southeastern United States Dicotyledons 1-944. Univ. Georgia Press, Athens 4. Mathias, M. E. 1936. Studies in the Umbelliferae . V. Brittonia 2(3): 239-245 5. Radford, A. E., H. E. Ahles & C. R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas i-lxi, 1-1183. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 6. Feist, M.A.E., S.R. Downie, A.R. Magee & M. Liu. 2012. Revised generic delimitations for Oxypo/is and Ptilimnium {Apiaceae) based on leaf morphology, comparative fruit anatomy, and phylogenetic analysis of nuclear rDNA Its and cpDNA "trnQ-trnK" intergenic spacer sequence data. Taxon 61(2): 402-418. 7. Buthod, A.K. and B.W. Hoagland. 2013. Noteworthy Collections: Oklahoma. Castanea 78(3): 213-215. 8. Center for Plant Conservation (b!!p://www.centerfor lant conservation.org/collection/c ~_view rofile.as ?CPCNu m=3675 Archived htt s://web.archive.org/web/2015090 7035942/htt ://www.centerfor lantconservation.org/Colle ction/CPC ViewProfile.as ?CPCNum=3675 2015-0907 at the Wa}"back Machine External links Conservation status Presµmed I __ E xt1nct ,~x) __.....___ Af. risk I re S e OJ Ii~,'(~1',Ie -:: ~~)c~4 ~· (~-~ Imperiled (NatureServe) j Scientific classification j Kingdom: Plantae j (unranked): Angiosperms (unranked): Eudicots (unranked): Asterids Order: Apiales Family: Apiaceae Genus: Ptilimnium Species: P. nodosum Binomial name Ptilimnium nodosum Appendix F ■ U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service: Ptilimnium nodosum _Har1;1erella) in North Carolina (htt1;1s://nc-es.fws.g _ov/1;1lan t/har1;1erella.html _ Rose (Mathias) Synonymsl 1l ■ Harperia nodosa Rose ■ Carum nodosum (Rose) KosoPol. ■ Harperel/a nodosa (Rose) Rose Retrieved from "htt11s://en.wiki1Jedia.ori;J/w/index.phl)_?title=Ptilimniumnodosum&oldid=943154627" This page was last edited on 29 February 2020, at 05:12 (UTC). Text is available under the Creative Commons Attr ibution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privac~ Policy. W1kipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. AppendixF Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation Ralph Costa U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Clemson Ecological Services Field Office Clemson, South Carolina Appendix F 5-YEAR REVIEW Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides horea/is) Year completed: 2006 I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Methodology This review was completed by Ralph Costa, Red-cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Coordinator/Field Supervisor from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Clemson Ecological Services Field Office (Clemson Field Office). No part of the review was contracted out to an outside party. All literature and documents used for this review are on file at the Clemson Field Office and listed in the References section of this document. Examples of materials used include the recovery plan, peer-reviewed manuscripts, symposium proceeding manuscripts, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Annual Red-cockaded Woodpecker Property Data Report (Annual Report). All recommendations resulting from this review are a result of thoroughly reviewing all available information on the red-cockaded woodpecker and the reviewer's expertise as one of the leading experts on the species. Announcement of the review and public comment period was emailed to 480 individuals listed in the red-cockaded woodpecker contact data base maintained by the Clemson Field Office. Comments regarding the review were received from 7 parties, listed below by date received: September 9, 2005 - Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, FL October 12, 2005 - Sierra Club, Houston Regional Group, TX October 21, 2005 - Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, NC November 7, 2005 - Friends of Georgia, Inc., GA November 7, 2005 - Sierra Club, Georgia Chapter, GA November 14, 2005 - Weyerhaeuser, Dobson Forestry Office, LA November 14, 2005 - Don Lipscomb, Clemson University, SC B. Reviewers Lead Region: Emily Bizwell (Southeast, Region 4); 404 679-7149 Lead Field Office: Clemson Ecological Services Field Office Ralph Costa: 864 656-2432 Cooperating Field Office(s): Vero Beach, FL, Jacksonville, FL, Panama City, FL, Athens, GA, Daphne, AL, Jackson, MS, Conway, AR, Asheville, NC, Charleston, SC, Lafayette, LA, Raleigh, NC, Gloucester, VA, Clear Lake, TX, Tulsa, OK, Fort Benning, GA, Brunswick, GA, Lufkin, TX Cooperating Region(s): R2 & RS C. Background 1. Federal Register Notice Citation Initiating This Review: September 12, 2005. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 5-Year Review of Eight Southeastern Species. FR 70(175):53807-53808. Appendix F 2. Species Status: Improving (FY2006 Recovery Data Call) 3. Recovery Achieved: l 4. Listing History a. = 0-25% (FY2006 Recovery Data Call) Original Listing: Federal Register Notice: 35 FR 16047 Date listed: October 13, 1970 Entity listed: species (Dendrocopus* borea/is) Classification: Endangered * The species scientific name at time of listing was Dendrocopus. In 1976, the rd American Ornithologists Union published the name change to Picoides in the 33 supplement to the American Ornithologists' Union checklist of North American birds; published in the Auk 93:875-879. 5. Review History a. Status Reviews U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Annual Red-cockaded Woodpecker Property Data Report: 2006,2005,2004,2003,2002,2001,2000, 1999, 1998 Recovery Data Call: 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 200 l, 2000, 1999, 1998 Final Recovery Plan: 2003 6. Species' Recovery Priority Number at Start of Review (48 FR 43098): 8C 7. Recovery Plan or Outline a. Citation: Recovery Plan for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borea/is): Second Revision (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2003). b. Issuing Date: January 27, 2003 c. Revision History: Original Plan: Red-cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Plan: August 24, 1979 First Revision: Red-cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Plan: April 11, 1985 Second Revision: see 7.a. above 2 Appendix F II REVIEW ANALYSIS A. B. Application of the 1996 Distinct Population Segment (DPS) Policy I. Is the species under review listed as a DPS? No 2. Is there relevant new information that would lead you to re-consider the classification of this species with regard to designation of DPSs? No Recovery Criteria 1. Does the species have a final, approved recovery plan? 2. Does the recovery plan contain recovery (i.e., downlisting or delisting) criteria? Yes 3. Adequacy of recovery criteria. Yes a. Do the recovery criteria reflect the best available (i.e., most up-to-date) information on the biology of the species and its habitat? Yes b. Are all of the 5 listing factors that are relevant to the species addressed in the recovery criteria (and there is no new information to consider regarding existing or new threats)? Yes 4. List the recovery criteria as they appear in the recovery plan, and discuss how each criterion has or has not been met, citing supporting information. For threats-related recovery criteria, please note which of the 5 listing factors are addressed by that criterion. If any of the 5-listing factors are not relevant to this species, please note that here. a. Recovery Criteria Recovery criteria have been formulated using eleven recovery units delineated according to ecoregions. Populations required for recovery are distributed among recovery units to ensure the representation of broad geographic and genetic variation in the species. Population sizes identified in recovery criteria are measured in the number of potential breeding groups (PBG). A PBG is an adult female and adult male that occupy the same cluster, with or without one or more helpers, whether or not they attempt to nest or successfully fledge young. A traditional measure of population size has been number of active clusters. Potential breeding groups is a better measure of population status, because this is the basis of population dynamics in this species and number of active clusters can include varying proportions of solitary males and captured clusters. Estimates of all three parameters-number of 3 Appendix F active clusters, proportion of solitary males, and proportion of captured clustersare required to support estimates of PBGs. To assist in the transition between these two measures, a range of numbers of active clusters considered the likely equivalents of the required number of PBGs is provided. Estimated number of active clusters is likely to be at least 1.1 times the number of PBGs, but it is unlikely to be more than 1.4 times this number. Thus, an estimated 400 to 500 active clusters will be necessary to contain 350 PBGs , depending on the proportions of solitary males and captured clusters and also on the estimated error of the sampling scheme. It is expected that all recovery populations will have sampling in place that is adequate to judge PBGs. If this is not the case, only the highest number of active clusters in the range given can be substituted to meet the required population size. Definitions and descriptions of terms used in deli sting and downlisting criteria, such as recovery units, primary and secondary core populations, and essential support populations can be found in the recovery plan, as can a brief rationale for each delisting and downlisting criterion. All populations identified in downlisting and delisting criteria should be managed for maximum size that the habitat designated for red-cockaded woodpeckers will allow. Maximum size is generally based on 200 acres per red-cockaded woodpecker group (PBG or solitary male). Note: Listing Factors A and E are both addressed by Criterion 1-5 for delisting and Criterion 1-6 for downlisting. Listing Factors B, C, and D are not currently relevant to the red-cockadcd woodpecker. b. Delisting Deli sting will be considered when each of the following criteria is met. Criterion 1. There are IO populations of red-cockaded woodpeckers that each · contain at least 350 PBGs (400 to 500 active clusters), and 1 population that contains at least 1000 PBGs (1100 to 1400 active clusters), from among 13 designated primary core populations, and each of these 11 populations is not dependent on continuing installation of artificial cavities to remain at or above this population size. One population (North Carolina Sandhills) of the IO primary core populations required has achieved 350 PBGs. The one population (Central Florida Panhandle) slated to harbor 1000 PBGs harbored 583 PBGs in 2005. The remaining 11 primary core populations range in size from 18 (Chickasawhay) to ~344 (Francis Marion) PBGs. Criterion 2. There are 9 populations of red-cockaded woodpeckers that each contain at least 250 potential breeding groups (275 to 350 active clusters), from among 10 designated secondary core populations, and each of these 9 populations is 4 AppendixF not dependent on continuing installation of artificial cavities to remain at or above this population size. None of the 10 secondary core populations harbors 250 PBGs. They range in size from 15 (DeSoto) to 178 (South Carolina Sandhills) PBGs. Criterion 3. There are at least 250 potential breeding groups (275 to 350 active clusters) distributed among designated essential support populations in the South/Central Florida Recovery Unit, and six of these populations (including at least two of the following: Avon Park, Big Cypress, and Ocala) exhibit a minimum population size of 40 PBGs that is independent of continuing artificial cavity installation. Currently, there are 302 PBGs distributed in the South/Central Florida recovery unit. However, only three (Big Cypress, Three Lakes, Withlacoochee Citrus Tract) of the required six that must exceed 40 PBGs are present, harboring 54, 45, and 46 PBGs, respectively. Only one (Big Cypress) of two specific populations that must exceed 40 PBGs is present. Criterion 4. There is one stable or increasing population containing at least 100 potential breeding groups ( 110 to 140 active clusters) in northeastern North Carolina and southeastern Virginia, the Cumberlands/Ridge and Valley recovery unit (Talladega/Shoal Creek), and the Sandhills recovery unit (North Carolina Sandhills West), and these populations are not dependent on continuing artificial cavity installation to remain at or above this population size. One (North Carolina Sandhills West; 135 PBGs) of the three populations required to exceed 100 PBGs is present. The remaining two, Northeast North Carolina/Southeast Virginia and Talladega/Shoal Creek harbor 36 and 8 PBGs, respectively. Criterion 5. For each of the populations meeting the above size criteria, responsible management agencies shall provide (1) a habitat management plan that is adequate to sustain the population and emphasizes frequent prescribed burning, and (2) a plan for continued population monitoring. Although criterion 5 is referring to the need for populations to have such plans when they achieve their size goals, the majority of the populations required for delisting already have management plans that address habitat management (e.g., prescribed burning) and population monitoring. These plans are generally updated at 5-year intervals. The plans take the form of Integrated Natural Resource Management Plans (military), Land and Resource Management Plans (U.S. Forest Service), Comprehensive Conservation Plans (national wildlife refuges), and property-specific state wildlife management area and state forest plans. c. Downlisting 5 AppendixF Down listing will be considered when each of the following criteria is met. Criterion 1. There is one stable or increasing population of 350 potential breeding groups (400 to 500 active clusters) in the Central Florida Panhandle. This criterion has been met. The Apalachicola Ranger District, one of the five properties comprising the Central Florida Panhandle Primary Core population, harbors 451 PBGs. Criterion 2. There is at least one stable or increasing population containing at least 250 potential breeding groups (275 to 350 active clusters) in each of the following recovery units: Sandhills, Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain, South Atlantic Coastal Plain, West Gulf Coastal Plain, Upper West Gulf Coastal Plain, and Upper East Gulf Coastal Plain. Three (Sandhills, Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain, and South Atlantic Coastal Plain) of the six recovery units required to have a population with 250 PBGs are present; Fort Bragg, Francis Marion, and Fort Stewart, harboring 270, 344, and 263 PBGs, respectively. The largest populations in the remaining three recovery units harbor from 155 to 185 PBGs. Criterion 3. There is at least one stable or increasing population containing at least 100 potential breeding groups ( 110 to 140 active clusters) in each of the following recovery units: Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain, Sandhills, South Atlantic Coastal Plain, and East Gulf Coastal Plain. Note that these populations would be different from those required in Criterion 2 above. This criterion has been met. Each of the listed recovery units contains at least one population (different from the populations listed under Criterion 2 above) that harbors at least 100 PBGs. The populations (listed in the order of their recovery units as stated under Criterion 3, with PBGs shown in ( ) are: Coastal North Carolina ( 165); Sandhills, including Fort Benning (239), North Carolina Sandhills ( 135), and South Carolina Sandhills ( 178); Osceola/Okefenokee ( 106); and Eglin (274). Criterion 4. There is at least one stable or increasing population containing at least 70 potential breeding groups (75 to 100 active clusters) in each of four recovery units, Cumberlands/Ridge and Valley, Ouachita Mountains, Piedmont, and Sandhills. In addition, the Northeast North Carolina/Southeast Virginia Essential Support Population is stable or increasing and contains at least 70 potential breeding groups (75 to 100 active clusters). Only the Sandhills recovery unit contains a population harboring at least 70 PBGs (that would not be needed to satisfy either Criterion 2 or 3, which also require Sandhills populations of certain sizes). The remaining three recovery units only 6 AppendixF contain one population each and none harbor 70 PBGs. Those populations (listed in order of their recovery units as stated under Criterion 4, with PBGs shown in parentheses): are: Talladega/Shoal Creek (8), Ouachita (33), and Oconee/Piedmont (53). Criterion 5. There are at least four populations each containing at least 40 potential breeding groups (45 to 60 active clusters) on state and/or federal lands in the South/Central Florida Recovery Unit. This criterion has not yet been met. However, there are three of the four required populations in the South/Central Florida Recovery Unit that contain 40 PBGs. They are (with their PBGs in ( )): Big Cypress (54), Three Lakes (45), and Withlacoochee Citrus Tract (46). Criterion 6. There are habitat management plans in place in each of the above populations identifying management actions sufficient to increase the populations to recovery levels, with special emphasis on frequent prescribed burning during the growmg season. Although Criterion 6 is referring to the need for populations to have such plans when they achieve their size goals, the majority of the populations required for delisting already have management plans that address habitat management ( e.g., prescribed burning) and population monitoring. These plans are generally updated at 5-year intervals. The plans take the form oflntegrated Natural Resource Management Plans (military), Land and Resource Management Plans (U.S. Forest Service), Comprehensive Conservation Plans (national wildlife refuges), and property-specific state wildlife management area and forest land plans. d. Listing/Recovery Factor Criteria The relationship between deli sting and downlisting criteria and each of the 5 listing factors is described below and how, if the recovery plan is fully implemented, these factors will not threaten red-cockaded woodpeckers at time of delisting. Listing Factor A: the present or threatened destruction, modffication, or curtailment of a species' habitat or range. Primary threats to species viability for red-cockaded woodpeckers all have the same basic cause: lack of suitable habitat. Serious threats stemming from this lack of suitable habitat include: ( 1) insufficient numbers of cavities and continuing net loss of cavity trees, (2) habitat fragmentation and its effects on genetic variation, dispersal, and demography, and (3) lack of foraging habitat of adequate quality. The majority of properties harboring redcockaded woodpecker populations have instituted various management programs to address these habitat issues. First, intensive cavity management, primarily installation of artificial cavities, is being used to offset cavity loss in existing territories and to create new territories in unoccupied habitat. These cavity management activities are crisis intervention type actions that will remain necessary 7 AppendixF until mature and old growth forests are restored. Second, managers are using what limited tools are available to combat effects of fragmentation. These tools/practices include strategic placement of recruitment clusters (new territories created with artificial cavities), retention of forest cover (e.g., no clear-cutting except for restoration), and translocation. As populations recover, isolation effects will not be as intensely acute as they are at present, because larger populations (required in recovery criteria) have greater resistance to impacts from environmental and demographic threats, greater retention of genetic variation, and thus greater probability of persistence. However, effects of fragmentation are likely to remain serious threats to population viability throughout the period of recovery. Third, managers are implementing new silvicultural techniques and aggressive prescribed fire programs to improve both the quantity and quality of foraging habitat. The threat to red-cockaded woodpecker populations from low-quality or insufficient foraging habitat is not as immediate as threats from habitat fragmentation and lack of suitable nesting habitat. However, foraging habitat affects population densities and it may be a secondary factor once abundant nesting habitat is provided; therefore, it remains an important concern for long-term viability. Listing Factor B: overutilizationfor commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes. Overutilization was not a factor in the original decline of red-cockaded woodpeckers and it is not currently a threat to species recovery. Listing Factor C: disease or predation. Disease and predation were not factors