20150025 All Versions_Application_20150108

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PAT L. MCCRORY
GoVERNOR
January 7, 2015
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
2407 West 5h Street
Washington, NC 27889
Attn: Ms. Tracey Wheeler
NCDOT Coordinator
ANTHONY J. TATA
SECRETARY
Subject: Application for Section 404 Nationwide Permit 18 for the installation of
pedestrian bridges on the Palmetto Peartree Preserve, Tyrrell County,
North Carolina.
Dear Madam:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation ( NCDOT) is acting on the behalf of
The Conservation Fund to apply for a Nationwide Permit 18 for the installation of
pedestrian bridges. These bridges will be located on the Palmetto Peartree Preserve
which is a red - cockaded woodpecker (RCW) mitigation site. The Conservation Fund
owns the property but NCDOT is currently in negotiations to obtain the deed. NCDOT
expects to obtain the deed before the installation begins but definitely before the work is
completed. We request that this permit be transferred to NCDOT when we obtain the
deed.
These bridges will be used for foot traffic to cross the many canals on the property to
access RCW cavity trees for demographic monitoring. We are only installing 12 bridges.
These are listed on the attached map as priority bridges 1 -12. The other bridges
mentioned may or may not be installed in the future. If so another permit application will
be submitted. The pedestrian bridges will vary in length from 17 to 35 feet and be no
wider and 4 feet. The wetland impact area was determined to be 24 square feet for each
bridge. The total wetland impact for all 12 bridges will be <0.01 acre. Wetlands are
located only on one side of each bridge. The other side of the bridge is located on the
road which is not jurisdictional.
Please find enclosed the Pre - construction Notification (PCN). Letter from The
Conservation Fund allowing us to submit on their behalf, a sketch of the bridge impact
area, table of the amount of impact per bridge and a map showing the general location of
MAILING ADDRESS: LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE: 919 - 707 -6000 CENTURY CENTER, BUILDING B
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS UNIT FAX: [phone] BIRCH RIDGE DRIVE
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER RALEIGH NC 27610
RALEIGH NC 27699 -1548 WEBSITE.NCOOT.GOV

each bridge. A Categorical Exclusion was completed for the Palmetto Peartree Preserve
in March 1999 and is enclosed.
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Section 404
Application is hereby made for a modification to the USACE Nationwide Permit 18 as
required for the above - described activities.
Section 401
No written approval is being requested nor is it required for the above activities.
CAMA: While there are no CAMA AECs, this project is in a CAMA county. However,
we are applying for a nationwide permit which has been deemed consistent with CAMA.
Thank you for your assistance with this project. If you have any questions or need
additional information, please contact Rachelle Beauregard at [e-mail] or
(919) 707 -6105.
Sincerely,
Richard W. Hancock, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Unit
cc: Justin Boner, The Conservation Fund
David Wainwright, NCDWR
Gary Jordan, USFWS
Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Greg Daisy, NCDCM
Rachelle Beauregard, NES

o�oF vvar�,�Q�
h r
� y
O Y
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.4 January 2009
Pre - Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A.
Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1 a.
Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
Section 404 Permit Section 10 Permit
FZ ❑
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 18 or General Permit (GP) number:
1 c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
® Yes
® No
1 d.
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e.
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
® Yes ❑ No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes ® No
1f.
Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in -lieu
fee program.
❑ Yes
® No
1 g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below.
® Yes
❑ No
1 h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes
® No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
install pedestrian foot bridges over canals within the Palmetto Peartree Preserve
2b.
County:
Tyrrell
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Columbia
2d.
Subdivision name:
not applicable
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no:
3.
Owner Information
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
The Conservation Fund
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
not applicable
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC i f
applicable):
not applicable
3d.
Street address:
P.O. Box 271
3e.
City, state, zip:
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
3f.
Telephone no.:
(919) 967 -2223
3g.
Fax no.:
(919) 967 -9702
3h.
Email address:
jboner @conservationfund.org

4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is:
❑ Agent ® Other, specify:
4b. Name:
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT is in negotiations with TCF on
purchasing the property)
4c. Busines s name
(if applicable):
4d. Street address:
1020 Birch Ridge Dr.
4e. City, state, zip:
Raleigh, NC 27610
4f. Telephone no.:
919 - 707 -6105
4g. Fax no.:
919 - 212 -5785
4h. Email address:
rbeauregard @ncdot.gov
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name:
not applicable
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
5c. Street address:
5d. City, state, zip:
5e. Telephone no.:
5f. Fax no.:
5g. Email address:

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1 a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
not applicable
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 35.958604 Longitude: - 76.183575
(DD.DDDDDD) (- DD.DDDDDD)
1c. Property size:
10,000 acres approx..
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to
Albemarle Sound, Alligator River and Little Alligator River
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
SB, SC Sw, SC Sw, respectively
2c. River basin:
Pasquotank
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The site is currently forested and serves as a federally endangered red - cockaded woodpecker mitigation site for NCDOT
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
Approx. 10,000 acres
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
Approx. 200,000 feet
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
To install pedestrian bridges over the canals to access land on the property for red - cockaded woodpecker monitoring and
management
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The project involves installing 12 pedestrian foot bridges over the canals within the Palmetto Peartree Preserve. Bridges
range from 17 feet to 35 feet and will no wider than 4 feet. The bridges will be laid on top of the wetland The bridges will
span the canals.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
❑ Yes ® No ❑ Unknown
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments:
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
❑ Preliminary ❑ Final
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Agency /Consultant Company:
Name (if known):
Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
❑ Yes ® No ❑ Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
® Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ❑ Buffers
❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
2b.
2c.
2d.
2e.
2f.
Wetland impact
number —
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
Type of jurisdiction
Area of impact
Permanent (P) or
(if known)
(acres)
Temporary T
Site 1 ®P ❑ T
fill
Riverine Swamp Forest
® Yes
❑ No
® Corps
❑ DWQ
<0.01
Site 2 ❑ P ❑ T
Choose One
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Corps
❑ DWQ
Site 3 ❑ P ❑ T
Choose One
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Corps
❑ DWQ
Site 4 ❑ P ❑ T
Choose One
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Corps
❑ DWQ
Site 5 ❑ P ❑ T
Choose One
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Corps
❑ DWQ
Site 6 ❑ P ❑ T
Choose One
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Corps
❑ DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts
<0.01
2h. Comments: Impacts at Site 1 include area for all 12 foot bridges. See attached spreadsheet for individual impacts for each
bridge. Wetland impacts will only occur on one side of each bridge. The other side of the bridge will be located on the road
which is not jurisdictional. The impact area for the wetland impacts was determined by a 4 by 6 foot area. See attached
sketch. The length was determined to be an area 4 feet long beginning at the wetland boundary from the canal. The
maximum width of the bridge is 4 feet so area of impact was determined to be 6 feet in length (1 foot extra on each side of
bridge for room to secure the bridge end in place). So the maximum wetland impact per bridge is 24 square feet.
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
3b.
3c.
3d.
3e.
3f.
3g.
Stream impact
Type of impact
Stream name
Perennial
Type of
Average
Impact length
number -
(PER) or
jurisdiction
stream
(linear feet)
Permanent (P) or
intermitte
(Corps -
width
Temporary (T)
nt (INT)?
404, 10
(feet)
DWQ -
non -404,
other)
Site 1 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
Site 2 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
Site 3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
[:11 NT
❑ DWQ
Site 4 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
Site 5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ

