20010221 Ver 1_Complete File_20010213

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORMS TOLSON
SECRETARY
March 2, 1998
Ms. Cyndi Bell : -,.1
DWQ - DENR
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager J
Planning and Environmental Branch
P
ems.
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for SR 1133 (Lee Avenue), from
South of SR 1136 (Wilson Road) to South of Rand Street, Lee
County, Federal Aid Project No. STP-1133(4), State Project
No. 8.2540801, TIP Project No. U-3626
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the subject
project (see attached map for project location). The purpose of these sheets and the
related review procedure is to have an early "meeting of the minds" as to the scope of
work that should be performed and thereby enable us to better implement the project. A
scoping meeting for this project is scheduled for April 1, 1998, at 10:00 a.m. in the
Planning and Environmental Branch Conference Room in the Transportation Building
(Room 470). You may provide us with your comments at the meeting, or mail them to us
prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process. If there are
any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please call Aileen S. Mayhew,
Project Engineer, at 733-3141 (ext. 228).
HFV/asm/plr
Attachments

PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Date February 27, 1998
Revision Date
Project Development Stage
Programming
Planning X
Design
TIP Project # U-3626

State Project # 8.2540801

F.A. Project # STP-1133(4

Division 8
County Lee
Route(s) SR 1133 (Lee Avenue) from SR 1136 (Wilson Road) to Seawell Street in Sanford.
Functional Classification SR 1133 (Lee Avenue) is classified as a Minor Arterial
throughout the project area.
Length 1.1 kilometers (0.7 miles)
Description of Project (including specific limits) and major elements of work: The
proposed proiect calls for intersection improvements and signalization at the intersection
of SR 1133 (Lee Avenue) and Seawell Street. Additional improvements anticipated to be
included in the proposed project per Program Development involve widening SR 1133
(Lee Avenue) to a three-lane facility with curb and gutter from south of SR 1136 (Wilson
Road) northward to south of Rand Street. Signalization warrants at SR 1136 (Wilson Road)
will also be evaluated
Purpose of Project: The purpose of the proposed project is to provide a safer highway
for motorists along the subiect section of roadway. There is a pattern of rear-end and
left-tum accidents Constructing a center turn lane will help reduce the occurrence of
rear end and left-tum accidents and reduce traffic congestion along SR 1133 (Lee
Avenue)
Type of environmental document to be prepared: Programmatic Categorical Exclusion
Environmental Study Schedule: due January, 1999
Will there be special funding participation by municipality, developers, or other?
Yes No X
If yes, by whom and amount: ($) , or I%)
How and when will this be paid?
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
List any special features, such as railroad involvement, which could affect cost or
schedule of project:
ITEMS REQUIRED N COMMENTS COST
Estimated Costs of Improvements:
X Pavement
X Surface (Resurface) .......................................................... $ 131.768
Base .................................................................................... $
Milling & Recycling .......................................................... $
Turnouts .............................................................................. $
Shoulders
Paved ................................................................................. $
Earthen ............................................................................... $
X Earthwork ..................................................................................... $ 174.860
Subsurface Items ........................................................................ $
X Subgrade and Stabilization ...................................................... $ 27.594
X Drainage (list any special items) ............................................. $ 161,292
Sub-Drainage ............................................................................. $
Structures
Bridge Rehab ................................................................... $
New Bridge ....................................................................... $
Remove Bridge ................................................................ $
New Culvert ...................................................................... $
Culvert Extension .............................................................. $
Retaining Walls ................................................................. $
Noise Walls ........................................................................ $
Other Misc. (Detour Bridge) ............................................ $
X Concrete Curb & Gutter ......................................................... $ 77.390
Concrete Sidewalk .................................................................... $
X Utilities .......................................................................................... $ 235,000
Fencing
W.W .................................................................................... $
C.L ...................................................................................... $
X Erosion Control ........................................................................... $ 14,000
Landscaping .............................................................................. $
Lighting ........................................................................................ $
X Traffic Control ............................................................................. $ 36,000
Signing
New .................................................................................... $
Upgraded ......................................................................... $
X _ Traffic Signals
2 New .................................................................................... $ 90,000
Revised .............................................................................. $
RR Signals
New ................................................................................... . $
Revised ............................................................................. $
With/without Arms ........................................................... $
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Init.
Right of Way
R/W Utilities
Traffic Engr.
Project Management
County Manager
City / Municipality
Date Init.
Division Engineer
Bicycle Coordinator
Program Development
FHWA
Dept. of Cult. Res.
DENR
Date
'If you are not in agreement with proposed project or scoping, note your proposed
revisions or comments here:
(' • ????? u?'a?n? $'
Euv
1 t u 77
, Y-1
Su aatio (_'°( ??E
Pr 7
??• :?? ? ?'? `?? ' • ? neuo wit
WEST u
C? ?..- r ) "mss' .I 1 ? ? ./- I`1: SZ l \ . /?-.
if
Orr=`/ • ??= <s / i / END •A .?' • z'I; ?/
J ? ?y L
? ^.l-?J' ,! i?? ?,.? uI ?'?• ?jo* ro "v PROJECT N
Vlff
71
?? ?? ?? . ? ?'t'J I ' 1, `. I? ?; d Radllo? '?/' : ??\'t.07•A.??• :`;? ?•.a.??/ ._ `'`.` ? /
-? ' :.' • .7-: - /? e "• ?owe% Il / \ \ Q? /y1Wi? `.?! =?' ;`yy • I • -? + ?/r t
_ ?? ? er• /:? •1? ? ?> /fem.. ? \??, ? l? "??
? .. ,. "/ ?? ? I' 'ill 4«• /; •Q? ? ;,?./'i Y /• /' ?'•' 1,36 ? iSN??
.,rte •• ?• ??; ?r1 ?J1 ?? I? J I = e 11 I?'' ( `' ??( 0 1 \ BEGIN
0 poa l1
?- 1 r r .. j (I(I (' ` = 1 =< PROJECT all
`? J • ?.
400 ?`? /? `' ? ? ?. III ? ? I f. I '.' ``?i I ???? • • ?/\) ; ??7, •°??''
1,72
1,17
em t
i
u
`7
...7.
(1150) jo-
J S ; ? O
USGS QUAD; SANFORD ( l
1•,.