in the original decline of red-cockaded woodpeckers, and neither is currently a threat to species recovery. However, the future potential for avian flu, West Nile virus, or other diseases to impact red-cockaded woodpeckers exists. Listing Factor D: inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. Existing regulatory mechanisms, specifically the Endangered Species Act and the National Forest Management Act, are adequate to ensure the recovery of red-cockaded woodpeckers, assuming the recovery plan is fully implemented. Upon deli sting, a post-delisting monitoring plan will be developed and implemented to ensure that species viability will be retained after removal of ESA protection. Listing Factor E: other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Primary natural threats to species viability for red-cockaded woodpeckers include range-wide and within population isolation and the threats to viability inherent to small populations. Multiple management and conservation tools are available and being used to address these threats. First, without immigration no red-cockaded woodpecker population (with the possible exception of the Central Florida Panhandle population) will be large enough to avoid loss of genetic variability through genetic drift. Managers are reducing the threat of genetic drift by promoting immigration, both natural (via dispersal; e.g., expanding existing and establishing new populations) and artificial (via translocation). Multiple recovery units (with numerous, large well distributed populations) harboring all of the habitat types and representing all the ecoregions in which red- 8 AppendixF cockaded woodpeckers currently exist, will provide the future means to ensure that natural and artificial immigration can occur and be managed. Second, managers are minimizing within-population isolation by improving the spatial arrangement of territories. This is accomplished via strategic placement of recruitment clusters, careful planning of silvicultural activities and intra-population translocations. Third, the threats inherent to small populations are being addressed by growing populations as fast as logistically and economically possible using the habitat management tools discussed in Listing Factor A and translocations. As populations increase in size and density they will become more resistant to all of the threats discussed above. Resistance to these threats is the fundamental basis for target population sizes identified in delisting criteria 1 - 5. In summary, the specified recovery criteria for red-cockaded woodpeckers address all of threats associated with Listing Factor A and E. By maintaining (and managing, e.g., prescribed burning) a network of large, interacting populations within all ecoregions (recovery units) of the species range, we will ameliorate the threats to the species viability. This strategy will promote natural immigration from support and core populations, over the long-term, within and between recovery units, thereby reducing species' susceptibility to loss of genetic variation through genetic drift. The recovery unit system and its associated complex of core and support populations provides the means today and into the future to overcome the threats of demographic stochasticity, i.e., small population viability. Additionally, the management plans required in recovery criteria will ensure that adequate habitat management programs will be implemented to prevent any of the listing factors from once again threatening the red-cockaded woodpecker's viability. C. Updated Information and Current Species Status 1. Biology and Habitat The biology, habitat, and status of the red-cockaded woodpecker was recently (2003) thoroughly "reviewed" and documented in the second revision to the recovery plan. Since approval of the recovery plan revision, no new information has come to light on the red-cockaded woodpecker's ecological or habitat requirements, genetics, demographics, biology, or taxonomy. The species spatial distribution remains unchanged since 2003; no population extirpations have occurred since 2003, although dozens of populations remain at risk; i.e., <30 PB Gs. The amount and distribution of habitat required for recovery, as specified in the recovery plan, remains unchanged since 2003; i.e., all habitat is still available. The overall suitability of this habitat is generally improving as management activities to increase populations are implemented, e.g., prescribed, thinning, and translocations. The species status has been improving annually since the mid-I 990s, when artificial cavity, translocation, and extensive prescribed burning programs were implemented (Copeyon 1990, Al Jen 1991, Costa and Kennedy 1994 ). These management practices provide the means to overcome the species limiting factors, thereby resulting in 9 Appendix F increasing population trends in populations where they are instituted. In January 2003, the recovery plan reported a range-wide population (including all ownerships; private, state and federal) of 5,627 active clusters (occupied territories). As of January 2006, 6, I 05 active clusters were reported by the Service (USFWS data from the Annual Reports and other sources). The following table provides the number of active clusters from the early l 990's through 2006. Note that the range-wide population has been increasing by about I 00 active clusters per year since 1993. Year # Active Clusters Source 1993/1994 4,694 Costa and Walker (1995) 2003 5,625 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2003) 2004 5,800 Costa and DeLotelle (2006) 2005 5,903 U.S. FWS (Annual Report 2005**) 2006 6,105 U.S. FWS (Annual Report 2006**) **Annual Reports and other supporting information were used to calculate these data. 2. Five Factor Analysis The Endangered Species Act (Section 4(a)( I)) identified five factors that threaten or endanger a species, any one of which is justification for listing. At delisting, therefore, none of these factors can exist. Each of these factors is discussed below in the context of how they will not threaten red-cockaded woodpeckers at time of delisting. Listing Factor A: the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment ofa species' habitat or range. Red-cockaded woodpeckers are vulnerable to habitat loss and habitat degradation; the two primary factors in the species' original decline. These factors resulted from direct conversion of habitat to other land uses, fire suppression, and loss of mature pines within pine woodlands. Direct conversion of habitat no longer occurs on public lands, which form the basis of recovery for red-cockaded woodpeckers. However, currently, lack of frequent fire and mature pines continue to threaten the species on public and private lands. Red-cockaded woodpeckers are most vulnerable to loss and degradation of nesting habitat, but are also vulnerable to loss and degradation of foraging habitat. Addressing these threats is a primary objective of the recovery plan. Management actions such as artificial cavity installation, prescribed burning, and silvicultural practices that protect old pines are powerful tools critical to restoration of habitat and recovery of the species. As such, these actions are heavily emphasized in management guidelines, recovery tasks, and throughout the recovery plan, and are being implemented on more than I 00 federal, state and private properties harboring red- 10 AppendixF cockaded woodpeckers. Moreover, these critical actions are represented in delisting criteria: a prescribed burning program is explicitly required as part of habitat management plans that must be in place for delisting (criterion 6), whereas a stable or increasing population trend, independent from continuing artificial cavity installation, is required for populations to meet their size requirements (criteria 1-5). A stable or increasing trend independent of continuing artificial cavity installation can only be achieved once large old pines are available in abundance. See also 4.d. above to understand what else managers are doing to combat these threats. Listing Factor B: overutilizationfor commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes. Overutilization was not a factor in the original decline of red-cockaded woodpeckers and it is not currently a threat to species recovery. Listing Factor C: disease or predation. Disease and predation were not factors in the original decline of red-cockaded woodpeckers and neither is currently a threat to species recovery. However, diseases such as West Nile virus and avian flu, already impacting other species of wild birds, are potential foreseeable threats in the future. Listing Factor D: inade.uacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. Existing regulatory mechanisms, specifically the Endangered Species Act and the National Forest Management Act, are adequate to ensure the recovery of red-cockaded woodpeckers, assuming this recovery plan is fully implemented. Upon delisting, a post-deli sting monitoring plan will be developed and implemented to ensure that species viability will be retained after removal of ESA protection. Listing Factor E: other natural or manmadefactors affecting its continued existence. Other natural or manmade factors affecting the continued existence of red-cockaded woodpeckers include habitat fragmentation and the threats to viability inherent to small populations. Addressing these threats is a primary objective of the recovery plan. Habitat fragmentation can result in loss of population viability through disrupted dispersal. Further fragmentation of habitat is safeguarded against by appropriate silvicultural methods. In addition, management guidelines emphasize maintaining or developing beneficial spatial arrangements of red-cockaded woodpecker groups, to enhance dispersal within populations. Translocation and installation of recruitment clusters are important management actions used to create such beneficial spatial arrangements. There are several threats to viability inherent to small populations. Resistance to these small population threats is the fundamental basis for target population sizes identified in delisting criteria ( 1 - 5). The set of populations that will exist at delisting will not be vulnerable to effects of habitat fragmentation nor to stochastic events that threaten small populations. Once delisting criteria have been met, the species will be viable to the fullest degree possible given current scientific understanding. See also 4.d. above to understand what else managers are doing to combat these threats. Although private lands have a minor role in recovery criteria for red-cockaded woodpeckers, their value in helping move the species toward recovery is significant and 11 AppendixF well-documented (Costa 1995, Bonnie 1997, Costa 1997, Costa and Edwards 1997, Costa et al. 2001 ). Both habitat conservation plans and safe harbor agreements have, since the mid- l 990s, played a key role in stabilizing and, indeed, increasing numerous populations on private lands (Costa et al.2001, Chadwick 2004, Hart et al. 2004, Hedman et al. 2004, Miller et al. 2004 ). These initiatives and partnerships help minimize the threats associated with population fragmentation and isolation and small population size (e.g., by consolidating PBGs in demographically stable conservation areas). D. Synthesis Since approval of the recovery plan revision in 2003, no new threats to the red-cockaded woodpecker have been identified and existing threats remain. Those threats include:(l) insufficient numbers of natural cavities and continuing net loss of cavity trees, (2) habitat fragmentation and its effects on genetic variation, dispersal, and demography, (3) lack of foraging habitat of adequate quality, (4) range-wide and within population isolation, and (5) tenuous viability of small populations. All of these threats are being addressed via short and long-term habitat and population management programs, e.g., prescribed burning, artificial cavity installation, and translocations. However, it will be decades before a sufficient number of large populations are distributed in such a way to fully preclude future impacts to species viability from all of the threats. Fortunately, the ongoing habitat and population management activities are having an immediate positive effect on the status of the species. Range-wide, the population trend of the red-cockaded woodpecker is increasing. In 1993/1994, the range-wide population was estimated at 4,694 active clusters; in 2006 it was 6,105 (see Table in 11.C.l). However, not all populations required for downlisting and delisting are increasing. For example, of the 57 federal populations (federal populations comprise the majority of populations involved in recovery criteria), and based on a 5-year trend period from 2000 to 2005, 12 (2 I%) were decreasing, 10 (18%) were stable, 3 I (54%) were increasing, and 4 (7%) were extirpated. These populations include 13 on national wildlife refuges, 15 on military installations, 26 on national forests, and 1 each on lands administered by the Department of Energy, Bureau of Land Management, and National Park Service. An analysis of the 128 properties (all public [53 federal, 36 state] and 39 private properties harboring red-cockaded woodpeckers) submitting reports via the Annual Report illustrates the status of the species at the property scale. The following table provides the number of active clusters, by ownership, for the 128 properties in 2005. # Active Clusters Federal State Private Total 1-10 11-40 41-100 101-250 250-350 9 21 12 5 3 19 11 5 1 0 21 13 5 0 0 49 45 22 6 3 (38%) (35%) (17%) (5%) (2.5%) 12 AppendixF 351+ 3 0 0 3 (2.5%) Total 53 36 39 128 (100%) When examined from the property perspective it is clear, that although several large populations exist, the vast majority (73%) of properties harbor fewer than 40 active clusters. Indeed, 90% of properties harbor fewer than I 00 active clusters. Although some recovery populations are composed of one of more properties (because the properties are adjacent to one another), most recovery populations (64%) are located on one property/ownership. When multiple properties comprise one population it is not uncommon, given budgets, agency missions, staffing, etc., to have significantly different levels of management in furtherance of red-cockaded woodpecker conservation and recovery. Therefore, examining the species status at both the "population" and "property" scale is appropriate. Additionally, analyzing the species at the "range-wide" scale, by examining its condition at the "state" level provides further insights into the species status. Although currently several states harbor a few large and stable populations, throughout a significant portion of the species range no populations are large enough (i.e., >250 PBGS) to withstand the threats associated with environmental stochasticity or losses of genetic variation through genetic drift. The states with the largest populations include Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina. However, even within these states, numerous small, at-risk (of extirpation) populations - populations which are necessary to meet recovery criteria - exist. Significantly, there are no populations >250 PBGs in 7 of the 11 states where the species occurs: Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Texas, and Virginia. However, each of these states, except for Oklahoma and Virginia, will have, at recovery, at least one population of 250 PBGs. The only population in Oklahoma ( 12 PBGs), located on state land, has a population goal of ~40 PBGs. However, recent and planned future management actions on adjacent U.S. Forest Lands in Oklahoma provide the potential for increasing the RCW population goal in Oklahoma from 40 to as high as ~ I 00 PBGs. The only population in Virginia (5 PBGs) will always remain at risk given its population goal currently does not exceed IO PBGs. Therefore, the potential to lose the species from this state, as has previously occurred in other "perimeter" states of the historic range, remains high. The species has been extirpated from New Jersey (~I 928), Missouri ( 1946), Maryland ( 1958), Tennessee ( 1994) and Kentucky (2001 ). Numerous other federal populations in the 5 remaining states that do not harbor a population of 250 PBGs harbor fewer than 40 PBGs (see table below). State Alabama Arkansas #PoJ!s>40 PBGs 1 0 #PoJ!s<40 PBGs 2 3 %PoJ!S<40 PBGs 66% 100% 13 AppendixF Louisiana Mississippi Texas 4 2 2 2 55% 33% 50% Total 9 13 59% 5 1 Populations with fewer than 40 PBGs are vulnerable to threats from demographic stochasticity (unless territories are highly aggregated), environmental stochasticity, inbreeding depression, and losses of genetic variation through genetic drift; that is, all of the factors that threaten any species' survival. Additionally, hurricanes will always threaten the survival of populations in the coastal plain provinces of most states, including Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi , North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia. The red-cockaded woodpecker continues to meet the definition of "endangered", i.e., a "species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range ... " The recovery plan clearly discusses the threats to the species and details how these threats must be overcome to downlist to "threatened" and delist to '·recovery". Recovery for this species involves a specified number of properties and populations achieving specific population goals. As of 2006, 6 of 39 populations ( 15.4%) and 15 of 63 properties (23.8%) had achieved their recovery objectives. The threats will be overcome when a sufficient number of large populations (i.e., either 250 or 350 PBGs) and several smaller ones (i.e., either 40 or 100 PBGs) are established throughout the range of the species. Until downlisting criteria are satisfied, many populations remain at risk of extirpation. Based on examination of: ( 1) meeting recovery criteria for both down-listing and delisting, and (2) the status of the species at the (a) population, (b) property, and (c) state scale, it is clear that the red-cockaded woodpecker's classification of"endangered" remains valid. III. RESULTS A. IV. Recommended Classification: No change needed; remain classified as "endangered". No change recommended for Recovery Priority assignment of 8C; degree of threat remains moderate and recovery potential for this species remains high. Additionally, there remains some degree of conflict between the species recovery efforts and economic development, justifying the "C" designation. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE ACTIONS The status of the red-cockaded woodpecker will be continuously improved as long as those actions necessary to reduce and eventually eliminate the threats to the species are implemented. These actions include aggressive and effective prescribed burning programs, installation of artificial cavities until forests are old enough to provide 14 AppendixF sufficient numbers of potential cavity trees, and translocation of birds to the many small, at-risk (of extirpation) populations required to satisfy recovery criteria. The federal and state (and selected private land) land base has been identified and is sufficient to recover the species, and much of the habitat is currently available. However, many tens of thousands of acres require restoration and improvement prior to establishing redcockaded woodpecker territories . V. REFERENCES All references are on file at the Clemson Ecological Services Field Office Allen, D. H. 1991. An insert technique for constructing artificial red-cockaded woodpecker cavities. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report SE-73. Bonnie, R. 1997. Safe harbor for the red-cockaded woodpecker. Journal of Forestry 95:17-22. Chadwick , N. A. 2004. South Carolina's safe harbor program for red-cockaded woodpeckers . Pages 180-184 in R. Costa and S. J. Daniels, editors. Red-cockaded woodpecker: road to recovery. Hancock House Publishers, Blaine, Washington, USA. Copeyon, C. K. 1990. A technique for constructing cavities for the red-cockaded woodpecker. Wildlife Society Bulletin 18:303-311. Costa, R. 1995. Red-cockaded woodpecker recovery on private lands: a conservation strategy responsive to the issues. Pages 67-74 in D.L. Kulhavy, R.G . Hooper , and R. Costa , editors . Red-cockaded woodpecker: recovery, ecology and management. Center for Applied Studies in Forestry, College of Forestry, Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches , Texas, USA. Costa, R. 1997. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife's red-cockaded woodpecker private lands conservation strategy: an evaluation. Endangered Species Update 14:40-44. Costa, R. and R.S. DeLotelle. 