20000194 Ver 1_Complete File_20000225

?.A STAi[u J0001
/ ? 94
JAMES B. HUNT JR
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. DAVID MCCOY
27611-5201
SECRETARY
February 17, 2000
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTN.: Mr. David Timpy
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
-.-,---'-flN?Iltl(1 2131dM -_'..
SQ roY ,
gas z
Subject: Robeson County, Improvements to 1-95 from the Southern Lumberton
Corporate Limits to US 301/SR 1997 Interchange and Widening of the
Southbound Lumber River Bridge, Federal Project No. IR-95-1 (48)0, State
Project No. 8.1461401, T.I.P. No. I-2305BA, Action I.D. 199800796, DWQ #
980070.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above referenced
project. The Planning Report consists of a Categorical Exclusion document, a Natural
Resources Technical Report, and a Project Consultation Form. The proposed project
involves construction of anew southbound acceleration ramp from the SR 1636
interchange to the Lumber River, widening of the southbound Lumber River Bridge and
relocation of the service road.
In April 1998 a Nationwide Permit 14 and a Water Quality Certification were issued for
the subject project. At that time the impacts were estimated to be fill in 0.014 acres of
surface waters. In June 1999 we reevaluated the site and determined that the project, as
designed at that time, would impact 1.5 acres of wetlands and approximately 901inear feet
of streams. A Categorical Exclusion document was prepared and approved by the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) on June 17, 1999. Copies of that document are
enclosed with this letter. In the summer of 1999 the resource agencies visited that site and
determined that the project should be redesigned to further avoid and minimize wetland
impacts. This redesign which consists of a new alignment has been completed. On
February 2, 2000, the FHWA approved a Project Consultation that described the design
changes and the revised environmental impacts. The impacts to the wetlands have been
avoided and minimized as described in the attached Consultation Form. The new
alignment will impact 0.23 acres of wetlands and 96 linear feet of stream
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical
Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate
requesting an individual permit, but propose to proceed under Nationwide Permit 23 in
accordance with the Federal Register of December 13, 1996, Part VII, Volume 61,
Number 241.
We anticipate a 401 General Certification will apply to this project, and are providing one
copy of the CE document to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of,Water Quality, for their review.
If you have questions or need additional information please call Ms. Alice N. Gordon
at 919-733=11 2M 3_4)
Sincerely,
i " William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: w/attachment
Mr. David Franklin, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development Branch
Ms. Deborah Barbour, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Timothy V. Rountree, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. Terry Gibson, P.E., Division 6 Engineer
Ms. Mary Alice Dickens, P.E., P & E Project Planning Engineer
Dorm R,?tl,,ld 6-II)-02
North Carolina Department of Transportation
PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTATION FORM
I.D. No. [-2305 BA
GENERAL INFORMATION
a. Consultation Phase:
Project Description
C. State Project:
Federal Project:
d. Document Type:
II. CONCLUSIONS
Construction
I-95, Southbound Entrance Ramp at US 301 and SR 1791
Service Road, Lumberton, Robeson County
8.1461401
IR-95-1(48)0
Categorical Exclusion 6/17/99
Date
The above environmental document has been reevaluated as required by 23 CFR 771. It
was determined that the current proposed action is essentially the same as the original proposed
action. Proposed changes, if any, are noted below in Section III. It has been determined that
anticipated social, economic, and environmental impacts were accurately described in the above
referenced document(s) unless noted otherwise herein. Therefore, the original Administration
Action remains valid.
III. CHANGES IN PROPOSED ACTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
In order to minimize impacts to wetlands, the proposed alignment of the service road (SR
1791) has been changed (see Figure 2). The new service road alignment will now intersect US
301 approximately 315 feet south of where it was previously proposed to do so. This new
alignment impacts 0.23 acre of wetland and 96 linear feet of stream (as compared to 1.5 acres of
wetland and 90 linear feet of stream for the previous alignment). This realignment reduces
wetland impacts by 1.27 ac.
IV. LIST OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
D.O.T. will implement all practical measures and procedures to minimize and avoid
environmental impacts.
Form R. ? ised o- I o-Q-'
V. COORDINATION
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch personnel have discussed
current project proposals with others as follows:
Design Engineer: Greg Burns. PE Januarv 21, 1999
Division 6 Date
FHWA Engineer: John Schrohenloher January 24, 2000
Date
Permits Section: Alice Gordon January 24, 2000
Date
VI. NCDOT CONUUKKENCE
Ju4a&,Ct 128 ZD 00
roj ct n ngineer D e
Project Development and Env ronmental Analysis Branch Ite
Manager
VII. FHWA CONCURRENCE
?- fib- aooa
F eral Highway Administration Date
Division Administrator

I 7u WSJ ?/ •" i
/
.
\` \ \ / 4 a

93
q .e ; 1 ?? 1 r - 1
1
i

t

-
all
w
i
IZU
l Z 1 5 I

1997 1005 I _
'
211
1
I ?
/
I
I

I
/

? 1 1

o
1792 I
r 1 791 ?I

?
% _.._.._
r' i

I II
?
. 1997
1
/ •,
I ?'
® I /
- ---
----
/ Y
, j? r .4b 1 -----
,
/ r---1L- a!2?3

I f l % 1 ,? I I I_
at m
... r
R wE 'fI 5
Lumbert , NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
. f ?• TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIOHWAYS
..a,• ''`?':? 11 PLANN I NO AND ENVIRONMENTAL
..ta•.t: ?' BRANCH
0-
etwe.. 1-9-5
IIIPRO«:ti1ENITS TO THE SOL-rTBOLIU
ON-PUW A-N-D SERN7CE RO;:D (SR 1791)
,Mlr .tl•? ? 1
AT L'S 301
Li:?IBi:it"i0\11WBESON COLNTY
FFJ)E21I. .all) PROJECT NO. ',R-9a-1(48)0
STATE PROJECT N0.8.1461401
V Zf
TI? NO. 1-2305 3A
w
I I p 00

?
_
"
1• I
o ? I
?
1 1 I
W
?a?
?
o
? I 1
1 ? a
W
W • ? b I r?
• ?? 1e C? CLL
W ° d b 1 R
? -?
g
L _ T'
vt ` ? t7 ?i ®0i
1
I
a" ? 1 j? a °
?
t
lA )• ?