Site 6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
3i. Comments:
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
4b.
4c.
4d.
4e.
Open water
Name of
impact number —
waterbody
Type of impact
Waterbody
Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
(if applicable)
type
Temporary T
01 ❑P ❑T
02 ❑ PEI T
03 ❑P FIT
04 ❑P ❑T
4f. Total open water impacts
X Permanent
X Temporary
4g. Comments: The USACE has called the canals
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a.
5b.
5c.
5d.
5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
Stream Impacts (feet)
Upland
Pond ID
Proposed use or
(acres)
number
purpose of pond
Flo
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
ode
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
d
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:

6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer,
then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer
impacts below. If any impacts require mitigation,
then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
❑ Neuse
El Tar-Pamlico El Other:
Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Catawba
❑ Randleman
6b.
6c.
6d.
6e.
6f,
6g.
Buffer impact
number—
Reason for impact
Buffer
Zone 1 impact
Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or
Stream name
mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
Temporary T
required?
B1 ❑P ❑T
El Yes
❑ No
B2 ❑P FIT
El Yes
❑ No
B3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments:

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
All the pedestrian bridges will be spanned over the canals. The impact to wetlands will be minimal and only the amount
needed to secure the end of the bridge.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
The impact to wetlands will be minimal and only the amount needed to secure the end of the bridge.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
❑ Yes ® No
If no, explain: Only minimal impact to wetlands <0.1 acre.
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
2c. If yes, which mitigat ion option will be used for this
project?
❑ Mitigation bank
Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank: not applicable
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type
Quantity
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
❑ Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested:
linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
❑ warm ❑ cool ❑cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4f. Non - riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.

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

E.
Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1.
Diffuse Flow Plan
1a.
Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b.
If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If not, explain why.
❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments:
2.
Stormwater Management Plan
2a.
What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
N/A
2b.
Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes ® No
2c.
If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
2d.
If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative
description of the plan:
❑ Certified Local Government
2e.
Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ DWQ Stormwater Program
❑ DWQ 401 Unit
3.
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a.
In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
not applicable
❑ Phase II
❑ NSW
3b.
Which of the following locally - implemented stormwater management programs
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply):
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
4.
DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑ Coastal counties
4a.
Which of the following state - implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ HQW
(check all that apply):
❑ ORW
❑ Session Law 2006 -246
❑ Other:
4b.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No n/a
attached?
5.
DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a.
Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b.
Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No

F.
Supplementary Information
1.
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a.
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal /state /local) funds or the
® Yes ❑ No
use of public (federal /state) land?
1 b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
® Yes ❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c.
If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
® Yes ❑ No
letter.)
Comments:
2.
Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a.
Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑ Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b.
Is this an after - the -fact permit application?
❑ Yes ® No
2c.
If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3.
Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a.
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
❑ Yes
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
® No
3b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
This project will not result in additional development
4.
Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a.
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non- discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
not applicable
10

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
® Yes ❑ No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
❑ Yes ® No
impacts?
❑ Raleigh
5c. If yes, ind icate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
❑ Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
Recent surveys, USFWS website, CE. No pine trees will be cut for the installation of the pedestrian foot bridges. Thus
no impact to RCW habitat.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
NMFS County Index
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
❑ Yes ® No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
NEPA Documentation
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA- designated 100 -year floodplain?
❑ Yes ® No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? http: / /fris.neem.org /fris /Home.aspx
Richard W. Hancock, P.E.
-- --
- 7 - 2Q %s
Date
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
Applicant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided.)
11

THE
CONSERVATION
December 12, 2014
Richard W. Hancock, P.E.
F U N D
Manager, Project Development and Environmental Analysis
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Dear Mr. Hancock
PO Box 271
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
919- 967 -2223
On behalf of The Conservation Fund, I am submitting this letter authorizing the North Carolina Department of
Transportation ( NCDOT) to be The Conservation Fund's agent in seeking the necessary permits and approvals
for the construction of pedestrian bridges or boardwalks at the Palmetto - Peartree Preserve in Tyrrell County,
North Carolina. This infrastructure will facilitate management of the endangered red - cockaded woodpecker
and will allow NCDOT to maintain their species mitigation bank across the 10,000 -acre preserve.
If you have any questions about The Conservation Fund's involvement with this project, please do not hesitate
to contact our Preserve Manager, Justin Boner, at 919 -475 -6756 orjboner @conservationfund.org. Thank you
for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
P--o 1+-1
Paul F. Hurt
Assistance Secretary and Deputy General Counsel
cc: Rachelle Beauregard, Natural Environment Section, Project Management Group, NCDOT
Justin Boner, Palmetto- Peartree Preserve Manager, The Conservation Fund

4- o- 'F
q'
-�c vre a a'
Je c+,4a n

Pedestrian Bridge Lengths and Wetland Impacts per bridge
Bridge Number
Approx length
Location of
Wetland
(ft)
wetlands
Impact (sq ft)
on north side of
1
25
road
24
south side of
2
17
the road
24
north side of
3
25
road
24
south side of
4
25
the road
24
north side of
5
29
road
24
west side of
6
25
road
24
north side of
7
23
road
24
south side of
8
23
the road
24
north side of
9
30
road
24
north side of
10
35
road
24
east side of
11
35
road
24
east side of
12
33
road
24
Total square
feet
288
Total acres
0.007

yt .
Legend
Canal bridges needed
Priority
01 - 12 J
13 -20 4j - �—
— P3 roads
P3 Boundary
Canal bridges needed for red - cockaded woodpecker (RCW) monitoring access on
Palmetto Peartree Preserve (P3), in order of priority, August 2014.
**
0 0.5 1 Miles
I I I
2014