2006. Reintroduction of fauna to long leaf pine ecosystems : opportunities and challenges . Pages 335-376 in S. Jose, E. J. Jokela, and D. L. Miller, editors . The longleaf pine ecosystem ecology, silviculture , and restoration. Springer Science+Business Media , Inc., New York, New York , USA. Costa, R. and J. W. Edwards. 1997. Cooperative conservation agreements for managing red-cockaded woodpeckers on industrial forest lands: what are the motivations? Pages 111-124 in R. Johnson, editor. Proceedings of the symposium on economics of wildlife resources on private lands. Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, USA. Costa, R. and E. T. Kennedy . 1996. Red-cockaded woodpecker translocations 19891994; state-of-our-knowledge. Pages 74-81 in Annual Proceedings of the American Zoo and Aquarium Association. Zoo Atlanta , Atlanta, Georgia, USA. 15 AppendixF Costa, R., and J. Walker. 1995. Red-cockaded woodpecker. Pages 86-89 in E.T. LaRoe, G. S. Farris, C. E. Puckett, P. D. Doran, and M. J. Mac, editors. Our living resources: a report to the nation on the distribution, abundance, and health of U.S. plants, animals, and ecosystems. U.S. National Biological Service, Washington, D.C., USA Costa, R., S. L. Miller, and S. M. Lohr. 2001. A common sense approach to conserving rare species and their habitats on private lands: safe harbor and red-cockaded woodpeckers-a case study. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 66:498-510. Hart, K., L. Hicks, J. McGlincy, and R. Stich. 2004. Habitat Management for the redcockaded woodpecker on Plum Creek Timber Company forestlands in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Pages 536-541 in R. Costa and S. J. Daniels, editors. Redcockaded woodpecker; road to recovery. Hancock House Publishers, Blaine, Washington, USA. Hedman, C. W., J. R. Poirier, P. E. Durfield, and M.A. Register. 2004. International Paper's habitat conservation plan for the red-cockaded woodpecker: implementation and early success. Pages 355-360 in R. Costa and S. J. Daniels, editors. Red-cockaded woodpecker; road to recovery. Hancock House Publishers, Blaine, Washington, USA. Miller, S. L., P. V. Campbell, and M.A. Cantrell. 2004. North Carolina's Sandhills redcockaded woodpecker safe harbor program: current status and lessons learned. Pages 174-179 in R. Costa and S. J. Daniels, editors. Red-cockaded woodpecker; road to recovery. Hancock House Publishers, Blaine, Washington, USA. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Recovery plan for the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis): second revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. 16 AppendixF ag/12/7.HH~ l~!l~ l;lt,q-t.,::,t,-,1.:,::,i:, L..ICJrWW IJl,..C,,l"l~'"I, .,.._ I u U.S. FISH AND WlLDJ..)FE SERVICE 5-YEAR REVIEW OflmO.-COCKADBD WOODPECKER. Curr~Lt Cl~cation: E ndangercd. llec•m.mcm.dation teslllli ng from the S-Ycar Re\'iew No chnngci iR u~rcled. .' App1op1fateListina/R.eclassifi10atinn Priority Number: N/A ).wvicw C®ducti:d By: :lolpli Costa, R~d-c~d Woodpecker Ri::c;;ovcsyCoordinator FJELD Oledia.org__{~/index.e_~i:>?title=Cape Fear shiner&oldid=942643963" This page was last edited on 25 February 2020, at 23:07 (UTC}. Text 1s available under the Creative Commons Attnbut1011-ShareAlike License; add1t1onalterms rnay apply. By USlllfJ tl11s 1sa 1eg1sterecl trademark of the W1k1111ecl1a site, you agree to the Terms of Use ancl Privacy Policy. W1k1ped1a,R Foundation, Inc., a 11011-prof1t orgarnzat1011. Appendix F Ttt.! Alltmtic pigllll! wM described by Cor11,1i.lin 183-4 from the S.wannah River 111Georgip. fl1is specks h11s a medium, sub rhumboii.l shu111...od shell thal rorely exu ..~d• 60 mm in kngth. Jndlvidu,tls hom helldw,tter st:1eam• trnd to L.e morf! t!lo"{lete INn thc,se found in la,ger streams Tlw put,terior rid~ is angular 11111I V1!1ydistinct. Vitlv'"" are uiualfy comprl!u~, but rhe umbot; e11:tendwell above the dorwl in•rgln. The periostr•tutn g~rally K yellowish lJIUt! Then! are two pscudocardin.al and two lalt!r;.d teeth 1n the left v;,lve o111done of l!ad1 in till' trrm1,n Of greenrsJ1 bror.-n with .t pa1dJ1J11!1llIi~ teKlure The 11.tue is sornewhi1t ihmy and uan t,e white, ulm011, 01ange or i1ierliUKItUlllllks, tllon,8lai.leu dnd Pt>nder C..OU1111!5. NOTE- AH /,e:,dwdtt!t .treas that fk•w mW tht's.! ocn.1p,cd h:,b,t:,ts !;hould lo:l'l'IVC sped.I Tftillld!J~ml!llr ,.. Sck'nlllk N.,11ne:f11s.~1;,, '11.!s.>IJI CLu,Mfl1.dUun1 ST,H~ F.nc.i::gerM N:IJihlriiM Ph; lr il,ullon Hitbit.tt Pn'fCf C'UCHi MtiNiifiH, ◄ Ttw. AtlontK pig1oe 1s a !>OOlht'JnAtlont1c Slope s;,enes that 1~found ftom the Queechee River flasm m (",en,g a nonh hl the James R1Ver8asm Ill \111umia,tf,sionc.illv, lh1s spec~ occurred m C'very Allanlic dli1i11agein North Clrolina e:1tt.C'Plthe CoopC"r•S..nft'e and W•t .omaw nvt'r hasifli Tht' spent':i has ded,naJ aooss its ronpC' It appears thDt the Atlent,c PIQle>chas recently ~n .extirpated trom the Deep River 111Moore County, C11pefear River tn Harlll!ft and Cumber~11t1 rount1es, Black Rover m Si1mf•son ftladen, and PC'nder l'Ounlle-s tlOrF MJ he.rV.fo.r ►.hdM:lli Appendix F Learning > Species > Mollusks > Lit,, History Of Freshwater Mu55els l'Nltur"f' ma~ rek.a,<: (YOOIO',)tli IJU,"Vlflt1eSot 'lf)t:fffl Into 111.;:se SUC,111musi p.)SS Into !hot:lnt:JJOclrt ap.:fhJl"CS l)unng the sp;:tfl.T\INJ ~~-m. Ull' ;,,a(,1;1. For lcrtUl:illtOl'I Gt sacl.lllf tfld!Uft' to o.xur, ~ ot t111:~ !ilflCld. lnt,1 the !Uprnt,rnnehl.tl d'lambe< .. here !toe Theo~111tr.1wl l!,nsOff' l'IC'ld ,~ th~h ltrnlr.zed ttlf' ap,e1nm: f'1195~ thffl lrat'lslCfrtd lmO th<- ¢I chllml,,en . ~ gill Chambers form 3 nadll~ bfOCd ~ c.ol!ldl 1hr. ll~tlSl.iplum . Wtlllt Ill the rr,dl'llllptuni, !Ill! h:n ~II ~ ~ flM:tiMIM'oflMMM fmm Ml onblyo mW lh<' larval fo1m kncwn GSthe ylodl,dtu111 Gloc.Ucl:.111 m.r, ~ l~ScJ .;1 metuti: Qk>cht ?O t111ougt,rr-t ;:inotht'r mt:l:itttlidla in M!'ldal ~•~s The sptc~ Bll' hghh"'csght and float ,n I~ w:atcrcolumnattt;r ni.:v arf! rel~Sl!(J ll~ dlC' ·«11tM" l!'f fish but ~e;.iJ c,f 11.U.iWIQ ,nto ti~ fish's d19ln ~I thf> gtl'dJn, lht!Sf: Ciectll4. The ,mu•t~ ll.1.~ of U)d.11!$pee.~ ar~ nlOO;fie,J II\ s.Jltl di Witf U11t lllc'V 100►. IJ.:A:pr,:y listl er lnkttS to Ill~ fish hust Whcetl ~ f-tit'-!lt fish MU may amKJ.: tht ·m1nnow• one mflt:ild or a rnr.el ~,~ a momhtul of gklchdl;t. The giO(tiWl,a rhtn :.nac.h to t~ gills of th(> fish. ou~r 111U!.Sd ~s us--?a, kind of f1Shloglure 1nsr~d of thet1 own ttssu,s lhc,e nlUSSd, product a !Jr.s.ltlnous ,narm ;uotlf\lJ 1~ malUfl' gl01.111d1dbd°I.MettltY .i1e 'T'!ta~ rhls main.it aiKI the ~l<1durl~ttngttlier au, 1.o"IIINa cn:W)luo1.at1:. Som~ nllJS.5dspr,,Jes LOmpld:d'f rda:i~ tfle! ronglutlnote, a,n(! It drlftS Into IIIE water mlumn L1onio lht· sul1Strate loolJuu 11\U{.h I,~ ii WOl'l'l'I ot ln:s.«t, Wll('I"~ 111, -~••U:n· W the UY! host Otho:I mussef Spt:(.lntc-11M'Aloctlicba M1e sucusstuMy anr.hed Vrhtlt' ;inacttdoi. ltw. Ol«hMtl.\ n.tt.,n,oq,hok Wf\('f\ the metamofptlo\li ,s. lompk~. f,> ttie Mtl l'IOSt, lhl!.)· t4!fMln arta~ tor a~ of time ui.1 'BOe5 bf 'P(.(ttt. 11110]Uvi:nff' l~i . dt:\l~IIU .I ms~~...l , inc(, ~Nt' U-Mt. llnd muto:111.)(l:tht t.lf.Cysl from Uk! nm hd\l J )':' • population ::t:J-r ' -\-hµ~~.._X~l.f:Jr , delisting. sTrheqwredfor c>-..' • .:Y ' •' ' .;y.. ) Air F1 ese are E · ' ·, · ' ' ~,-' Fort Bennin Base (Flonda), • glin ; { Braggorce (Norif ~Geor/P"), Fbrt • ' 1-~· , 1 , -~·, '"\-~JL{-iL\7::'. ,,t::_::','f';J.{' · ···· ,,,:1-W)::, -i_]::'.;!Mf'.11/' •..J ,.~-, ' ,-; ~ -;:iJq, l ~ -q '-1:(r · ';I. .'\).,..I-: cl.'.'. , TJ •- r ,. ,·. ~ ."• , .~n ,' .-),,,...<;J /__rtyJ C'i.J:,y , l ;_.. v{ , \," 1 • 1 .- ]l~ .. : - -•. . J1 ~ • \ \ ·. ~v· Polk (Low· . . ....,.. _,,.., , ' ' , _... ,-<' ,.LL /~r,-J'<~..,.__,1 -r--,;,. -~u: -...J--~,,;,~ -.-,.,~ """ ,,. - -< :--"''><.:.. <, ,Y_,Z , .. breeding pair. Breeding pairs are monogamous and raise a single brood each year. The f::, female lays three to four small "' white eggs in the roost cavity. Group members incubate the eggs for 10 to 12 days and feed the hatchlings ants, beetles, caterpillars, corn ear worms, spiders, centipedes, woodboring insects, and other insects that the adults eat. About 15 percent of their diet includes seasonal wild fruit. Chicks remain in the nest cavity for about 26 days. Buildit, andtheywill come Planting longleaf pine trees and conducting controlled burns to remove undergrowth to create the open, park-like areas that the woodpeckers like has helped the recovery effort, along with developing artificial cavities and relocating birds. In 10 years, red-cockaded woodpecker groups have increased nearly 30 percent to about 6,000. Artificial cavity construction has enhanced clusters and established new groups. Moving isolated woodpeckers to these new habitats has reduced the likelihood of extinction and increased genetic diversity. Still, even at the current rate of growth, it will take decades to restore the species to a secure status in the wild, according to a Base Camp . anne(North Corps Carolina) R L eJeune by pnvate . · lando~ ecove lilltiatives · ·. conserving this spec1es. er~ areFor also example, under - :_,~--~ .J\;: -.J ..._ ' Red-cockaded woodpeckers rarely come to the ground. They even bathe in water-filled depressions on tree limbs. Recent research, however, notes that female red-cockaded woodpeckers search for bone bits on the forest floor and stuff them in tree crevices. Zoologists say that is the first known instance of a bird's hoarding something for its mineral, rather than caloric content. Calciumrich bone is not rare, but the birds probably seek it to ensure stronger eggshells. They stash it in a tree so they won't have to eat on the ground where they are vulnerable to predators. / r~...,.~< J•F?rt Stewart Harbor Ap~eement, a Safe Carolina's North is creating habitat iurst Resort meh ;:~rckers and he~;;ed-cockaded ong-term fut g to ensure ,_ , -_.,,........ \~ (v arolina) F1ort SllUla (Georgm), and H(J·--. . ,-,.,. ~,)- .\.-,1-.J..-.u~-' - ' :~;.f/' ✓• lU°:, -~ J"·i=-1.'.:: i r07; Ji, · ·· r _ l:,- rL1.,..~-f , ;·(". ',}-' .L~,;.• _j,i:!;''\-J .. , ,--' • ., r .t 1 1 , 1·, - T, - .,.t..,,J __p.: ';.:.. ,~-~.}7 , \ management strategy, the 2003 recovery plan. Working with conservation partners, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service created the redcockaded woodpecker recovery plan featuring the participation of other Federal and State agencies and private landowners. Because many large landscapes that provide habitat are on Federal land, the U.S. Forest Service and the Department of Defense have developed special management guidelines for the woodpeckers on national forests and military installations. From 1994 to 2002, red-cockaded woodpecker populations increased as much as 50 percent at six military installations U.S.FishandWildlifeService Endangered SpeciesProgram 4401N. FairfaxDrive,Room420 Arlington, VA22203 703-358-2390 http://www.fws.gov/endangered/ U.S.FishandWildlifeService Southeast Region 1875CenturyBoulevard, N. E. Atlanta,Georgia30345 404-6797100 http://www.fws.gov/southeast/ U.S.FishandWildlifeService Northeast Region 300WestgateCenterDrive Hadley,MA 01035 413-253-8615 http://www.fws.gov/northeast/ January2008 f---------------"' (top):Range map of the red-cockaded ~ ., woodpecker. ~ :i: (left): The male has a small red patch, or ~ "cockade"on eacAl'J:f"Eft'\e;fftF Raleigh Ecological services Field office Raleigh Ecological services Field office Raleigh Ecological services Field office conserving the Nature of America Red-cockaded woodpekcer (Picoides borealis) Red-cockaded Woodpecker. credit Federal status: Jim Hanula/USFS. Endangered, Listed October 13, 1970 Description: The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW)is a small bird measuring about 7 inches in length. Identifiable b~ its white cheek patch and black and white barred back, the males have a few red feathers, or "cockade". These red feathers usually remain hidden underneath black feathers between the black crown and white cheek patch unless the male is disturbed or excited. Female RCWs1ack the red cockade. Juvenile ma1es have a red 'patch' in the center of their black crown. This patch disappears during the fall of their first year at which time their 'red-cockades• appear. Habitat: Red-cockaded woodpecker habitat includes forests with trees old enou9h for roosting, generally at least 60-120 years old, depending on species of pine. The most prominent adaptation of RCWsis their use of · living pines for cavity excavation. For nesting and roosting habitat, red-cockaded woodpeckers need open stands of pine containing trees 60 years old and older. RCWsneed live, large older pines in which to excavate their cavities. Longleaf pines (Pinus palustris) are preferred, but other species of southern pine are also acceptable. Dense stands (stands that are primarily hardwoods, or that have a dense hardwood understory) are avoided. Foraging habitat is provided in pine and pine hardwood stands 30 years old or older with foraging preference for pine trees 10 inches or larger in diameter. In good, moderately-stocked, pine habitat, sufficient foraging substrate can be provided on 80 to 125 acres. Roosting cavities are excavated in living pines, and usually in those which are infected with a fungus known as red-heart disease. The aggregate of cavity trees is called a cluster and may include 1 to 20 or more cavity trees on 3 to 60 acres. The average cluster is about 10 acres. completed cavities that are bein9 actively used have numerous, small resin wells which exude sap. The birds keep the sap flowin9 as a cavity defense mechanism against rat snakes and other tree climbing predators. Hardwood midstory encroachment results in cluster abandonment; therefore, it is critical that hardwood midstory be controlled. Prescribed burning is the most efficient and ecologically beneficial method to accomplish hardwood midstory control. Map of Red-cockaded woodpecker distribution in North Carolina. Distribution: Rcws were once considered commonthroughout the longleaf pine ecosystem, which covered approximately 90 million acres before European settlement. Historical population estimates are 1-1.6 million Page 1 Appendix F Raleigh Ecological services Field office "groups", the family unit of RCWs.The birds inhabited the open pine forests of the southeast from NewJersey, Maryland and Virginia to Florida, west to Texas and north to portions of Oklahoma Missouri, Tennessee and Kentucky. The longleaf pine ecosystem init~ally disappeared from much of its original range because of early (1700's) European settlement, widespread commercial timber harvesting and the naval stores/turpentine industry (1800's). Early to mid-1900 commercial tree farmin!, urbanization and agriculture contributed to further declines. Muchof the current habitat is also very different in quality from historical pine forests in which RCWsevolved. Today, many southern pine forests are young and an absence of fire has created a dense pine/hardwood forest. Threats: The loss of suitable habitat has caused the number of RCWsto decline by approximately 99% since the time of European settlement. The primary habitat of the RCW,the longleaf pine ecosystem, has been reduced to 3% of its original expanse. ManyRCWpopulations were stabilized during the 1990's due to managementbased on new understanding of RCWbiology and population dynamics. However, there are still populations in decline and small PORUlations throughout the species' current range are still in danger of extirpation. References: u.s. Fish and Wildlife service. 2003. Recovery Plan for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis) second Revision. Atlanta, GA, 316 pp. u.s. Fish and wildlife service Environmental conservation Online system Recovery Plan for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis) second Revision Bibilography: RCWBibliography Species contact: John Hammond,Fish and Wildlife Biologist, species profile 919-856-4520 ext. 28 revised on October 20, 2011. Last Updated: August 6, 2015 u.s. Fish and wildlife service HomePage I Department of the Interior I USA.gov I About the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service I Accessibility I Privacy I Notices I Disclaimer I FOIA Page 2 Appendix F Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office Page 1 of2 RaleighEcological ServicesField Office Conserving the Nature of America Red-cockaded Woodpekcer (Picoides borea/is) Red-cockadedWoodpecker.Credit Jim Hanula/USFS. FederalStatus: Endangered,Listed October13, 1970 Description:The red-cockadedwoodpecker(RCW)is a small bird measuringabout 7 Inches In length. Identifiableby its white cheek patchand black and white barred back, the maleshave a few red feathers,or "cockade".These red feathers usuallyremainhiddenunderneathblack feathersbetweentlJe black crown and white cheek patch unless the male is disturbedor excited. FemaleRCWs lack the red cockade.Juvenile males have a red 'patch' in the center of their black crown.This patchdisappearsduringthe fall of their first year at which time their 'red-cockades'appear. Habitat:Red-cockadedwoodpeckerhabitatincludesforestswith trees old enoughfor roosting,generallyat least 60-120 years old, dependingon species of pine.The most prominentadaptationof RCWsIs their use of living pines for cavity excavation. For nesting and roosting habitat,red-cockadedwoodpeckersneed open standsof pine containingtrees 60 years old and older. RCWs need live, large older pines in which to excavatetheir cavities. Longleafpines (Plnus palustris) are preferred,but other speciesof southernpine are also acceptable.Dense stands (stands that are primarily hardwoods,or that have a dense hardwoodunderstory)are avoided. Foraginghabitat is providedIn pine and pine hardwoodstands 30 years old or older with foragingpreferencefor pine trees 10 inchesor larger in diameter. In good, moderately-stocked,pine habitat,sufficientforagingsubstratecan be providedon 80 to 125 acres. Roostingcavities are excavatedin living pines, and usuallyin those which are infectedwith a fungusknown as red-heartdisease.The aggregateof cavity trees is called a cluster and may include1 to 20 or more cavity trees on 3 to 60 acres. The averagecluster is about 1O acres.Completedcavitiesthat are being activelyused have numerous,small resin wells which exude sap. The birds keep the sap flowing as a cavity defense mechanism against rat snakes and other tree climbingpredators. Hardwoodmidstory encroachmentresultsin clusterabandonment;therefore,It is critical that hardwoodmldstory be controlled.PrescribedburningIs the most efficientand ecologicallybeneficialmethodto accomplish hardwoodmidstory control. Appendix F file:/ //H :/Env ironmental%20Assessment/Raleigh%20Ecological%20Services%20Field%2,.. 7/17/2017 Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office . • ,:, · ·. ; . Page2 of2 • ·1 . .,(. \ ~ •- ·• . • • . ' ' 1/:31,.'>; ,..,,,., .,l,'-.'' ' 1,; , . !.'. -·.' ·•.\ 't,...,.,~ . , , \ :°.•" , .. · r·.·t"''.• ·1·.~_. •~1t; . l~~;,; .:fi}rrs'f:' 1i',,,. .....__,..