F
v v

0
k)
It
D ? tl ?
n
0
P
Do Q
0
J c o
/ V
? O
D
°n
0
8 ,
CID
o Q
0
610
0
C
I
I I' R 2 1998
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
April 13, 1998
MEMORANDUM TO: File
FROM: Aileen S. Mayhew, Project Planning Engineer O $yyl)
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: SR 1133 (Lee Avenue), from south of SR 1136 (Wilson
Road) northward to south of Rand Street in Sanford, Lee
County, Federal Aid Project No. STP-1133(4), State
Project No. 8.2540801, TIP Project No. U-3626
A scoping meeting for the subject project was held on April 1, 1998 at
10:00 a.m. in the Planning and Environmental Branch conference room (room 470).
The following people were in attendance:
Kathy Lassiter Roadway Design Unit
Tim Jordan Roadway Design Unit
Felix Davila Federal Highway Administration
Debbie Bevin State Historic Preservation Office
Elizabeth Honeycutt Traffic Engineering - Congestion Management
Stephen Lowry Traffic Engineering - Congestion Management
Charles Mullen Traffic Engineering - Traffic Control
Jerry Snead Hydraulics Unit
Bill Rosser Division 8 Engineer
Greg Purvis Division 8 Design/Construct Engineer
John Taylor Location and Surveys Unit
Phil Williamson Photogrammetry Unit
Betty Yancey Right of Way Branch
Lanette Cook Program Development Branch
Ray McIntyre Program Development Branch
Anna Pennisi Statewide Planning Branch
David Foster Planning and Environmental Branch -
Environmental Unit
Lubin Prevatt Planning and Environmental Branch
Julie Hunkins Planning and Environmental Branch
Karen Boshoff Planning and Environmental Branch
Aileen Mayhew Planning and Environmental Branch
The following was discussed:
Document: PCE: Completion - January 1999
ROW: August 1999
Construction: August 2000
Note: Per Program Development, the right of way and construction dates were revised
from April to August of the respective years.
Construction: $ 250,000
Right of Way: $ 80,000
Total Cost: $ 330,000
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Project No. U-3626 was originally
a Division Design Construct project. However, the Roadway Design Unit will be
preparing the roadway plans due to the increased scope of the project.
TIP IMPROVEMENTS
The current TIP description includes improvements and signalization at
the intersection of SR 1133 (Lee Avenue) and Seawell Street.
PROJECT RECOMMENDATION
Based on coordination with local officials and North Carolina Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) staff prior to the initiation of project studies, the
project scope has been expanded and approved by the Program Development
Branch. Additional improvements to be included in the proposed project involve
widening SR 1133 to a three-lane facility with curb and gutter from south of
SR 1136 (Wilson Road) northward to south of Rand Street. Signalization
warrants at both the SR 1133/SR 1136 and SR 1133/Seawell Street intersections
will be evaluated by the Traffic Engineering Branch during the project planning
process.
PURPOSE OF PROJECT
The proposed project is intended to reduce traffic congestion on SR 1133.
Existing SR 1133 is a two-lane shoulder section between SR 1136 and Seawell Street and
varies between a two-lane and three-lane section between Seawell Street and Rand Street.
The Feasibility Study indicates that between the period from March 1993 through
February 1996, there were 23 accidents reported in the vicinity of the SR 1133/Seawell
Street intersection. The rear-end and angle collisions accounted for the majority of the
It
accidents (82.6 %). By providing left-turn storage along this segment of roadway, the
recommended improvements are expected to reduce the accident rate in this area.
EXISTING ROADWAY
SR 1133 is classified as a minor arterial and consists of a two-lane roadway,
including a 6.7- to 7.9-meter (22- to 26-foot) travelway plus 1.2- to 1.8-meter (4- to
6-foot) grassed shoulders. A short section of curb and gutter exists on the west side of
SR 1133 in front of Cranford Select Automobiles, Incorporated. Immediately south of
Rand Street, SR 1133 is a three-lane roadway, including an 11.6-meter (38-foot)
travelway plus paved shoulders. SR 1136 is classified as a collector and consists of a
two-lane roadway, including a 7.2-meter (24-foot) travelway plus grassed shoulders.
Near the intersection of SR 1133 with SR 1136, SR 1136 has a travelway of
approximately 14.0 m (46 ft). Seawell Street is not classified on the statewide functional
classification system and consists of a two-lane roadway, including a 6.7- to 7.2-meter
(22- to 24-foot) travelway plus grassed shoulders.
The horizontal and vertical alignments are fair along SR 1133, except near the
water tower, which is located in the northwest quadrant of the SR 1133/Seawell Street
intersection. There is poor sight distance for vehicles heading east on Seawell Street and
making a left turn onto SR 1133. The sight distance for vehicles heading east on
SR 1136 and turning left onto SR 1133 is fair.
There is moderate commercial development along SR 1133. The Feasibility
Study indicates that the existing right of way along SR 1133 is approximately 18.3 m
(60 ft). The speed limit along SR 1133 is 55 km/h (35 mph). A stream crossing exists
under SR 1133 immediately north of Cameron Drive. There are no existing traffic
signals along the project. No sidewalks or bicycle facilities exist along the project.
The proposed project is not designated as a thoroughfare on the Sanford
Thoroughfare Plan. However, both Industrial Drive, proposed to connect to SR 1133
south of SR 1136, and SR 1136 are designated as major thoroughfares on the Sanford
Thoroughfare Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
Geographic Information System (GIS) data, which displays National Wetland
Inventory (NWI) mapping, revealed a potential wetland located on the east side of
SR 1133 across from Cameron Drive.
Prior to the scoping meeting, Mr. Snead spoke with Joe Clendenin, District
Engineer, regarding an existing 1050-mm (42-inch) pipe under SR 1133 immediately
north of Seawell Street. It is recommended that this pipe be upgraded to a 1500-mm
(60-inch) pipe to meet proposed upgrades of the upstream pipe. Mr. Snead will
investigate the drainage requirements of the area to see if a drainage easement from
SR 1133 to Horner Boulevard is needed in order to upgrade the pipe. Mr. Snead and
Mr. Clendenin agree that this upgrade should be included in the proposed project, if
needed. Mr. Rosser added that the pipe should accommodate the increased development f
on Horner Boulevard since this development is located in the same watershed.
Ms. Yancey expressed concern regarding the location of underground storage
tanks at the gas stations situated in the northeast and northwest quadrants of the
SR 1133/SR 1136 intersection. The Geotechnical Unit will investigate the location of
underground storage tanks, and a right-of-way abstract will be requested by the Planning
and Environmental Branch to determine the exact right of way along SR 1133.
UTILITIES
The Feasibility Study states that moderate utility conflicts are expected. The
utilities in the area include water, gas, and sewer lines. Immediately following the
scoping meeting, Mr. Taylor indicated that there are also underground and aerial
telephone lines in the project area.
OTHER PROTECT RECOMMENDATIONS
Mr. Rosser requested that the southern termini of the proposed project be
extended to Snyder Street. He indicated that the turning movements onto Snyder Street
are significant. Mr. Rosser also indicated that the construction limits for the
improvements to the SR 1133/SR 1136 intersection would extend southward near the
SR 1133/Snyder Street intersection. Mr. McIntyre will talk with Mr. Whit Webb,
Program Development Branch Manager, regarding the possible extension of the southern
project termini.
Specific widening scenarios were not discussed in detail at the scoping meeting.
The Roadway Design Unit indicated that special consideration, a retaining wall and/or a
grade change, may be needed in the vicinity of the water tower in the northwest quadrant
of the SR 1133/Seawell Street intersection to improve the sight distance and not impact
the water tower.
The NCDOT proposes to study a three-lane facility with curb and gutter,
including 12.2-meter (40-foot) face-to-face of curbs with 3.0-m (10-foot) berms.
Following the scoping meeting, the Roadway Design Unit indicated that construction
easements may be necessary if the proposed improvements cannot be contained within
the proposed 24.4 in (80 ft) of right of way. The Roadway Design Unit indicated that the
proposed project will have a design speed of approximately 65 km/h (40 mph).
Projected traffic volumes for the proposed project were not available at the
scoping meeting. The traffic forecast is anticipated to be completed May 1998.
However, the projected traffic anticipated for the design year 2020, as documented in the
Feasibility Study, was approximately 14,000 vehicles per day for SR 1133. Mr. Rosser
indicated that there is a tremendous amount of commercial development occurring on
Horner Boulevard, specifically citing its intersection with Seawell Street. The
intersection of Horner Boulevard and Seawell Street is currently signalized. In addition,
TIP Project No. R-2417 (Sanford Bypass), involves studying the realignment of US 421
? to intersect Horner Boulevard across from SR 1136. Mr. Rosser stated that the traffic
forecast should include traffic volumes incorporating the commercial development along
Horner Boulevard, as well as the realignment of US 421.
Because the Roadway Design Unit cannot request surveys from the Location and
Surveys Unit until some form of public involvement has been initiated, Ms. Lassiter
indicated that involving the public through a Citizens Informational Workshop would be
appropriate. Mr. Davila agreed that conducting a Citizens Informational Workshop
would be beneficial and added that the type of documentation required for the project
may need to be upgraded if adverse environmental impacts result from project
implementation. The Location and Surveys Unit will complete the surveys in
approximately six months following the Citizens Informational Workshop, which is
tentatively scheduled for Spring 1998. Subsequently, the Planning and Environmental
Branch, in conjunction with local officials and NCDOT staff, will evaluate the need for a
Public Hearing.
Although no preference was made during the scoping meeting to include bicycle
or pedestrian accommodations along the proposed project, the Planning and
Environmental Branch and the Office of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation will
continue to coordinate regarding the need for these accommodations.
Ms. Bevin of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) stated that there are
no historic properties in the immediate project area. She also indicated that it is unlikely
that any archaeological sites would exist in the area due to the intensive development. A
memo received from the SHPO following the scoping meeting indicated that no historic
architectural survey or archaeological investigation is necessary in conjunction with this
project.
Ms. Cyndi Bell of the N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR) - Division of Water Quality (DWQ) submitted comments prior to the scoping
meeting. She indicated that there are two unnamed tributaries outside the project area,
both of which have a Best Usage Classification of "C." Class C waters are suitable for
aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and
agriculture. Ms. Bell indicated that there is a small drainage area adjacent to SR 1133
near Cameron Drive. However, this area appears to be urbanized, and the wetlands
located on the east side of SR 1133 across from Cameron Drive may not be intact.
Although no major concerns are foreseen from the perspective of DWQ, Ms. Bell
requested that an NCDOT biologist investigate the wetland/drainage area.
cc: Scoping List
r y r? °~r SR. HIGH SCH. 9U+ P
1

21 y,
? Q D OW
4EA
PARK
•
??.
St'
s < P,?