1.
Tyrrell County
Proposed Red - cockaded Woodpecker
Ylanagement Preserve
Federal -Aid Project 4 STP- 0107(l)
State Project # 3.2130301
TIP # R -4017
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APP OVED: / D ,
A E William D. Gilmore, P. ., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
3 9
ATE f'( Nich s L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................... ............................... .
2.0 HAZARDOUS WASTE SUMMARY ........................ ...........................2(A)
3.0 NATURAL RESOURCES OVERVIEW .................. ..............................4
3.1 Introduction ........................................... ..............................4
3.2 Vegetative Communities .......................... ...............................
3.3 Water and Wetland Resources ..................... ..............................5
3.4 Protected Species ................................... ...............................
3.4.1 Red - cockaded woodpecker ............. ..............................5
3.4.2 Other Protected Species ................ ...............................
3.5 Wildlife Resources ................................. ..............................7
3.6 Summary ............................................ ...............................
4.0 PROTECTED SPECIES IMPACT ASSESSMENT ..... ..............................8
4.1 Federally Protected Species ...................... ...............................
4.2 Federal Species of Concern/State Listed Species ...........................11
5.0 RED- COCKADED WOODPECKER ASSESSMENT . .............................12
5.1 Introduction ....................................... ............................... l
5.2 Scope of Work ................................... ...............................
5.3 Project Area and Site ............................. ..............................1
5.4 Methods ........................................... ...............................
5.5 Results and Discussion .......................... ............................... 14
6.0 MEMORANDUM (ARCHITECTURAL SUMMARY ) ............................18
7.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ...........................19
TABLE 1: Federally Protected Species For Tyrrell County ...........................8
MAP I: Regional Context
MAP 2: Red - cockaded woodpecker Nest Sites
FIGURE I: Site Location
FIGURE 2: Cluster Locations
APPENDIX l: Cavity Tree Data
ATTACHMENT: Tax Reimbursement Strategy

INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation ( NCDOT) proposes to
purchase approximately 9,732 acres of property located in Tyrrell County, in the
northeastern coastal plain of North Carolina (Map # 1). The purpose of this acquisition is
to provide mitigation for impacts to federally endangered Red - cockaded woodpeckers or
their habitat that are anticipated to occur as a result of transportation projects. The
property contains 18 active clusters of Red - cockaded woodpeckers (Map # 2). A
memorandum of agreement is under development between The United States Fish and
Wildlife Service, The Conservation Fund, and NCDOT that will allow for the property to
be managed as a Red - cockaded woodpecker preserve. The parties to the agreement
anticipate that management of the property will increase the number of active clusters.
NCDOT intends to use credits generated from the management and development of the
preserve for existing and future transportation projects. The use of credits from the
management preserve will be primarily restricted to the North Carolina coastal plain.
The following information includes the results of investigations conducted to
identify any potential problems on the property associated with hazardous materials,
federally protected species and architectural and archaeological resources. The
Conservation Fund is in the process of developing a plan to provide Tyrrell County with
fiends to replace the loss of tax base. A letter from The Conservation Fund to NCDOT
addressing this issue is included in the report attachments.
The acquisition of this property will have overall positive environmental benefits.
No substantial negative environmental impacts are anticipated. Therefore, this action has
been classified as a "Categorical Exclusion ".

2.0 HAZARDOUS WASTE SUMMARY
This report enumerates the findings of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
on six tracts of land belonging to Butler Land and Timber Company, located in Tyrrell
County, North Carolina. Canal Environmental Services (CES) of Florence, South
Carolina - a division of Canal Forest Resources, Inc. of Charlotte, North Carolina -
conducted this assessment under contract with Prudential Timber Investment, Inc. of
Boston Massachusetts.
The objective this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was to identify, to the
extent practicable pursuant to the, process described in the American Society of Testing
and Materials (ASTM) Practice E 1527 -94, recognized environmental conditions in
connection with the referenced property. Achieving assessment objectives entailed: (1)
on -site reconnaissance, (2) interviews with appropriate individuals; and (3) reviews of
maps, aerial photos, and documents on file with Federal, State, and Local regulatory
agencies
The site reconnaissance, interviews, and review of information on file with
Federal, State and Local agencies revealed neither environmental permits issued nor
regulatory action taken on or adjacent to the tracts. This assessment showed no evidence
of contamination within the scope of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) occurring within one mile of the property
boundaries. This assessment revealed no Treatment, Storage or Disposal (TSD) facilities,
as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), occurring within
one mile of the property boundaries. Finally, this assessment revealed no RCRA
generators, no landfills, and no registered or leaking underground storage tanks occurring
within 1/2 mile of the property boundaries.
Small unauthorized disposal sites containing household waste occurred on several
tract compartments, but these appeared to be de minimis in nature; they emitted no
obvious odors, showed no apparent stained soils, and no obvious evidence of stressed
vegetation.
2

CES has performed this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in conformance
with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E 1527 -94 on the referenced property.
Any exceptions to or deletions from this practice are described in Section 2.3 of this
report. This assessment revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions in
connection with the property.
9

0((4-1
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TR-v\ISPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611 -5201 E. NoR1us TOLSON
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
February 23, 1999
SUBJECT: GeoEnvironmental Impact Study
Hazardous Nlaterial Evaluation for Proposed Red - Cockaded
Woodpecker Nlitibation Site in Tyrrell County
Purpose
This report presents the results of a '`GeoEnvironmental Impact Study" conducted alone the
above referenced mitigation site. The main purpose of this investigation is to identify propertie
within the project study area that may contain hazardous materials and result in future
environmental liability if acquired, These hazards may include, but are not limited to:
underground storage tanks (USTs), hazardous waste sites, regulated landfills and unregulate.'
dump sites.
Methodology
A Field reconnaissance survey was conducted within the proposed mitigation areas along existing
rSads. In addition to the field survey, a file search of appropriate environmental agencies was
conducted to identify any known problem sites in the area.
Underground Storage Tank (UST) Facilities
Based on the Field reconnaissance survey, no facilities with the possibility for USTs were
identified within the mitigation areas. The closest facility is a former gas station at the
intersection of SR 1229 and SR 1221, but would not be impacted with the current mitigation
areas.
Landfills and Other Potentially Contaminated Properties
The Geographical Information Service (GIS) was consulted for the area. The research shows that
no regulated or unregulated landfills or dumpsites occur within the area. The Field
reconnaissance also did not locate any dump sites.
2A

GeoEnv iron mental fmoact Stud%
Februar• __. 1000
P -
Based on the Field reconnaissance and records search, there should be no Further environmental
conflicts other than those mentioned in this report, which could potentially impact this project.
Roadway Design should avoid proposed right -of -way encroachment at any identified sites,
because of potential environmental liabilities for proper cleanup and remediation if
contamination exists. [f the site cannot be avoided, a "Preliminary Site Assessment" should be
performed prior to right -of -way acquisition to determine the extent of any contamination. This
assessment will also be used by the Department to estimate the associated clean up costs.
Sincerely.
E��nG Tarasc , '
Project Environmental geologist
Geotechnical Unit%GeoEnvironmental Section
cc Jim West, Right -of -Way Branci,
Ray White, LG, Geotechnical Unit Area I
3A