M M
a
1 I
?O I
-
n r: ? I ? 1 .
•
I
.I I I?
I I
• M 5p].0.'
• ? _ ?9 .? 1 ? I Q
• ? \ ?' I II i
a ? I 1 ?
s ` 1 ,n I f7 r w
Ie, I I w
?,, has t ? 11? I I I
E
,? Ens 1 I
? ? ? ,I,?,?q'?'b, r I• xi 1
1 _ I I 1 0 0
I rQ '- 1 1 1 I
'? I I 1 1 N.
?-? It
' rib, I I 1
03
"' ?- Q ?I
N ?
?` 1 Nb `h FF? • I N N
M? ?jp ? I 1 • I t
CLa?w ?!' yell I r ?r
k ,
C3
N
N
r,, 'J ? ? t -? ?I I I U.
to 1 rl O
r ?'? CLG `V 1 I ? r:
CSip??,/,C3/ O ? t ? 1 =x F ? I? LII I•° I ? ?s
?Y, 11
?r.?, \ tJ i. ??,g 1 5 0 I I? I I I d,l ©'1'pa O 1
(3? \ \ Nr O 1, 1 ? 'n IYr ? f ' j0 IE•'rE ?
KER()
10
14
B II N ; P C3,/d/?' \?t\`, lyb 4N? LL '1s ?F^ : ?! ,.,? vo1T ?1 " - may'
.7 •? 7. -•I CI CI \ '!S g II-t - E c .? it?E
?„ -? r H ?, H p? F ??LL » y??anC = v ?I 1 irta eon
\?\ U[ 'A V;vi -x v ]rvu,- ?v to .- ??Sf17? %
T
1ti`rs.. TO I ' = IP 9.93' LK9' fC 5?
.- ; = - -
X z x? a?,b z, ?_ F?ftLLE I°? 1 I a l
tri El)
O D fll/•?as * I ,Q- N GAS ,LNLS // i ?. 1 I J ,w
Ck- H ` , H IY-a 1 1 'I" - PS' 11 v]I ,Q ='X S S 1
m :,r .-a T. = 1 1111 y}? IF? ,pt vW
1 1 1 s CI 2? z KC S S UI w J " U/01L CLROLP?,
W I 1 I ve?S'S? ?tnCN+
flk 4 I , I .3 in
o,., Q
I II g ,I :
?J? ?./,Q, a $ 1 W ? I - I 1 Y 1; ' °?? •• ? 1 ? 1 n r ° cow
4kA
FLa 1
• L1 1.3? 4 1 1 r tt-L g?
/ti, o?M 1
MAtG?p'E ? ,?O I
05
i
N O? bn0Y
s ? ?I 1
" t:l 1
r # I I
I
M I
•
?' 16
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
A
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
Federal Project No
Project Description:
I-2305RA
8.1461401
IR-95-1 (48) 0
The project involves safety improvements to the I-95
southbound on-ramp and the connecting service road at the
US 301 interchange in Lumberton, Robeson County.
Currently, the SR 1791 service road intersects the I-95
southbound on-ramp at US 301. The ramp is two-way from US
301 south to the intersection of the service road. This
project proposes to realign the SR 1791 service road so
that it intersects US 301 north of the on-ramp. The
existing access between the service road and the on-ramp
will be removed. The on-ramp will be made one-way for its
whole length. The project location is shown in Figure 1.
The proposed improvements are shown in Figure 2.
B
Purpose and Need:
The purpose of the project is to improve safety at the I-
95/US 301 interchange by removing a two-way ramp and
realigning the service road so that it no longer intersects
the ramp. Intersections along freeway access ramps
compromise driver/passenger safety.
C.
Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following Type II improvements which apply to the
project:
Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking,
weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing
pavement (3R and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes,
including safety treatments
g. Providing driveway pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than one through lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.

a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
cc Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier
protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers
Improving intersections including relocation and/or realignment
Making minor roadway realignment
1. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing
hazards and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
3. Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of
grade separation to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no red lead paint), scour
repair, fender systems, and minor structural improvements
d. Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of
right-of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near
a street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and support
vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and
ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are
required and there is not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of
passenger shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street
improvements) when located in a commercial area or other high activity
center in which there is adequate street capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no
significant noise impact on the surrounding community.

12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land
acquisition loans under section 3(b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited
number of parcels. These types of land acquisition qualify for a CE only
where the acquisition will not limit the evaluation of alternatives,
including shifts in alignment for planned construction projects, which may
be required in the NEPA process. No project development on such land
may proceed until the NEPA process has been completed.
D. Special Project Information:
PROJECT HISTORY
In March, 1991, a Categorical Exclusion (CE) was approved
for the rehabilitation of I-95 from the southern corporate
limits of Lumberton to the US 301/SR 1997 interchange,
Robeson County (TIP Project I-2305). The I-2305 CE
mentioned the SR 1791 service road improvements; however,
since that time, natural resources that were not addressed
in the CE have been found in the project area. This
Programmatic CE addresses the impacts of the proposed
service road realignment on these resources. The impacts
are not substantial; consequently, a Categorical Exclusion
is applicable.
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
The project will impact approximately 1.5 acres of wetlands
and approximately 70 linear feet of stream. The project
will require a Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (COE). It is anticipated that a Nationwide 23
permit for CE's will be applicable; however, mitigation
will be required. Final jurisdictional authority regarding
the required permit lies with the COE. NCDOT will work
with the COE to negotiate a satisfactory mitigation plan.
Prior to the issuance of the Section 404 permit, a Section
401 General Water Quality Certification will be required
from the N.C. Division of Water Quality.
In order to minimize potential impacts to water resources
in the project area, NCDOT's Best Management Practices for
the Protection of Surface Waters will be strictly enforced
during project construction.
3

E. Threshold Criteria
The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be completed for Type II
actions
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any
unique or important natural resource? X
(2) Does the project involve habitat where federally
listed endangered or threatened species may occur?
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? ?
X

(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than
one-third (1/3) of an acre and have all practicable measures
to avoid and minimize wetland takings been evaluated?
(5) Will the project require the use of U. S. Forest Service lands?
?
X
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities? ? X
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding Water

Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters (HQW)? ?
X
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States

in any of the designated mountain trout counties? ?
X
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? ? X
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)? ? X
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act

resources? ?
X
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required?
X
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing

regulatory floodway? ?
X
s
4
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes? X
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area? X
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
business? X
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effect on any minority or
low-income population? X
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? X
(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control?
X

(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness
and/or land use of adjacent property? X
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent
local traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? X
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/or Transportation Improvement Program (and is, ?
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)? X
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic ?
volumes? X
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? X
(25) If the project is a bridge replacement project, will the bridge
be replaced at its existing location (along the existing facility)
and will all construction proposed in association with the a
bridge replacement project be contained on the existing facility? N/A
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project? X
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local laws ?
relating to the environmental aspects of the project? X
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on structures/properties
eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places? X
5
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains which are
important to history or pre-history? X
(30) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges,
historic sites, or historic bridges, as defined in Section 4(f)
of the U. S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966)? ? X
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as defined
by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act ?
of 1965, as amended? X
(32) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent
to a river designated as a component of or proposed for
inclusion in the Natural System of Wild and Scenic Rivers? X
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
2. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lists Rhus michauxii
(Michaux's sumac) as Endangered in Robeson County. Habitat
for this species, in the form of disturbed roadside and
forest borders, is present in the project area. In May,
1999, NCDOT environmental specialists conducted a survey
for the plant in the project area; no examples of the
species were found. Consequently, no Section 7 consultation
is necessary, and compliance with the Endangered Species
Act of 1973 is complete.
4. The project will impact approximately 1.5 acres of
wetlands. The project will require a Section 404 permit
from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). It is
anticipated that a Nationwide 23 permit for CE's will be
applicable; however, mitigation will be required. Final
jurisdictional authority regarding the required permit lies
with the COE. NCDOT will work with the COE to negotiate a
satisfactory mitigation plan.
DISCUSSION OF WETLAND MINIMIZATION ALTERNATIVES
Two wetland minimization alternatives were considered (see
Figure 2), but they were both rejected because of safety
considerations. Both of these alternative alignments
placed the service road's intersection with US 301 too
close to the intersection of the I-95 southbound on-ramp
with US 301. The preferred alignment, in contrast, provides
280 feet of separation between the two intersections.
Furthermore, the preferred alignment will align with the
proposed Robeson Community College (RCC) driveway. Either
of the minimization alternatives would have off-set the
service road/US 301 intersection from the RCC driveway/US
6
.
301 intersection. This would have resulted in 3
intersections on US 301 within a distance of 280 feet (the
I-95 on-ramp, the service road, and the driveway). The
proposed design, which will result in two intersections
separated by 280 feet (the I-95 on-ramp and the service
road/driveway), is necessary for safe intersection spacing.
While the minimization alternatives would have resulted in
impacts to less wetlands, they would have compromised road-
user safety.
14. Approximately 70 linear feet of an unnamed tributary of
Saddletree Swamp will be affected by the proposed
construction; this segment of stream will be piped under
the proposed service road. No stream mitigation will be
required.
7
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
Federal-Aid Project No.
Project Description:
IR-95-1 (48) 0
The project involves safety improvements to the I-95
southbound on-ramp and the connecting service road at the
US 301 interchange in Lumberton, Robeson County.
Currently, the SR 1791 service road intersects from the I-
95 southbound on-ramp at US 301. The ramp is two-way from
US 301 south to the intersection of the service road. This
project proposes to realign the SR 1791 service road so
that it intersects US 301 north of the on-ramp. The
existing access between the service road and the on-ramp
will be removed. The on-ramp will be made one-way for its
whole length. The project location is shown in Figure 1.
The proposed improvements are shown in Figure 2.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one) 11111111,
Approved:
/7 /99
Date
Date
TYPE II(A) ????•O?.•N CAR...Z??L •,'??
X TYPE II(B) 2 ?FtiSS/pN.9 s
SEAL i.
21649
GIN
AXE
Project Development Engineer
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
opmentf* Environmental Analysis Branch
to
Project Development &

