Ntia Nepaenvironmental Assessment

Home , Allium crispum, Horsepasture River, Tuckasegee River

NTIA NEPA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

NCREN Fiber Expansion Project Southeastern and Western, North Carolina Routes

Prepared For:

MCNC/NCREN 3021 East Cornwallis Road Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

Prepared By:

S&ME, Inc. 9751 Southern Pine Boulevard Charlotte, NC 28273

In Cooperation With:

3315 Atlantic Avenue Raleigh, NC 27604

July 2010

NTIA NEPA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

NCREN FIBER EXPANSION PROJECT SOUTHEASTERN AND WESTERN NC ROUTES JULY 2010

Table of Contents

ITEM Page No.

1.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... 1

1.2 CHAPTER 1 – PURPOSE AND NEED...... 2

1.3 CHAPTER 2 – PROPOSED ACTION...... 3 1.3.1 Project Description...... 3 1.3.2 Alternatives ...... 5 1.3.3 Preferred Alternative...... 8 1.3.4 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion ...... 8

1.4 CHAPTER 3 – EXISTING ENVIRONMENT ...... 8 1.4.1 Noise...... 9 Southeastern NC Route ...... 9 Western NC Route ...... 9 1.4.2 Air Quality ...... 9 Southeastern NC Route ...... 10 Western NC Route ...... 11 1.4.3 Geology and Soils...... 12 Physiographic Region ...... 12 Southeastern NC Route ...... 12 Western NC Route ...... 12 Soils...... 12 Southeastern NC Route ...... 12 Western NC Route ...... 16 Prime or Unique Farmland ...... 20 Southeastern NC Route ...... 20 Western NC Route ...... 21 1.4.4 Water Resources...... 22 Surface Water...... 22 Southeastern NC Route ...... 22 Western NC Route ...... 24 Groundwater...... 27 Coastal Zone Water Resources ...... 27 Southeastern NC Route ...... 27 Western NC Route ...... 27 Floodplains ...... 28 Southeastern NC Route ...... 28 Western NC Route ...... 28

Wild and Scenic Rivers ...... 28 Southeastern NC Route ...... 28 Western NC Route ...... 28 1.4.5 Biological Resources ...... 28 Wildlife ...... 28 Southeastern NC Route ...... 28 Western NC Route ...... 29 Vegetation ...... 29 Southeastern NC Route ...... 29 Western NC Route ...... 30 Threatened and Endangered Species ...... 30 Southeastern NC Route ...... 31 Vascular Plant Species ...... 35 Vertebrate Animal Species...... 37 Invertebrate Animal Species ...... 38 Western NC Route ...... 39 Vascular Plants...... 44 Nonvascular Plants ...... 46 Vertebrate Animal Species...... 46 Invertebrate Animal Species ...... 48 Critical Habitats ...... 49 Southeastern NC Route ...... 49 Western NC Route ...... 49 Wetlands...... 50 Southeastern NC Route ...... 50 Western NC Route ...... 51 Ecoregions...... 52 Southeastern NC Route ...... 52 Western NC Route ...... 53 Fishery Resources ...... 54 Southeastern NC Route ...... 54 Western NC Route ...... 55 1.4.6 Historic and Cultural Resources ...... 55 Southeastern NC Route ...... 56 Western NC Route ...... 56 1.4.7 Aesthetic and Visual Resources...... 57 Natural Features (water bodies, vegetation) ...... 57 Southeastern NC Route ...... 57 Western NC Route ...... 57 Architectural Features ...... 57 Southeastern NC Route ...... 58 Western NC Route ...... 58 Protected Areas (National and State Parks) ...... 58 Southeastern NC Route ...... 58 Western NC Route ...... 59 1.4.8 Land Use ...... 59 Local Zoning/Local Master Plans ...... 59 Southeastern NC Route ...... 60 Western NC Route ...... 61 Coastal Zone land use ...... 62 Southeastern NC Route ...... 62 Western NC Route ...... 62 Farmlands...... 62 Southeastern NC Route ...... 62