3.0 NATURAL RESOURCES OVERVIEW
3.1 Introduction
The Tyrrell County Timberlands consists of approximately 9,700+ acres on several
tracts in extreme northeastern Tyrrell County, North Carolina. Most of the acreage is
included in two large parcels, the Foreman Tract (8,105+ acres) and the Major / Loomis
Tract (1,301± acres). The purpose of this report is to provide a brief overview of the
natural resources on this site.
3.2 Vegetative Communities
The.property is mostly forested with mature (jo+ years old) pine, pine - hardwood
and swamp hardwood forest types. Loblolly pine (Pins taeda) is the dominant pine.
There are approximately 6,625 acres of pine dominated stands and 2,645 acres of
hardwoods, with small amounts of cut -over land ( -217 acres), non - forested land (-123
acres) and planted pine (-125 acres).
Several vegetative communities occur onsite including Mesic Pine Flatwoods, Wet
Pine Flatwoods, Pond Pine Woodland, Nonriverine Swamp Forest, Nonriverine Wet
Hardwood Forest, Peatland Atlantic White Cedar Forest, Tidal Cypress -Gum Forest and
Natural Lake Shoreline. Pine Flatwoods and Nonriverine Swamp Forest are the most
widespread community types. Peatland Atlantic White Cedar Forest and Natural Lake
Shoreline are the least common. Tidal Cypress -Gum Swamp is restricted to the shorelines
along Albemarle Sound and Alligator Creek.
Most natural communities have been subject to prolonged alteration of the natural
fire cycle. This has resulted in dense hardwood midstories in most pine stands and
suppression of the native herbaceous ground cover. Pine regeneration is dense in some
stands that have been cut to seed tree or shelterwood overstory densities.

3.3 Water And Wetland Resources
The property has 8.8 miles of frontage on Albemarle Sound with road access at two
points. There are 2.8 miles of frontage on the north side of Alligator Creek (one road
access) and 3.1 miles of frontage on the south side of Alligator Creek.
Soils are hydric and include both mineral soils and organic mucks. Common soil
types are the Tomotley, Weeksville, Belhaven, Dorovan and Perquimans series. Vegetation
is hydrophytic. Wetland hydrology is presumably present on much of the property,
however, some ditches and canals were constructed in the past. Drainage efforts have had
an unknown impact on natural hydrology.
3.4 Protected Species
3.4.1 Red - cockaded Woodpecker
A protected species survey in 1996 and the resulting Biological Assessment
(enclosed) documented the presence of 18 active red - cockaded woodpecker (Picoides
borealis) (RCW) (federal/State endangered) clusters on this property. No inactive clusters
were found. During the 1996 breeding season, at least 83 percent of these clusters
contained RCW nests. The ratios of active to inactive clusters and active clusters with nests
versus those without are unusually high, especially for a supposedly isolated population.
Other RCW groups are rumored to exist on private lands to the south and have been
documented on the Alligator River and Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuges and Dare
County Bombing Range.
This RCW population is the largest known on privately -owned timberland in North
Carolina and the most northerly population of significant size ( >10 groups) east of the
Appalachian Mountains. Its location at the northeastern edge of the species' range,
isolation from other RCW populations and the relatively unique habitat occupied strongly
suggest that this population may contain unique genetic material and behavioral adaptations.
Under appropriate management, the Tyrrell County population could provide inputs of
critical genetic diversity to the two RCW Recovery Populations (Coastal Plain and
Sandhills) in North Carolina. This would be accomplished by periodically translocating
individuals from Tyrrell County to the Recovery Populations. This population could also
5

provide a source of RCWs for the emergency RCW restoration effort underway in
southeastern Virginia.
Using the `Blue Book' RCW foraging habitat guidelines developed by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service ( USFWS) (Guidelines for preparation of biological assessments and
evaluations for the red - cockaded woodpecker, Henry 1989), existing RCW groups (18)
utilize a minimum of 2,250 acres of pine or pine - hardwood and 152,820 square feet (sq. ft.)
of pine basal area (BA) in stems >4 inches diameter at breast height (DBH). Using the
private landowner (non - federal) foraging habitat standard (Guidelines for management of
red - cockaded woodpeckers on private lands, USFWS 1992), existing RCW groups
encumber at least 1,080 acres and 54,000 sq. ft. of pine BA in stems > 10 inches DBH.
With intensive management, existing pine and pine - hardwood sites (exclusive of
Nonriverine Swamp Forest) potentially could support an additional 20+ groups using the
federal Blue Book foraging habitat standards or 70+ groups using the private lands
standard. The former total is probably attainable over time. Establishment of significantly
higher population densities would require research on RCW habitat utilization for this
population.
3.4.2 Other Protected Species
No federally protected plant species are known from the property, however, no
systematic surveys have been conducted for protected plants. An American bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) (federal threatened, State endangered) nest has been
documented along the eastern property boundary north of Alligator Creek. The red wolf
(Canis rufus) (federal / State endangered) has been recorded onsite ( USFWS, personal
communication') and the American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) (federal threatened
by similarity of appearance, State threatened) may occur in Alligator Creek. The Dismal
Swamp southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris fisheri) (federal / State threatened) and
peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) (federal / State endangered) undoubtedly occur onsite,
the former species in woodlands, the latter along shorelines during migrations and winter.
No surveys have been conductea for btate -listed species.
0

3.5 Wildlife Resources
The property contains habitats for a wide variety of indigenous wildlife (amphibians,
reptiles, birds and mammals). Approximately 2,600 acres of mature Nonriverine Swamp
Forest provide excellent breeding habitat for numerous Neotropical migrant landbirds.
Waters of the adjacent Albemarle Sound and Alligator Creek provide habitat for migratory
and wintering waterfowl. There are large populations of white - tailed deer (Odocoiles
virginianus) and black bear (Ursus americanus).
3.6 Summary
Purchase of the Tyrrell County Timberlands by a public agency would protect the
largest known RCW population on private lands in North Carolina. Sufficient habitat is
present to at least double the existing RCW population. The extensive shorelines along
Albemarle Sound and Alligator Creek and the large acreages of mature forests and forested
wetlands are other factors that make this property unique.