For Type II(B) projects only:
Date 1 Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
I-2305BA
8.1461401
Analysis Branch
8
v .,r
Ikd
R
/
I '
r
i' 41'.
I ;'I
? .r
x
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
• PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
B-1PRONU-NIENTS TO THE SOL.TEISOUND
ON-RAMP AND SERVICE ROAD (SR 1791)
AT US 301
LLTNISERTON, ROBESON COLNTY
FI3I)EILIL a1I) PROJEc'r NO.IR-95-1(48)0
STATE PROJECT NO. S.1461401
TIP NO.1-2305 BA
FIGURE 1

cn
a)
m
E
a
c
C O
N
c) E
X
W •-
'O
O (u t\I
LO ? a) +V
M m
NVr- U-
ccs ?
E?
E
T E
0) a)
A2 o
CL 2
n.
E
v
N
M
O
0-
0
J
J
i I E
E
lV a)
/
W`.. O
a) a) C Q
0> a) E
('_9 E C > a a
a) a) E
W a) aa)) E E-
< v <C'0
o o O O ?
W G , O
U ) N N
EE?
'? a) c? •E 'E O
ma)?E U)
(0 U) -v a) cs
0) C, a) ?-' -o -v a)
a CCoammo
n 3 CL :p CL
a) o
uu?ci

q1:.
?v
?j.
STATE OF NORTH CAI:OLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
GOVERNOR
5 March 1999
iVIENIORANDUNI TO: Jay Bissett, P.E., Unit Head
Consultant Engineering Unit
FROM: Teryn Smith, Environmental Biologist
Natural Systems Unit
E. Norms TOLSON
SECRETARY
SUBJECT : Natural Resources Technical Report for the proposed
Realignment of the 1-95 Southbound Ramp at US 301 anu
Construction of SR 1791 Service Road in Lumberton. Robeson
County. TIP No. 1-2305BA, State Project No. 8.1461401;
Federal Aid No. 1R-95-1(48)0.
The attached Natural Resources Technical Report provides inventories and descriptions of
the natural resources within the proposed project area, along with analyses of probable impacts
likely to occur to these resources as a result of project construction. Pertinent information on
wetlands and federally-protected species is also provided, with respect to regulatory concerns
which must be considered. Please contact me if you have any questions, or need this report copied
onto disk format.
c: Hal Bain, Natural Systems Unit Head
File: I-2305BA

REALIGNMENT OF THE I-95 SOUTHBOUND RAMP
AT US 301 AND CONSTRUCTION OF
SR 1791 SERVICE ROAD IN LUMBERTON
ROBESON COUNTY
TIP NO. I-2305BA
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.1461401
FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. IR-9 5-1 01 810
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
I-2305BA
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMNETAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
NATURAL SYSTEMS UNIT
TERYN SMITH, ENVIRONMENTAL BIOLOGIST
1 MARCH 1999
.Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................
1.1 Project Description ...................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Ntethodology ............................................................................................................................................. .. 1
1.3 Terminology and Defmitions .................................................................................................................... .. 2
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................................................... .. 2
2.1 Regional Characteristics ........................................................................................................................... .. 2
2.2 Soils
2.3 Water Resources ........................................................................................................................................ .. 3
2.3.1 {raters Impacted and Characteristics .............................................................................................. .. 4
23.2 Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters ..................................................................................... .. 4
23.3 {rater Quality ................................................................................................................................... .. 5
2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ............................................................................................................. .. 6
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ........................................................................................................................... .. 6
3.1 Biotic Communities .................................................................................................................................. ..6
3.1.1 Disturbed Maintained ........................................................................................................................ i
3.1.2 Disturbed Hardwood Thicket ............................................................................................................ . 7
3.1.3 Cutover ......................................................................................................................................
3.1.4 Bottomland Hardwood Forest ........................................................................................................... 8
3.1.5 Hardwood Swamp .............................................................................................................................. 8
3.1.5 Hardwood Flat ................................................................................................................................... 8
3.1.6 Riparian Fringe .................................................................................................................................. 8
3.1.7 1Vildlife ............................................................................................................................................... 8
3.1.8 Aquatic Habitat .................................................................................................................................. 9
3.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ............................................................................................................. 10
3.2.1 Terrestrial Impacts ........................................................................................................................... 10
3.2.2 Aquatic Impacts ................................................................................................................................ 11
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS ................................................................................................................ 11
4.1 Waters of the United States ...................................................................................................................... 11
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters ............................................................................ 17-
4.1.2 Permits .............................................................................................................................................. 12
• 4.1.3 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation .............................................................................................. 13
4.2 Rare and Protected Species ....................................................................................................................... 14
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species ............................................................................................................. 14
5.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................ 17
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Project Study Area Map
Table 1. Soils occurring in the project area .................................................... 3
Table 2. Estimated area impacts to terrestrial communities ........................................................................... 10
Table 3. Federally Protected Species for Robeson County ........................................................................ 14
Table 4. Federal Species of Concern for Robeson County ........................................................................ 16
1.0 Introduction
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is submitted to assist in the preparation
of a Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the proposed project. The project lies in Robeson County
(Figure 1). The purpose of this report is to inventory and describe the natural resources which
occur within the proposed right-of-way boundaries and which are likely to be impacted by the
proposed action. Assessments of the nature and severity of probable impacts to these natural
resources are provided, along with recommendations for measures which will minimize resource
impacts.
This report identifies areas of particular environmental concern which may affect the
selection of a preferred alignment or may necessitate changes in design criteria. Such
environmental concerns should be addressed during the preliminary planning stages of the
proposed project in order to maintain environmental quality in the most efficient and effective
manner. The analyses contained in this document are relevant only in the context of the existing
preliminary project boundaries and design. If design parameters and criteria change, additional
field investigations may be necessar%.
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project is a realignment of the I-95 southbound entrance ramp at US 301 anc;
construction of SR 1791 service road in the town of Lumberton in Robeson County (Figure 2).
The proposed right-of-way is 21.3 m (70.0 ft). Project length is 0.56 km (0.35 mi).
1.2 Methodology
Research on the project area was conducted prior to field investigations. Published
Vesource information pertaining to the project area was gathered and reviewed. Resources utilized
in this preliminary investigation of the project area include:
• 'Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle maps (NW Lumberton).
• USDA Soil Conservation Service, currently known as Natural Resource Conservation Service,
Soil Survey of Robeson County, North Carolina (1971).
• NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis Environmental Sensitivity Base Maps of
Robeson County (1995).
Water resource information was obtained from publications of the Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR, 1993). Information concerning the
occurrence of federal and state protected species in the study area was obtained from the FWS list
of protected and candidate species (15 January 1999) and from the N.C. Natural Heritage Program
(NCNHP) database of rare species and unique habitats. NCNHP files were reviewed for
documented occurrences of state or federally listed species and locations of significant natural
areas.
2
General field survevs were conducted along the proposed alignment by NCDOT
Environmental Biolouists Teryn Smith and Chris Murray on 13 and 18 of May 1998. Water
resources were identified and their physical characteristics were recorded. Plant communities and
their associated wildlife were also identified and described. Terrestrial community classifications
generally follow Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible, and plant taxonomy follows
Radford, et al. (1968). Animal taxonomy follows Martof, et al. (1980), Menhenick (1991), Potter,
et al. (1980), and Webster, et al. (1985). Vegetative communities were mapped utilizing aerial
photography of the project site. Predictions regarding wildlife community composition involved
general qualitative habitat assessment based on existing vegetative communities. Wildlife
identification involved using a variety of observation techniques: qualitative habitat assessment
based on vegetative communities, active searching, identifying characteristic signs of wildlife
(sounds, scat, tracks and burrows).
Jurisdictional wetlands, if present, were identified and evaluated based on criteria
established in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual" (Environment Laboratory,
1987) and "Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina" (Division of
Environmental Management, 1995). Wetlands were classified based on the classification scheme
of Cowardin, et al. (1979).
1.3 Terminology and Definitions
For the purposes of this document, the following terms are used concerning the limits of
natural resources investigations. "Project area" denotes the area bounded by the proposed
rialit-of-way limits along the full length of the project alignment. "Project vicinity" is defined as
an area extending 1.0 km (0.6 mi) on all sides of the project area, and "Project region" denotes
an area equivalent in size to the area represented by a 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle map, i.e.
[1.63.3 sq. km (61.8 sq. mi)].