Western NC Route ...... 62 Forest Service Lands ...... 62 Southeastern NC Route ...... 62 Western NC Route ...... 63 Other Land Uses ...... 63 Southeastern NC Route ...... 63 Western NC Route ...... 63 1.4.9 Infrastructure...... 63 Southeastern NC Route ...... 63 Western NC Route ...... 64 1.4.10 Socioeconomic Resources ...... 64 Southeastern NC Route ...... 64 Western NC Route ...... 64 1.4.11 Human Health and Safety ...... 65 Southeastern NC Route ...... 66 Western NC Route ...... 67

1.5 CHAPTER 4 – ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...... 67 1.5.1 Noise...... 68 1.5.2 Air Quality ...... 69 1.5.3 Geology and Soils...... 69 1.5.4 Water Resources...... 70 Surface Water...... 70 Groundwater...... 71 Coastal Zone Water Resources ...... 71 Floodplains ...... 72 Wild and Scenic Rivers ...... 73 1.5.5 Biological Resources ...... 73 Wildlife ...... 73 Vegetation ...... 74 Threatened and Endangered Species ...... 74 Critical Habitat ...... 75 Wetlands...... 75 Ecoregions...... 76 Fishery Resources ...... 76 1.5.6 Historic and Cultural Resources ...... 77 1.5.7 Aesthetic and Visual Resources ...... 78 Natural Features...... 78 Architectural Features ...... 78 Protected Areas...... 79 1.5.8 Land Use ...... 79 Local Zoning/Master Plans...... 79 Coastal Zone Land Use...... 79 Farmlands...... 80 Forest Service Lands ...... 81 Other Land Uses ...... 81 1.5.9 Infrastructure...... 82 1.5.10 Socioeconomic Resources ...... 82

iii

1.5.11 Human Health and Safety ...... 83

1.6 CHAPTER 5 – APPLICABLE ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ...... 84

1.7 CHAPTER 6 ‐ LIST OF PREPARERS ...... 84 S&ME, Inc...... 84 Keller Environmental, LLC...... 85

1.8 REFERENCES ...... 85

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit 1.1 Southeastern NC Route...... 5 Exhibit 1.2 Western NC Route ...... 6

LIST OF TABLES

Acronyms List...... vi Table 1 ‐ Southeastern NC Route Segments...... 5 Table 2 ‐ Western NC Route Segments...... 6 Table 3 ‐ Southeastern NC Route Soils ...... 13 Table 4 ‐ Western NC Soils...... 16 Table 5 ‐ Southeastern NC Route Prime and Unique Farmland ...... 20 Table 6 ‐ Western NC Route Prime and Unique Farmland ...... 21 Table 7 ‐ Southeastern NC Route River Basins ...... 23 Table 8 ‐ Western NC Route River Basins ...... 25 Table 9 ‐ Threatened and Endangered Species – Southeastern NC Route ...... 31 Table 10 ‐ Threatened and Endangered Species – Western NC Route ...... 40 Table 11 ‐ Demographics – Southeastern NC Route...... 64 Table 12 ‐ Demographics – Western NC Route ...... 65

APPENDICES Appendix I – Figures

Appendix II – Site Photographs

Appendix III – Agency Comment Matrix Agency and Scoping Correspondence

Acronyms List

Acronym Definition

AEC Area of Environmental Concern

AERO Air Emission Reporting Online System

BTOP Broadband Technologies Opportunities Program

CAI Community Anchor Institution

CAMA Coastal Area Management Act

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

CES North Carolina Cooperative Extension

CRC Coastal Resources Commission

DCM North Carolina Division of Coastal Management

EA Environmental Assessment

EO Executive Order

EPA UnitedStates Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act

FEP Fiber Expansion Project

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

GHG Greenhouse Gas

Gbps Gigabit per second

NC GWA North Carolina Groundwater Association

HDPE High Density Poly Ethylene

HUC Hydrologic Unit Codes

ISP Internet/Intranet Service Provider

MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization

Acronym Definition

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NC DAQ North Carolina Division of Air Quality

NC DWQ North Carolina Division of Water Quality

NC EMC North Carolina Environmental Management Commission

NC NHP North Carolina Natural Heritage Program

NC DOT North Carolina Department of Transportation

NCREN North Carolina Research and Education Network

SCH State Clearinghouse

NC WRC North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission

NPL National Priority List

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NTIA National Telecommunications and Information Administration