~ "<"8:~d1~·• ! ·w ! I I Map of Red-cockadedWoodpeckerdistributionin North Carolina. Distribution:RCWswere once consideredcommonthroughoutthe longleafpine ecosystem,which covered approximately90 million acres before Europeansettlement.Historicalpopulationestimatesare 1-1.6 milllon "groups''.the family unit of RCWs.The birds inhabitedthe open pine forestsof the southeastfrom New Jersey, Marylandand Virginia to Florida,west to Texasand north to portionsof Oklahoma,Missouri,Tennesseeand Kentucky. The longleaf pine ecosysteminitiallydisappearedfrom much of its original range becauseof early ( 1700's} Europeansettlement,widespreadcommercialtimberharvestingand the naval stores/turpentineindustry (1800's}. Early to mid-1900commercialtree farming,urbanizationand agriculturecontributedto further declines. Much of the current habitatis also very differentIn qualityfrom historicalpine forestsIn which RCWsevolved. Today, many southernpine forests are young and an absenceof fire has createda dense pine/hardwoodforest. Threats: The loss of suitablehabitathas caused the numberof RCWsto declineby approximately99% since the time of Europeansettlement.The primaryhabitatof the RCW, the longleafpine ecosystem,has been reducedto 3% of its originalexpanse.Many RCW populationswere stabilizedduring the 1990'sdue to managementbased on new understandingof RCWbiologyand populationdynamics.However,there are still populationsin declineand small populationsthroughoutthe species'current range are still in dangerof extirpation. References: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.2003. RecoveryPlan for the Red-cockadedWoodpecker(Pico/desborea/is) Second Revision.Atlanta, GA. 316 pp. • U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceEnvironmentalConservationOnlineS~ • RecovefYPlan for the Red-cockadedWoodpecker(Picoidesboreafis} Second Revision Bibliography:RCW Bibliography Species Contact: John Hammond1 Fish and Wildlife Biologist,919-856-4520ext. 28 Species profile revisedon October20, 2011. Last Updated:August 6, 2015 file:///H:/Enviromnental%20Assessment/Raleigh%20Ecological%20Services%20Field~~?e9~i~/~017 United States Departmentof the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ''-"'IIJlLll'fl l'l!iU It\> -'lrl! ~ Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office Post Office Box 33726 Raleigh, NC 27636-3726 Phone: (919) 856-4520 Fax: (919) 856-4556 In Reply Refer To: Consultation Code: 04EN2000-2020-SLI-1506 Event Code: 04EN2000-2020-E-03440 Project Name: Old US 421 S, Bear Creek, NC - M & K Fields Farms, LLC , ...... .. July 14, 2020 Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project To Whom It May Concern: The species list generated pursuant to the information you provided identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list. Section 7 of the Act requires that all federal agencies (or their designated non-federal representative), in consultation with the Service, insure that any action federally authorized, funded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any federally-listed endangered or threatened species. A biological assessment or evaluation may be prepared to fulfill that requirement and in determining whether additional consultation with the Service is necessary. In addition to the federally-protected species l~st, information on the species' life histories and habitats and information on completing a biological assessment or Appendix F-1 07/14/2020 Event Code 04EN2000-2020-E-03440 2 evaluation and can be found on our web page at http://www.fws.gov/raleigh. Please check the web site often for updated information or changes If your project contains suitable habitat for any of the federally-listed species known to be present within the county where your project occurs, the proposed action has the potential to adversely affect those species. As such, we recommend that surveys be conducted to determine the species' presence or absence within the project area. The use of North Carolina Natural Heritage program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys. If you determine that the proposed action may affect (i.e., likely to adversely affect or not likely to adversely affect) a federally-protected species, you should notify this office with your determination, the results of your surveys, survey methodologies, and an analysis of the effects of the action on listed species, including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, before conducting any activities that might affect the species. If you determine that the proposed action will have no effect (i.e., no beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect effect) on federally listed species, then you are not required to contact our office for concurrence (unless an Environmental Impact Statement is prepared). However, you should maintain a complete record of the assessment, including steps leading to your determination of effect, the qualified personnel conducting the assessment, habitat conditions, site photographs, and any other related articles. Please be aware that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.), and projects affecting these species may require development of an eagle conservation plan (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/ eagle_guidance.html). Additionally, wind energy projects should follow the wind energy guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy /) for minimizing impacts to migratory birds and bats. Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for projects including communications towers (e.g., cellular, digital television, radio, and emergency broadcast) can be found at: http:// www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdissues/Hazards/towers/towers.htm; http:// www.towerkill.com; and http://www.fws.gov /migratorybirds/CurrentBirdissues/Hazards/towers/ comtow.html. Not all Threatened and Endangered Species that occur in North Carolina are subject to section 7 consultation with the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon, sea turtles,when in the water, and certain marine mammals are under purview of the National Marine Fisheries Service. If your project occurs in marine, estuarine, or coastal river systems you should also contact the National Marine Fisheries Service, http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov / We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office. If you have any questions or comments, please contact John Ellis of this office at john_ellis@fws.gov. Appendix F-1 07/14/2020 Event Code 04EN2000-2020-E-03440 3 Attachment( s): ■ Official Species List AppendixF-1 07/14/2020 Event Code 04EN2000-2020-E-03440 1 Official Species List This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action". This species list is provided by: Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office Post Office Box 33726 Raleigh, NC 27636-3726 (919) 856-4520 Appendix F-1 Event Code 04EN2000-2020-E-03440 07/14/2020 2 Project Summary Consultation Code: 04EN2000-2020-SLI-1506 Event Code: 04EN2000-2020-E-03440 Project Name: Old US 421 S, Bear Creek, NC - M & K Fields Farms, LLC Project Type: AGRICULTURE Project Description: Build 4@ 66' x 600' Mountaire Poultry Houses Project Location: Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com /maps/place/35.60734 74614081N79 .351855 7117836W \) I Counties: Chatham, NC Appendix F-1 07/14/2020 Event Code 04EN2000-2020-E-03440 3 Endangered Species Act Species There is a total of 4 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list. Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheriesl , as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce. See the "Critical habitats". section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions. 1. 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. Birds NAME STATUS Red-cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov /ecp/species/7614 Fishes NAME STATUS Cape Fear Shiner Notropis mekistocholas Endangered There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov /ecp/species/6063 Clams NAME STATUS Atlantic Pigtoe Fusconaia masoni Proposed Threatened There is proposed critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov /ecp/species /5164 Appendix F-1 07/14/2020 Event Code. 04EN2000-2020-E-03440 4 Flowering Plants NAME STATUS Harperella Ptilimniumnodosum Endangered No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov /ecp/species /3739 Critical habitats THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION. Appendix F-1 L01 L01P L01P JOHN lit. CHAFEE COASTAU BA1RRlER RESOURCES S¥Sl'EM RT ft\ CAR • , NC-01 ATLANTIC OCEAN 8 L09 ·' C-07P Number of CBRS Units: Number of System Units: Number of Otherwise Protected Areas: Total Acres: Upland Acres: A'Ssociated Aquatic Habitat Acres: Shoreline Miles: 9 7 149,379 23,814 125,565 193 Boundaries of the John l'l. Ghafee Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) shown on this map were transferred from the official CBRS maps for this area and are depicted on this map (in red) for informational purposes only. The official CBRS maps are enacted by Congress via the Coastal Barrier Resources Act, as amended, and are maintained by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The official CBRS maps are·available for download at http://www.f.vs.gov/CBRA. N i 16 Map date: May 4, 2015 • A pqrtion of the unit,falls outside of the state border. The twenty countiescovered by CAMA. Imagecourtesy of the Division of Coastal Management. https://www .ncpedia.org/ coasta I-area-management-act 171 r"1H - 1H J1.) ?ii?"3 '1 1,353 n. . . 1111*-- - . . . .3:15:91: ib"; 1} 1: 1.0 1.5 Appendix . .15 Length Dlrrlculty 12,0 mis it Streams Views 1f Solitude Camping * S hours and 10 minutes with 40 minutes or breaks 1,062 rt Parking: ' Park at the Tot HIii Farm Access at the northern terminus of the Birkhead Mountain Trall. 35.63663, -79,90457 Hiking Tln1e; Elev, Gain: ct,c~ Hm Fo, By Trall Contributor: Zach Robbins Oela',fed L~a tior. The Birkhead Mountains Wilderness and the surrounding Uwharrle National Forest sure feels like a lonely place considering It Is within 90 minutes of the 3 largest metropolitan areas in North Carolina. With only 50,645 acres of land Uwharrle Is by far the smallest of the four national forests In the state, but It boasts a wealth of mixedused traits on the east side of the Uwharrle Lakes region. The Birkhead Mountains WIiderness Is on the far northern tip of this national forest, and at 5,160 acres can be easily explored In a day or a weekend. You won't get long-distance views here, or a wealth of mountainous streams. The Uwharrle Mountains barely qualify as mountains . They are thought to be the oldest mountain range on the North American continent, and millions of years of erosion has whittled these peaks to elevations typlcally between 600-1,100 feet. Although you won't get a true mountain experience, the Birkhead Mountains Wilderness provides an excellent system of trails perfect for day hiking and trail running. Three tralls make a loop In the center of this wilderness, with four spokes providing different trail access points. This central hub allows you to choose the length of your hike, from 7.2 miles to the 12.0-mlle hike described here. The relative ease of these trails makes It the perfect laboratory for testing out gear for longer trips, or for Introducing friends and family to backpacking. There are many superb campsites sprinkled throughout the wilderness which provide solitude and an enjoyable night out a short distance away from the state's largest cities. Trail Access - The hike described here starts at the Tot HIii Farm Access at the northern terminus of the Birkhead Mountain Trail (100). The two access areas on the west side of the wilderness are the Thornburg Connector Trail (394) and Robbins Branch Trail (393]. The southern terminus of the Birkhead Mountain Trail (100] can be reached via Strleby Church Road [SR 1114]. All trails In the wilderness are blazed white and all major Intersections have signs. Paper maps are typically available at the traflheads. Some traits to campsites are blazed yellow when they are a significant distance off the main traits. ► ► ► ► ► I> I> ► ► ► ► ► I> ► ► ► ► ► ► ► I> I> ► ► ► ► ► ► ► I> Mile o.o - Park at the Tot HIii Farm Access for the Birkhead Mountain Tran (100] (white biaze). The trall lmmedlately turns left to hop over Talbotts Branch.· Mlle 0.1 - Trail Y-spllts when it meets Talbotts Branch, turn left. Mlle o.2 - Wooden bridge over Talbotts Branch. Before the bridge Is a campsite on the left. Mile 0,6 - Y-spllt with unmarked trail, continue right. Mlle 0.9 - T-junction wtth a forest road grade, turn left. In 150 feet the trail turns right leaving the forest road. Mlle 1,2 - At the summit of Coolers Knob Mountain there are excellent campsites on both sides of the trail. Mlle 1.8 - Y-Junctlon with the Camp Three Tran (yeffow biaze). The sign Indicates Camp 3 Is 1.2 miles from this Junction, a secluded backcountry campsite along North Prong Hannahs Creek with historic mine remnants. Mlle 2,0 - Campsite on the right side of the trail, Mlle 2,6 - T-junction with the Robbins Branch Trail [393] (white biaze). Stay left to continue south on the Birkhead Mountain Trail, or you can reverse this loop and turn rtght on the Robbins Branch Trail, There Is an excellent campsite 0,8-ml from the Intersection · beside Robbins Branch Ir you are backpacking. Mlle 2,9 - Campsite on the right side of the trall. Mile 3,0 -T-junction with the Camp Three Trail (yeffow biaze). Large campsite with a wooden sign Camp 5 on the right side of the trail. Mlle 4,4 - Campsite on the right side of the trail. Mlle 4,6 - T-junction with the Hannahs Creek Trail (IVhlte blaze). Continue straight on the Birkhead Mountain Trail for an optional trip • to the Bingham Graveyard. Mile 4.7 - Y·spllt, the Birkhead Mountain Trail turns right while a yellow•blazed trail continues left to a campsite and the graveyard. Immediately you'll encounter another Y-spllt, tum lelt, Mlle 4,8 - Large campsite on the lelt side of the trail. Beyond the campsite the trail splits again. On the right split Is the Christopher Bingham Graveyard. There are small headstones on each side of the path. Mile 4,9 - The side path on the lel't side Is slightly overgrown but leads down to access North Prong Hannahs Creek. Turn around and head back to the Hannahs Creek Trail Junction. Mlle 5,1 - Turn left: on Hannahs Creek Trail. Mlle 5,3 - Cross a tiny tributary to Hannahs Creek. Immediately past this crossing ls a campsite on the right side of the trail. Soon after you11see a chimney remnant on the left side of the trail with another campsite, Mile 6.0 - There are multiple campsites on the left side of the trail before you cross Robbins Branch. A few side paths on the left lead to the confluence of Robbins Branch and Hannahs Creek. Mile 6,5 - Boulder field on the right side of trail. There are campsites Intermingled on both sides of the trail In this area. Mlle 6.7 - Y-junctlon with the Robbins Branch Trait [393) (white blaze), tum right to begin the Robbins Branch Trail. A left here would lead to the Robbins Branch Access. Mlle 7,9 - Huge campsite area on the right side of the trail. Mlle 8,0 - T-junction with the Thornburg Connector Trail (394] (white biaze). Turn right to continue followlng the Robbins Branch Trail. The Thornburg Connector Trail leads to the Thornburg Farm Access parking area. Mlle 8,3 - Robbins Branch Trail crosses Robbins Branch. Mile 8,4 - Second crossing over Robbins Branch. Mlle 8,5 - Third crossing over Robbins Branch. Mlle 8,55 - Fourth crossing over Robbins Branch. Mlle 8,7 - Large campsite beside the trickling Robbins Branch. On the left side uphlll from this campsite are Impressively tall hardwoods. Mlle 9,5 - Robbins Branch Tran ends at a T-junction with the Birkhead Mountain Trail. Turn left to head back to the parking area. Mlle 12.0 - Hike ends at the Tot HIii Farm Access. www.hikingupwnrd.com Appendix J O Birkhead Mountains Wilderness, Ash~boro, NC 27205 Q 8804 Old US 421 S, Bear Creek, NC 27207 Lexington J W Randleman ! Ramseur alisbury BirkheadMountains Wilderness Siler City (El Gi3 w Seagrove Apex Pittsboro (Di 8804 Old US 421 South Sanford Mapdata~ 55 min (42.0 mi) via NC-42 DIRECTIONS Appendix J --- - - --- --· - -- -- - -----. --- -- - ----- ----------------------------- ---------- National Forests in North Carolina - Birkhead Mountains Wilderness Page 1 of2 National Forests in North Carolina Un:1tdSlates Depallmenl orAgno..tt"'• Forest Service Forest Service Home About tht> Agency Contact the National Orrico Search Ill Site Map Birkhead Mountains WIiderness Area Status: Open Alerts & Warnings Nallonal Forests In North Carolina Home Special Places Recreation Bicycling Camping & Cabins Climbing Fishing Hiking Horse Riding &. Camping Hunting Nature Viewing OHV Riding & camping Outdoor learning Picnicking Scenic Driving Water Activities Other Activities Alerts & Notices Passes & Permits Maps & Publlcatlons land & Resources Management Learning Center Working Together About the Forest News & Eveuts Contact I11rormallon National Forests in North Carolina Supervisor's OUlce 160 Zilllcoa St. Suite A Asheville, NC 28801 828-257-4200 Ranger District Contact Us Orflces The Birkhead Mountains Wilderness was established by the 1984 North Carolina Wilderness Act. The goals are to protect and preserve Its natural resources and wilderness character and provide for publlc use. The Wilderness Includes 5,160 acres at the northern end of the Ul'/harrie Mountains. These mountains are considered to be the oldest on the North American Continent. Evidence of early Indians dates back over 12,000 years. The Catawba Indians Inhabited the area when the Europeans began exploring the region In the late 1600's. By 1760 settlement had begun in earnest, opened up by the explorers and traders along the Ocaneechl Trail. The Birkhead family raised a son, John Watson (Watt}, who was born In 1858. The 3,000 acres that he acquired over the years were made up of many small tenant farms. Thus the mountain range became known locally as the Birkhead Mountains. This old plantation is the core of the WIiderness. Remember, as you use the WIiderness, your challenge Is to leave no trace of your passing. This will protect and preserve the area as true wilderness. Evidence of early Indians and settlers can often be round. These archeologlcal and historic artifacts and sites hold clues to America's past. If disturbed, a part of our heritage Is lost forever. Federal la\Y protects such sltes and artifacts on public land. if you discover such remains please leave them undisturbed. All trails withiri the WIiderness are designated hiking tr alls. Travel by horse, motorized vehicle or bicycle Is prohibited. A detailed map of the Wilderness is avallable at the District Ranger's Office. Ata Glance Operational Hours1 Birkhead Mountains WIiderness Is open year round. Reservations: No rese,va lions needed. Fees No fee at this area. Usago1 Heavy t----------+ General lnformallon Directions: From Troy, NC take Hwy. 109 North to the community of Uwharrle and turn right onto Ophir Road (SR 1134). Ophir Road becomes Burney MIii Road as you cross Into Randolph County. Continue on to the Intersection of Lassiter MllfRoad and turn right. Proceed north on Lassiter MIii to either of the trallhead locations as depicted on the map. Avery Creek Road Closure Update 6/22 Avery Creek Emergency Food Stordge Order Pisgah Complex Consesslon Special Use Permits USFS to Hold Open Houses on Forest Plan Revision T en1porary Road Closure on Avery Creek Rd (IIFSR #477) Hickey Fork Rd Temporarily Closed rlantahala Ranger District Road Closure- Moses Creek Rd Cathy Creek Rd Constructi on Project Harmon Den Project FSR 11717 (Cahooque Creek Road) Now Open Temporary Road Closure In Place Due to Effects from WIidfire, Appalachian RD Forest Service Reminds Visitors, Bear Canisters Required for Backcountry Use Climbing Closures In Place to Protect Rare Falcons Ob5ervalion Deck at Maple Springs Overlook Closed-Cheoah Ranger District Whitewater Falls Temporarily Closed Forest Service Issues Warning about Black Bears In the Pink Beds Vicinity Road Closures on the Pisgah Ranger Olslrltt due to Timber Harvest Operations Emergency Closure Order Prohibiting Target Shooting on Croatan Extended View AllForest Alerts ••• .Areas & Activities @- Find An Area Location Latitude : Longitude : 35.575474 -79.972372 From Asheboro, NC take Hwy. 49 South approximately 6 miles. Turn right onto Science HIii Road. About a fourth of a mlle further, at the •1 • Intersection, turn felt (south} onto Lassiter Mill Road. Continue on to the two trallhead locations as depicted on the map, General Notes: Disperse camping Is allowed In the Birkhead Mountains WIiderness. Camp at least 200 feet from all streams, creeks, roads and 1•1lldllfe llelds. When using fire rings, please disperse the ring before leaving camp. Use of cook stoves Is highly recommended. Firewood Is avallable as dead and down In the forest, please do not cut live trees for firewood. Also hunting Is allowed In this area, orange would be advisable to wear during the hunting seasons, when hiking the trails. Please pack all trash out with you when you leave. No mountain bikes or A TV's are allowed within the Wilderness area. Appendix J mhtml:file://H:\Environmental Assessment\National Forests in North Carolina - Birkhead... 7/17/2017 National Forests in North Carolina - Birkhead Mountains Wilderness Page 2 of2 No permenant camps are allowed In the Wilderness area. Camping Is allowed for a 14 day period with in a 30 day time frame. DOgs are allowed as long as they are on a leash and kept under control. Uwharrle Ranger District 789 NC 24/27 East Troy, NC 27371 (910) 576-6391 Parking: Parking Is avallable at Tot HIii Trailhead, Thornburg Trallhead and Robbins Branch Trailhead. Recreation Ma_.________________________ _ Map showing recreational areas. Map Information I .1f Reset ~lap !; ♦ 100m Aclivities Hiking Backpacking S HIDE Recreation areas with actlVlty Backpacking: Hannahs Creek Trail Robbins Branch Tran Thornburg Trail Day Hiking Recreation areas with activity Day Hiking: Hannahs Creek Trail Robbins Branch Trail Thornburg Trail Forest Seivlce Home I USDA~govI recrea110n~govI USA.,iovI Whitehouse.gov Plug-Ins I FOIAI AccessibilityStatement I PrivacyPolleyI Important llollces I Information Quality . . . . . Appendix J mhtml:file://H:\Env1ronmental Assessment\Nahonal Forests m N01th Carolina - Bll'khead ... 7/17/2017 Lumber River, North Carolina liOI.