2.0 Phvsical Resources
Soil and water resources which occur in the project area are discussed below with respect
to possible environmental concerns. Soil properties and site topography significantly influence the
potential for soil erosion and compaction, along with other possible construction limitations or
management concerns. Water resources within the project area present important management
limitations due to the need to regulate water movement and the increased potential for water
quality degradation. Excessive soil disturbance resulting from construction activities can
potentially alter both the flow and quality of water resources, limiting downstream uses. In
addition, soil characteristics and the availability of water directly influence the composition and
distribution of flora and fauna in biotic communities, thus affecting the characteristics of these
resources.
2.1 Regional Characteristics
Robeson County lies in the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province of southeastern North
Carolina (Figure 2). The soils are nearly level to sloping and are well suited to farming.
Generally, the well-drained soils occupy broad outer rims of the interstream divides nest to the
drainagewavs, and the more poorly drained, nearly level soils are farther from tile drainageways.
on the flood plains of streams, and in Carolina bays.
2.2 Soils
There are five soil types located in the project area. An inventory of these soils can be
found in Table 1. A brief description of each soil type is also provided.
Table 1. Soils occurring in the project area.
Map Symbol Specific Mapping Unit % Slope Capability Unit
Jo Johns sandy loam - Iw-2
Lu Lumbee sandy loam - IIlw-3
Me Meggett fine sandy loam - IIlw-2 not flooded; Vw-1 flooded
Nor' Norfolk loamy sand 0 1_1
Ud Udorthents, loamy - -
• Johns sandv loam soil is nearly level and moderately well drained or somewhat poorly
drained. It is found on stream terraces, generally along the Lumber River and Big Swamp.
Permeability is moderate, available water capacity is medium and shrink-swell potential is
low. The seasonal high water table is 11/2 ft below the surface from November through
April. This soil is subject to rare flooding for very brief periods from February through April.
This soil is listed as having hydric inclusions in Robeson County.
• Lumbee sandv loam soil is nearly level and poorly drained. It is found on stream terraces.
Permeability is moderate, available water capacity is medium and shrink-swell potential is
low. The seasonal high water table is at or near the surface from November through April.
This soil is subject to rare flooding for brief periods from February through April. This soil is
listed as hydric for Robeson County.
• Meggett fine sandv loam soil is nearly level and poorly drained. It is found on stream terraces
and drainageways. Permeability is slow, available water capacity is medium and shrink-swell
potential is high. The seasonal high water table is at or near the surface from November
through April. This soil is flooded frequently for brief periods from February through April.
This soil is listed as hydric for Robeson County.
• Norfolk loamv sand soil, 0 to 2 percent slopes is well drained. It is found on broad smooth
plains and is commonly on the highest part of the landscape. Permeability is moderate,
available water capacity is medium and shrink-swell potential is low. The seasonal high water
table is more than ft below the surface.
• Udorthents, loamv soil has been altered by man to the extent that the original relief and soil
profile can not be recognized.
2.3 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning surface water resources likely to be
impacted by the proposed project. Water resource assessments include the physical
i ----------
SCALZ
wLS
r3>A -
•xa o=e it
771
- \ I.• II Za 1
C'j
1-2> x
NC DEPT OF TR. _ SPORTATION
LUMBERTCN
V •? DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ROBESON COUNTY
PROPOSED EXTENSION OF SR ?B
05-B
PROJECT I-?:
I
SHEET OF
ILu/ •- it `%' `?
SCAU
n , 4 wttS
ni,
} ill doh l? y _ . \/ t •,t/•
3839
Gardens of Fait _.i
211\\ / \- _ l• \
I
7838
Rad,
u +•"'Q7:- 1522 ITow r 40'
Ce?
aI
?IJ,? 95
/?ti ? JI N ; ,383
Redwood
w•1 .. ?' ...• \ ? • ? _) ? / -mss ? ?,7??
,? ??'?.4 •? °r?' rLw :.\\ •?.'•??'\ • A`+\•\ \\ / \ _ ?? I If ?=-•( ? i IveN p 7I
Clybonville ?_ a.'\\ ? .,... ?, a•• /'-? -Ll? .
r v..•,'`„ d• 4 r t•;.r a arm . ?`}?-- r r / •.. • ( ,/1 ?• ?\ ,l
• ?s 1 \. - ''' \? _ ;/' - ?i • 3836
47
-qj
x 139
V 1111 •\ p \•
7 "V.
?!;` ./??we? ? 4 . 1532 •rdac '.yr «' ..r .y \ r r II • / ? . 't\ \: /• ??? - ?
ti`-,j?f ''1'?, y4 ? _ta?w . --=a _/• r? ? ? ? ? °.f• . ./ti •? l '?rrw, - / ? P ?i ` i• I?• ??:?, 1 .1?••.,•..I? ?
sr •? o
X11 r r?° `? .,/ ;• -..:.: l ?? :?hOS '21t v l Q
aW
'-1? ? .??"?`, ,. 7 ...r :. - D ? (/ Jar) ii'/ ? ,..f• r .Y °? ? _? r ..
\\O ? '?? J (`? ? ?? ` ?/.??J/ J/ H spit I ?. ?, ? -_ ??
-?,l Ire\?°°a `:. H• ??I??/i'/ - J1 t1V 15151?.??\, 383400c
a;.? •? * ?; ?`._??i ,1`'Si ' { +^" %i Pafk'v IsT sr
l ? ? <•?• Il ??? _\? 1• "'rte 1 ?? ?`?',f - , ?\? T!Tf \1 ?A y) , , ., `a rv \I? ., ,?,
t`a.??u- ?"N w.r .. ..M ac c? T/ •?,?' ? 95 C \\ \ r? •-w-. \? ?. t r .t ? / N 'ST
?? -\??r•\ (?: ,'`. m '. -? i '
?.yy, . ri.-T\' ? 301 .?' Al-I
i? .,'., JL'+t\ ,! -®._, _. = 3r?e! l ?.? Q If \ \? /QTH lr ST 0.. i? Aa
4
characteristics, best usage standards, and water quality aspects of the water resources, along with
their relationship to major regional drainage systems. Probable impacts to surface water resources
are also discussed, as are means to minimize impacts.
2.3.1 Maters Impacted acrd Characteristics
Water resources within the study area are located within the Lumber River Drainage Basin. The
Lumber River Basin lies along the North Carolina/South Carolina border at the southeast corner of the
state stretching about 150 miles from the Atlantic Ocean coastline in Brunswick County to the Sandhills
region in southern Moore and Montgomery Counties. Much of the mainstream of the Lumber River has
been designated as a state Natural and Scenic River, one of just four in North Carolina.
There are 2,283 miles of freshwater streams in the basin, most of which are supplementary
classified as swamp waters. The basin has a population over 259,539 and encompasses an area of 3343
square miles in all or part of 10 different counties including Brunswick. Columbus, Bladen, Robeson.
Cumberland, Hoke. Scotland, Richmond, Moore and Montgomery. The Lumber River Basin is composed
of four, separate, major drainage areas (watersheds). The basin is also subdivided into ten subbasins.
Waters within the project study area are contained within sub basin number 03-07-5;
Sub basin number 03-07-51 is located within the Lumber River Mainstream and Major Tributaries
portion of the project area. An unnnamed tributary of Saddletree Swamp and associated drainage
ditches are the only water resources located within the project area. Streams have been assigned a
best usage classification by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ), formerly Division of
Environmental Management (DEM), which reflects water quality conditions and potential
resource usage. According to the Division of Envirommnetal Management (DEM), Saddletree
Swamp (DEM Index No. 14-12, 12/1/63) has a Best Usage Classification of C Sw. Unnamed
tributaries receive the same classification of the streams to which they flow. Class C refers to
waters suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation
and agriculture. The supplemantal classification Sw refers to swamp waters or waters which have
low velocities and other natural characteristics which are different from adjacent streams. The
proposed project crosses this tributary and its associated ditches (Figure 1).
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or
WS-II) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the project
area.
2.3.2 Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters
The tributary to Saddletree Swamp in the project study area is approximately 3.7 in (12.0
ft) wide and ranges in depth from 1.8-2.1 m (6.0-7.0 ft). The substrate in the study area is
composed of clay loam. Riparian vegetation along the streambank includes ironwood (Carpilrus
caroliniana) and sweetgum (Liquidambar styr iciua), sedge (Carex sp.), false nettle (Bohemeria
cylindrica) and soft rush (Juncus sp.). There are also two jurisdictional ditches in the project area.
These are bordered by the same vegetation as the tributary.
5
2.3.3 Water Oualin,
The DWQ is the state agency responsible for regulating and enforcing surface water
quality rules. To accomplish this task the DWQ collects data on the biological, chemical and
physical condition of North Carolina surface waters.
The Benthic Macro invertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is managed by the DWQ and
is part of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program which addresses long term trends
in water quality. The program assesses water quality by sampling for benthic macroinvertebrate
organisms at fixed monitoring sites. Many benthic macro invertebrates have stages in their life
cycle that can last from six months to a year, therefore, the adverse effects of a toxic spill will not
be overcome until the next generation (DEM, 1993). Different taxa of macro invertebrates have
different tolerances to pollution, thereby, long term chances in water quality conditions can be
identified by population shifts from pollution sensitive to pollution tolerant organisms (and vice
versa). Overall, the species present, the population diversity and the biomass are reflections of