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

ROW Right‐of‐way

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

SIP State Implementation Plan

SPCA Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973

THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Office

TSCA Toxic Substances Contact Act

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USFWS United States Fish & Wildlife Service

vii

Acronym Definition

USFS United States Forest Service

USGS United States Geological Survey

viii

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NCREN FIBER EXPANSION PROJECT SOUTHEASTERN AND WESTERN, NC ROUTES JULY 2010

1.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed “Building a Sustainable Middle Mile Network for Underserved Rural North Carolina” project is a fiber optic cable installation project for MCNC and the North Carolina Research and Education Network (NCREN). Pursuant to requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), an Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared for this project. S&ME, Inc. (S&ME) has prepared this EA in accordance with the Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) Broadband Technologies Opportunities Program (BTOP) Environmental Assessment Guidelines. According to those guidelines, this EA addresses the existing environmental characteristics along the proposed project corridor and the predicted environmental effects of the project.

The proposed project entails installation of approximately 500 miles of fiber optic cable within existing right‐of‐way (ROW) maintained by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and the U.S. Forestry Service (USFS). This EA identifies and evaluates environmental impacts associated with the proposed project, located in 26 counties in southeastern and western North Carolina. Due to the substantial differences between the routes of the proposed project, relative resources categories addressed in this EA are discussed separately between Southeastern NC Route and the Western NC Route.

Early coordination with regulatory agencies was conducted by the NTIA project team in March 2010, as well as during the EA scoping process initiated in May 2010 (Appendix III). Notification to regulatory agencies included letters and maps illustrating project details. The purpose of this agency consultation was to solicit comments and concerns appropriate state and federal agencies may have regarding the proposed project. Agencies that responded to the scoping process included:

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) Asheville and Raleigh Field Offices; • Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) of the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians of North Carolina; • State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO); and • North Carolina State Clearinghouse (SCH) for their circulation to concerned state agency reviewers, including the following North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) departments and divisions:

o North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NC WRC), Division of Marine Fisheries, North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NC DWQ), Division of Environmental Health‐Public Water Supply Section, Division of Coastal Management, Parks and Recreation, Division of Emergency Management‐Floodplain Management Program, Legislative Affairs, Department of Agriculture, Department of Cultural Resources, NCDOT, and the Natural Heritage Program (NHP).

The proposed project plans received favorable responses. Agency responses are addressed in appropriate sections of this EA. Appendix III includes the correspondence between the project team and consulted agencies, as well as a table that summarizes their comments and references where the comment is addressed in the EA document.

The proposed project’s engineering firm will apply for necessary permits prior to construction. Through avoidance and minimization design methods, including directional bore, it is not anticipated that the proposed project will impact jurisdictional waters of the U.S. (streams and wetlands). Mr. James Shern with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) – Raleigh Regulatory Field Office confirmed that a Section 404 permit issued by the USACE would not be required if disturbance remained within staked‐ sloped limits of the ROW. Although not anticipated, if disturbance would go beyond the staked‐sloped limits of the ROW, encroaching on jurisdictional waters of the U.S., a permit from the USACE will be required and, subsequently, obtained by the proposed project’s engineering firm.

Alternatives considered to cost‐effectively satisfy the purpose and need of the proposed project while minimizing environmental impacts included 1) no action, 2) direct bury, 3) aerial construction, and 4) buried in conduit (the preferred alternative and proposed action). Two other alternatives considered to possibly satisfy the project purpose and need included 1) the utilization of copper cable and 2) wireless transmission techniques. Copper cable and wireless transmissions were determined to be unable to satisfy the project purpose and need, and not discussed further, because they: are cost prohibitive; are unable to transmit the same amount of bandwidth as fiber optic; and, require more ground disturbance during construction.

The Proposed Action is not expected to significantly adversely affect the quality of the human environment. If this judgment is confirmed through coordination of this EA, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required, and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) will be signed prior to the initiation of the proposed action. The signed FONSI will be made available to the public.