4.0
4.1
PROTECTED SPECIES IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline either
due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human development, Federal law (under the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that any action, likely to
adversely affect a species classified as federally - protected, be subject to review by the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Other species may receive additional protection under
separate state laws.
Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under the provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endsng, . —' ^ ^' ^r t0-7;
1999, the FWS lists four federally protected species for Tyrrell County (Table 1).
Table 1. Federally Protected Species for Tyrrell County
American alligator Alligator mississippiensis Threatened (S /A)
Red wolf Canis ri fiis Experimental
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalcis Threatened
Red - cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
Threatened because of similarity of appearance [T(S /A)I designates species that are threatened
due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and are listed for the rare species'
protection. T(S /A) are not subject to Section 7 consultation.
Experimental designates experimental, nonessential endangered species that are treated as
threatened on public land and proposed for listing on private land.
Threatened designates a taxon likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Endangered designates a taxon that are in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range.

Alligator mississippiensis (American alligator) Threatened S/A
Animal Family: Alligatoridae
Date Listed: 04 June 1987
The American alligator is a large reptile with a broad snout, a short neck, heavy body, and
a laterally compressed tail. Adults are blackish to dark gray.
The alligator inhabits freshwater marshes and swamps in the coastal plain of North
Carolina from the southern boundary of the Albemarle Sound throughout the coastal plain of
eastern and southeastern North Carolina.
The American alligator is listed as Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance (T S /A). This is
due to its similarity of appearance to another rare species that is listed for protection. T S/A
species are not subject to Section 7 consultation and a biological conclusion for this species is not
required.
Canis rutus (red wolf) Experunencac
Animal Family: Canidae
Date Listed: 3 /11/67
The red wolf is a medium -sized canid smaller than the grey wolf and larger and hardier
than the coyote. A more elongated head and shorter coarser pelage than the grey wolf can
identify the red wolf. It has coloration similar to that of the coyote, but with a darker element.
Habitat requirements for the red wolf are not specific. The red wolf does need heavy
vegetation to provide adequate shelter and denning materials.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
No Effect
The red wolf has been sighted on the proposed management preserve property.
Management strategies being developed for red - cockaded woodpeckers will not preclude or
reduce the continued utilization of this property by red wolves.
9

Haliaeetus leucocepltalus (bald eagle) Threatened
Animal Family: Accipitridae
Date Listed: 3/11/67
Their large white head and short white tail can identify adult bald eagles. The
body plumage is dark -brown to chocolate -brown in color. In flight bald eagles can be
identified by their flat wing soar.
Eagle nests are found in close proximity to water (within a half mile) with a clear
flight path to the water, in the largest living tree in an area, and having an open view of
the surrounding land. Human disturbance can cause an eagle to abandon otherwise
suitable habitat. The breeding season for the bald eagle begins in December or January.
Fish are the major food source for bald eagles. Other sources include coots, herons, and
wounded ducks. Food may be live or carrion.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
No Effect
Bald eagles are known to nest on the property boundary to the east of the proposed
management preserve. Management strategies being developed for red - cockaded woodpeckers
will not impact activity conducted by bald eagles on or adjacent to the proposed management
preserve.
Picoides borealis (red - cockaded woodpecker) Endangered
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 13 October 1970
The adult red - cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has a plumage that is entirely black and white
except for small red streaks on the sides of the nape in the male. The back of the RCW is black and
white with horizontal stripes. The breast and underside of this woodpecker are white with streaked
flanks. The RCW has a large white cheek patch surrounded by the black cape, neck, and throat.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf pines (Pines
palustris) for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at least 50% pine, lack a
thick understory, and be contiguous with other stands to be appropriate habitat for the RCW.
These birds nest exclusively in trees that are >60 years old and are contiguous with pine stands of
10

at least 30 years of age. The foraging range of the RCW is up to 200 hectares (500 acres). This
acreage must be contiguous with suitable nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and usually in trees that are
infected with the fungus that causes red -heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies from 3.6 to
30.3 m (12 to 100 ft) above the ground and average 9.1 to 15.7 m (30 to 50 ft) high. They can be
identified by a large encrustation of running sap that surrounds the tree. The RCW lays its eggs in
April, May, and June: the e�!ss hatch approximately 38 days later.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Consultation in Progress
The management strategy under development for the proposed preserve will be designed to
maximize the approximate 9732 acres for red - cockaded woodpecker habitat. NCDOT in
cooperation with The Conservation Fund and in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service will be involved in the Section Seven process, until its completion. It will be necessary for
the Section Seven Consultation process to be reinitiated, if at any time during the management of
the preserve additional federally protected species are impacted.
4.2 Federal Species of Concern /State Listed Species
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are those plant and animal species that may or may not
be listed in the future. Theses species were formerly candidate species, or species under
consideration for listing for which there was insufficient information to support a listing of
Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered, or Proposed Threatened. Federal Species of
Concern are not afforded federal protection under the ESA and are not subject to any of its
provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or
Endangered.
Organisms which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Significantly Rare (SR),
or Special Concern (SR) by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) list of rare
plant and animal species are afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species Act and
the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979; however the level of
protection given to state listed species does not apply to NCDOT activities. No FSC are listed for
Tyrrell County.
11

5.0 RED - COCKADED WOODPECKER ASSESSiVIENT
5.1 Introduction
In November 1995, Environmental Timber Management (ETM), Inc. of Macon, Georgia
sold approximately 9,700 acres of forest land located in Tyrrell County, North Carolina, to The
Prudential Insurance Company of America (Prudential Timber Investments). A federally
endangered species, the red - cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) (RCW), was discovered
on the property just prior to the transaction and could restrict timber management options on
some portions of the property. One million dollars was placed in escrow by ETM to offset
potential economic impacts imposed by RCW habitat requirements: i.e., the retainage of mature
pine timber for RCW nesting and foraging habitat.
In November 1995, Dr. J. H. Carter III and Associates (JCA), Inc. was contracted to
conduct a RCW survey of the PruTimber tracts and potential RCW habitat within 0.5 miles of
the tracts. Additionally, southern pine beetle (Dendroctonus frontalis) (SPB) infestations were to
be assessed to make certain timber removals resulting from the SPB infestations were in
compliance with Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as amended.
This document was prepared to present the results of our field work and the current status
of RCWs on the PruTimber tracts.
5.2 Scope of Work
Between 20 December 1995 and 28 May 1996, we conducted a RCW cavity tree survey
of the 9,700 acres and all potential RCW habitat within 0.5 mile of the PruTimber tracts. made
cavity tree activity assessments and obtained limited information on group size and 1996
breeding status of the RCW groups. SPB buffer zones were checked to assess impacts to active
RCW clusters.
12