•
e m

S ? t
r° e^
?, 87 4 2
L? ffi P 5i• s
?
Sr m ??P F/N ST, oC NE s Ep' p\!?
Sta ?' . StE ?E
?y ? 9
? M
Z
i
8
?' G 9< GV° E • 9p 0, m
I
?. Np K Y D L,YMPL Sti P 9j?
C
9
FLOYD L KNIGHT?y ° N
• SCH . rft?9 vL ?r L4), MpLf to,
GPlot END
PR

e
s
OJECT
<ESt\7
`
C
I
yj? XUMBE P\!1 y?
S/C?r?
7?
y
•
W
es
S
s?
s? o I
??J??E ??`6r ? ' ° sT 19 m 3 v PpE

za ?s?
INO
y°G?St'
?
S€a F c
4SHBY RD
??,
QPy?
-?RSELOV
78 A
q
?
u 9L
?(
4 21
JONESB 0 CE?A. oP ?? $ OP.

MICHE AKENDAL
ST
? G

Q .Um
DR. g m Li
y ? O
Z,ORE$ n A b
DRpyD
A LIB BY
cox
sr

C 0
p
GLEN
'
JONESBORO
ELEM.SCH.
Y E
S J.
N
ERNE EDWARDS
ELEM. SCH.
OER
'
T p
C v SNY F
N ?, RA BEGIN sT P

DAVID PROJECT
co
m CyF? Q? y

CARSpy lR m
v i r•

?, A Q
?,? get 14w ?
4 ?,?
J <
87
3 ?
''t Q'

W ; d
? J
"Y l 9,P
A w
Q°g? a
?
Q W
I
ST.

ANDREWS S/oF

N
°
L /
9
eo ??
FqN?/
J S 6R- BRIDGE
*
10
I
V
010221
y M SUI[
ar
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY 1501 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, NC 27699-1501
GOVERNOR
February 2, 2001
Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers
6508 Falls of the Neuse Rd. Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27609
ATTENTION: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
LYNDO TIPPE CI'
SECRETARY
Subject: Proposed widening of Lee Avenue (SR 1133) from south of Wilson Road
(SR 1136) to Rand Street in Sanford, Lee County, Federal Aid Project No.
STP-1133(4), State Project No. 8.2540801, TIP No. U-3626.
Nationwide Permit 23 Application.
Please find enclosed three copies of the Project Planning Report and Natural
Resources Technical Report for the above referenced project. Lee Avenue (SR 1133)
will be widened to a three-lane curb and gutter facility, with intersection improvements at
Lee Avenue and Wilson Road (SR 1136) and signalization improvements at the
intersection of Lee Avenue and Seawell Street.
There is one jurisdictional stream, an unnamed tributary to Gaster's Creek, and
one wetland area associated with the stream, that will be impacted by the proposed
project. The stream is currently carried under Lee Avenue in a culvert, which will be
removed and replaced with a 6 ft x 8 ft reinforced concrete box culvert. The new culvert
will impact 87.3 linear feet (26.6 linear meters) of existing stream channel. The proposed
work will result in 0.002 acre (0.001 ha) of excavation and 0.025 acre (0.01 ha) of
mechanized clearing in the adjacent wetland.
This 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
LA
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 any questions or need additional information, please call Ms. Sue Brady at
[phone] ext. 270.
Sincerely,
i`? ? Yet
William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
> Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: w/attachment
Mr. David Franklin, COE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Timothy V. Rountree, P.E., Structure Design
w/o attachment
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development
Mr. J. Victor Barbour, P.E., Design Services
Mr. D. R. Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Bill Rosser, P.E., Division 8 Engineer
Ms. Jackie Obediente, Project Development and Environmental Analysis
•? r
MAP
`AND
L` P a EC
?i
SINFO j,
RPORT , / "\
1)1/

rv Vxu\ I
' P. 047 y
s \ ? 42
2
..42? ,?, LJ ? I
1l I \ _
gi l it _ti ' I Ci
t1 1 ?
„,. 67
m
11
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
LEE COUNTY
1500m 0 3000m PROJECT U-3626
PROPOSED
1:5000 SR I133(LEE AVE.) FROM SOUTH
OF SR 1241(SNYDER ST.) TO RAND ST.
02-01-00 1{" r
J\CU?MTS\]YY)\tN\Ot;n\vK??•.OGh _- - -
I I I ?
W ? w I I
U ? I zl i
I
?. E w l FIE I
w? °
WI
I

M
?N
?- ca
Z
z
°>,?
x
ter- I
XISTING

34d I

?L X
ac X ? ?
I v
/
S
I

w (
)
00
°I I"

EXISTING R/W
CL]?
O
` \1 I d
J I ? ?, ? I
w w IE Y
a_ E
0 Ln
1,c o w ?I?I ? I
1
ac -? l?J Ixl ? I
W, I ILJ] I
o ,. L
V) LL.
< (3 0 0
I, I ` ~
r
r o
w o ?
z
o N ?
IQ Q Q Q>- LD O
n' z ti WII F-
IZ I J ? Qtn L- t/)
IN w o ° w U-° ?- °w?
x ? 0 U 0 Ld
Iw pzw dL,,>-
I V)
° wZ
a c, M N
r w " w} a 10?
-?---1- 30d o ° N N
I -? Z
oLo ° '
WQ
0. j
0o w
i o 0 000
00 00000000
00 80
ao
00
0 0
I
?I I w w?N
II
II E
0
w
LL1
O
I I ? ? 0
I I w ,? , ? 0
II
II i E
I w
?I
a w
?I I W
I co
I w s
w
l a z
a
L.Lj
z o°
z
o wQ
0- F- N
a ? a~
( ? 1
X J w 7
w u_-
w w wz
I 0 0 ~OQ
w ,Q w w
Icr o
L'i
W I 0
Iw I I
I 1 W n

V)
p
F- D a
a V) ° _
?a ?o
O CV 0F-
CL o F- n W lai_ ?-•
aZn D 0- 0
U 0
??O ~ o v o>w
y?'b ozw aa-w
w
O J d M V
'
p p M (\j
_
O
U CC N 01
z `) o
U-
0 NO
C)
0
z
l! LEI
O b
OX C)
0? C)
O z
0
cr-
,w
N
Q 0
z'`°
O M
N
J N
OX
O
O?OI O 0
O z N-
0 N
vi r
J
Q
r

L t
N O °
V ? U
a
?
y o

w N N t O O M
w
U.
m

m
N
c N

O
N !-
O 'm
O
w V N p O

z U)
O
U Q w
- F-
:
LE O ° O2 O Owr
WKZ
CL C) U)
w O
d
c N N U U) Q

CO) c
c E
CL co
w
(6 z a u)
0 LL
I.- W U E N N a O
a

W EU) t ° ° LO
Q LL
3 0

w
U 3

v Lo
U)
? 01- °
°
w
U)
u,

C ? L
p $

O
Z °

Q
G M C N o O
C
L r N O L ° °
U
U) F
U
n c N
0
I-

C1

_ -
-`°
>yL
o
°

o
c
C w c
LL
E ? t ° o

r?
= m t
o
0
U- a)
3
U
co

TJ N 0?
2w
in X
E
v,
N

a S N
X
t
N
o
c
N
M
J
«? O H
(? Z

l/)
N
W
cr

W

z
3
O

W

CO
w
CL

0

rn
p N
NU
XZJ
m0;
00
aZ

N

0

N
W L;
U=
??
00
Tw

a
0

0

n
N N
NU
x2r
m?
on.
az

a
V1

0

?.M
N
my
0z
3C
o
oz
a

N
U
z
W -
>
:2 z
Q W Q Q
Z a
a ?
:2 = O
Q? x
W O U
Z o CO
z
3 a °

O C) ?-
to
F-
?= W a

w
W O z
n z a
c? ° z
O ?