long term water quality conditions.
"Criteria have been developed to assign bioclassifications ranging from Poor to Excellent
to each benthic sample based on the number of taxa present in the intolerant groups
Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera (EPT)." (DEM, 1993). A biotic index is also
developed for the macroinvertebrate samples by summarizing tolerance data for all species in a
given sample. A bioclassification is derived from the data generated from the EPT and biotic
index metrics. There are no BMAN stations within or directly upstream of the project area
on Saddletree Swamp.
Point source discharge is defined "as any discharge that enters surface waters through a
pipe, ditch or any other well defined point. The term commonly refers to discharges associated
with wastewater treatment plant facilities. In addition, discharges from stormwater collection
systems at industrial sites and in large urban areas are now considered point source discharges"
(DEM, 1993). Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any discharger is
required to register for a permit. There are no permitted point source dischargers located in or
directly upstream from the project study area.
Nonpoint source discharge refers to runoff that enters surface waters through stormwater
or snowmelt (DEM, 1993). Agricultural activities may serve as a source for various forms of
nonpoint source pollutants. Land clearing and plowing disturb soils to a degree where they are
susceptible to erosion, which can lead to sedimentation in streams. Sediment is the most
widespread cause of nonpoint source pollution in North Carolina (DEM, 1993). Pesticides,
chemical fertilizers, and land application of animal wastes can be transported via runoff to
receiving streams and potentially elevate concentrations of toxic compounds and nutrients.
Animal wastes can also be source of bacterial contamination and elevate biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD). Drainage ditches on poorly drained soils enhances the transportation of
stormwater into surface waters (DEM, 1993)
6
2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Impacts to water resources in the project area are likely to result from activities associated
with project construction. Activities likely to result in impacts are clearing and grubbing on
streambanks, riparian canopy removal, instream construction, fertilizers and pesticides used in
revegetation, and pavement installation. The following impacts to surface water resources are
likely to result from the above mentioned construction activities.
• Increased sedimentation and siltation downstream of the crossing and increased erosion in the
project area.
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and vegetation
removal.
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface and ground
water flow from construction.
• Changes in and destabilization of water temperature due to vegetation removal.
• Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas.
• Increased concentrations of toxic compounds in highway runoff.
• Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from construction
equipment and other vehicle:
• Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface and groundwater
drainage pattern>.
In order to minimize potential impacts to water resources in the project area. NCDOT's
Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters must be strictly enforced durim.
the construction phase of the project. Impacts can be further reduced by limiting instream
activities and revegetating stream banks immediately following the completion of grading.
3.0 Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include terrestrial and aquatic communities. This section describes the
biotic communities encountered in the project area, as well as the relationships between fauna and
flora within these communities. The composition and distribution of biotic communities
throughout the project area are reflective of topography, soils, hydrology, and past and present
land'uses. Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community
classifications. These classifications follow Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible.
Representative animal species which are likely to occur in these habitats (based on published
range distributions) are also cited.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided for each
animal and plant species described. Subsequent references to the same organism refer to the
common name only. Fauna observed during the site visit are denoted in the text with an asterisk
M.
3.1 Biotic Communities
7
Biotic communities include terrestrial and aquatic elements. ivluch of the flora and fauna
described from biotic communities utilize resources from different communities, making
boundaries between contiguous communities difficult to define. There are seven communities
associated with the project study area: disturbed/maintained, disturbed hardwood thicket, cutover.
bottomland hardwood forest, hardwood swamp, hardwood flat and riparian fringe.
3.1.1 Disturbed Alaintained
Disturbed/maintained lands are intensively managed where human structures or activities
preclude natural plant succession. These areas include a fallow field and industrial and
residential maintained lawns.
The fallow field is dominated by henbit (Lamium amplexicaule), wild geranium
(Geranium niaculatum), curly dock, evening primrose (Oenothera sp.), wild yam (Discorea
villosa), ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) and goldenrod (Solidago altissima). The industrial
maintained lawn is dominated by low hop clover (Trifolium campestre), fescue (Festuca sp.l.
dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), crabgrass (Digitaria sp.), curly dock and wood sorrel (Oxalis
dillenii). The dominant species in the residential lawn are wood sorrel, fescue, cat's ear,
crabgrass, evening primrose, wild geranium, ragweed, cinquefoil (Potentilla arguta), rose (Rosa
sp.), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), red cedar (Juniperus virginiana) and loblolly pine
(Pinus tadea).
3.1.2 Disturbed Hardwood Thicket
Small tracts of hardwood thickets are found in the study area. This community is
surrounded by an agricultural field, residentaal lawn and cutover. It is also a disturbed area. It is
dominated by northern red oak (Quercus rubra), sweetgum (Liquidambar styrac flua), water oak
(Quercus nigra) and loblolly pine in its canopy. The understory consists of red maple (Acer
.rubrum), black cherry, silverling (Baccaris halimifolia) and black willow (Salix nigra). The shrub
Payer consists of pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), privet (Ligustrum sinense) winged sumac
(Rhus copilina) and horseweed (Erigeron canadensis). The vine layer consists of blackberry
(Rugus argutus), grape (Vitus rotundifolia), virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia),
trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), greenbrier
(Smilax laurifolia), multiflora rose (Rosa multijlora), posion ivy, vetch (Vicia sp.), wisteria
(wisteria frutescens). The ground layer is dominated by goldenrod (Solidago sp.) wild geranium,
and wood sorrel.
3.1.3 Cutover
This community is found between the roadside shoulder and the residential lawn and
borders the agricultural field on the southeast side. It is dominated by wisteria, trumpet creeper,
horseweed, dandelion, ragweed and elderberry.
8
3.1.4 Bottontland Hardrvood Forest
This community is found bordering the residential and cutover portions of the project area
to the south and the hardwood swamp to the north. It is an nonjurisdictional community that locks
the hardwood swamp on both sides. The canopy is dominated by American elm (Ulnttts
americana), northern red oak, laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), sweetgum and loblolly pine. The
subcanopy consists of ironwood, red maple, french mulberry (Callicarpa antericana), red
mulberry (Morus rubra) and privet. The vine layer is composed of virginia creeper, poison ivy,
yellow jasmine (Gelsimium sempervirens), greenbrier, giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea)
muscadine grape and ebony spleenwort (Aspleniunt platyneuron).
3.1.5 Hardwood Swamp
This community is the lower part of the Saddletree Swamp wetland. It is bordered to the south by
the bottomland hardwood forest community and to the north by the tributary to Saddletree Swamp.
The canopy is dominated by swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii), black gum (Nvssa biloru),
loblolly pine and sweetgum. The subcanopy is dominated by sweet bay (Afagnolia virginiana),
ironwood and red maple. The shrub and herb laver contains chinquapin (Castanea dentata),
spicebush (Lindera benroin), leucothoe (Leucolhoe axillaris), greenbrier. netted chain-fen
(Poodwardia areolata) and cinnamon fern (Osntunda cinnanomea).
3.1.5 Hardwood Flat
This community is found on the northern side of the tributary to Saddletree Swamp,
adjacent to a small pocket of the bottomland hardwood forest community. It contains small
upland pockets and larger wetland areas. The majority of this community found in the project area
is part of a larger wetland, Saddletree Swamp. The canopy of this community is dominated by
white oak (Quercus alba), red oak (Quercus rubra), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), red ash
(Fraxinus pennsylvanica) and swamp chestnut oak. The dominant species of the subcanopy are