5.3 Project Area and Site
The project area is located in extreme northeastern Tyrrell County in northeastern coastal
Forth Carolina (Figure 1). The project area is bordered by the Alligator River to the east,
Albermarle Sound to the north and timber and agricultural lands to the west and south. Tracts of
the project site were located adjacent to Alligator Creek on the north and south.
Sev-ril ^ °tative commun;,v types occ= ­n the -, roject site. Th' ..:'.ude Pond Pine
Woodland, Nonriverine. Swamp Forest, Mesic Pine Flatwoods and Wet Pine Flatwoods. Most
forest stands have dense hardwood under- and mid - stories, except where recent silvicultural
treatments have suppressed the undergrowth. Dense pine regeneration occurs under an open
canopy of mature pine on a few sites. Most of the tracts are forested with mature timber, though
some areas have been clearcut in the recent past.
5.4 Methods
We used aerial surveys to locate RCW clusters and cavity trees due to the very dense
understory vegetation throughout the forested portions of the property. A grid was set up to
survey the tract using a helicopter at low altitudes. Transects spaced approximately 500 feet
apart were flown north to south, then overlapped by perpendicular east -west transects. If an
RCW cavity tree or cluster was found from the air, it was roughly plotted on aerial photography.
A ground survey of the cavity trees was then conducted. Cavity trees were marked with metal
tags using a consecutive numbering system and plotted on black and white aerial photography (1
inch = 2400 feet). Data were taken on each RCW cavity tree and included cavity tree
characteristics and cavity information such as stage, activity, direction and height. Cavity trees
were grouped into clusters (18) based on relative geographic location of the cavity trees
supplemented by observations of RCWs.
Efforts were made to ascertain breeding status of the RCW groups. Most clusters were
checked at least once during the breeding season (early May). Clusters 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14,
17, 18 and 20 were checked for RCW nests on 20 May 1996. Clusters 2, 3, 7, 11 and 15 were
checked for nests on 28 May 1996. Because of access problems, Cluster 19 was not checked for
breeding activity. The lower trunk of each active cavity tree in a cluster was banged or scraped
13

Figure 1. General location of the PruTimber Tracts, Tyrrell County, North Carolina.

in an effort to flush an adult RCW. If a RCW flushed, it was noted as a probable nest for that
particular cluster. If an adult RCW flushed and no nestlings were heard, we assumed the bird
was incubating eggs. If an adult RCW flushed and nestlings were heard, we documented that the
bird was brooding or feeding nestlings. If no RCW flushed out of any active cavities, time was
spent in the cluster waiting to see if birds came back to a cavity tree to feed nestlings. Sites were
not revisited if reproductive activity was noted during the first cluster check.
Bird counts were done between 27 December 1995 and 2 May 1996. Bird counts were
utilized to determine group composition and size. Due to time constraints, a minimal number of
counts (1 or 2) were conducted at each RCW cluster. Therefore, some numbers were estimated.
Bird counts were generally done when the birds came in to roost for the evening. No counts
were done after the 1996 breeding season, so no current census is available.
Southern pine beetle infestations were located by Canal Forest Resources (CFR), Inc.
CFR, Inc. also marked 100 -200 foot buffers around the SPB spots. Pine timber within the SPB
buffers was marked to be removed. The buffers were added to ensure the SPB infestation was
removed completely and to help contain the infestation. Maps of the SPB spots were sent to
JCA, Inc. by CFR, Inc. JCA re- mapped the SPB spots using SigmaScan software. One- quarter
mile and 0.5 mile radius circles were configured around the RCW cluster centers. The SPB spots
and related buffers were also field checked to assess any impacts to active RCW clusters.
5.5 Results and Discussion
Eighteen active RCW clusters (Figure 2) were found in the cavity tree /cluster survey.
Approximately 100 previously unknown RCW cavity trees were discovered during the survey.
Cavity data (stage, activity, direction and height) and cavity tree characteristics are listed in
Appendix 1. Two potential clusters, numbers 12 and 16, were not verified as RCW clusters.
Dates of observation and the estimated number of RCWs per cluster are listed in Table 1.
It was difficult to get an accurate count of birds per cluster because RCWs were unbanded.
Population demography and group composition at each RCW cluster would be possible to
ascertain if the adults and nestlings were color banded. Additional field work is needed to get a
current census of adult RCWs per cluster.
14

Cluster Number Status Activitv Azimuth Height DBH Comments
(degrees) (feet) (inches)
15
15164
Cavity
Poss. Active
263
55
14.7
15
15168
Cavity
Active
30
48
16.8
15
15169
Adv. Start
Active
160
60
18.5
15
15176
Rec. Comp.
Poss. Active
340
55
16.7
15
15177
Cavity
Active
I00
65
19.7
17
15118
Cavity
Active
201
60
16.9
17
151 i9
Cavity
Active
263
29
14.9
18
15134
Cavity
Active
263
45
21.0
18
15137
Cavity
Active
283
57
19.7
18
15135
Cavity
Active
261
32
15.7
18
15133
Cavity
Inactive
313
50
23.8
18
15182
Cavity
Inactive
20
39
16.8
18
15183
Start
Inactive
65
28
21.2
18
15184
Rec. Comp.
Active
21.1
19
15170
Cavity
Inactive
282
35
21.7
19
15171
Cavity
Inactive
217
14
15.7
19
15172
Cavity
Active
178
40
14.5
19
15173
Cavity
Active
227
65
15.8.
19
15194
Cavity
Relic
334
45
18.6
19
15187
Cavity
Inactive
218
32
18.0
19
15188
Cavity
Relic
339
28
15.1
19
15189
Cavity
Poss. Active
258
70
18.4
20
15138
Cavitv
inactive
262
36
18.0
20
15139
Cavity
Inactive
2
70
16.0
20
15140
Cavity
Active
210
45
19.5
20
15141
Cavity
Active
286
60
20.0
20
15166
Cavity
Inactive
242
27
20.2
20
15167
Cavity
Active
310
55
Adv. Start = advanced start
Poss. Active = possibly active
Rec. comp. = recently completed cavity