O
?
a

0
z

cl? N rl Q
W
CI-
0
Of
Cl-
' Ori<oinal Form Approved: 1/93
Form Revised: 7/97, 5/97, and 1/93
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. U-3626
State Project No. 8.2540801
Federal Project No. STP-1133 (4) 0 1 ®2 2 1
A. Project Description:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to widen SR 1133
(Lee Avenue) to a three-lane curb and gutter facility from south of Snyder Street
northward to Rand Street in Sanford. In addition, the proposed project calls for
intersection improvements at the intersection of SR 1133 (Lee Avenue) and SR
1136 (Wilson Road) as well as improvements including signalization at the
intersection of SR 1133 (Lee Avenue) and Seawell Street. See attached vicinity
map Figure 1.
B. Purpose and Need:
The proposed project is intended to reduce traffic congestion and improve safety
on SR 1133 as well as improve the efficiency of the intersections within the
project limits. Existing SR 1133 is a two-lane shoulder section between SR 1136
and Seawell Street and varies between a two-lane and three-lane section between
Seawell Street and Rand Street. It is anticipated that SR 1133 will not provide an
adequate level of service for the 14,000 to 18,000 vehicles per day projected to
utilize this section of Lee Avenue by the 2025 design year. Additionally, the
Feasibility Study indicates that between the period from March 1993 through
February 1996, there were 23 accidents reported in the vicinity of the SR
1133/Seawell Street intersection. Rear-end and angle collisions accounted for the
majority of these accidents.
C. Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following Type II improvements which apply to the
project:
1. 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)
Qj Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
-
Original Form Approved: 1/93
Form Revised: 7!97, 5/97, and 1/94
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
c. 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
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing
hazards and flattening slopes
c? Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
Y Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
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.

Original Form Approved: 1'93
Form Revised: 7/97, 5/97, and 1/94
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.
C. Special Project Information
Project History:
Originally, the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) project description
included improvements and signalization at the intersection of SR 1133 (Lee
Avenue) and Seawell Street. However, based on coordination with local officials
and NCDOT staff prior to the initiation of project studies, the project scope was
expanded and approved by the NCDOT Program Development Branch.
Additional improvements that were included in the proposed project involve
widening SR 1133 to a three-lane facility with curb and gutter from south of
Snyder Street northward to south of Rand Street.
Original Form Approved: 1!93
Form Revised: 7/97, 5/97, and 1/94
Existing Conditions:
SR 1133 is classified as a minor arterial and consists of a two-lane roadway,
including a 6.7- to 7.9-meter (22- to 26-foot) travelway plus 1.2 to 1.8-meter (4-
to 6-foot) grassed shoulders. A short section of curb and gutter exists on the west
side of SR 1133 in front of Cranford Select Automobiles, Incorporated.
Immediately south of Rand Street, SR 1133 is a three-lane roadway, including an
11.6-meter (38-foot) travelway plus paved shoulders. SR 1136 is classified as a
collector and consists of a two-lane roadway, including a 7.2-meter (24-foot)
travelway plus grassed shoulders. Near the intersection of SR 1133 with SR
1136, SR 1136 has a travelway of approximately 14.0 m (46 ft). Seawell Street is
not classified on the statewide functional classification system and consists of a
two-lane roadway, including a 6.7- to 7.2-meter (22- to 24-foot) travelway plus
grassed shoulders.
The horizontal and vertical alignments are fair along SR 1133, except near the
water tower, which is located in the northwest quadrant of the SR 1133/Seawell
Street intersection. There is poor sight distance for vehicles heading east on
Seawell Street and making a left turn onto SR 1133. The sight distance for
vehicles heading east on SR 1136 and turning left onto SR 1133 is fair.
There is moderate commercial development along SR 1133. The Feasibility
Study indicates that the existing right of way along SR 1133 is approximately
18.3 m (60 ft). The speed limit along SR 1133 is 55 km/h (35 mph). A stream
crossing exists under SR 1133 immediately north of Cameron Drive. There are
no existing traffic signals along the project. No sidewalks or bicycle facilities
exist along the project.
The proposed project is not designated as a thoroughfare on the Sanford
Thoroughfare Plan. However, both Industrial Drive, proposed to connect to SR
1133 south of SR 1136, and SR 1136 are designated as major thoroughfares on
the Sanford Thoroughfare Plan.
Proposed Improvements:
The proposed improvements to SR 113 3 (Lee Avenue) include widening from
south of Snyder Street to south of Rand Street. The proposed typical section of
Lee Avenue is a three-lane facility with curb and gutter, including 12.2-meter (40
foot) face-to-face of curbs with 3.0-meter (10-foot) berms. In order to minimize
potential impacts to properties along the project, symmetrical widening is the
preferred alternative. It is anticipated that the proposed improvements will require
an approximate right-of-way width of 24.4 m (80 ft) plus additional construction
easements. The design speed of the project is approximately 65 km/h (40 mph).
4

Original Form Approved: 1'93
Form Revised: 7197, 5/97, and 1/94
A retaining wall and/or a grade change, may be needed in the vicinity of the water
tower in the northwest quadrant of the SR 1133/Seawell Street intersection to
improve sight distance.
It is anticipated that a signal will be installed at the Seawell Street / Lee Avenue
intersection as well as an exclusive right turn for the westbound approach of
Seawell Street. At this time, installation of a signal at the Wilson Road / Lee
Avenue intersection will not be recommended. However, an exclusive right turn
lane on the westbound approach is proposed.
Environmental Commitments:
NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters and
Sedimentation Control Guidelines will be strictly enforced during the construction
of the project to minimize impacts to water resources in the study area.
Provisions to preclude unnecessary contamination by toxic substances during
construction will also be strictly enforced.
Permits Required:
The anticipated impact to surface waters in the proposed road widening project
area is 24.4 linear meters (80 linear feet). The anticipated impact to wetland areas
in the proposed project is 0.14 hectare (0.36 acre). Impacts are determined by
using the entire project ROW width. Usually, project construction does not
require the entire ROW ; therefore, actual surface water and wetland impacts may
be considerably less. Since impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are
anticipated, in accordance with provisions of section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the COE for the discharge of
dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States." The project is likely to
qualify for a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23.
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? F X
Original Form Approved: 1/93
Form Revised: 7/97. 5!97, and 1,194
(2) Does the project involve any habitat where federally
listed endangered or threatened species may occur? ? X
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish?

F-1
X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than
one-third (1/3) acre and have all practicable measures
to avoid and minimize wetland takings been evaluated?
F x]

(5) Will the project require 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
Resource Waters (ORW) 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)? N/A
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources? ? X
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required?
F X
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing
regulatory floodway? F1 X
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes? F X