\E I NATIONALSYSTEl,1 I MAIIAGEl,IENT Page I of7 I RESOURCES I PUBLICATIONS I CONTACTus I 50 YEARS I LUMBER RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA • :un:httt 01.'l.t' h.rd ··Fnycllov,l!o &ll.!t="ll\,.UU 15111.rcu,1 ·•. ·,. '• '• [ChooseA Sl&IIIV Go ChooseA River v Go Rfrersof lhe Soulhe8stde611e clive,sity. hom ba)tJuS and rll'frs pdslled by lhe /ides to Clear mountain wvamswith .,·orfdoughtlo be representaUveor the generalardlaeologyof the area. Appendix K https://www.rivers.gov/rivers/lumber.php 7/18/2017 Lumber River, North Carolina Page 4 of7 Four hund,ed and twenty-nineatchaeologlcalslles have been re001dedIn RobesonCountv. Each site was dassifled underone or lout caleg01les:Paleo-Indian,ArchaicWoodland, Mississippianand Hlslo1lc.There are <47sites Ylilh polendalarcheeologlcalImportance,20 ol v.tilch have been nominatedlo the NaUonalRegisterof Hlslorlc Places. The Paleo-lndlanPerlod, datingpos&11Jly lo 20,000 B.C.,ls c:haraclerizedby nomadism,hunUng and lood11atherlnglha most distinctivetools had lanceolateproJectilepoints. The Atchalc Pariod, frcm about 8,000 O.C.,saw a slightdlmallc warmingand a oonHquent lnctaase in human populallonand deciduoustrees. It was characlerlzedby a relianceon smaller animal species and the coUecllonof noraas wattas fishing and slie!-fishlng. All lnvenlQIYof tools found from this pe1lodshowsad1ptaUonto the forest environment.Among the lmplemenls lound are slammedand notdled proJectiepoints, aUaH(spear-throwing)welghts,knives,axes, scrapers,choppers,drills, and grinding and nuttingstones. The \'\~odland Periodbegan between2.000 B.C. and 1,000B.C. and conUnuedInto the lime of Europeansettlement.II was characterizedb.y Iha furtherdevelopmentor subslslenceagrladture and ceramics,although huntingand gatheringcontinued.fn the eally parl of !his period,the bows and arrowsusing smaUprojectilepoints, or true arrowheads,were first used. TheseNalive Americans abandonedthe nomadlclifestyleforvillagelife. Period beganIn 900 A.O. and coexistedwllh culklrascl the formerU\lea The Missi&Slpplan perlods as well as wllh the next,the Hisloflc Period.It was a pe,fod cha,acterlzedby subSislenca agrlcullure In areasnear sizeablevillages: oom was the major aop. Native Americans constructedDal-toppedearlhen moundsas parI ol their ceremonialactivities.Projectilepoints wa19small and ltlangufaror pentagonal.Ceramicsbore decorationsor stamps or rectilnaa, or curvilinearforms, or lhey were highly polished. The HistoricPeriod beganwllh the an1valof Europeanexpiore1S,lhe earliest of whichware Italian, Spanish and Portuguese.The periodof written hlslo1yol NaUveAme1lcansbeganwllh tho EngHshcolonlsls on Roanoke'51andIn 1585.A number of dilfamll NativeAmericangroups speakingdilleranl languages(Slouan, lrOQuolan,Algonklan and Muskogean)were In lhe area. ll was from these Indigenousgroups thal Iha present NativeAmericanpopulationdescended. Attilacls ol lnlerest from lhls period Includekaolinand other pipes ~lems of EuropeanInfluence) for tobacco smoking,gunflinls, and ~ramies or plain whllev,are,peallwareand creamware, logetherwilh Iha traditionaltypes. Also found were colo,edsa11 -glazod stonewareand various types of porcelain. Oatk green botUafragmentsfrom the 19\hcenturyare includedIn these artifacts found a tonglhe LumberRiver. Native American (Pte)Hlstory: The LumberRlverhas long been UHd by NaUveAmellcansfor travel and subsistence.The earliest NativeAmedcans.who may have r,vedIn the regionfrom as eady as 20,000 B.C., were nomadicand subsistedlhrough foocl-galheringand hunting.By the 18th century,the (Iverand Its associatedswampshad becomea meltingpoll or severalIndian lrlbes, some of them refugeeswho had ned to the bad:woods and swamplandsfrom lhe coaslaf raglans to escapethe attacksol other tribes as wall as lhe advancewestwardby Europeans. II has been speculatedlhat membersof Sfr WalterRaleigh's"Lost Colony"may have been among these Nallva AmericanImmigrantslo 1he area. lite earliestEuropean selllersIn Robeson County found severalthousandIndiansalreadyon the soenawho spokebroken Englishand farmed as Europeansdid. Some ol themwere blue-eyedand bore famQlarEnglsh names. Becauseof a lack of reco/ded hlst01yand a 101&ol ffngulslicIdentity:however,Iha hlslOI)'or these people has beenshroudedIn mystery,conjectureand myth;lhelrtrue Oflglnswfll probably never be kmwm. HavingsuN!ved Illa enCl'Oacllment of lhelr lands, they eslabllshedrural communitieson the banks ol lhe river wh11etheir descendants,knownas Iha lumbee, live today. They adoptedlhelr Ulbalname offlclellyIn 1953from the Indianname lorthe rtver. Klslo,y: Atxotding lo poet John CharlesMcNell (1874-1907),the Indianname ol Lumbeewas orfglnallyused for Iha river, lrom an Indianwo,d lhat means"black water.• Early European surveyorsand setUerscalled It DrownlngCreak.This name appearsh Colonialrecordsat t 7•9, which ldenUfythe rlver as a branch of Iha llllle Pee Oee River. The namewas changedby feglslalive actionIn 1809lo the lumber Rivet, most llltely becauseol tha rive(s heavy use by Iha lumber Industry. In the late t81hand the 19thcenturies,the lumberingand naval stores Industrieswere very lmpor1antto the region,and the river was a vital route for transportingproduclsal these Industries.One-hundted-lootlogs v1Bferailed down~verln the late IBOO'slo Georgetcmn,South Carolina. LumbertonUseIf was an Importanttutpenlile and timbertown. Unfortunately,no standingstruclurerelated to these lndustrteshas been i>und thal could be consideredol historic value. The fe1ve:dsUngstruclurasare from this centuryand are In a slate of decay. RerManlSof bridge abutments,lram bridges,and dock pJ;ngsIn Iha Net Hole area are remindersof th1 lumberingand naval sloras Industrial!. Vegetation: The LumberRiver noodplalnIs la1gelya sacond-grovMoak-cyp-ess-gumswamp forest ol lhe blackwaler subtype.Most ol lhe species prasenlare lndlcat°'s of lhe perenniallywet nalura ol lhe ,iver floodplain. The majorcanopy speciesare cypress. tupelo, red gum. black gum and wale, oak: the understoryIs domlnaledt,v rlvarb~c:11, water elm, red maple and haclcberry. Along the river banks are abundantpines,cypress,poplar,bays, ~nlper, gums and wtstorla. Equally abundanta,e poison Ivy,poisonoak and poisonsumac.Virginiaaeeper and Spanish moss are commonOIi trees oorderlngthe river. Fem speciesand the lnsecllvorousVenusllylrap grow along the stteambanks. The swampforuts grade to bottom!androresls and then to nrst terracehardwoodro,ests,which are found on sffghl!yhigher elevaUons.FloodingIn theseforests fs seasonaland typlcally = Appendix K https://www.rivers.gov/rivers/lumber.php 7/18/2017 Lumber River, N011hCarolina Page 5 of7 In winier or early spring.Commontrees In these bolomlandand first terraceharrtwoodforesls are waler hickory,overcupoak, laurel oak.wiK0\'Ioak, red maple,persimmon,collonwood,green ash,Americanelm, loblollypine and riverbirch.Commonshrubsfoundare blackwillow, bullonbush,wtnlerberry,hazel alder, swampprivetandAmericanholly. Lizard'stall and sedges are also prevalent. The next broadforest typeIs Iha secondterracehardwoodforests.AlthoughroundIn lhe floodplainsof the river, floodingIs temporary.Commontreesare greenash,Americanelm, red maple,sweetgum,v,ater oak, chenybarkoak, swampchestnutoak,shagbarkhickory,Ironwood, sycamore,yellow poplarand lobloliypine.In theunder&loryarespicebush,sugarberry,poison Ivy,Jack-in-tha-pulpll, VirginiaCleeper,hAwthoms,Americanholly,greenbrier,mayappla,sedges and blackbeny. The manylow ridgesIn Iha ffoodpla!nara dominatedby loblollypineand mixedhardwoods. Typically,lhese ridgesera surroundedby poorlydraineddepressionswllhln whichoccurs diversepoa:,sin-typevegelaUon.Paraleling Iha aasl bankof Iha river, betweenU.S. 74 lo Iha borderwith SoulhCarolina,are a seriesof thesesand ridges.The 700,aae Big SandyRidge located northof Fair Blulfls an outstandingexampleof thesesandridges.The area ls seduded and composedor relallvalyundlslurbedplne-SC1Ub oak sandhfflcommunity. Geology: Thoughthey are nol uniquelo Iha region,severalgeologicfeaturesexhibitedIn the river corridorare noteworthy.As Drol'lningCreekemergesfrom Iha SandhillsRegionand becomesIha lumber River.II aosses a regionalphyslographlcfeatureknownas Iha OrangeburgScarp.This featureIs commonlythough!lo havedevelopedas a paleo-shorer111e feature duringIha upperPfioceneEpoch(11pproxlmalely 3 mllUonyearsago) as Iha sea reached a point of relallveslandstiOand wave acllonQI( IntoIha highlandnow knol'lnas Iha Sandhftls. The OrangeburgScarp can be 1,acedfrom Floridalo Virginia,but ii Is partlailartywondeveloped through Northand South Carolina,where it ma,ksIha boundarybetweenIha upperand mlddle CoastalPlain.As a resull of this geologlcoc:currence, fossilshellsand sharkteeth have been depositedIn sand deposttsIn blulls, ridgesandbanksalongIha lumber River. As the LumberRiver llows acrossthe relaUvelylow-reliefsurfaceof Iha middleCoastalPlain Region,fts valleyruts Intoa surface markedby a greatnumberof northl'lest-soulheasloriented elnplicaldei:resslonsknownas CarolinaBays.Sincelhelr discoveryIn Iha Carolina'sIn the l800's, theseswampyor sometimesv,aler-filledfeaturesI'1flhuniquenoralassemblageshave been the objector debateand conlroversyas lo theirorlgtn.Althoughnow knownlo numberIn the lens or thousandsthroughoutthe Allantic CoaslalPim, aid to oa:ur In severalother regions of the world,lhe middle CoastalPlain area of BladenandRobesonCounties,NorthCarolina, Hhlblt partlailarly well developedand numerousCarolinaBays. There are severalother Inlerestingfeaturesof the lumber River.The riverpossessesa greater amountor meander&lhan other riversIn Iha region.Thereare highbluffsal PrincessAnne and HighHill (soulhof Lumberton).Thesebluffsare alyplcalfor blaclcwalerriversIn Iha area. Unusualsand ridgeswere formed alongIha rlverwhenIha Ice Agesdried the area, allowing sand to be blnwnfrom the riverbedonto Iha banks. National WIid and Scenic River Designation: In order ror a riverto becomea NationalWld and ScenicRiver,II mustbe free-DDVling end haveal least one resoufCBthal Is consideredto be "outstandinglyremarlutes lo lnlerasUngcolorChanges,Includingthe burnt-orangecolored leaves of the cypressand the red toyellow colorsof the 1V1amp red maple111 the fall, as well es the brighi red seed pods of the mapleand the llghl greenfoliageor cypressIn the eartyspring. These spectacularcolorsare aocentuatedby reflecllonson the dark water su1face.In l'llnter months,areas of the forest not visibleIn springand sumn1eropenlo deeperrecessesor the forests and sv,amps. In additionto the topographicend vegetal!vevadaUonfrom the uplandtoswampareas,varietyor lendlormISprovidedby lght meanders,varyingchannelwidth, while sand pointbars, la.vnatu1al levees,Islands, sloughsand Ille backwatersor abandonedrtverchannels. A few steep outaops along the rlvetbankexposeCoastalPlaintorrnaUonsand abUndantmarine losllls, providing additJonalscenicva,laUonand complexity. Other sensoryperceptionsconb!buteto the uniqueswampfike Charaderof the LumberRiver, suChas the soundsof a varietyof l'lildllle and Insects.Theselndude a surp1lslngchurningof the waler surface1Jiwood duckstalcingUlghl,Iha cmsh of the beave(s tall al an approaChlng boat, Appendix K https://www.rivers.gov/rivers/lumber.php 7/18/2017 Lumber River, North Carolina Page 7 of7 the rare grunt of an alftgalor. Cicadas,frogs and bl National Natural Landn1arks Orbicular Diorite The Orbicular Diorite site contains an unusual plutonic Igneous rock consisting of hornblende, pyroxene, and feldspars. Location: Davie County (county.htm? County=16B1), NC Year designated: 1980 Acres: 65 Ownership: Private OrbicufarDlorite - Back to NNL listing for NC. (state.htm?State•NC) .- Back to listing of all states and territories. (natlon.htm) Please remember,National Natural Landmarks(NNLs)are not nationalparks. NNL status does not indicate public ownership,and many sites are not open for visitation. Last updated: September 8, 2016 EXPERIENCEMORE https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nnlandmarks/site.htm?Site:::::ORDI-NC Appendix L 7/7/2017 National Natural Lantimarks - National Natural Lantimarks(U.S. National Park Service) Page 2 of2 ORGANIZATIONS National Natural Landmarks Program (/orgs/1211/index.htm) U~ !JtilRt WeV~ 1ce U.S. Department of the Interior https://v.rww.nps.gov/subjects/nnlandmarks/site.htm?Site=ORDI-NC ' d" L Appen ~~7/2017 Full text of 11OrbicularGabbro-Diorite from Davie County, N01th Carolina" Page I of 11 Full text of "OrbicularGabbro-Diorite from D.avieCounty North Carolina" 1 See other formats https ://archive.org/stream/jstor-3005S824/30055824_djvu.txt Appendix L 7/7/2017 Full text of "Orbicular Gabbro-Diorite from Davie County, North Carolina" Page 2 of 11 Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized ble to everyone in the world by JSTOR. and made freely availa Knownas the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. \~e encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell oth ers that this resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for no n-commercial purposes. Read more about Early Journal Content at http://about.jstor.org/participate-jstor/indi viduals/earlyjournal-content • JSTORis a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JS TORhelps people discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTORis part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JST OR, please contact support@jstor.org. ORBICULAR GABBRO-DIORITE FROM DAVIECOUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. 1 GENERAL STATEMENT. Spheroidal or orbicular structures have been observed in granites and diorites among plutonic rocks from many parts of the world, and especially celebrated are some of these occurrences in North America and Europe. The best-known of the European localities are Fonni 2 in Sardinia, Wirvik 3 in Finland, Slatmossa 4 in Sweden, Riesengebirge 5 in Silesia, Mallaghderg 6 in County Donegal, Ireland, and Corsica, In America the structure seems to have been less https://archive.org/stream/jstor-30055824/30055824_djvu.txt Appe nd~,172011 Page 3 of 11 Full text of "Orbicular Gabbro-Diorite from Davie County, North Carolina" often observed than in Europe, though a number of occurrences have been described, mostly amonggranites, from widely separated localities. These have been made kno1-mthrough the publications of Edward Hitchcock, 7 Hawes, 8 Chroustschoff, 9 von Rath, 10 Zirkel, 11 Kemp, 12 F. D. Adams, 13 and Lawson, 14 which include the following 1 Published by permission of the state geologist of North Carolina. 2 G. von Rath, Sitzungsberichte der Niederrheinischen Gesellschajt, Bonn, June, 1885, p. 201; F. Fouque, Bulletins de la Societe miner alogique de France, Vol. X (1887), p. 57. 3 B. Frosterus, Tschermaks Mineralogische und petrographische Mittheilungen, Vol. XIII (1898}, p. 177j Bull. Com. Geol. Finland, 1896, No. 4. 4 W. c. Bragger, och H. Backstrom, Geologiska Foreningen i Stockholm, Forhandlinger, Vol. IX (1887), p. 351; H. Backstrom, ibid., Vol. XVI (1894), p. 107; N. D. Holst, och F• . Eichstadt, ibid., Vol. VII, p. 134. 5 F. H. Hatch, Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society, Vol. XLIV (1888), p. 548. 6 G. Rose, Poggendorfs Annalen, Vol. LXI, p. 624. 7 Geology of Vermont, Vol. II (186 1), p. 564. 8 Geology of NewHampshire, Vol. Ill 9 Bulletins Fortieth Part 4, p. 203. de la Soci. 'te mineralogique de France, Vol. VIII (1885), p. 137. 10 Sitzungsberichte December, 1, 1884. » (1878), Parallel der Niederrheinischen Geschellschaft fur Natur- und Heilkunde, Survey, Vol. VI ( 1878), p. 54. 12 Transactions of the NewYork Academyof Sciences, Vol. XIII (1903), pp. 140-43 Science, N. S., Vol. XVIII (1903), p. 503. *3 Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, Vol. IX (1898), p. 163. 14 A. C. Lawson, "The Orbicular Gabbro Diorite at Dehesa, San Diego county, California," The University of California Publications, Bulletin, Department of 294 ORBICULAR GABBRO-DIORITE 295 Appendix L https://archive.org/stream/jstor-30055824/30055824 _djvu.txt 7/7/2017 Full text of "Orbicular Gabbro-Dioritefrom Davie County, North Carolina" Page 4 of 11 principal localities: the "prune" or "pudding" granite of Craftsbury, Vermont; the orbicular diorite at Rattlesnake Bar, El Dorado county, California; the granite from Clark's Peak, Medicine BowRange, Colorado; orbicular granite from Quonochontogue Beach, Rhode Island; a spheroidal granite from near Charlevoix, Michigan, in the northwest portion of the Lower Peninsula; a nodular granite from from Pine Lake, Ontario; and the orbieular gabbro at Dehesa, San Diego county, California, The nodules of spheroidal rocks are considered similar in some respects to the dark segregations, or "schlieren," so frequently observed and described in granites. Like the spheroids, the dark segregations are usually more basic in composition than the general magmaout of which they have segregated. A noteworthy exception ' to this, however, is the nodular granite from Pine Lake, Ontario, described by Adams, 1 the nodules of \olhich are very appreciably more acid than the granite matrix, although the analysis 2 of the matrix indicates a very acid granite. The schlieren of granites in general are often of ·rounded outline, and at times show a sharp line of demarkation from the inclosing matrix, but, as a rule, they display no tendency to separate from the granite when broken, In many cases the segregations (schlieren) and spheroids are quite similar in mineral composition; but the dark segregations do not manifest the concentric and radiating structures characteristic of the spheroidal nodules, Last summer (1903), while of North Carolina for the examine very carefully in Davie county, 3 and later engaged in field study of the granites State Survey, the writer had occasion to the field an orbicular gabbro-diorite in to study, microscopically, thin sections cut Geology, Vol. Ill {1904), pp. 383-96; abstract, Science, N, s., Vol, XV {1902), p. 415- Some of the references given above on the European localities have not been accessible to me. Those not accessible have been quoted from Professor Kemp's paper in the Transactions of the NewYork Academyof Sciences, cited above; and from Sir A. Geikie's Text Book of Geolo&Y, 1903, 4th ed., Vol, I, pp. 206, 224, 1 "Nodular Granite from Pine Lake, Ontario," Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, Vol. IX (1898), pp. 163-72. 2 Ibid., p, 169, 3 Knmdedge of the existence of this rock dates back many years, but, so far as I am aware, a full description of it has not been published. Very brief mention of it https://archive.org/stream/jstor-30055824/30055824_tljvu.txt d' L Appen ~~112011 Full text of "Orbicular Gabbro-Diorite from Davie County, North Carolina 11 Page 5 of 11 2 96 THOMAS L. 1-IATSON from hand specimens of the rock collected. Certain peculiarities of occurrence, structure, and composition of this rock not previously noted, so far as I am aware, amongdeep-seated rocks developing the , spheroidal structure, seemed worthy of careful study. Further interest attaches to this rock for the reason that, as yet, it forms the only example of orbicular structure amongdeep-seated rocks found in the southern Appalachian region, and also because it adds a rock type which, in some respects, is a new one developing nodular or spheroidal structure. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THEOCCURRENCE. Exposures of the orbicular rock occur in the eastern part of Davie county on the Hairston farm, about ten miles west of Lexington and within one and a half miles of the Yadkin River. A peak or knoll of moderate size, rising about thirty feet in elevation above the surrounding plain and composed of huge bowlders, affords the only exposure of the fresh rock. Several of the larger bowlders have been split and partially worked off at different times, chiefly for use about the Hairston residence and to a less extent for museumspecimens. Traced southl~estl~ard from the knoll is found complete evidence of the extension in that direction of the orbicular gabbro-diorite, in , the residual decay and in occasional partially decayed fragments of the rock scattered over the surface. The decay is of a pronounced dark, nearly black color, with a distinct greenish tint imparted by the ferromagnesian constituent of the fresh rock. Oxidation of the iron in the iron-bearing minerals of the decay is not appreciably apparent at any point. As nearly as could be determined, the zone of residual decay derived from the gabbro-diorite averages several hundred feet in width and extends approximately one-half to threequarters of a mile southwest from the koll. Fairly sharp contacts between the decay of the orbicular diorite and that of an inclosing gray porphyritic biotite granite were noted in a number of places, ,-ihich strongly suggest that the orbicular rock forms a dike having an approximate northeast-southwest strike, penetrating the porphyritic biotite granite. is made in the following publications: J. V. Lewis, "Notes on Building and Ornamental Stone," First Biennial Report of the State Geologist t 1891-92, North Carolina Geological Survey, 1893, p. 91; George P. Merrill, Stones for Building and Decoration (NewYork, 1897), 2d ed., p. 259. ORBICULAR GABBRO-DIORITE AppendixL https://archive.org/stream/jstor-30055824/30055824_djvu.txt 7/7/2017 Full text of "Orbicular Gabbro-Diorite from Davie County, North Carolina" Page 6 of 11 297 The field relations ·between, and the mineral composition of, the diorite and granite suggest different periods of intrusion of the two rocks, in the Carolina locality, Close by and approximately paralleling the general direction in strike (northeast-southwest) of the orbic' ular gabbro-diorite are some half-dozen dikes of massive unaltered Fig. i. normal diabase which penetrate the porphyritic granite. Nhile conclusive evidence is lacking, it is not improbable that the orbicular diorite and the neighboring dikes of diabase are of the same age. South1-1estwarda short distance from the knoll of exposed masses of the typical orbicular structure, the rock loses its characteristic nodular or spheroidal structure and assumes a pronounced granitic texture of rather coarse grain, but composed of the same minerals and of the same general dark color. The color of the orbicular rock is dark, with a greenish tint imparted by the dark green ferromagnesian minerals. As indicated 298 THOMAS L, WATSON in Fig, 2, the spheroidal growths compose by far the bulk of the rock, Variation of the nodules is from nearly perfect spheres to ellipsoidal in shape, and in size they range from a fraction of an inch to several inches across. They can readily be broken out of the rock in complete form, almost or entirely free from the inclosing matrix. Compression due to flow movements in the rock ~,hile still plastic is but slightly indicated in the shapes of the nodules. The nodules are uniformly greenish black in color, composed, as a rule, almost or entirely of dark ferromagnesian minerals, which show a radial arrangement about a commoncenter. They are usually crowded close together, touching each other in many cases, with the interspaces largely filled with clear white cleavable and lustrous feldspar, a very little quartz, and penetrating laths of hornblende. Relatively large and small perfect crystals of reddish- https://archive.org/stream/jstor-30055824/30055824_djvu.txt Appe nd~~7~011 Full text of 11Orbicu1ar Gabbro-Diorite from Davie County, North Carolina" 1 Page 7 of 11 brown titanite are very generally distributed through the rock, commonto both nodules and matrix. In some instances feldspar and quartz, rarely pyrite, in small grains, have been observed, each in different spheroids, to form a nucleus about 1-1hichthe somewhat fibrous ferromagnesian minerals have arranged themselves in a radial structur~. Both the feldspar and the quartz may occur together, forming the nucleus of a single nodule. Of the nucleal minerals feldspar is perhaps the most common.In a majority of the spheroids, however, the nucleus or core of feldspar and quartz practically fails, when the nodules become spheres of ferromagnesian minerals. ' Search through the literature develops, from descriptions of orbicular structure in deep-seated rocks, several important differences in structure and composition of the spheroids in the Carolina rock from those usually observed in similar rocks from other localities. The chief differences to be noted are : (1) In the Carolina rock the spheroids are marked by the almost entire absence of concentric structure, which ordinarily characterizes the nodules of deep-seated orbicular rocks described from other localities. Only the barest semblance of such structure is noted in the Carolina rock, and it entirely fails in most of the spheroids. (2) The spheroids of orbicular rocks hitherto described are composed of several minerals, usually the principal constituents of the groundmass, though additional ones ORBICULAR GABBRO-DIORITE 299 Fig. 2. 300 THOMAS L. \~ATSON not present in the groundmass may occur, in some cases, in the nodules. As would be expected, difference in color for different parts of the spheroid would naturally follow from such a structural arrangement of the differently colored minerals, such as feldspar and quartz with one or more of the dark silicates. In the Carolina rock the spheroids are very generally composed of the dark silicates, in many of which the light-colored minerals, quartz and feldspar, entirely fail, Appendix L https://archive.org/stream/jstor-30055824/30055824_djvu.txt 7/7/2017 Full text of "Orbicular Gabbro-Dioritefrom Davie County, North Carolina" Page 8 of 1t hence they are very basic in composition and are of the same uniformly dark greenish color throughout. The feldspar filling the interspaces is often penetrated by large laths of the black lustrous hornblende, 1-1hichmay either have contact ~iith, or extend from, the spheroid, or be entirely separated therefrom and inclosed 1•1holly by the feldspar. (See Fig. 2,) MICROSCOPICAL CHARACTER OF THEROCK. ' Six thin sections were prepared from selected chips of the rock for microscopical study. Five of the sections were cut from the nodules and one from a representative fragment of the interstitial filling or matrix. The character of the sections was such that only slight evidence was afforded of the structure of the nodules microscopically, but the radial arrangement of the minerals composing the nodules about a commoncenter is entirely clear in hand specimens of the rock, as indicated in the megascopic description above and shown in Fig. 2. Diallage, green hornblende, basic plagioclase, microcline, quartz, titanite, muscovite, calcite, zoisite, magnetite, and an occasional zircon are the principal minerals of the rock, Essentially the same minerals are observed, as a rule, in both the matrix and the nodules, but in different proportions; the matrix being composed very largely of feldspar, 1-1ithvery subordinate amount of most of the other minerals, and the nodules of the ferromagnesian minerals, with in many of them only the barest trace of the other minerals. Of the accessory minerals noted in the nodules feldspar is usually in largest amount. The ferromagnesian mineralsJ diallage and hornblende, in varying amounts are present in all the sections. In many of them, probably a majority, ho~nblende is subordinate in amount to diallage; in others the two are in nearly equal proportion; and in still others ORBICULAR GABBRO-DIORITE 301 1 hornblende is in slight excess. Diallage occurs in rather large irregu lar forms without crystal boundaries, exhibiting strong development of the orthopinacoidal cleavage. It is usually of faint greenish color and without sensible pleochroism. Minute microscopic interpositions are abundant, and it further incloses irregular grains and perfect idiomorphic crystals of hornblende. The hornblende is principally of the green uralitic kind, mating parallel columnar and fibrous forms, which usually cleavage only in direction of elongation, but it entirely of the more irregular aggregates. Both the hornblende and https://archive.org/stream/jstor-30055824/30055824_djvu.txt approxisho1-1 fails in some dial- AppendiJJbo11 Full text of "Orbicular Ga.bbro-Diorite from Davie County, No11h Carolina" lage indicate some alteration (leaching) to nearly colorless forms. The angle of extinction measured on many pieces of the hornblende varies from 13 to 20 . Pleochroism is confined chiefly to green tones, with the ray vibrating parallel to A appearing slightly yellow, • and that vibrating parallel to B is occasionally tinged a faint br01-Jn. Compact hornblende in rhombic cross-sections, bounded by the prism and usually the pinacoid faces, and showing the intersecting prismatic cleavages, is distributed through the sections, with much of it inclosed by the diallage. Basic plagioclase is the predominant feldspar. Its substance is never fresh, but is largely altered to muscovite and calcite, and some zoisite which, with.few exceptions, has completely destroyed the polysynthetic twinning lamelke. It occurs almost entirely as irregular, large grains without idiomorphic outline. Perfectly fresh microcline as irregular grains, and exhibiting the characteristic twinning structure, is present in every thin section studied. It sometimes occurs as inclusions of moderate-sized grains in the plagioclase. Abundant prisms of apatite, usually of fairly large size, are included in the feldspar. Some of these are in cross-sections \'lhich show perfect hexagonal s~ape; others are in longitudinal sections, and occasionally some of the apatite forms grains of irregular outline. Titanite is abundant in comparatively large idiomorphic crystals, yielding characteristic, sharply rhombic cross-sections. Some of it occurs in irregular grains without crystal outline. In thin section the color is pale to moderately deep brown, with slight absorption in the deeper-colored crystals, It is usually free from inclusions of other minerals. Clec1vageis rather pronounced in much of it, 302 THOMAS L. WATSON Quartz is present in very subordinate amount in many of the sections, and it is probably largely, if not entirely, secondary. Muscovite and calcite <1re\-Jholly secondary, and as such they present no noteworthy features. Magnetite and an occasional zircon complete the list of minerals. Summingup the results of the microscopic study, '"e find that the sections consist essentially of diallage, uralitic hornblende, and a basic plagioclase, shm"ing, as a rule, but slight polysynthetic twinning, and usually altered to muscovite and calcite, or to zoisite and muscovite. The presence of perfectly fresh microcline in subordinate amount, a little quartz which is probably secondary, and a relatively large amount of accessory titanite and apatite is characteristic. Clearly the rock is a gabbro-diorite, although the presence in some of the sections of microcline and quartz is unusual. https://archive.org/stream/jstor-30055824/30055824_djvu.txt Page 9 of I I Full text of 11Orhicular Gabbro-Diorite from Davie County, North Carolina" Page l 0 of 11 ORIGINOF THENODULAR STRUCTURE, Backstrom accounts for the origin of certain European nodular granite on the basis of magmatic differentiation, in which the nodules, like the Carolina occurrence, are more basic than the matrix. 1 This seems to be the most satisfactory explanation of the Carolina occurrence, but whether the beginning of the nodules resulted from greater basicity, differential cooling, or from some other cause, it is not possible to state definitely. From the relations of the minerals in the rock it appears that the dark silicates generally preceded the feldspar in crystallization, from the magma 1 although overlapping in the periods of separation , of these minerals is distinctly shown. The primary accessories, , apatite, titanite, iron ore, etc., are idiomorphic in outline and were the earliest minerals to crystallize from the magma. Microscopic 1 evidence further indicates that the nodules were developed in the magmawhen crystallization was fairly well advanced, RESUME. Briefly summarized, the principal The rock is a gabbro-diorite results of this study are: (i) whose field relations occurrence in the form of a dike penetrating strongly suggest a gray porphyritic biotite 'Journal of Geology, Vol. I {1893), pp. 773-90i Geologkka Foreningen i. Stockholm, Forhandlingar, 1894, p. 128. ORBICULAR GABBRO-DIORITE 303 1 granite. (2) Twotextural facies of the rock having approximately the same mineral composition, are observed, namely, (a) orbicular or nodular, and (b) granitic. (3) In the nodular facies the nodules compose vastly the greater bulk of the rock, They are of varying, but moderately large, size, usually crowded close together, with a small amount of matrix or interstitial filling, largely composed of feldspar and very subordinate amount of the other minerals, (4) The nodules are uniformly dark in color, very basic in composition, and, with but few exceptions, are made up almost entirely of the dark silicates, diallage, and hornblende. (5) The structure of the nodules is radial and not, as frequently observed in such rocks, concentric, or both. (6) Microscopic evidence suggests that the nodular structure is a product of magmatic differentiation. https://archive.org/stream/jstor-30055824/30055824_djvu.txt Appendinbo11 Full text of"Orbicular Gabbro-Diorite from Davie County, North Carolina" Page 11 of 11 Thomas Leonard \vatson. Geological Laboratory of Denison University, Granville, Ohio, https://archive.org/stream/j stor-30055 824/30055 824_ djvu. txt Append~,k 017 DesignatedSoleSourceAquifersin EPARegionIV Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee Volusia• Floridan Aquifer I S•uthetn Jllllg AeglonaI A11ulfo r Syslo m (rogl.n 6) Biscayno . . Aquifer__.-, · ii Slreamflow and •, recharge source .,/ zones • .P Tlte J Sole SOll/'Cf!Aq11iferrlesl:m,tltJ/1!1ill Ret/011/JI (lft! /islet/ ht!IOW. Co11/((L'I tltt! Regimwl StJleSource AtJU/fer ctJm·tll11ttt01· for mo,•e i11Jor1111tl/011. Lois Hill US EPA RegionIV, Water Division " Forsyth St., SE Atlanta,GA 30303·3104 phone: (404)562-9472 email:hill.loisriilcpa.cov DESIGNATEDSOLESOURCEAQUIFERSIN REGION IV: State FL FL Sole Source Aquifer Name Biscayne Aquifer, Broward, Dade, Monroe & Palm Beach Counties Volusia-Floridian Aquifer, Flagler & Putnam Counties Southern Hills Regional Aquifer System Federal Register Cit. Public. Date GISMap 44 FR 58797 10/11/79 No 52 FR44221 53 FR 25538 11/18/87 07/07/88 No No *The Southern Hills Regional Aquifer system is jointly managed with Region VI. While listed in both regions, it is counted only once in the national total of 70. *LA/MS Appendix M ?Vi NationalFlood Hazard Layer FIRMette (~ FEMA ~ !!!>!> ' Legend SEEFIS REPORTFORDETAILEDLEGENDAND INDEXMAP FORFIRM PANEL LAYOUT Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE) Zone A, V, A99 With BFE or Depth Zono AE, AO. AH. VE AR SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS Regulatory Floodway 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Area of 1% annual chance flood with average depth less than one foot or with dralnag, areas of less than one square mile Zone , Future Conditions 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard Zone x Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to Levee. See Notes. Zone x OTHER AREAS OF FLOOD HAZARD Area with Flood Risk due to Leveezo11•D NOSCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard lono )( c:::::::JEffective LOMRs OTHER AREAS Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard 1-- -· GENERAL STRUCTURES I I I I I I I Zone Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer Levee, Dike, or Floodwall Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance ---3.L! Water Surface Elevation ©-- - - = - 511 - --- Coastal Transect Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE) Limit of Study Jurisdiction Boundary Coastal Transect Baseline OTHER FEATURES MAP PANELS Profile Baseline Hydrographlc Feature □ □ [21 Digital Data Available No Digital Data Available Unmapped N + The pin displayed on the map Is an approxlmatE point selected by the user and does not represe an authoritative property location. This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of digital flood maps If It Is not void as described below. The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap accuracy standards . . The flood hazard Information Is derived directly from the authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map was exported on 7/14/2020 at 3:03 PM and does not reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and time. The NFHL and effective Information may change or become superseded by new data over time. ,. .... . . 'I\ __._._____ __ -- This map Image Is void If the one or more of the following map elements do not appear: basemap Imagery, flood zone labels, legend, scale bar, map creation date, community Identifiers, FIRM panel number, and FIRl'v1.E!.ft,e.,CW>1idpJe,. Map Images for unmapped and unmodernlzecfli11!'a'S'C!l~rl~n1e used for ;: ~ Hydric Rating by Map Unit-Chatham County, North Carolina (Old US 421 S, Bear Creek , NC) ~ k 648700 &l8IDl 648!Dl 649100 6400ll 649200 649D) 649400 64951D 64!Bll 649700 i 64!BXl JS• 36'37N 35" 36'37N § i § i Ii! i Ii! i ~ iii ~ iii i i I ~ iii i i !;I i !;I Iii 35" 36' 12" N 35" 36' 12" N 648700 &l8IDl 648!Dl 649100 6400ll 649200 649:lll 649400 649!lll 64!BX) 649700 64!BXl ;: cy MapScale: 1:5,590 if printed on A landscape(11" X 8.5") sheet ~ N A USDA ~- ---===------=====Meters 100 200 0----====--------========feet 500 1000 0 !i'.l ~ ~ 3l'.l 2!iO Map projection: WebMercator C.omercxxirdilates : WGS84 Natural Resources Conservation Service 1500 Edgeties : lJTMZ.one17NWGS84 Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey Appettti!nsover 30,000 birds. 1. Litter shall not be stockpiled within 100 feet of perennial streams, waterbodies, or wells. 2. Stockpiled litter shall not be left uncovered for more than 15 days. 3. For land application, a setback of 25 feet from perennial streams and perennial waterbodies must be maintained. However, land appliers should be aware of setbacks from all ditches and Intermittent streams. Runoff of fitter due to Improper land application can lead to discharges which can result in violations or enforcement actions. NOTE:Even if the above requirements are met, it is still the responsibilityof the generator or manure hauler (if used) to make st1rethat there is no dischargeto waters of the State. 4. Litter shall be applied at rates that do not exceed the agro·nomic rate of the receiving crop. The rates may be based on NC Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services (NCDA&CS) soil test recommendations or Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)Standards. For more information on realistic yield expectations (RYE),contact a technical specialist with the Cooperative Extension Service, NRCS,NCDA&CS,or your local Soil and Water Conservation District. 5. Develop and maintain a Waste Utilization Plan (Nutrient Manag~ment Plan). At a minimum, the waste plan must contain a list of fields used for land application, the crops to be grown, and the maximum application rate for each crop/field. While recommended, it is not required for plans be developed by a certified technical specialist. An example waste plan is available at http://www.ncagr.gov/SWC/tech/guic:!anc~documents.html 6. Litter shall be sampled as close to the time of application as practical, but at least within 60 days of the land application event. If manure is given or sold to a 3 rd party, it is still the responsibility of the generator to conduct the waste analysis, and provide a copy to the 3 rd party or manure hauler. The state average nitrogen (N) content for dry litter as shown in the North Carolina AgriculturalChemicalManual published annually by NCState University may be used to calculate application rates in lieu of individual waste analysis; however, waste analysis is still required. Information on waste analysis procedures is available from the Cooperative Extension Service, publication number AG-439-33, Soil Facts:Waste Analysis,at https:ljcontent.ces.ncsu.edu/waste-analysis. __..~.....Not hlnn Compares ., .. Stale ofNorth CarolinaI EnvironmentalQualityI Divisionof WaterResources WaferQualityRegionalOperationsSection 1636Meil ServiceCenterI Raleigh,North Carolina27699-1636 919-707-9129 Appendix Q-1 APPLICATION WINDOWS CROP START DATE END DATE Bermudagrass March 1 September 30 Small grain October 1 Overseeded in bermudagrass March31 Com February 15 June 30 Cotton March 15 August 1 March 1 (100% planting) April 1 July 1 May31 August31 Rye Oats and Triticale Wheat September 1 September 1 September 1 March31 April 15 April 30 Peanuts April I September 30 Sorghum/Sudan grass hay March 15 August31 Soybeans April 1 September 15 March 15 Mayl5 June 30 August 15· August 1 Jtily31 Cucumbers Direct consumption Processing Tobacco Fescue --Flue cured --Burley Appendix Q-1 ··--r Producer IK}!:leFields DRY LITTER APPLICATION WORKSHEET Address 13630 Bear Creek Church Rd, Bear Creek, NC 27207 I Litter Type IBroilers I Contractm.9Somi:>~11y_Mountaire I I I j1. Tract# 12.Field# j3. Sofl series 4. Crop to be grown 1 I 1 I I 1 I I 2 l r-· CmB Croo PAN r (nitroaen factor) rs.Commercial N aeelied/acre I Sheet# I ~1 2 I 2 I 2 I 2 I I 3 I 3 7 1 I - 2 I 3 I 4 I I 1 I 2 T CaB I CaB I I CaB I CaB Fescue Hav Fescue Hav R.Y.E. RYEunits (tons or bushels/acre) CmB I I CaB I - eas Fescue Pasture Fescue Pasture Fescue Pasture Fescue Pasture Fescue Hav Fescue Hav 4.4 4.4 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 4.4 4.4 tons tons tons tons tons tons tons tons 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 0 r 0 - I I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I I 0 I 0 {§:-Residual N to account for/acre - I 0 I 0 I I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I I 0 I 0 17. [t>s .Nneec:ied/acre I f89.20 l 189.20 I I 141.90 I 141.90 I 141.90 I 141 .90 l I 189.20 I 189.20 29 I 29 I I 29 I 29 I 29 I 29 I I 29 I 29 I 6.52 I 6.52 l I 4.89 I 4.89 I 4.89 I 4.89 I I 6.52 I 6.52 I 18.6 3519.12 121.35 I I 5.9 1116.28 38.49 I I I I 10.5 1489.95 51.38 I I 4.4 624.36 21.53 I 1 4.4 624.36 21.53 I I 1.2 "170.28 5.87 I I I I 15.9 3008.28 103.73 I 2 378.40 13.05 fromritter ja. PAN/ton from litter {NCDA ana!