ironwood, wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), red maple and water oak. The shrub layer is dominated
`by pipsissewa (Chimaphila umbellata), bona-nox (Smilax bona-nox), yellow jasmine, giant cane,
chinquapin (Castanea dentata), poison ivy, greenbrier, and lizard's tail (Saururus cermuts).
3.1.6 Riparian Fringe
Vegatation bordering the tributary to Saddletree Swamp and the two ditches includes
vetch, wisteria, black willow, horseweed, winged sumac, black cherry, trumpet creeper, sedge
(Carex sp.), false nettle (Bohenteria cylindrica) and rush (Juncus sp.).
3.1.7 Wildlife
Maintained\disturbed communities adjacent to forested tracts provide rich ecotones for
foraging, while the forests provide forage and cover. Common mammals associated with ecotones
9
are least shrew (Crvpototis pan-a), southern short-tailed shrew (Blaring carolinensis), hispid
cottonrat (Sigmodon hispidus) and eastern cottontail rabbit (Svlvilagus floridanits).
Fallow fields and other open areas adjacent to forested communities support a myriad of
bird life. Northern mockingbird (Vfintus polvglottos), robin (Turdus migratorious), northern
cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), common grackle (Quiscula quiscula), and turkey vulture
(Cathartes aura) could be observed in the project study area. In addition, meadowlark (Sturnella
magna) and eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis) may utilize this community by perching on telephone
wires or fences overlooking the maintained community where they forage for insects. The red-
tailed hawk (Buteo janiaicensis) and Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii) are important predators
known to forage in this community preying on rats, mice, other rodents and song birds.
The eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus), inhabits open, sunny situations such as
building sites, and fence rows usually in proximity to trees. American toad (Bufo antericalrus),
and box turtle (Terrapene caroline), are very common amphibians and reptiles that may inhabit
disturbed areas.
Forests of the area are adjacent to disturbed areas, thus the faunal composition is similar to
what occurs in the maintained\disturbed community. Species more commonly associated witl'
forests include white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), raccoon (Procyon iotor), white-tailed
deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), gray fox (Urocyon
cinereocirgenteus) and virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana).
The riparian edge provides habitat for an assortment of birds and mammals. Birds often
associated with streamside communities include red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus),
white-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia alhicollis), song sparrow (,Velospiza georgiana) and norther;.
cardinal. Yellow-rumped warblers (Dendroica coronata) and common yellow throat (Geothlypis
trichas) may also be found in this community. Yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia), red-eyed
vireo (Vireo olivaceus), Carolina wren and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) may also frequent
this area. .
Mammals which may frequent the riparian edge include white-footed mouse and raccoon.
`dn addition, white-tailed deer and gray squirrel may also forage in or near this community.
Amphibians and reptiles are likely to be locally abundant in the riparian edge. Spring peeper
(Hyla crucifer) and southern chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata) breed in semipermanent pools
during the spring. Rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), worm snake (Carphophis antoettus), and ring-
necked snake (Diadophis ptmctatus) may be found here as well. The box turtle (Terrapene
carolina) may also be found in the riparian fringe. Copperheads (Agkistrodon contortrix), which
are important predators of small mammals, may occur in the project vicinity.
3.1.8 Aquatic Habitat
Fish that should be expected in the tributaries to Saddletree Swamp are mosquitofish
(Gambusia holbrooki), sawcreek darter (Etheostonta zonatunt), eastern mudminnow (Umbra
pygntaea), banded pygmy sunfish (Elassatna zonatum) and bluespotted sunfish (Enneacanthus
gloriosus). These fish feed on insects, small crustaceans, and plants. Aquatic insects that may
10
inhabit the streams and ditches in the project area are mosquito larva (Culex spp.), water treader
(,Vesoveliu spp.), water strider (Gerris spp.), cranefly (Tipula spp.) and mayfly (Ephemeroptera).
Amphibians, in particular, are highly water dependent for completion of larval stages in
their life cycle. Some species are totally aquatic. A couple of water dependent salamanders likely
to occur in the project are two-lined salamander (Eurycea bislineata) and many-lined salamander
(Streochilus marginatus). Green frog (Rana clanitans) and pickerel frog (Rana palustris) could
also inhabit some of the areas along the stream in the project area. Banded water snake (Nerodia
fasiata fasiata), northern black racer (Coluber constrictor constrictor), eastern garter snake
(Thannnophis sirtalis sirtalis) and eastern cottonmouth (Agkistrodo n piscivorus piscivorus) are a
few of the snakes most likely to be encountered. Snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina) may also
occur in the project vicinity.
3.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the proposed project will have various impacts on the biotic resources
described. Any construction related activities in or near ttnese resources have the potential to
impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies potential impacts to the natural
communities within the project area in terms of the area impacted and the organisms affected.
Temporary and permanent impacts are considered here as well, along with recommendations to
minimize or eliminate impacts.
3.2.1 Terrestrial Impacts
Impacts to terrestrial communities will result from project construction due to the clearing
and paving of portions of the project area, and thus the loss of community area. Table 2
summarizes potential losses to these communities, resulting from project construction. Calculated
impacts to terrestrial communities reflect the relative abundance of each community present in the
s6tudy area. Estimated impacts are derived based on the project lengths described in section 1. 1,
and the entire proposed right of way width of 21.3 m (70.0 ft). However, project construction
often does not require the entire right of way; therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
Table.2. Estimated area impacts to terrestrial communities.
Community Impacted Area ha (ac)
Maintained/Disturbed 0.06 ha (0.15 ac)
Agricultural Field 0.41 ha (1.00 ac)
Cutover 0.03 ha (0.08 ac)
Bottomland Hardwood Forest 0.09 ha (0.21 ac)
Hardwood Swamp 0.10 ha (0.25 ac)
Hardwood Flat 0.50 ha (1.24 ac)
Riparian Fringe 0.02 ha (0.04 ac)
Total Impacts 1.21 ha (2.97 ac)
11
3.2.2 Aquatic Impacts
Impacts to the aquatic community of Saddletree Swamp will result from the proposed
project. Impacts are likely to result from the physical disturbance of aquatic habitats (i.e.
substrate, water quality, stream banks). Disturbance of aquatic habitats has a detrimental effect on
aquatic community composition by reducing species diversity and the overall quality of aquatic
habitats. Physical alterations to aquatic habitats can result in the following impacts to aquatic
communities.
• Inhibition of plant growth.
• Clogging of feeding structures of filter-feeding organisms, gills of fish, and the burial of
benthic organisms.
• Aleal blooms resulting from increased nutrient concentrations.
• Mortality among sensitive organisms resulting from introduction of toxic substances and
decreases in dissolved oxygen.
• Destabilization of water temperature resulting from riparian canopy removal.
• Loss of benthic macro invertebrates throueh scouring resulting from an increased sediment
load.
Impacts to aquatic communities can be minimized by minimizing riparian canopy
removal, limiting instreant construction, revegetation immediately following the completion of
grading activities. and strict adherence to BMP's.
4.0 Jurisdictional Tonics
This section provides inventories and impact analyses pertinent to two significant
regulatory issues: Waters of the United States and rare and protected species. These issues retain
particular significance because of federal and state mandates which regulate their protection. This
section deals specifically with the impact analyses required to satisfy regulatory authority prior to
project construction.
4.1 Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United
States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part 328.3. Any action that
proposes to dredge or place fill material into surface waters or wetlands falls under the jurisdiction
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1344). Surface waters include all standing or flowing waters which have commercial or
recreational value to the public. Wetlands are identified based on the presence of hydric soils,
hydroph-tic vegetation, and saturated or flooded conditions during all or part of the growing
season.
12
4. 1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Potential wetland communities were evaluated using the criteria specified in the 1987
"Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual". For an area to be considered a "wetland", the
following three specifications must be met; 1) presence of hydric soils (low soil chroma values), 2)
presence of hydrophytic vegetation, and 3) evidence of hydrology, including; saturated soils,