6
Original Form Approved: 1/93
Form Revised: 7/97, 5/97, and 1/94
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area? F-1 X
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
business? F? X
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effect on any minority or F X
low-income population?
(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? F1 X
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/ or Transportation Improvement Program (and is,
in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)?
therefore ?
X
,
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
-
volumes? 1 X
F
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing ?
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours?
(25) If the project is a bridge replacement project, will the bridge ?
be replaced at its existing location (along the existing facility) N/A
and will all construction proposed in association with the
bridge replacement project be contained on the existing facility?
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic and
environmental grounds concerning aspects of the action? F-1 X
7
Original Form Approved: 1!93
Form Revised: 7/97, 5/97, and 1/94
(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
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains which are ? X
important to history or pre-history?
(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 x
of 1965, as amended?
(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 Wild and Scenic Rivers? F1 X
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
(Discussion regarding all unfavorable responses in Part E should be provided
below. Additional supporting documentation may be attached, as necessary.)
Based on preliminary data, it is anticipated that up to 0.36 acres of wetland area
may be impacted. This anticipated impact has been determined using the entire
project ROW width. Usually, project construction does not require the entire
ROW ; therefore, actual wetland impacts may be considerably less.
Original Forni Approved: 1 93
Form Revised: 7:97, 5,'97, and 1 '94
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. U-3626
State Project No. 8.2540801
Federal Project No. STP-1133 (4)
Project Description: (Include project scope and location.)
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to widen SR 1133
(Lee Avenue) to a three-lane curb and gutter facility from south of Snyder Street
northward to Rand Street in Sanford. In addition, the proposed project calls for
intersection improvements at the intersection of SR 1133 (Lee Avenue) and SR
1136 (Wilson Road) as well as improvements including signalization at the
intersection of SR 1133 (Lee Avenue) and Seawell Street. See attached vicinity
map Figure 1.
Catezorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
TYPE II(A)
X TYPE II(B)
Approved:
Date Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
4 - S - 99 ?
Date Project Planning Unit Hea
Planning and Environmental Branch
4-s- qT Q 7°! ?
Date Project Planning Engineer
Planning and Environmental Branch
For Type II(B) projects only:
-7-71 ? _, e_
Date ivision Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
1
CORRESPONDING USGS QUAD: SANFORD
5TA7[
_ s
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
9 February 1999
MEMORANDUM TO: Edwin Peters
Project Planning Engineer
FROM: Susan Brady, Environmental Biologist
Natural Systems Unit
SUBJECT: Natural Resources Technical Report for proposed wiaening of'
Lee Avenue (SR 1133) from south of Wilson Road (SR 1136)
to Rand Street in Sanford, Lee County, Federal Aid Project Nu.
STP-1133(4), State Project No. 8.2540801, TIP No. U-3626.
The attached Natural Resources Technical Report provides inventories ano
descriptions of natural resources within the project area, and estimates of impacts likely
to occur to these resources as a result of project construction. Pertinent information on
wetlands and federally-protected species is also provided. Please contact me if you have
any questions or need this report copied onto disk format.
CC. David Schiller, Natural Systems Unit Head
File: U-3626
Proposed Widening of Lee Avenue (SR 1133) from south of
Wilson Road (SR 1136) to Rand Street in Sanford, Lee County
TIP No. U-3626
Federal Aid Project No. STP-1133(4)
State Project No. 8.2540801
Natural Resources Technical Report
U-362(
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Transportation
Project Planning and Environmental Analysis Branch
Natural Systems Unit
Susan Brady, Environmental Biologist
9 February 1999
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. .1
1.1 Project Description ................................................................... .1
1.2 Purpose ................................................................................. .1
1.3 Methodology .......................................................................... ..1
1.4 Qualifications of Investigator ....................................................... .2
" 1.5 Definitions ........................................................................... ..2
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES .................................................................. ..2
2.1 Soils ................................................................................... .2
2.2 Water Resources ..................................................................... .3
2.2.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics ................................. .d
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification ............................................. ..4
2.2.3 Water Quahty ........................................................... .. .
2.2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts .................................... ..5
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ...................................................................... ..6
3.1 Biotic Communities ................................................................. .6
3.1.1 Maintained/Disturbed ................................................... ..i
3. 1.22 Disturbed Upland Pine Fores . .......................................... .
3.1.3 Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp (Brownwater Subtype 7
3.1.4 Coastal Plain Perennial Stream ........................................ .7
3.2 Wildlife ............................................................................... ..l
3.2.1 Terrestrial Fauna ......................................................... .8
3.2.2 Aquatic Fauna ............................................................ .8
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ................................................. ..9
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS ............................................................... 10
4.1 Waters of the United States ........................................................ 10
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters ................... 1 ()
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts .................................... 11
4. 1.3 Permits .................................................................... 11
4.1.4 Mitigation ............................................................... 12
4.1.4.1 Avoidance ...................................................... 12
4.1.4.2 Minimization ................................................... 12
=1.1.4.3 Compensatory Mitigation .................................... 12
4.2 Rare and Protected Species ......................................................... 13
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species ...................................... 1.)
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species .............. 15
5.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................ 16
List of Figures
Figure 1. Project Location in Lee County.
Figure 2. Topographic Map of Project Location for U-3626.
List of Tables
Table 1. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities.
Table 2. Federally-Protected Species for Lee County.
Table 3. Federal Species of Concern for Lee County.
LO INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is submitted to assist in
preparation of a Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the proposed project. The project is
situated in Lee County (Figure 1).
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project calls for the widening of Lee Avenue (SR 1133) from south
of Wilson Road (SR 1136) to Rand Street in Sanford (Figure 2). The existing cross
section is a two-lane facility with 6.7-7.9 m (22.0-26.0 ft) of pavement and grassed
shoulders. Lee Avenue is a three-lane roadway near Rand Street. The proposed cross
section is a three-lane curb and gutter facility with 12.2 m (40.0 ft) roadway and 3.0 it
(10.0 ft) berms. The existing right-of-way is approximately 18.3 m (60.0 ft) and the
proposed right-of-way is 24.4 m (80.0 ft), with construction easements where necessary.
Project length is approximately 1.1 km (0.7 mi).
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to inventory, catalog and describe the
various natural resources likely to be impacted by the proposed action. This report also
attempts to identify and estimate the probable consequences of the anticipated impacts to
these resources. kecommendations are made for measures that will minimize resource
impacts. These descriptions and estimates are relevant only in the context of existing
preliminary, design concepts. If design parameters and criteria change, additional
field investigations will need to be conducted.
1.3 Methodology
Information sources used in the pre-field investigation of the study area include:
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle maps (Sanford), U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) National Wetland Inventory Maps (Sanford), Department of Agriculture
(Soil Conservation Service) soil surveys (Lee County, 1989), and NCDOT aerial
photographs of project area (1:3000). Water resource information was obtained from
publications of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DWQ, 1996) and
from the NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (Environmental Sensitivit}
Base Map of Lee County, 1995). Information concerning the occurrence of federal and
state protected species in the study area was gathered from the Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) list of protected species and species of concern (15 January 1999), and the N.C.
Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database of rare species and unique habitats (checked
11 January 1999).
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed alignment by NCDOT
biologists Susan Brady and Teryn Smith on 14 January 1999. Plant communities and
N ?
?..
CORRFSPONDING USGS QUAD: SANFORD
115 t
1RRe
U
)vim _? ?_:??\?. o.,W Wale• -b'r . 7 _ ?:?j -
Ta,
185 \ "' \ '
Tee [nAt tuts \? 1 \ `
k, 4fp
VY T, l ?r ?i ?/.CM 1?\ ` • ?? \ High $c `h
-... (? _ _ ?? < i _ \ wr,. rR .fix ?. i?• _ Su?sZaGor?? i/i?
'?I I ? z/ ??? Qy4?., ?g?? ? ??• / . "4,,, \ tom' t r? °? ? • \ ? .. \\ 1 j ?-` ? ? \? ?i ? \ ?
Sub tatio _ ?
--y-p ---fir i--
?•..
3 Lk
snn uow wet
\ v a y ?? -
,i
-1) Ch
\ -- \ yr ?\ / ?:\ WESTERN i
?3 ?V-
END '? -- )
- - Jo
neSboroP PROJECT ?, ?;, "' • ' -
Heights
- -. it ? i ? ? ? _ l > \ \?/. ? '? ? .? t •? • '?J I \.
*"oS
%1 Jam- ,?•-,.i _ i '? _ \ i ???' `??^,pqr?....? ?\ ?,\I? ?7?t'r ? ` \ ? ? ? ? -- 4JO a? , `' ;-??i
1133
_ - -- - ••? - 422
BEGIN oos? C•, PROJECT
` f, - _ _ ? ? _ ? ?--? ., --?? i 1, ?Z_'??•?.- ?I `'??,9?
Ai-
'Cem - 15 - .x r t J t
4
C9
n xn
ISGS QUAD: SAivFORD 1-
I
?,c