}!:sis} I I9. Litter aeelication rate {tons/acre} I1o.Acres/field of croe to be grown total PAN reguired/field/croe j 11. Tons litter regulred for this field I 12. Average load weight/truck (tons) 6 Loads/field that can be s read 20.00 Tons litter required for this sheet I 376.93 6 6.25 6 8.50 6 3.50 6 3.50 6 17 .25 6 0 .75 I I 1os31.03 If you have questions or problems with this spreadsheet, please call Jon~ Asbill @(336) 302-7131 or e-mail fonas asblll@ncsu.edu to ::::, a. ;;r ~ --- --·-· ·--· ·- - -. . I 6 2.00 ii• ~- _ • mi:act IJi; / SubScrioe ffl / Archived Area of Interest (AOI) ~~m rvtCe · .··.- ,- - -- I Soil 5urvevs s-:.,uSttr-'e! r Status Soil Map ! ;_;,nsFa'4J I ::•c~ie;ences Soll Data Exp_lorer [ Unfr :..ogo:.il Download Soils Data I :-!,:Ip Shopping ~-·r J~Al=-W~~~T~ ! Ai.t;, / ,A \ cart(Free) Cart ] Printable Version ! Add to Shoppln11 S,:::an:h SoH ~~:;;,: , Ma~ U,,i:t Leg~od ~BJlo.:)Q]~~LJJilfll ~ . Ch_ath_i!m_ c;:o_~n!J, _N~~ Scalej 1:3,~ ij :I: 1 % ~a_roli~~(Nc;03?) _ Chatham County, North carolina (NC037) Acres Map Unit Map Unit Name Symbol CmB Cid-Lignum complex, 2 to 6 percent slopes Totals for Area of Interest in AOI Percent ofAOI 18.6 • 100.0% 18.6 I 100.0% I I Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. ~ "C FOIA I Accessibility Statement I Privacy Polley I Non-Discrimination Statement I Information Quality I USA-gov I White House Cl) ::, a. x· ~ ~G, \ f :I:ELI) \ ~~ ~ . I Sirb;;cribe mtact Us !+on [; / Archived Soil Sun;-eJ•6 Area of Interest (AOI) !~,1~~1-'=Jt.]'6;[~~Yl~1 _ "1Ce ~ ..... -- I Seil Sur1e\' Statu:; I G1,:,~a1y I Pre.'er""1ce:;- l Soil Data Ex_!]_lorer ::oil Mai:t Llnk i ;~ou1· I Help Download Soils Data lAiA!t1 ~h2_1l_1>ln_g cart (Free) Printable Version] .Add to "ie,irch Soil f•1u p r4ap P..ln!tlager,d ~B}ITT,Ql~~LJ!lj~ ~ scare! 1:31~oE_ IJ:1:1 % Chatham County, North Carolina (NC037) . Chatham County, North Carolina (NC037) Map Unit Symbol CmB Map Unit Name Cid-Lignum complex, 2 to 6 percent slopes Totals for Area of Interest Acres in AOI Percent . of AOI 5.9 100.0% 5.9 , 100.0% Warning: Soll Map may not be valid at this scale. )> -0 -0 FOIA I Accessibility Statement I Privacy Policy I Non-Discrimination Statement (1) ,.. ::, a. ~ -- \(Lp,,q I' fi-G.Lr, "''.-~· ?_ I Information Quality I USA.gov I White House Shoppln!.~ IE~ l~iitlil l'~=1™~ll~~TN _ .~l"Jl'1'?1"9esources~ornre,-yat,o~"'ce ____ _ intact Us I S1Jbscrlbe ~ I Jlrcfli;,ec! ~•ii Area of Interest (AOI) Surve·1s I Seil sur-:1ev ::'.~tu~ I Glc::s.sry I l',ef.:: rences ! Ur.l< i Soil Map. Soil Data Exp_lorer :...:,gc,:,~ Download Soils Data ! i.~IAI l{(?!f ; Shopping Cart (Free) Printable Version Sea..-ch son M:ap l"lai; Unit Lege111d ~~~jQJ~~LJjtj~ Chatham Cq!,lnty,_~9'1h car_0Iin!9_(NC037) ~ Scale ! ~~.oo .o. _EJ:!:1% .. Chatham County, North carolina (NC037) Acres Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Callison-Lignum complex, 2 to 6 percent slopes CaB Percent ofAOI in AOI Totals for Area of 10.5 · 100.0% 10.5 1 100.0% Interest Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. -6' 'O FOIA I Accessibility Statement I Privacy Policy I Non-Discrimination Statement I Information Quality I USA.gov I White House (1) ::, C. x· ~ .lrz.ACf L l f .:J:'=-L.'O \ I Add to Sh~~~ _cart ! E~ -..._ , mtact Us _ I Subscribe~ ~ion 1 Ci2 --~...- Atcliived S::-i!Surveys Area of Interest (AOI) I Seil Sumey Status i Gh;ssary I ilrererences Soil Map. Soil Data Exp_lorer ; I.ink i U ·;.-,ut Download Soils Data l.i..~ : I Help Shopping :~.J. ..._J_~ .... ~-. ~~~ ~ .II. .. •JlMiii!\£tL: . I .. I r. I ,,." .. · -' SoH '"'a ~ Map Unit L<:?S,cd ~§J~!21~~lJD~ ~ Scale! _1~L~~ - -IJ :I: 1 % Chatham County, North Carolin~ (_~~037) Chatham County, North Carolina (NC037) Map Unit Map Unit Name Symbol CaB Callison-Lignum complex, 2 to 6 percent slopes Totals for Area of 1Acres in , AOI 4.4 · Percent : . ofAOI 100.0% , 4.4 100.0% Interest Warning: Soll Map may not be valid at this scale. )> -c -c FOIA I Accessibility Statement I Privacy Policy I Non-Discrimination Statement I Information Quality I USA.gov I White House CD ::, a. x· ~ Ttt-~C..T 2. I ,~.:r 2 E: l-1) .,,~ cart (Free) Printable Version! :ii::.i,ct; ::, . H.' Add to Shopping~~ IB~ .. ~~ttlJn ~ntac t Us ff~-l~ W\ -]F?JW~~t< if}P'""' ViG~ .••• , I Su bscribe ~ / ,~rc l1iv€'C ~ H surv .z1s Area of Interest (AOI) I sotsSu1 -.::~·1 Sta~ J:3 ! t_:f~.::: ~rv I ? r : -:=rences i ~i! Map Soll Data Ex.e_lorer ti n~~ \ t.r.,go..tt I Help Download Solis Data i Shopping cart(Free) Printable Version .'.:: ,::~re l. Soil Map Map Ur.it Legend 3Jgj~ J21 ~ ~ LJjlj~ ~ Scalej 1:'3,0~ .lmJ:!: 1 % Chatham County, North carolina (NC037) Chatham County, North Carolina (NC037) Map Unit Acres Map Unit Name Symbol CaB Callison-Lignum complex, 2 to 6 percent slopes Totals for Area of Interest In AOI 4.4 Percent ofAOI 100.0% , 4.4 • 100.0% I Warning: Soll Map may not be valid at this scale. )> i::, i::, FOIA I Accesslblllty Statement I Privacy Policy i Non-Discrimination Statement I Information Quality I USA.gov I White House CD :::, a. x· ~ TJU\C..T ·2, }-_reLD 3 t~ ! =!}~ I .~;\ I Add to Shopping eartj E~ V.il'1'11tiitl'Nfri'llti¥WMt7iEIWTI ! Subscribe~ i Afr.:hived Son s,~r.;c"•~ J !c il SL!-- ·.:!·,· Stat~,:; ,ntact Us Area of Interest (AOI) 1 Glossary Soll Data Explorer So;;!! Map 1 ::.- =~~,.=""~~ ! Unk ! L::'ftcut k~M~l · .Ir Jw;A~~ ! I Me!p Shopping Download Solis Data Soil 71~~ ·,1'l!p !fo,t. legemi ~~lo:~~~L.J!IJ~ ~ Scale j 1:s,~ fj:l:1% Chatham County, North Carolina (NC037) Chatham County, North carolina (NC037) Map Unit Map Unit Name •Acres in Symbol AOI Callison-Lignum complex, 2 to 6 percent slopes CaB Totals for Area of Interest ' 1.2 Percent ofAOI 100.0% 1.2 , 100.0% ; Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. ~ "C FOIA I Accessibility Statement I Privacy Policy I Non-Discrimination Statement CD ::::, C. )(. ~ trz-A-c., 2, F:rE-LO LI - f ~ : ,:;;~ cart (Free) Printable Version] Se;:;rch I I A I ,0 • I Information Quality I USA.gov I White House eartl Add to Shopp_!!'J liB~ .•, ~~!1lll~,n-t,erV1CC I Sr.!bscr;be )ntac:: t!s r;~ ~,--1-r~2Ji~~ifiS _ , :...• ~ J ttrr.:hivec! SoU Surveyz: Area of Interest (AOI) I S,:rU Sur.rev SoU M;sr, S~tus I r::,,:,s!=ar1 i Soll Data Exp_lorer •=•e ~,2r~·- ::-3s i Lint, I L~ncut Download Solis Data ! Help Shopping ;A!i~lt'l~ cart (Free) Printable Version] _Add to Shoppln~ _~rtj Seai-i::h SQH Mar, Map Ur.it Legen~ ~)5!jftfJl@j&]_J~~ C~a~!'.'m ~unty, ~ scale! 1:a,o _~Cl_ . Ji :I: 1 % North Carolina (NC037) Chatham County, North Carolina (NC037) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Callison-Lignum complex, 2 to 6 percent slopes CaB Totals for Area of Interest Acres in Percent 15.9 100.0% ADI , ofAOI 1S.9 l:00.0% Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. ~ "C CD ::, C. x· ~ FOIA I Accessibility Statement J Privacy Policy - l11-ACT J '3 Non-Discrimination Statement I F..:teL-o \ I Information Quality i USA.gov I White House [8~ iw?f1WMtl'St?tXltltlf P'7fWtt:¥ •m :,ntact fJs I Subscribe ~ j ~r .:h ive--J'Suii Su.vers Area of Interest (AOI) J ScH Su:-:1ev Status _!S_GJIM:;ip I l:Jr.:-s::il~! ! Pref-er,~nc~s Solf Data Exp_lorer ( t.rn!~ I L,~ut Download Solis Data ~~ I He.ip, Shopping ~ I ,JL -:W~~MI~ IA!Alf.t cart (Free) Printable Version Sea,cl'i Soi ~ i"iap Map Unit Le~ e --.d ~5J~ ~jJ~..J;aJ.~ ~ Scale t 1:31QQQ_ __I) *l % Chathaf!1.COU!1ty,N~i:th Caro!ina (NC0~7) Chatham County, North Carolina (NC037) Map Unit Symbol Acres Map Unit Name Callison-Lignum complex, 2 to 6 , percent slopes_ CaB in AOl Totals for Area of Interest Percent ofAOI 2.0 100.0% 2.0 100.0% ' Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. )> -0 -0 'O 'O CD :, a. ii<" ~ AMIC - November 11, 1996, Page 1 BMPs to MinimizeInsects Site SpecificPractices Liguid S:rstems Flush system is designed and operated su.fficie_ntly to remove accumlatedsolids from gutters as designed; Remove bridging of accumulatedsolids at discharge Maintain lagoons, settling basins and pits where pest breeding is apparent to minimizethe crusting of solids to a depth of no more than 6 - 8 inches over more than 30% of surface Maintain vegetative control along banks of lagoons and other impoundmentsto prevent accumulationof decaying vegetativematter along water's edge on impoundment'sperimeter Dry Systems Design, operate and maintain feed systems (e.g., bunkers and troughs) to minimizethe accumulation of decaying wastage Clean up spillage on a routine basis (e.g., 7 - 10 day interval during summer; 15-30 day interval during winter· Reduce moisture accumulationwithin and around immediateperimeterof feed storage areas by insuring drainage away from site and/or providing adequate containment(e.g., covered bin for brewer's grain and similar high moisture products) Inspect for and remove or break up accumulated solids in filter strips around feed storage as needed Table 2. Poultry Farm Waste Mana2ement Odor Control Checklist: Dry Litter Farmstead o Poultry Production Ventilationexhaust o Volatile gases fans Indoor surfaces Feeders BMJ>sto MinimizeOdor Cause Source o Dust o Dust o Feed Spillage □ Vegetative or wooded buffers □ Recommended best managementpractices □ Good judgement and common sense 0 Fanmaintenance a □ □ □ Feed Storage o Decomposition of accumulatedfeed □ residues □ Litter storage and handling areas Decomposition of accumulatedmanure □ □ ~birds ffl Idcinerators X o Carcass decomE,osition o Incomp~etecombusti_on £ DPLMP-June 1997-Page 5.15 Efficientair movement V accuum and washdown between flocks Design, operate and maintain feed systems to minimizeaccumulationof decaying wastage Clean u,pspillage on a routine basis Reduce moisture accumulationwithin .andaround immediateperimeter of feed storage by ensuring drainage is away from site and/or providing adequate containment Clean up spillage on a routine basis Remove spillage on a regular basis Provide for adequate drainage around manure stock.piles □ Inspect for and remove or break up accumulatedwastes in filter strips around. stock.pilesand manure handling areas as needed □ Proper decompositionof carcasses □ Secondary stackbumers Site Specific Practices Version-November 26, 2018 Mortality Management Methods Indicatewhich method(s)will be implemented. Whenselecting multiplemethods indicatea primary versus secondaryoption. Methodsother than those listed must be approvedby the State Veterinarian. Primary Secondary Routine Mortality □□ Burialthree feet beneath the surfaceof the groundwithin 24 hours of knowledgeof animal death. The burial must be at least 300 feet from any flowing stream or public body of water (G.S.106-403).The bottom of the burial pit should be at least one foot above the seasonal high water table. Attach burial locationmap and plan. □□ □□ □□ Landfillat municipalsolid waste facility permittedby NC DEQ under GS 15A NCAC 13B .0200. rzJ□ A compostingsystem approvedand permittedby the NC Departmentof Agriculture& Consumer ServicesVeterinary Division(attach copy of permit). If compost is distributedoff-farm, additionalrequirementsmust be met and a permit is"required from NC DEQ. □□ □□ In the case of dead poultry only, placingin a disposal pit of a size and design approvedby the NC Departme~tof Agriculture& ConsumerServices (G.S. 106-549.70). □ Renderingat a renderingplant licensedunder G.S. 106-168.7. Completeincinerationaccordingto 02 NCAC 52C .0102. Any methodwhich, in the professionalopinion of the State Veterinarian,would make possible the salvage of part of a dead animal'svalue without endangeringhuman or animal health. (Writtenapprovalby the State Veterinarianmust be attached). Mass Mortality Plan Mass mortalityplans are requiredfor farms covered by an NPDESpermit. These plans are also recommendedfor all animal operations. This plan outlinesfarm-specificmortalitymanagementmethodsto be used for mass mortality. The NCDA&CSVeterinary Divisionsupports a variety of emergencymortalitydisposal options; contact the Divisionfor guidance. • • • • A catastrophicmortality disposalplan is part of the facility's CAWMPand is activated when numbersof deeidanimalsexceed normal mortality rates as specifiedby the State Veterinarian. Burial must be done in accordancewith NC General Statutesand NCDA&CSVeterinary Divisionregulationsand guidance. Mass burial sites are subjectto additionalpermit conditions(refer to facility's animal waste managementsystem permit). In the event of imminent threat of a disease emergency,the State Veterinarianmay enact additionaltemporary proceduresor measuresfor disposal accordingto G.S. 106-399.4. Signature of Farm Owner/Manager Date Signature ofTechnical Specialist Date Appendix Q-1 ------· -----··-·-- - - -·-·~··-·--------·--- ··------ Dry Litter Cleanout Records FORM DRY-1 Facility Number Farm Owner Third Party Applicator and Address Owner's Address I1----------------t 1-1 I ~ 6 X '5 C QI a. ~ Third Party's Phone#.__ _____________ Owner's Phone # (1) (2) {3) .. (4) . . Date (mm/dd/yr) Number of Loads Removed Spreader Volume (cubic feet)* Spreader Capacity(tons) DR: 11/98 Totals: @ . . Total Removal (tons) (2) X (4) 0 (6) . . Q') . . Temporary Storage (tons) Spread on Farm (tons) 0 ____, {~) . . {~) . . Removed from Farm (tons) 0 Other•(tons) 0 Of * Can be found in operator's manua~ for the spreader. Contact a local dealer if you do not have your owner's manual. ** See attached sheet for formula. **""Indicate use (I.e., cattle feed, composted soil ammendment, commercially distributed organic fertilizer, etc.) 0 Dry Litter Application Field Record For Recording Dry Litter Applicaton Events on Different Fields FORM DRY-2 Fann Owner Spreader Operator Tract# Field# I I 0 .15 'C C: Ql ================================= Date (mm/dd/yr) Crop Type Field Size (acres) Application Method* Number of Loads per Field Volume of Loads (cubic feet)** - -- D.R.11/97 * SI= soil incorporated (disked); BR= broadcast (surface applied). ~ ~ Can be found in operator's manual for the spreader. Contact a local-dealer if you do not have your owner's manual. -see attached calibration sheet for the formula. C. C. <( Spreader Capacity......,, (tons) - ------------ FORMDRY-3 Dry litter Application Field Records One Form for Each Field per Crop Cycle Tract#I Field Size (Acres)= (A)i--------------. Farm Owner _ Owner's Address Owner's Phone # Crop Type {11 . . Date (mm/dd/yr) · I Field#! Facility Number Spreader Operator I and Address ____________ ..... I !?) . . (3) .. (4) . . Number of Loads per Field Weight of Loads* (tons) Total Weight (tons) (2) X (3) - --------------- I Recommended PAN Loading {lb/acre)= (B) ______ ___, _ (52 . . (62 . . (7) . . Weight per Acre (tons/acre) (4) / (A) Waste Analysis PAN** (lb/ton} PAN Applied (lb/acre) (6) X (5) I (8) . . Nitrogen Balance.,... (lb/acre) (8)- {7) B= DR: 11/98 Crop Cycle Totals: Owners Signature ------------- Spreader Operator's Signature I I Operator's Phone# .._ ____________ From Animal Waste Management Plan I I --------------- * Can be found in operator's manual for the spreader. Contact a local dealer if you do not have your owner's manual. *" See your waste management plan for sampling frequency. At a minimum, waste analysis is required within 60 days of land application events. ***Enter the value received by subtracting column {7) from (B). Continue subtracting column (7) from column (8) following each application event 0 6 -~ "C C: Ql C. C. <( ~_..Z.ot -~~no, 3,._"'~~ ~.~'\'!.~,:;,,m:::--~~ .Aoai~ ·.1'11,.~tr,. -•""· fiNO ur~,;,g011~,z--::7?:: •... ·. ~,~ a: 7 ~a.... e,~--------Li~~, ,~ I.bas. !ltitn .it,ao~ot~ie;~ A. The litter mu.s(be.~'°~ n. Ciucr will oolbe stockpiledwithin100rcccor~ rnon;,._IJm, 14'di!)'$. --.or~ .rtor~ ~~ff, · , '° C. WBSteAUllJ>lins and Pf')vi4ingn ~PY orlhc ~wlya, 'i&c,.~ 4Jio. &he~roduccr. _Th45 .inf~on waU&.eused in ~ni~ ~~ ~ .. pn;,~dc the wn.m~)iis to the landownr.r or 1Md u,w,•~ iffieMe ~ _ dcy ht laiipjlIY'l,y, ?1-1Y be U!ied(I) CIIJculu.tcappllc;iuioonte;s in Jku individualWl$I.C ~bcnii,iw. W'QtCl u stOJ requ.ind wilbba60·dayi1or•pplkiUiqa. or ~ mfr'OF' D.. Uucr eppl.ication rate:swill be.ealt:ul:11cd and appliednt ~ta not to.~ti n:qwremen1.:c oftbercccivins aos,. E. Soi Ltfrom flCldsrffl:iving Utterwill be-wn:pkd CV'"1'Y diNe yean. wm be.mainl.atncd,iaac(O(dance wi.llL~ifandaii(JiOU.- F. $oil pH for alJCieJdsrcccivir,ig Ut1.er report rcc(lffl9}Cnd.alioru; . G. Uthe soil t~ Zn-I or Cu·] is 8"Ultr lh3n 700, meet witb a CatificdiUl8 !or.landupplieation. J .Soil·l.dt and wustcIDl\ly.sis will be;keptfordu-ee)'Cits. 2.Ffoldfc;cution'1mlljttcrnppJicatioo rc..~rd$will bokeptCar da.ree. )'ears. 1. Litter "iU not be appliedmorewui J~ dayspri« to ~ ~ or lc$f ~ 30 days beforebnrve$1.Litteris nc.,'CI' to be appliedon frozen;soowco~, or~unlkd land. IL I =P - f\.....1),...1-.a_. . • ! rq,rcscnung \..?)J.uN . spo.,;bility1or ;-,: : :lE < t. . 4__:;,. Signaturefft?R •• I ~I -. - fiomparti. ~z"'"..i_"zllhone* , 'J.. . _ ...... -..-,.. , I I i::=,; ...-------:--•,n:prcscntin, ,,__ ~---=--acC(:pln;spoosi i 1ty or I crns .:>,E 1£ , G 'o 1 1; frompart1· 1 1 Signal , a Q --- --- •• NumberWIIJIIIIL : Date'J,-/0--'9__Pl.tone •PrintName ••Example: Grower,Commcrcw Cle.enOut.Applit3tof,LandOwner DPLMP-Scpt. 1997-P8gc4.3rwl#!l.June 6.1()()8 Appendix Q-1 i PAT MCCRORY Govemor DONALD R. VAN DER VAART Secretary WaterResources S. JAY ZIMMERMAN ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY , _,..,. Dil"ector Manure Hauler Requirements According to 15A NCAC 02T .1400, manure hauler operations are deemed permitted. This means that while these operatjons do not have to apply for permits, they do have to folJow·a list of general requirements. These requirements are similar tothe requirements for generator of dry litter. A summary of these requirements is provided ~elow. 1. Litter shall not be stockpiled within l 00 feet of perennf~ streams or weUs. 2. Litter shall not be left uncovered for more than 15 days. Note that even if the requirements of#l and #2 are met, it is still the responsibility of the hauler to make sure that there is no disch&rgeto waters . . of th~ State. . 3. For land application, a setback of25 feet from perennial streams or water bodies must be maintained. However, iand appliers should b~ 1,1ware of setbacks from all ditches and intermittent streams. Runoff ofiitter due to improper land application can lead to discharges which can result in violations or enforcement actions. 4. Litter shall be applied at rates that do not exceed the agronomic rate of the receiving crop. The rates may be based on NCDA&CS soil test recommendations or NRCS Standards (realistic yield expectations). For more information on realistic yield expectations, contact a technical specialist with the Cooperative Extension Service, NRCS; NCDA&CS, or your local Soil and Water Conservation District. The State average N content for dry litter as shown in the North Carolina Agricultural Chemical Manual published annually by NCSU may be used to calculate application rates in lieu of individual waste analysis; however, waste analysis is still required. Info on waste analysis procedures is available from the Cooperative Extension Service, publication number AG-439-33, Soil Facts: Waste Analysis, athttp://www.soil.ncsu.edu/publicntions/Soilfocts/AO-439-33/ 5. Fields that receive litter from a manure hauler must have a soil analysis that is less than three years old. The standard soil ferti1ityanalysis is available from NCDA&CS. Information on soil sampling procedures is available from the Cooperative Extension Service, publication number AG-439-30, Soil Facts: Careful Soil Sampling- The Key to Reliable Soil Test Information, at htlp://wv.'