stained leaf litter, oxidized rhizospheres, matted vegetation, high water marks on trees, buttressed
tree bases and surface roots. The hardwood swamp and hardwood flat are classified as
jurisdictional wetlands. The wetlands have a Cowardin Classification of PFOI. The designation
PFOI denotes a palustrine, forested, broad leaved deciduous wetland.
Wetland impacts to the hardwood swamp are estimated to be 0.10 lia (0.25 ac). Soils in
the hardwood swamp were were 10 YR '311 from 1-12 in and 10 YR 7/1 from 12-16 in.
Hydrophytic vegetation located in the area include black gum, ironwood, and swamp chestnut oak.
Hydrological indicators include saturation in the upper 12 inches of the soil, water stained leaves,
water marks and drainage patterns in the wetlanc'
Wetland impacts to the hardwood flat are estimated to be 0.50 ha (1 24 ac). Soils in the
hardwood flat were 10 YR 311 from 1-6 in and 10 YR 511 from 6-16 in with 10 YR 7/6 mottlim,
from 14-16 in. Hydrophytic vegetation located in the area includes ironwood, black gum and
spicebush. Hydrological indicators include saturation in the upper 12 inches of the soil and water
stained leaves.
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are calculated based on the linear feet of the
stream that is located within the proposed right-of-way. Physical aspects of surface waters are
described in section 2.3.1. An area of approximately 21.3 m (70.0 ft) in length and 3.7 m (12.0 ft)
in width of the unnamed tributary to Saddletree Swamp will be impacted by the proposed project.
Areas of 72.5 m (238.0 ft) in length and 1.2 m (4.0 ft) in width and 18.6 m (61.0 ft) in length and
1.8 m (6.0 ft) in width of ditches 1 and 2 respectively will be impacted by the proposed project.
There will be approximately 0.004 ha (0.01ac) of fill placed in surface waters in the project area.
4.1.2 Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters and wetlands are anticipated from the proposed
project. As a result, construction activities will require permits and certifications from various
regulatory agencies in charge of protecting the water quality of public water resources
Encroachment into jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters as a result of project
construction is inevitable. Factors which determine a Section 404 Nationwide Permit (NWP)
applicability include: hydrology, juxtaposition with a major resource; whether the impacts occur
as part of the widening of an existing facility, or as the result of new location construction.
Although an individual site may qualify under NWP authorizations, overall, cumulative impacts
from a single and complete project may require authorization under an Individual Permit (IP).
Cumulative impacts to wetlands and surface waters, resultinb from construction of this
project will likely be authorized under an individual permit.
13
A North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Section 401 Water Quality General
Certification is required prior to the issuance of the Section 404 Individual Permit. Section 401 of
the Clean Water Act requires that the state issue or deny water certification for any federally
permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge to Waters of the United States.
Section 401 Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily impacted for the duration of the
construction or other land manipulation.
4.1.3 Avoidance, Minimization, Alitigatiott
The COE has adopted through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) a wetland
mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The
purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological and physical integrity of
Waters of the United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been
defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying
impacts. reducing impacts over time and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of'
these three aspects (avoidance, minimization and compensatory mitigation) must be considered
sequentially.
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting
impacts to Waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA',
between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE. in determining "appropriate
and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should be appropriate to
the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing technology and
logistics in light of overall project purposes.
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce the
adverse impacts to Waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps will be required
through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on decreasing
the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction to median widths, right-of-way widths,
fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths.
Compensatory mitigation in not normally considered until anticipated impacts to Waters
of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible. It is
recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved in each and
every permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for
unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization has
been required. Compensatory actions often include restoration, creation and enhancement of
Waters of the United States, specifically wetlands. Such actions should be undertaken in areas
adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site.
Compensatory mitigation is required for those projects authorized under Nationwide
Permits that result in the fill or alteration of:
• More than 0.45 ha (1.0 ac) of wetlands will require compensatory mitigation;
• And/or more than 45.7 m (150.0 linear ft) of streams will require compensatory mitigation.
Written approval of the final mitigation plan is required from the DWQ prior to the
issuance of a 401 Certification. Final permit/mitigation decisions rest with the COE.
14
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
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.
4.2.1 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 Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of 15 JanuarN
1999, the FWS lists three federally protected species for Robeson County.
Table 3. Federally Protected Species for Robeson Cou
.Common Name Scientific Name Status
American alligator Alligator mississippiensis Threatened (S/A'!
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered2
Michaux's sumac Rhus nzichauxii Endanaered
Proposed threatened because of similarity of appearance are species that are threatened due to
similarity of appearance with other rare species and are listed for the rare species'
protection. P T(S/A) are not subject to Section 7 consultation.
2Endangered species are species that are in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of their range.
3Threatened species are species likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of their 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 Proposed 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.
15
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 >60years old and are contiguous with pine stands of 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 to (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 eggs hatch approximately 38 days later.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effec-,
There are no pine stands in the project area or directly surrounding the project area that are
old enough to provide nesting or foraging habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker. Tile NCNH1'
database of rare species and unique habitats was also reviewed and showed no records of red-
cockaded woodpeckers in the project area. Thus, construction of this project will have no effect
on this species.
Rhus nrichauxii (Michaux's sumac) Endangered
Plant Family: Anacardiaceae
Date Listed: 28 September 1989
Flowers Present: June
Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizomatous shrub. The bases of the leaves are
rounded and their edges are simply or doubly serrate. The flowers of Michaux's sumac are greenish
to white in color. Fruits, which develop from August to September on female plants, are a red,
densely short-pubescent drupe.
. This plant occurs in rocky or sandy open woods. Michaux's sumac is dependent on some
sort of disturbance to maintain the openness of its habitat. It usually grows in association with basic
soils and occurs on sand or sandy loams. Michaux's sumac grows only in open habitat where it can
get full sunlight. Michaux's sumac does not compete well with other species, such as Japanese
honeysuckle, with which it is often associated.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION Unresolved
Habitat for Michaux's sumac is present in the project area in the form of disturbed roadside
and forest borders. A plant by plant survey for this species will need to be conducted between
August and October when the plant's leaves are out.
16
3.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are those plant and animal species which 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. Eleven FSC are listed for
Robeson County (Table 4). Table 4 lists Federal Candidate and State listed species, the species
state status (if afforded state protection) and the existence of suitable habitat for each species in
the study area. This species list is provided for informational purposes as the status of these
species may be upgraded in the future.
i aoie 4. reuerai species of L oncern for icooeson %.ountN. I -I Common Name Scientific Name .. NC Status Habitat