their associated wildlife were identified and recorded. Wildlife identification involved
using one or more of the following observation techniques: active searching and capture,
visual observations (binoculars), and identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds.
scat, tracks and burrows). Jurisdictional wetland determinations were performed utilizing
delineation criteria prescribed in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual"
(Environmental Laboratory, 1987).
1.4 Qualifications of Investigator
Investigator: Susan G. Brady, Natural Systems Biologist, NCDOT.
Education: B.S. Environmental Studies, University of Maine at Machias.
M.S. Marine Biology, University of North Carolina at Wilmington.
Experience: Research Technician, UNC-Wilmington, Jan. 1995- Dec. 1995
Contract Biologist. NC Wildlife Resources Commission/ Nongame and
Endangered Species Division, May 1998-Sept. 199&.
NC Department of Transportation/ Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch, Oct. 1998-present.
1.5 Definition,
Definitions for areal descriptions used in this report are as follows: Project
Study Area denotes the area bounded by proposed construction limits; Project Vicinity
describes an area extending 0.8 km (0.5 mi) on all sides of the project study area; and
Project Region is equivalent to an area represented by a 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle
map with the project occupying the central position.
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soil and water resources occurring in the study area are discussed below. Soils
and availability of water directly influence composition and distribution of flora and
fauna in anv biotic community.
The project study area lies within the Upper Coastal Plain physiographic
province. The topography in this section of Lee County is characterized as gently rolling
to steep, more closely following the topography of the adjacent Piedmont physiographic
province than the Lower Coastal Plain. The project area is gently rolling. Project
elevation is approximately 121.9 m (400.0 ft) above mean sea level.
2.1 Soils
There are five soil phases occurring within the project boundaries: Dothan loamy
sand (2-8% slope), Gilead loamy sand (2-8% slope), Pacolet fine sandy loam (15-40%
slope), Urban land, and Wehadkee fine sandy loam.
3
Dothan loamy sand (2-8% slope) is a well drained soil tound on broad, smooth
interstream divides in uplands. Permeability is moderate to moderately slow and the
seasonal high water table is located at 0.9-1.5 m (3.0-5.0 ft) below the surface. This soil
is used mainly for cropland, and is also suitable for non-farm uses such as housing
developments or forestry. The chief limitation is wetness. Dothan loamy sand (2-8%'
slope) is listed as non-hydric.
Gilead loamy sand (2-8% slope) is a moderately well drained soil found on broad,
smooth ridges along drainageways. Permeability is moderately slow to slow and the
seasonal high water table is located at 0.5-0.8 m (1.5-2.5 ft) below the surface. This soil is
used mainly for woodland and is also suitable for cropland and pasture. It is poorly
suited for urban development. The chief limitation is wetness. Gilead loamy sand (2-8°
slope) is listed as non-hydric.
Pacolet fine sandy loam (15-40% slope) is a well drained soil found on side slopes
on uplands. Permeability is moderate and the seasonal high water table is located at
greater than 1.8 m (6.0 ft) below the surface. This soil is used mainly for woodland. and
is usually unsuitable for cropland, pasture and urban development due to the slope all"
risk of erosion. Pacolet fine sandy loam (15-40% slope) is listed as non-hydric.
Urban land consists of areas that are covered by streets, parking lots, buildings,
railroad yards, airports, and other urban uses. The natural soils in these areas have beer:
greatly modified and the local topography and drainage patterns have been changed. Due
to the increased runoff from hard structures, flooding can be a problem in low-lying
areas.
Wehadkee fine sandy loam is a poorly drained soil found on nearly level areas o+
floodplains. Permeability is moderate and the seasonal high water table is located at 0.0-
0.8 m (0.0-2.5 ft) below the surface. This soil is used mainly for woodland. It is not
suitable for cropland or urban development due to flooding and wetness. Wehadkee fine
sandy loam is listed as hydric.
Soil core samples taken throughout the project area revealed soils with a sandy
texture. The soils did exhibit reduced conditions, such as low chroma colors and
oxidized rhizospheres in one area of the project. Therefore, hydric soil indicators, as
defined in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual", 1987, were observed
within the project study area.
2.2 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water resources likely to be
impacted by the project. Water resource information encompasses physical aspects of the
resource, its relationship to major water systems, Best Usage Standards and water quality
of the resources. Probable impacts to these water bodies are also discussed, as are means
to minimize impacts.
2.2.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics
An unnamed tributary to Gastor's Creek will be the only surface water resource
directly impacted by the proposed widening project (Figure 2). Gastor's Creek is located
in sub-basin 030614 of the Cape Fear River Basin. The unnamed tributary has its
confluence with the Gastor's Creek approximately 2.1 km (1.3 mi) downstream of the
project area. Gastor's Creek is a tributary to the Upper Little River, joining the river 2.7
km (1.7 mi) downstream of the project area. The Upper Little River is a tributary to the
Cape Fear River, joining it in Harnett County, approximately 72.9 km (45.3 mi strean-
distance) from Gastor's Creek.
2.2.1.2 Best Usage Classification
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has assigned streams a best usage
classification. The classification of Gastor's Creek [DWQ index no. 18-20-51 is C. The
C classification denotes waters suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishin??.
wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture. Unnamed tributaries carry the best usage
classification of the stream to which they are tributary.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped
watersheds or WS-II: predominately undeveloped watersheds) nor Outstanding,
Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1.0 mile) of project study area.
2.2.3 Water Quality
The DWQ, formerly known as the Division of Environmental Management (DEM), has
initiated a basinwide approach to water quality management for the 17 river basins within
the state. The basinwide approach allows for more intensive sampling of biological,
chemical and physical data that can be used in basinwide assessment and planning.
Likewise, benthic macro inve rte brates are intensively sampled for specific river basins.
Benthic macroinvertebrates have proven to be a good indicator of water quality because
they are sensitive to subtle changes in water quality, have a relatively long life cycle, are
non-mobile (compared to fish) and are extremely diverse. The overall species richness
and presence of indicator organisms help to assess the health of streams and rivers. River
basins are reassessed every five years to detect changes in water quality and to facilitate
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit review. There are no
benthic macroinvertebrate sampling sites near the proposed project.
The Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) is a network of stream, lake and
estuarine water quality monitoring stations strategically located for the collection of
physical and chemical water quality data. The water body's freshwater or saltwater
classification and corresponding water quality standards determine the type of water
quality data or parameters that are collected. There are no AN/IS sampling sites near the
proposed project.
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. No NPDES dischargers are located within 1.6 km (1.0
mi) of the project area.
Non-point source pollution refers to runoff that enters surface waters through
stormwater flow or no defined point of discharge. There are many types of land use
activities that can serve as sources of non-point source pollution. including land
development, construction, crop production, animal feed lots, failing septic systems,
landfills, roads, and parking lots. Sediments and nutrients are major pollution-causing
substances associated with non-point source pollution. Others include fecal coliform
bacteria, heavy metals. oil and grease, and any other substance that may be washed of"
the ground and carried into surface waters. Excluding road and parking lot runoff, there
were no non-point sources that could be identified during the site visi ,
2.2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Utilizing the full proposed ROW width, the anticipated impact to the unnamed
tributary to Gastor's Creek will be 24.4 m (80.0 linear ft). Usually, project construction
does not require the entire right of way, therefore actual impacts may be considerably
less.
Project construction may result in the following impacts to surface waters:
Increased sedimentation and siltation from construction and/or erosion.
Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and
vegetation removal.
Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/additions to surface
and ground water flow from construction.
4. Changes in water temperature due to streamside vegetation removal.
5. Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas.
6. Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff. construction
and toxic spills.
6
Precautions should be taken to minimize impacts to water resources in the study
area. NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMP) for the Protection of Surface Waters
and Sedimentation Control guidelines must be strictly enforced during the construction
stage of the project. Provisions to preclude contamination by toxic substances during the
construction interval should also be strictly enforced.