\v.soil.11 c s11.edu/publications/Soilfocts/AG-439-30/ - 6. Registration Requirements: All manure haulers that haul over 100 tons of litter in a' calendar year must register with the Division of Water Resources. Haulers can contact the Animal Feeding Operations Branch at (919) 807-6464 for information on how to register, or the form may be downloaded at the foJJowingwebsite: http://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-resources-permits/wastewater-branch/animalfeedjng-operation-permits/reporting-fonns State of North Caroline I EnvironmentalQuality I WalerResources/WaterQuallJyRegionalOperations · l 636Mall servi~ Cenh,r I Raleigh,North Carolina27699•1636 919 807 6464 Appendix Q-1 the weather. Follow the same procedures when collecting samples. ■ Composted waste. Usethesamestorage and sampling procedures recommended for stockpiled litter. Although nutrients are somewhat stabilized in these materials, leaching of mobile nutrients can occur during rains. Therefore, sample unprotected compost periodically to monitor changes. North Carolina Department of .Agriculture and Consumer Services Submit samples, the appropriate fee and a completed Waste Sample Information form (form.AD-9).Informationforms are available online at www ,ncagr.gov/agronomi/forms. htm. Use permanent ink to fill out the form. For the most reliable estimate of nutrient availability, provide all the information requested, and select the correct waste identification code and application method from the choices listed. If the codes do not seem to apply to your material, then add a statement describing . the waste in the SAMPLE DESCRIPTION/ COMMENTS section. It is best to ship samples via a private carrier to the division's physical address. Personal delivery is also ·acceptable. Do not ship waste samples via U.S. Mail.Do not put fees or information forms inside plastic bags containing waste material. Waste Analysis Steve Troxler, Commissioner of Agriculture Agronomic Division Colleen M. Hudak-Wise, Ph.D., Director Plant/Waste/Solution/Media Section Brenda. Cleveland, Agronomist Submitting the sample Sampling for www.ncagr.gov/agronomi/ (919) 733-2655 Mailing Address 1040 Mail Service Center Raleigh NC 27699-1040 Physical Address [DHL, FedE~, UPS] 4300 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh ,NC 27607-6465 For more information on sampling, interpreting agronomic reports or implementing recommendations, contact the regional agronomist assigned to your county. www.ncagr.gov/agronor'ni/rahome. htm )> '37' N § i § i la i la i ~ i ~ i ~ i iYi Ii! i Ii! i i i i 35° Y>'12"N 35" 36' 12"N 648700 64IBXl 641ml 649:XXl 649100 64!l2lXl 649:nl 649400 649!iXl 64!l'lll 6497IXJ 64!BX) 3: cy MapScale: 1:5,590 f printedon A landscape(11" x 8.5") sheet N r- USDA A ---====------=====Meiers &l 100 2lll :m ----=====--------========feet 0 250 !ill 1CXXJ ~ ~ 0 1!ill Map projection : WebMercator Comerrooroinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UlMZone 17NWGS84 Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey A~lJ Page 1 of 5 Farmland Classification-Chatham County, North Carolina (Old US 421 S, Bear Creek, NC) MAP LEGEND Area of Interest (AOI) D Area of Interest (AOI) □ Salls Soll Rating Polygons □ □ Not prime farmland All areas are prime farmland Prime farmland if drained □ □ □ Prime farmland if protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Prime farmland If irrigated Prime farmland if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season □ Prime farmland if irrigated and drained □ Prime farmland if irrigated and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season USDA ~- □ Natural Resources Conservation Service Pnme farmland if subsoiled , completely removing the root inhibiting soil layer Prime farmland if irrigated and the product of I (soil erodibility) x C (climate factor) does not exceed □ D 60 Q Prime farmland if irrigated and reclaimed of excess salts and sodium CJ Farmland of statewide importance □ Farmland of statewide importance , if drained □ Farmland of statewide importance , if protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season □ Farmland of statewide importance, if irngated □ □ □ Farmland of statewide importance, if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season □ □ Farmland of statewide importance , if irrigated and drained Farmland of statewide importance . if irrigated and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Farmland of statewide importance, if subsoiled, completely removing the root inhibiting soil layer Farmland of statewide importance , if irrigated and the product of I (soil erodibility) x C (climate factor) does not exceed 60 Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey D Farmland of statewide importance , if 1mgated and reclaimed of excess salts and sodium Farmland of statewide importance , if drained or either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Farmland of statewide importance , if warm enough, and either drained or either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded dunng the growing season □ Farmland of statewide importance , if warm enough □ Farmland of statewide importance , if thawed □ Farmland of local importance □ Farmland of local importance , if irrigated □ Farmland of unique importance □ Not rated or not available --- Soll Rating Lines Not prime farmland All areas are prime farmland Pnme farmland if drained Prime farmland if protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season """ Prime farmland if irrigated """ Prime farmland if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season .." Prime farmland if irrigated and drained Prime farmland if irrigated and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season A~II Page 2 of 5 Farmland -- -- Prime farmland if subsoiled , completely remov ing the root inhibiting soil layer Prime farmland if irrigated and the product of I (soil erodibility) x C (climate factor) does not exceed 60 Prime farmland if irrigated and recla imed of excess salts and sodium Farmland of statewide importance Farmland of statew ide importance , if drained Farmland of statew ide importance , if protected from flooding or not frequently flooded dur ing the grow ing season Farmland of statew ide Importance . if irrigated -. - Farmland of statewide importance , if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequenUy floodedduring the growing season Farmland of statewide importance , if irrigated and drained Farmland of statewide importance , if irrigated and either protected from flooding or not frequenUy flooded during the growing season Farmland of statewide importance, if subsoiled , completely removing the root inhibiting soil layer Farmland of statewide importance , if irrigated and the product of I (soil erodibility) x C (climate factor) does not exceed 60 USDA 'rii Natural Resources Conservation Service Classification-Chatham County , North Carolina (Old US 421 S , Bear Creek, NC) - -. -- National Farmland of statewide importance , if irrigated and reclaimed of excess salts and sodium Farmland of statewide importance , if drained or either protected from flood ing or not frequently flooded during the grow ing seaso n Farmland of statewide importance , 1fwarm enough , and either drained or either protected from flood ing or not frequently flooded during the grow ing season Farmland of statewide importance , if warm enough Farmland of statew ide importance , if thawed Farmland of local importance Farmland of local importance , if irrigated Web Soil Survey Cooperative Soil Survey --- Farmland of unique importance ■ Not prime farmland ■ ■ Prime farmland if drained ■ Prime farmland if protected from flood ing or not frequenUy flooded during the growing season □ Prime farmland if subsoiled, completely remov ing the root inhibiting soil layer ■ All areas are prime Prime farmland if irrigated and the product of I (soil erod1bility) x C (climate factor) does not farmland exceed60 Not rated or not available Soll Rating Points ■ Pnme farmland if imgated and reclaimed of excess salts and sodium ■ Farmland of statew ide importance ■ Farmland of statew ide importance , if drained □ Prime farmland if irrigated □ Prime farmland if drained and either protected from flood ing or not frequently flooded dur ing the grow ing season ■ Farmland of statewide importance , if protected from flood ing or not frequenUy flooded dunng the growing season ■ Pnme farmland if irrigated and drained □ Farmland of statew ide importance , if irrigated □ Prime farmland if imgated and either protected from Hooding or not frequenUy flooded dunng the grow ing season A~llelJ Page 3 of 5 Farmland Classification-Chatham County, North Carolina (Old US 421 S, Bear Creek, NC) Farmland of statewide importance , if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded dunng the growing season ■ Farmland of statewide importance , if irrigated and drained ■ Farmland of statewide importance , if irrigated and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded dunng the growing season □ □ ■ □ ■ Farmland of statewide importance, if subsoiled , completely removing the root inhibiting soil layer Farmland of statewide importance, if irrigated and the product of I (soil erodibility) x C (climate factor) does not exceed 60 Farmland of statewide importance, if imgated and reclaimed of excess salts and sodium Farmland of statewide importance , if drained or either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Farmland of statewide importance , if warm enough , and either drained or either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Farmland of statewide importance, if warm enough □ Farmland of statewide importance , if thawed ■ Farmland of local importance ■ Farmland of local importance, if irrigated ■ Farmland of unique importance □ Not rated or not available Water Features .,,._,, Streams and Canals Transportation -++-t Rails Interstate Highways US Routes The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Chatham County, North Carolina Survey Area Data: Version 23, Jun 2, 2020 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 9,2017 Jun 15, 2015-Dec The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. USDA -~ Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey A~IJ Page 4 of 5 Farmland Classification-Chatham County, North Carolina Old US 421 S, Bear Creek, NC Farmland Classification Map unit symbol Rating Map unit name Acres lnAOI Percent of AOI CkC Cid silt loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes Farmland of statewide importance 3.0 CmB Cid-Lignum complex, 2 to 6 percent slopes Farmland of statewide importance 77.3 96.3% 80.2 100.0% -- -~ Totals for Area of Interest -- - -- 3.7% - ---~ - - - Description Farmland classification identifies map units as prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, farmland of local importance, or unique farmland. It identifies the location and extent of the soils that are best suited to food, feed, fiber, forage, and oilseed crops. NRCS policy and procedures on prime and unique farmlands are published in the "Federal Register," Vol. 43, No. 21, January 31, 1978. Rating Options Aggregation Method: No Aggregation Necessary Tie-break Rule: Lower USDA ""em Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 7/14/2020 Page 5 of 5 Appendix T If" Article 57. Nuisance Liability of Agricultural and Forestry Operations. ♦ 106-700. Legislative determination and declaration of policy. It is the declared policy of the State to conserve and protect and encourage the development and improvement of its agricultural land and forestland for the production of food, fiber, and other products. When other land uses extend into agricultural and forest areas, agricultural and forestry operations often become the subject of nuisance suits. As a result, agricultural and forestry operations are sometimes forced to cease. Many others are discouraged from making investments in farm and forest improvements. It is the purpose of this Article to reduce the loss to the State of its agricultural and forestry resources by limiting the circumstances under which an agricultural or forestry operation may be deemed to be a nuisance. (1979, c. 202, s. l; 1991 (Reg. Sess., 1992), c. 892, s. 1.) ♦ 106-701. When agricultural and forestry operation, etc., not constituted nuisance by changed conditions in locality. (a) No agricultural or forestry operation or any of its appurtenances shall be or become a nuisance, private or public, by any changed conditions in or about the locality thereof after the same has been in operation for more than one year, when such operation was not a nuisance at the time the operation began; provided, that the provisions of this subsection shall not apply whenever a nuisance results from the negligent or improper operation of any such agricultural or forestry operation or its appurtenances. (b) For the purposes of this Article, "agricultural operation" includes, without limitation, any facility for the production for commercial purposes of crops, livestock, poultry, livestock products, or poultry products. (b 1) For the purposes of this Article, "forestry operation" shall mean those activities involved in the growing, managing, and harvesting of trees, but not sawmill operations. (c) The provisions of subsection (a) shall not affect or defeat the right of any person, firm, or corporation to recover damages for any injuries or damages sustained by him on account of any pollution of, or change in condition of, the waters of any stream or on the account of any overflow of lands of any such person, firm, or corporation. (d) Any and all ordinances of any unit of local government now in effect or hereafter adopted that would make the operation of any such agricultural or forestry operation or its appurtenances a nuisance or providing for abatement thereof as a nuisance in the circumstance set forth in this section are and shall be null and void; provided, however, that the provisions of this subsection shall not apply whenever a nuisance results from the negligent or improper operation of any such agricultural or forestry operation or any of its appurtenances. Provided further, that the provisions shall not apply whenever a nuisance results from an agricultural or forestry operation located within the corporate limits of any city at the time of enactment hereof. (e) This section shall not be construed to invalidate any contracts heretofore made but insofar as contracts are concerned, it is only applicable to contracts and agreements to be made in the future. (1979, c. 202, s. 1; 1991 (Reg. Sess., 1992), c. 892, s. 1.) ♦♦ 106-702 through 106-705. Reserved for future codification purposes. AppendixU USDA- Farm Service Agency Notice of Availability Poultry Facility Construction Final Environmental Assessment U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency (FSA)announces they will be completing an Environmental Assessment for the poultry facility construction located at Chatham County Tax Parcel number 0089771 and Pin Number 869700553969. The primary objective of this activity is to construct 4 poultry houses on the 64 -acre property. FSA is accepting comments on the potential effects of the proposed project on protected resources and the human environment through XXXXX,2020. Information regarding this project can be reviewed in person at the FSAoffice located at 3230A Presson Road Monroe, NC 28112. Comments should be submitted to Suzanne Simpson at 3230A Presson Road Monroe, NC 28112 or by email at suzanne.simpson@usda.gov . Appendix W-1 lJSDAUnited States 'Jepartment of ~ Agriculture Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services Farm Service Agency Union County Farm Service Agency 3230 A Presson Road Monroe, NC 28112-9196 Guide Letter for Notifying Applicants/ Borrowers of the Requirement to Publish a Notice of Availability of a Final EA July 30, 2020 •• •• ii: Attn: altlis& • 1 1 5 ED lid Git;, I ::srC72 ♦ 1 RE: Farm Service Agency Final Environmental Assessment Dear M11s, Farm Service Agency will be completing an Environmental Assessment on the yygc, t I 14Pflaam ■ C proposed poultry construction project. Farm Service Agency has started a final assessment of this action. Before further consideration can be given to your project, Farm Service Agency regulations require that the NOA (copy enclosed) be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the project vicinity and in any local or community oriented newspaper in the area. The notice must be published in easily readable type in the non-legal section of the newspaper of general circulation in the project area for three consecutive days in a daily newspaper or two consecutive issues if not a daily newspaper. It if, 1'1I 5C 3 Rh responsibility to make the necessary arrangements to publish and distribute the enclosed notice. a· You must provide the Farm Service Agency Office with a copy of the published notice as it appeared, the name(s) of the newspaper(s) in which it was published, the date of publication, an affidavit of publication and a list of all parties receiving an individual copy of the notice as soon after publication as possible but not later than the end of the 30 day comment period which begins on the day after the date of first publication. If you have any questions, you should contact Suzanne Simpson at (704) 324-9226. Sincerely, Suzanne Simpson Farm Loan Manager Enclosure Appendix W-4 USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. .ear-w 35??:an .0- Nivv??: mum l? - awn-:0. -o aU?l Old US 421 S, BEar Creek, NC September 11, 2020 c:=J water Bodies 1:18,056 c==J o-210 1!111 > 974- 9,440 0.13 0.25 0.5 mi 0 0.2 0.4 0.8km c==J > 294-1 ,858 > 382 _ 604 Population Density (per sq. mile) c::=J > 1,858 _ 4 ,153 r-, c==J o-294 r-, L__J >604-974 L__J >4,153-8,085 Population Below Poverty Level c:=J c==J > 210-382 0 Source Esn. Maxar, GeoEye, Earthslar Geograptucs. CNES/Alrbus DS. USDA. USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and lhe GIS User Commurnly 8804 Old US 421 S, Bear Creek, NC 0 I 0 OA25 II I I 0,225 I I ,Q~5 ,, I 0:45 I e· 0.5ml II September 10, 2020 Wetlands ■ □ Estuarine and Marine Deepwater Estuarine and Marine Wetland □ ■ □ Freshwater Emergent Wetland Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Freshwater Pond ■ □ ■ Lake This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and 'Midlife Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the Wetlands Mapper web site. Other Riverine tJ=atinn=al Wil:ltbn,ic:: lnuontnn, ( tJ\1\11\ NEPAssist Report Poultry Houses S..plembe, 11, 2020 1:7, 154 .l &r-!,,1 'l l L'rld~tt 11:11.,-, f bO(;i..~1r:, : ..,l'j ,t a:11d:x>11 - :>:.•.Ar.~n-llfh.'ln.:.,, "l0.11,ran1 ~ hr.\.roC'>!.:! .n11 A11nu.,.1,:,1.ir,~t-r'C'Od l u ,1·d - \"; ), :,fl'..alCtai;: il f l~Xl -iJ: a•~ fZJ ....~,·"- r. ~...:u-:-,.3F.1._Out t>\. ;.l e.- - He,u~"ll.:iri flooct.va, ~•-..a:MC11:n~~i1tltl FOES • ti v·o 01 0 2 111 1 .,..J • O.Um u, CJ ...~► las ~ C'S 1-£,.,1l.l.:11rC. or.! )'lllll't"~ C",n;:r;,;:-.~:.c::.;,tsA..,::,.a CC1"'1!';,,."i" 1/. t.:!c,r.,_ !JS.GS :.r--JG=;c-.GIi ,..., lh GI~ ...'tt EP.:.oe.•o•.:. rrt:ol H O!ll'!ilMS Project Location Within Within Within Within Within Within Within Within Within Within Within Within Within Within Within Within Within Within Within Within (iO~ t-----O..!----·--,--J C2 1 mile of an Ozone 8-hr (1997 standard ) Non-Attainment/Maintenance Area? 1 mile of an Ozone 8-hr (2008 standard ) Non-Attainment/Maintenance Area? 1 mile of a Lead (2008 standard ) Non-Attainment/Maintenance Area? 1 mile of a SO2 1-hr (2010 standard ) Non-Attainment/Maintenance Area? 1 mile of a PM2.5 24hr (2006 standard ) Non-Attainment/Maintenance Area? 1 mile of a PM2.5 Annual (1997 standard ) Non-Attainment/Maintenance Area? 1 mile of a PM2.5 Annual (2012 standard ) Non-Attainment/Maintenance Area? 1 mile of a PM10 (1987 standard ) Non-Attainment/Maintenance Area? 1 mile of a Federal Land? 1 mile of an impaired stream? 1 mile of an imoaired waterbod v? 1 mile of a waterbod v? 1 mile of a stream? 1 mile of an NWI wetland? 1 mile of a Brownfields site? 1 mile of a Suoerfund site? 1 mile of a Toxic Release lnvento rv (TRI) site? 1 mile of a water dischar ger (NPDES )? 1 mile of a hazardous waste (RCRA ) facili tv? 1 mile of an air emission facilitv? 35.608429 ,79.353046 no no no no no no no no no no no no ves Available Online no no no ves no no Within Within Within Within Within Within Within Within 1 mile of a school? 1 mile of an airoort? 1 mile of a hosoital? 1 mile of a desicinated sole source aauifer? 1 mile of a historic orooertv on the National Reaister of Historic Places? 1 mile of a Toxic Substances Control Act lTSCA) site? 1 mile of a Land Cession Boundarv? 1 mile of a tribal area (lower 48 states)? no no no no no no no no Created on: 9/11/2020 8:47:36 AM Old US 421 S, BEar Creek, NC September 11, 2020 C=1 Water Bodies 1:18,056 0 0.13 0.25 0.5 mi 0 0.2 0.4 0.8km Source Esn, Maxar. GeoEye, Earthstar Geographies, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA. USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Commurnty Old US 421 S, Bear Creek, NC ' ~ ~ ~ J:f<:ttl 'Tl t ..5 t #(\ % ::I QI ~ ~ 0, 1l. '¼i,,j '\ ~,p, 0,- \,:~l> st·~ (,.,,. '1"'.l\ctsChOQf Rd -OloIJs "l,i s f' WQlter\.;.lftlbcrt lld (i § Q:f 1, .t1Ql'lQl1.Rff ~;,~ ~ aear ~ ,.(:}\Urch Rd ' ~..,, ,&~ ~ ·ti}.. - Cf 0, ~ c:\oC'~" GQ\d-s\GC\ ~'-' \l'I' \'P.._.e. <,~ ~ ~ .. (!; ""Goldston t.. -'\" "D it: '9'-41. .,Blac~ "'il.r, o\~ # "if r..."" '14/2020 3:46:20 PM ::J Override 1 1:36, 112 0 0.25 0 0.5 1 mi f I 0.4 0.8 1.6 km Sources: Esri. HERE, Gannin , USGS, lntannap . INCREMENT P. NRCan, Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand) , NGCC, OpanStraalMapconlributor.;,and the GIS User Community us