Bachman's sparro%N Aimophila aestivalis SC No
Rafinesque's big-eared bat Coryhinus (=Plecotus) rafrnesquii SC No
Southern hognose snake Heterodon simus SR No
Carolina gopher frog Rana capito capito Sc Yes
Georgia indigo-bush Amorpha georgiana var. georgiana E No
Sandhills milkvetch Astragalus nuchauvii C No
Venus flytrap Dionaea muscipula C-SC No
Dwarf burhead Echinodorus parvulus C No
Bog spicebush Lindera subcoriacea E No
Carolina bogmint Macbridea caroliniana C Yes
,Awned meadowbeauty Rhexia aristosa T No
Threatened (T) are native or once-native species of wild plant or animal which is likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
of its range. An Endangered (E) species is any native species or once-native species of fauna or
flora whose continued existence as a viable component of the State's fauna is determined to be in
jeopardy. Significantly rare (SR) species are very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20
populations in the state. Candidate (C) species are very rare in North Carolina, with 1-20
populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction.
A review of the NHP data base of rare species and unique habitats shows no occurrences
of rare species in the project study area. Surveys for FSC species were not conducted during the
site visit.
17
5.0 REFERENCES
American Ornithologists' Union. 1983. Check-List of North American Birds (6th ed.). Lawrence,
Kansas, Allen Press, Inc.
Amoroso, J.L. and A.S. Weakley. 1995. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species
of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh, N.C.
Cowardin, Lewis M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classifications of Wetlands
and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical
report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg. Miss.
Lee, D.S., J.B. Funderburg, Jr. and M.K. Clark. 1982. A Distributional Survey of North Carolina:
Mammals. North Carolina Museum of Natural History. Raleigh. N.C.
Le(irand, Jr., H.E. and S.P. Hall. 1995. Natural heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species
of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh, N.C.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey and J.R. Harrison 111. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of
the Carolinas and Virginia. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
Menhenick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission. Raleigh, N.C.
NCDEM. 1988. Benthic Macro invertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) Water Quality Review
1983-1986. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. Raleigh, N.C.
V
NCDEM. 1991. Biological Assessment of Water Quality in North Carolina Streams: Benthic
Macro invertebrate Data Base and Long Term Changes in Water Quality, 1983-1990.
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. Raleigh, N.C.
NCDEM. 1993. Classifications and Water Quality Standards for North Carolina River Basins.
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. Raleigh, N.C.
NCWRC. 1990. Endangered Wildlife of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission. Raleigh, N.C.
Plant Conservation Program. 1991. List of North Carolina's Endangered, Threatened and
Candidate Plant Species. North Carolina Department of Agriculture. Raleigh, N.C.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The
University of North Carolina Press.
18
Radford, A.E.. H.E. Allies and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weaklev. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina. Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation, NCDEHNR. Raleigh, N.C.
USDA, 1946. Soil Survey of Avery County North Carolina. US Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia and
Maryland. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.