Cluster Number Status Activity Azimuth Height DBH Comments
(degrees) (feet) (inches)
7
15129
Start
Poss. Active
220
35
17.7
7
15130
Cavity
Dead
125
26
13.5
7
15131
Cavity
Active
324
55
17.5
7
15132
Cavity
Inactive
198
50
16.2
7
15154
Cavity
Active
240
14
10.2
7
15155
Cavity
Poss. Active
110
18
16.9
7
15156
Rec. Comp.
Active
260
39
16.1
7
15157
Rec. Comp.
Active
265
44
14.2
3
15136
Cavity
Poss. Active
77
36
15.7
8
15153
Start
Inactive
253
27
14.2
8
15160
Cavity
Inactive
200
20
14.7
8
15178
Cavity
Poss. Active
318
39
19.8
8
15179
Cavity
Relic
140
30
17.6
8
15180
Cavitv
Poss. Active
295
17
19.7
8
15185
Adv. Start
Inactive
152
45
18.2
9
15093
Cavity
Active
270
35
21.4
9
15094
Cavity
Inactive
285
25.6
9
15095
Start
Active
165
29
21.0
9
15096
Cavity
Inactive
285-
35
25.5
9
15097
Cavity,
225
39
25.5
9
15098
Cavity
Active
300
45
25.0
10
15181
Rec. Comp.
Active
215
44
18.7
10
15186
Cavity
Inactive
288
47
15.4
IO
15193
Cavity
Poss. Active
110
42
17.2
10
15194
Cavity
Relic
260
20
15.0
11
15142
Cavity
Active
196
55
18.3
11
15143
Cavity
Inactive
240
50
18.4
11
15144
Cavity
Inactive
339
40
18.4
11
15146
Cavity
Active
293
30
16.9
11
15147
Open Roost
Inactive
190
60
20.8
13
15109
Cavity
Active
20
30
13
15110
Cavity
Relic
275
20
13
15111
Cavity
Active
288
13
14
15112
Cavity
Active
200
40
17.6
14
15113
Cavity
Active
201
15
15.6
14
15114
Cavity
Active
280
41
19.9
14
15115
Cavity
Inactive
301
40
11.5
14
15116
Cavity
Inactive
153
30
12.5
14
15117
Cavity
Poss. Active
188
40
16.0
Red -heart fungus

Appendix 1. Red - cockaded woodpecker cavity and cavity tree data. Data includes cluster
number, tree number, cavity status, activity, height, azimuth direction, tree dbh,
and comments.
Cluster Number Status Activity Azimuth Height DBH Comments
(degrees) (feet) (inches)
1 15100
Cavity
Inactive
360
33
26.4
1 15101
Cavity
Poss. Active
40
55
21.1
1 15102
Start
Inactive
195
27
24.9
l 15103
Cavity
Active
220
35
20.1
1 15104
Start
Active
160
57
17.9
1 15105
Cavity
Poss. Active
240
38
21.9
1 15106
Adv. Start
Inactive
120
37
25.8
1 15158
Rec. Comp.
Inactive
328
30
20.3
2 15148
Cavity
Active
167
57
18.2
2 15149
Start
Active
220
22
13.1
2 15150
Cavity
Active
51
19.9
2 15151
Rec. Comp.
Active
310
59
22.5
2 15152
Cavity
Active
273
41
19.2
2 15159
Cavity
Poss. Active
276
38
14.5
2 15165
Cavity
Active
160
42
20.0
3 15099
Cavity
Inactive
190
52
15.6
3 15107
Cavity
Inactive
220
56
18.7
3 15108
Cavity
Poss. Active
195
31
18.0
4 15162
Cavity
Active
251
33
19.2
4 15163
Rec. Comp.
Active
294
24
18.4
4 15190
Cavity
Active
,. 173
26
14.9
5 15120
Cavity
Active
182
27
15.2
5 15121
Rec. Comp.
Active
216
30
13.7
5 15122
Cavity
Active
189
51
18.2
5 15123
Rec. Comp.
Active
255
50
18.5
5 15124
Cavity
Active
225
38
18.7
5 15125
Cavity
Active
240
35
21.4
5 15126
Rec. Comp.
Active
120
40
15.7
5 15191
Cavity
Relic
325
58
20.8
5 15192
Start
Relic
182
55
22.7
6 15127
Cavity
Active
280
41
19.3
6 15128
Cavity
Active
240
50
23.3
6 15161
Rec. Comp.
Active
225
43
16.6
SPB infested
SPB infested

Clusters 1. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17 and 20 showed signs of reproductive
activity (Table 1). Overall nesting effort was probably higher since nest checks were minimal.
Sites were not revisited once a probable nest was found. Adequate monitoring of nests would
have involved climbing trees to count eggs and band nestlings, followed by a field check of
fledging success. Revisiting nest sites would have also enabled us to note nest failures.
Regardless, the limited information we were able to gather showed a large percentage (83 %) of
the clusters with RCW nesting activity.
CFR, Inc. identified a total of 28 SPB spots on PruTimber tracts. The SPB spots and
related buffers were field checked to assess any impacts to active RCW clusters. Three RCW
clusters (Clusters 5, 7 and 8) were affected by SPB spots within or near the clusters. Timber
removals within or near the RCW clusters will decrease the number of recruitment cavity trees
available to the RCW. Also, the SPB infestation may kill existing RCW cavity trees. Eleven
active RCW clusters (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 18 and 20) had SPB infestations within one -
half mile of the clusters. An assessment of impacts of SPB- related.timber removals on the RCW
was submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by CFR, Inc. and was approved.
According to the Draft Landowner Requirements ( USFWS 1992), 3000 square feet of
pine basal area (BA) and 5500 pine stems 10 inches in diameter at breast height (dbh), or a
smaller number of larger trees, on at least 60 acres contiguous to the cluster are required per
active RCW cluster. Therefore, a minimum of 1080 acres will be encumbered on the PruTimber
tracts as RCW foraging habitat, although more than 60 acres are often necessary to reach 3000
sq. ft. of pine BA. Generally, 3000 square feet of pine BA can be met within a one - quarter mile
(125 acre) circle around a cluster if this area is mostly forested with pine 10 inches dbh or larger.
If a significant portion of the one - quarter mile circle is forested with young pine or hardwood or
is non - forested, stands beyond one - quarter mile and up to one -half mile, must be retained. In all
cases, RCW habitat must be contiguous to the cluster, that is not separated by any "non- habitat"
wider than 330 feet.
A Biological Assessment for timber removals within one -half mile of active RCW
clusters must be submitted to the USFWS for approval pursuant to Section 9 of the ESA.
Relevant RCW population information, as well as stand maps, stocking data and proposed
substrate removals must be included in the Biological Assessment. The USFWS will review the
15