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. This section describes
those ecosystems encountered in the study area, as well as the relationships between
fauna and flora within these ecosvstems. Composition and distribution of biotic
communities throughout the project area are reflective of topography, hydrologic
influences and past and present land uses in the study area. Descriptions of the terrestria!
systems are presented in the context of plant community classifications and follov
descriptions presented by Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible. Dominant lion;
and fauna observed, or likely to occur, in each community are described and discussed.
Scientific nomenclature ana common names (when applicable) are provided fo-
each animal and plant species described. Plant taxonomy generally follows Radford, et
al. (1968). Animal taxonomv follows Martof. et al. (1980), Menhenick (1991), Potter, et
al. (1980), and Webster, et al. (1985). Subsequent references to the same organism will
include the common name only. Fauna observed during the site visit are denoted by an
asterisk (*). Published range distributions and habitat analysis are used in estimating
fauna expected to be present within the project area.
3.1 Biotic Communities
Four communities were identified in the project study area: maintained/disturbed.
disturbed upland pine forest, Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp (Brownwater Subtype).
and Coastal Plain Perennial Stream. Community boundaries within the study area are
well defined without a significant transition zone between them, and terrestrial faunal
species likely to occur within the study area may exploit all communities for shelter and
foraging opportunities or as movement corridors.
3.1.1 Maintained/Disturbed
This is the most common community type found within the project boundaries.
Several forms of the maintained/disturbed community are present, including mowed
roadside shoulder, powerline easement, and residential/commercial yards.
Flora found in the roadside shoulder community includes fescue (Festuca spp.),
crabgrass (Digitaria spp.), narrow-leaved plantain (Plantago lanceolata), dandelion
(Taraxacum officinale), clover (Trifolium spp.), henbit (Lamium amplexicatrle), geranium
(Geranium spp.), curly dock (Rumex crispus). broomsedyge (Andropogon spp.), field
7
garlic (Allium vineale), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), blackberry (Rubes
spp.), greenbrier (Smilax spp.), horse nettle (Solanum carolinense), and goldenrod
(Solidago spp.).
The less frequently maintained areas such as the powerline easement contain
mainly the same species, but the taller species (goldenrod, broomsedge, horse nettle, and
greenbrier) tend to be more dominant. The residential/commercial yards within the
project area tend to be mostly grass communities, with various ornamental plants such as
crape myrtle (Lagerstroemia indica) and azaleas (Rhododendron cv.).
There are drainage ditches on both sides of the road from Juno Drive to Wilson
Road. These are cut ditches that serve to carry runoff from the surrounding uplands to
the unnamed tributary of Gastor's Creek. The ditches are approximately 0.6-0.9 m (2.0-
3.0 ft) deep, and 0.6 m (2.0 ft) wide at the base. There was standing water in some
sections of the ditches, but they did not appear to be permanent aquatic communities (i.e.
no aquatic fauna or obligate wetland vegetation). In several places, there is severe
erosion of the ditch banks.
3.1.2 Disturbed Upland Pine Forest
This is a relatively small community type within the project area. The vegetation
in this community includes loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), with dense undergrowth of
blackberries. Japanese honeysuckle, goldenrod, yellow jessamine (Gelsemium
sempervirens), and horse nettle. There are several species of small trees along the edges
of this community, including black cherry (Prunus serotina), American holly (Ilex
opaca), wax myrtle (1kvrica cerifera), winged sumac (Rhus copallina), and southern
magnolia (:Magnolia grandiflora).
3.1.3 Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp (Brownwater Subtype)
This community type is located around the unnamed tributary to Gastor's Creek.
The canopy of this community is dominated by tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), water
oak (Ouercus nigra), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis). The understory is composed of red maple (Aces rubrum), American holly.
ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), wax myrtle, and Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense).
Greenbrier (Smilax bona-nox) and Japanese honeysuckle comprise the vine laver. There
is a thick growth of giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea) in this community.
3.1.4 Coastal Plain Perennial Stream
There is one stream crossing within the project area, an unnamed tributary to
Gastor's Creek. At the time of the site visit, this stream was approximately 0.9 m (3.0 ft)
wide and 0.3 m (1.0 ft) deep, with 0.6 m (2.0 ft) banks. The stream is wider near the
intake and outlet of the culvert pipe, where the current has scoured out the streambed and
3
banks. No submerged aquatic vegetation was observed. The canopy is fairly dense
upstream (east) of the road, where the stream flows through the bottomland hardwood
community. Downstream (west) of the road the streambank is more heavily impacted by
the adjacent commercial properties, and the canopy is mostly open.
3.2 Wildlife
The physical characteristics of the terrestrial and aquatic communities in an area
will affect the fauna that are present and use the area. This section addresses the fauna
likely to be found in the project study area.
3.2.1 Terrestrial Fauna
Fauna associated with the maintained/disturbed and disturbed upland pine forest
includes raccoon (Procyon lotor), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), gray squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis), golden mouse (Ochrotomvs nuttali), southern toad (Bufo terrestria). rat
snake (Elaphe obsoleta), five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatu.s). and Carolina anole (Anon.
carolinensis).
Fauna likely to occur in the Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp community
includes raccoon, opossum, Southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris), white-footed mouse
(Peromyscus leucopus), pickerel frog (Rana palustris), worm snake (Carphophis
amoenus), and Carolina anole.
Avian species utilizing this area include junco* (Junco hyemali.s), yellow-rumped
warbler* (Dendroica coronata), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), white-throated
sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys), tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor), American robin
(Turdus migratorius), Carolina wren* (Thryothorus ludovicianus). European starling
(Sturnus vulgaris) and turkey vulture (Catharses aura).
3.2.2 Aquatic Fauna
Fauna associated with the aquatic community includes various invertebrate and
vertebrate species. Fish such as mosquitofish* (Gambusia of nis), margined madtom
(Noturis insignis), redfin pickerel (Esox americanus), and redbreast sunfish (Lepomis
auritus), and amphibians such as the Southern cricket frog (Acris gryllus) and spring
peeper (Hyla crucifer) may utilize the shallow, fairly disturbed habitat present in the
project study area. Invertebrates that would be present include crayfish (family
Cambaridae), nymphal stages of dragonflies and damselflies (Order Odonata), and
caddisfly larvae (Order Tricoptera).
9
3.3 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 these resources have
the potential to impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies impacts
to the natural resources in terms of area impacted and ecosystems affected.
- Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the relative abundance of each
community present within the study area. Project construction will result in clearing and
degradation of portions of these communities. Table 1 summarizes potential quantitative
losses to these biotic communities, resulting from project construction. Estimated
impacts for each alternate are derived using the entire proposed right of way width.
Usually, project construction does not require the entire right of way, therefore. actual
impacts may be considerably less.
Table 1. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities.
Community typ: Impact
Maintained/Disturbed 2.72 (6.72)
Disturbed Upland Pine Forest 0.15 (0.36`
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp (Brownwater Subtype) 0.14 (0.34)
Total 3.01 (7.42)
Values cited are in hectares (acres).
Plant communities found within the proposed project area serve as nesting and
sheltering habitat for various wildlife. Widening Lee Avenue will reduce habitat for
faunal species, thereby diminishing faunal numbers. However, due to the size and scope
of this project. it is anticipated that impacts to fauna will be minimal. It should be noted
that these impacts are only for the area within the proposed right of way, and do not
include impacts resulting from any temporary construction easements, should they
be necessary.
Areas modified by construction (but not paved) will become road shoulders and
early successional habitat. Reduced habitat will displace some wildlife further from the
roadway while attracting other wildlife by the creation of more early successional habitat.
Animals temporarily displaced by construction activities will repopulate areas suitable for
the species. Wildlife mortality may increase as a result of the proposed road widening
and the increased volume of traffic.
Aquatic communities are sensitive to even small changes in their environment.
Stream channelization, scouring, siltation, sedimentation and erosion from construction-
related work will affect water quality and biological constituents. Although direct
impacts may be temporary, environmental impacts from these construction processes may
result in long term or irreversible effects. Widening Lee Avenue will necessitate a longer
10