Table l . Red - cockaded woodpecker observations on the PruTimber tracts, Tyrrell County, North
Carolina in 1996. RCW observations include an estimate of the number of adult RCWs per
group and 1996 reproductive activity observations.
Estimated Number
Nest
Nesting
Cluster
Birds in Group
Tree
Observation Date of Observation
1
3
15105
Tending nestlings
5/20/96
2
4
15152
Tending nestlings
5/28/96
3
2.
15108
Incubating
5/28/96
4
2
15162
Tending nestlings
5/20/96
5
3
15124
Tending nestlings
5/20/96
6
2
15127
Incubating
5/20/96
7
4
15154
Incubating
5/28/96
8
2
15180
Incubating
5/28/96
9
3
15093
Incubating
5/28/96
10
1
No nest
5/20/96
11
2
15142
Tending nestlings
5/28/96
13
1
15111
Incubating
5/28/96
14
3
15112
Incubating
5/20/96
15
2
15177
Tending nestlings
5/28/96
17
2
15118
Incubating
5/20/96
18
2
15135
Incubating
5/20/96
19
2
Not checked/access problem
20
2
No nest
5/28/96
MI

supplied information and upon approval, issue a "letter of concurrence" that can be used as proof
of compliance with Section 9 of the ESA.
Information supplied to JCA, Inc. to date by ETM and CFR is insufficient for us to
determine how many acres in what configurations must be retained as RCW habitat. No detailed
stand maps or timber cruise data have been supplied to us. Such detailed data must be gathered
for foraging habitat within one -half mile of clusters that are to be affected by future timber sales.
In lieu of such information, no pine timber sales should be conducted within one -half mile of any
RCW cluster. Removal of non -RCW habitat, such as hardwood stands within one -half mile of a
c:;:ster are not subject to USA WS rep iew, unless die logging is within the cluster during the
RCW breeding season (April — July). Timber sales outside the one -half mile radius around
clusters do review by the L1SF.`.'S.
FVA

6.0 NIENIORANDUM (ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY)
DATE: September 10, 1998
TO: Hal Bain
FROM: Mary Pope Furr
RE: Woodpecker Mitigation Site, Tyrrell County.
An architectural survey of the area of potential effect (APE) was completed for
the above - referenced project on September 3, 1998. This survey identified three
properties over fifty years of age within the APE. The three identified properties
were presented in a meeting between NCSHPO and NCDOT and both parties
agreed that none of the properties were eligible for the National Register and not
worthy of further evaluation. A copy of the signed concurrence form is attached.
In addition, no properties less than fifty years of age were found in the APE that
meet eligibility Criterion G for listing in the National Register.
18

7.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
This report presents the findings of a preliminary archaeological background
investigation for proposed purchase of a wetland mitigation Bank. The study area
contains 9,732 acres (3940 ha) comprised of twenty parcels of land separated into six
separate sections.
The report is intended to provide information that will assist in developing an
inventory of archaeological sites that are potentially eligible to the National Register of
Historic Places. The report includes a description of the physical environment of the study
area, a review of the existing documentation regarding the relevant prehistory and history, and
a summary of previous archaeological research in the region. Recommendations for future
survey methods, and predictions of archaeological sites that may be found within the
proposed study area are included as well.
An archaeological background study was undertaken to begin evaluation of the
project's possible impacts upon archaeological resources, if any, and to rank each parcel of
land's potential to contain National Register eligible archaeological sites. This study represents
efforts to initiate Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 early in the
planning of the undertaking, to consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer to assess
information needs and to identify historic properties and evaluate the National Register
eli gibility of properties within the area of potential effect (APE). An effort was undertaken to
identify any sites which may warrant preservation in place as public exhibits and therefore
could be subject to Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966.
No previously documented archaeological sites were located within the proposed
mitigation land. Background research indicates that the area offers little potential to yield
significant historic and prehistoric archaeological sites. A drive -over reconnaissance of the
proposed mitigation areas, in addition to an intensive comparison of topographic maps and
aerial photographs, was conducted to determine both natural and manmade impediments to
future survey. Based on previous area investigations and regional overviews, a range of
predictive models for settlement patterns could be devised, but the two controlling vari ables
in any model are likely to be topographic relief and proximity to watercourses. In a region
so low and flat, the most likely areas for both prehistoric and early historic settlement and
use will be relatively higher ground adjacent to the sound or a navigable tributary.
Archaeological survey of the proposed mitigation lands should concentrate on those areas,
of which there are very few in the study area. The likelihood of any sites containing remains
worthy of preservation in place is low, so Section 4(f) of the DOT act is unlikely to be a
firrnr,
i9

THE CONSERVATION FUND
March 1, 1999
Mr. Hal Bain, Environmental Supervisor
Planning & Environmental Branch
NC Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Re: PruTimber Tract / Tyrrell County, NC
Dear Hal,
North Carolina Office
P.O. Box 271
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
(919) 967 -2223 Phase
(919) 967 -9702 FAX
Earlier this year, The Conservation f=und submitted a proposal to purchase and manage
the 9,732± -acre PruTimber tract in Tyrrell County for red- cockaded woodpecker mitigation.
This letter confirms that The Conservation Fund, on behalf of itself, its successors and assigns,
commits to ensuring that annual property taxes will continue to be paid in full to Tyrrell County
following the purchase of the property from PruTimher.
Annual taxes are approximately S2 1.000 per year at this time. The Conservation Fund
will work closely with Tyrrell County leaders, as we have for the past decade, to ensure that an
economic strategy is developed and implemented to benefit the County's economy. Our
collaborative strategy following creation of the Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge in 1989
resulted in establishment of two nonprofit organizations (one local and one regional) that have
collectively created over 40 jobs in Tyrrell County. These organizations' programs are providing
job skill and small business development training, and eco- tourism development opportunities
for local residents, particularly those who are economically disadvantaged.
We are working with Tyrrell County leaders and Duke University's Nicholas School of
the Environment to develop a habitat management / business plan for the PruTimber tract that
will create job and small business opportunities, and will build on the eco - tourism and
environmental education programs currently in place. The plan will be implemented in
partnership with County officials and agencies, to ensure that local issues and concerns arc
addressed to the fullest extent possible. The Conservation Fund appreciates NCDOT's
consideration of our proposal; please don't hesitate to call if you should have any questions or
need additional information. Thank you.
Sincerely,
mikki Sager, NC Representative
Partners in land and wairr conservation
ZO'd L00'oN TZ :S[ 66,1:0 aebl Z0Z6- L96- 616 :­131 d01

d U
�cc
cc
° N
ECC
ca
U
/f N
7 NI. \
En
N
/
v -� ► I N
_a
Cdrd
CD
�,j
b
N 4
00 CIA
03 cz
3
/ I l c-i
i u
rn �,
y; J

1h
is
I*
0 Red Cockaded Woodpecker Nest Sites
PnoTimber Tyrrell Timberlands
Map Prepared by The Conservation Fund
January 1999
Data Sources:
U.S. Geological Survey
Canal Forest Resources
NC State Plane, NAD27
N
1 2 Miles
PruTimber Tyrrell Timberl
Map 2

.;P
-�;
i
Tyrrell County
IL
S�� r
,� II
PruTimber Tyrrell Timberlands
Map Prepared by The Conservation Fund
January 1999
Data Sources:
U.S. Geological Survey
NC CGIA
Canal Forest Resources
NC State, Plane, NAD27
N
0 1 2 Miles
Map 1