culvert for the unnamed tributary to Gastor's Creek. which will result in loss of benthic
habitat.
Impacts often associated with in-stream construction include increased
channelization and scouring of the streambed. In-stream construction alters the stream
substrate and may remove streamside vegetation at the site. Disturbances to the substrate
will produce siltation, which clogs the gills and/or feeding mechanisms of benthic
organisms (sessile filter-feeders and deposit-feeders), fish and amphibian species.
Benthic organisms can also be covered by excessive amounts of sediment. These
organisms are slow to recover or repopulate a stream.
The removal of streamside vegetation and placement of fill material at the
construction site alters the terrain. Alteration of the streambank enhances the likelihood
of erosion and sedimentation. Revegetation stabilizes and holds the soil thus mitigating
these processes. Erosion and sedimentation carry soils, toxic compounds and other
materials into aquatic communities at the construction site. These processes magnify
turbidity and can cause the formation of sandbars at the site and downstream. thereby
altering water flow and the growth of vegetation. Streamside alterations also lead to
more direct sunlight penetration and to elevations of water temperatures, which may
impact many species.
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact analysis pertinent to
two important issues--Waters of the United States and rare and protected species.
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 Regulations (CFR)
Section 3283(a). Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR Section 328.3(b), are those areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient
to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted to life in saturated conditions. Any action that proposes to place fill
into these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Potential wetland communities were investigated pursuant to the 1987 "Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual". The three-parameter approach is used where
hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation and prescribed hydrologic characteristics must all be
present for an area to be considered a wetland.
Based on these criteria, jurisdictional wetlands are present within project
boundaries in a small area across from Cameron Drive. This area, described as the
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp (Brownwater Subtype) in Section 3.1.3, can also be
described as palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, seasonally flooded (PFO I A)
using the Cowardin et al. (1979) system of classification. Soils in this area have a sandy
clav texture and Munsell color notations ranging from 5Y 4/2 to 2.5Y 6/1. Hydrological
indicators include soil saturation, strong oxidized rhizospheres, and buttressed tree trunks.
Vegetation within this area includes giant cane, water oak, and sweetgum.
The unnamed tributary to Gastor's Creek is a jurisdictional surface water under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Discussions of the biological, physical and water
quality aspects of this stream are presented in previous sections of this report.
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Anticipated impact to surface waters in the proposed road widening project area is
24.4 linear meters (80.0 linear feet). Anticipated impact to wetland areas in the proposed
project is 0.14 hectare (0.3b acre). Impacts are determined by using the entire projecr
ROW width. Usually, project construction does not require the entire ROW; therefore.
actual surface water and wetland impacts may be considerably less.
4.1.3 Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated. In accordance with
provisions of section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be
required from the COE for the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the
United States." The project is likely to qualify for a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23.
This permit authorizes activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or
financed in whole, or part, by another Federal agency or department where that agency or
department has determined that pursuant to the council on environmental quality
regulation for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental
Policy Act;
(1) that the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which neither
individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment,
and;
(2) that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency' or
department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that
determination.
A North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Section 401 Water Quality
Certification is required prior to the issuance of the Section 404. Section 401
12
Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily impacted for the duration of the
construction or other land manipulations.
4.1.4 Mitigation
The COE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), a
wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss" and sequencing.
The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological and physical
integrity of Waters of the United States. Mitigation of wetland and stream impacts has
been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts, minimizing impacts, rectifying
impacts, reducing impacts over time and compensating for impacts. Each of these three
aspects (avoidance, minimization and compensatory mitigation) must be considered
sequentially.
4.1.4.1 Avoidance
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities cF
averting impacts to Vvaters of the United States. A 1990 Memorandum of Agreemew
(MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE states that 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.
4.1.4.2 Minimization
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 of median widths, ROW widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths. Other
practical mechanisms to minimize impacts to Waters of the United States crossed by the
proposed project include: strict enforcement of sedimentation control BMP's for the
protection of surface waters during the entire life of the project; reduction of clearing and
grubbing activity; reduction/elimination of direct discharge into streams; reduction of
runoff velocity; re-establishment of vegetation on exposed areas, judicious pesticide and
herbicide usage; minimization of "in-stream" activity; and litter/debris control.
4.1.4.3 Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is 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 that remain after all appropriate
l;
0
and practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory actions often include
restoration. creation and enhancement of Waters of the United States. Such actions should
be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site. Compensatory
mitigation is usually not required for projects qualifying for Nationwide 23 permits.
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 activities. 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 Fish and «Vidlife (FWS). Other species may receive additional
protection under separate stare laws.
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened,
Proposed Endangered and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section:
7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. As of 1
Januan_• 1999, the FWS lists :he following federally protected species for Lee County
(Table 2). A brief description of each species' characteristics and habitat requirements
follow;.
Table 2. Federally Protected Species for Lee County.
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Notropis mekistocholas Cape Fear shiner Endangered
Picoides horealis Red-cockaded woodpecker Endangered
Ptdimnium nodosunr Aarperella Endangered
Endangered-- in dan_er of extinct: _ n throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
.Yotropis mekistocholas (Cale Fear shiner) Endangered
:Animal Family: C% pr:nidae
Date Listed: 9-='6 S"
The Cape Fear shiner :s a small, moderately stocky minnow. Its body is flushed
with a pale silvery yellow. ar.u a black band runs along its sides. The fins are yellowish
and somewhat pointed. The --pper lip is black and the lower lip has a black bar along its
margin.
Cape Fear shiner habi -,at occurs in streams with gravel, cobble, or boulder
substrates. It is most often orserved inhabiting slow pools, riffles, and slow runs
associated with water «ilio?y .Iusticia americana) beds. Juveniles can be found inhabiting
slack water, among large rock outcrops and in flooded side channels and pools. The Cape
1.1
Fear shiner is thought to feed on bottom detritus, diatoms, and other periphyton. Captive
specimens feed readily on plant and animal material.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Habitat in the form of gravel, cobble, or boulder substrates with water willow
beds is not present within the project study area. The only water resource within the
study area is a small, sandy-bottomed stream without aquatic vegetation. A search of the
NC Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and unique habitats has no record
of the Cape Fear shiner in the project vicinity. Therefore, no impact to the Cape Fear
shiner will result from project construction.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) Endangered
Animal Familv: Picidae
Date Listed: 10/13/70
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 till:,
woodpecker are white with streaked flanks. The RCW has a large white cheek patch
surrounded by the black cap, nape, and throat.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf pine
(Pinus 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 at least 30 years of age. The foraging range of the RCW is up
to 200.0 ha (500.0 ac). 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 3.6-30.3 m (12.0-100.0 ft) above the ground and average 9.1- 15.7 m (30.0-50.0 ft)
high, and can be identified by a large incrustation 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 EFFECT
Nesting and foraging habitat requirements considered necessary for the RCW are
not present within the project vicinity. There are no old growth stands of southern pine in
vicinity of the project. The NC Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and
unique habitats has no record for the presence of the RCW within the project vicinity.
Therefore, no impact to the red-cockaded woodpecker will result from project
construction.
15
Ptilimnium nodosum (harperella) Endangered
Plant Family: Apiaceae
Federallv Listed: 9/213/88
,Flowers Present: late July - August
-Harperella is an annual herb in the carrot family, with fibrous roots and erect to
spreading stems. The stems are green and often have a purplish tinge at the base and they
may branch above mid-stem. The leaves are hollow, cylindrical. and septate, with broadly
clasping bases. Flowers are umbels, each umbel subtended by an involucre of small
lanceolate bracts.
This plant can be found in two types of habitat, rocky or gravel shoals and the
margins of clear, swift-flowing stream sections, and the edges of intermittent pineland
ponds or low, wet savanna meadows in the coastal plain. It is always found in saturate:
substrates and tolerates periodic, moderate flooding. There is a preterence for sunny areas
and this species is abundant where it is sheltered from stream erosion, usually on the
aownstream side of large rocks or amidst thick clones of water willoN?.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
No habitat in the form of rocky shoals or-margins of clear, swift-flowing streams
are present within the project study area. No harperella was observed during the site visit
and the NC Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and unique habitats has ru,
record for the presence of harperella within the project vicinity. Therefore, project
construction will not affect harperella.
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
There are six Federal Species of Concern (FSC) listed for Lee County. 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. Federal Species of Concern are defined as those species that
may or may not be listed in the future. These 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 and Proposed
Threatened. Organisms which are listed as Endangered. Threatened, or Special Concern
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.
Table 3 lists Federal Species of Concern, the species state status (if afforded state
protection) and the presence of suitable habitat for each species in the study area. This
16
species list is provided for information put-poses as the status of these species may be
upgraded in the future.
Table 3. Federal Species of Concern for Lee County.
Scientific Name Common Name Status Habitat
iVIoxostoma robu.stum Robust redhorse SC No
.4morpha georgiana var. georgiana Georgia indigo-bush E No
Lilium iridollae Sandhills bog lily C/PT No
Lindera subcoriacea Bog spicebush E No
Oxypolis ternata Savanna cowbane W1 No
Parnassia caroliniana Carolina grass-of parrtassus E No
"E"--An Endangered species is defined as one whose continued existence as a viable component of the
State's flora is determined to be in jeopardy.
"T"--A Threatened species is one which is likely to become endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
"SC"--A Special Concern species is defined as one which requires monitoring but may be collected and sold
under regulations adopted under the provisions of the Plant Protection and Conservation Act.
"C"--A Candidate species is defined as one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20
populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction (and
sometimes also by direct exploitation or disease). The species is also either rare throughout its rang:
or disjunct in North Carolina from a main range in a different part of the country or the world.
"WI"--A Watch Category 1 species is defined as a rare species whose status in North Carolina is relatively
well known and which appears to be relatively secure at this time.
`'P_"--denotes a species which has been formally proposed for listing as Endangered. Threatened, or Special
Concern, but has not yet completed the listing process.
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit, nor were an} o'
these species observed. A review of the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database
of rare species and unique habitats revealed no records of Federal Species of Concern in
or near the project study area.
5.0 REFERENCES
Amoroso, J. L., 1997. "Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North
Carolina". North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
Cowardin, L. M., et al, 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the
United States, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 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., Fun derburg, Jr. and M.K. Clark. 1982. A Distributional Survey of North
Carolina Mammals. Raleigh, North Carolina Museum of Natural History.
17
LeGrand..Jr.. H.E., and S. P. Hall, 191)7. "Natural Heritage Prooram List of the Rare
Animal Species of North Carolina". North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey and J.R. Harrison 111. 1980. Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Vir inia. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina
Press.
iVlenhenick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. N.C. WRC, Ralei<zh.
NCDENR-DWQ. 1996. "Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan."
Raleigh.
NCDENR-DWQ. 1998. Water Quality Stream Classification for Streams in North
Carolina. Internet webpage: http://h2o.ehnr.state.nc.us/strmclass/classes2.htni1
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill.
The University of North Carolina Pres.,.
Radford, A.E.. H.E. Ahles 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. Weakley. 1990. Classification of The Natural Communities of
North Carolina. Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDEHNR.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1989. Soil Survey of Lee County. Natural Resources
Conservation Service.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1979. "Classifications of Wetlands and Deep,?ater
Habitats of the United States." U.S. Government Printinc, Office, Washinoon D.C.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. "Endangered. Threatened, and Candidate Species
and Federal Species of Concern in North Carolina." Asheville.
Webster. W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Blues. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas. VirLinia
and Marvland. Chapel Hill. The University of North Carolina Press.