1.2 CHAPTER 1 – PURPOSE AND NEED Established in 1980, MCNC is an independent, non‐profit organization that provides broadband and advanced networking technologies and systems to continuously improve

learning and collaboration throughout North Carolina. MCNC is the operator of the existing NCREN system, the Internet/Intranet Service Provider (ISP) and backbone for the public University of North Carolina system, public kindergarten through grade 12 schools, a majority of North Carolina independent colleges and universities, and 20 institutions in the North Carolina community college system.

The purpose of the project is to cost–effectively, and with minimal environmental impacts, install approximately 500 miles of new fiber optic network to support the “Building a Sustainable Middle‐Mile Network for Underserved Rural North Carolina” project, funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The network would provide a higher quality of life and offer higher global competitiveness in unserved and underserved rural areas of North Carolina. The fiber expansion project (FEP) will serve as a robust middle‐mile broadband network through 26 counties in southeastern and western North Carolina (see Project Location Maps, Figures 1 and 2, Appendix I), expand the existing optical footprint, and increase the existing bandwidth up to 20‐fold. The FEP will also connect approximately 685 miles of infrastructure currently present in more urbanized areas of the state to expand the NCREN system to 37 counties.

The proposed middle‐mile installation will enable MCNC to provide equitable NCREN service to education‐sector community anchor institutions in the state which will increase competition and lower prices for broadband service in the newly served areas. In addition, the project will increase access to broadband service for students in their homes.

1.3 CHAPTER 2 – PROPOSED ACTION

1.3.1 Project Description The new FEP will be placed in ROW along existing USFS maintained greenways or NCDOT controlled streets, roads, and highways. Endorsements have been secured from these entities to install in the ROW. Prior to installation, existing utilities at or near the construction corridor will be located and identified. As needed, the project corridor will be slightly realigned, remaining within the ROW, to avoid existing utilities. The proposed FEP is easily accessible and will not require the construction of access roads. Equipment used to install the fiber cable will be stored and operated within the ROW.

Two 1¼ inch conduits with placement of a 48 count single mode fiber will be installed in a 38‐ to 42‐inch trench located approximately five to 10 feet from the edge of the pavement or railway in previously disturbed land. As opposed to a multimode fiber, single mode fiber is designed to transmit signals over long distances. The conduit will consist of industry‐standard material, such as high density polyethylene (HDPE), and will protect the fiber cable.

Depending upon site conditions, the FEP will be installed using one of three construction methods: • boring machine: used to bore underground to avoid wetlands, streams, culverts, road crossings, or other obstacles. • small cable plow with blade: a blade in the rear of a small plow will cut a trench, install the conduit and close the trench in one operation. • rock saw and mechanical trencher: used in rocky substrate, primarily in the Western NC route, to cut a trench and install the conduit.

These pieces of equipment are typically powered by diesel engines. In addition, gasoline‐ or diesel‐powered vehicles (usually pick‐up trucks) may operate in various locations along the FEP associated with supervisory or quality control activities. Construction crews will adhere to NCDOT traffic safety guidelines and within normal daytime working hours.

Above‐ or below‐grade pull boxes will be placed near bends and in long straight spans, approximately every 2,000 feet, to break up long runs. After installation, repair and restoration of the affected area, including street, road and railway crossings, will be implemented.

For cost effectiveness and to avoid and limit environmental resource impacts, the proposed project will employ the following, as needed:

• The fiber cable may be hung along bridges in steel conduit, as necessary and as may be required by NCDOT. With the proper couplings, steel and HDPE conduit can be successfully connected. • The fiber cable may be directionally bored to avoid wetlands, streams, or other features.

In southeastern North Carolina, the proposed FEP will extend through Nash, Edgecombe, Wilson, Greene, Pitt, Craven, Carteret, Onslow, Pender, and New Hanover Counties (Exhibit 1.1, below). The southeastern route is also depicted in detail on Figures A01 – A09, B01 – B13, C01 – C07, and D01 – D08 in Appendix I.

Exhibit 1.1 Southeastern NC Route*

Rocky Mount ‐ Greenville FIGURES A01 – A09

Greenville ‐ Morehead City FIGURES B01 – B13

Morehead City ‐ Jacksonville FIGURES B01 – B13

Jacksonville – Wilmington FIGURES B01 – B13

*Source: Map provided by MCNC and modified by S&ME, Inc.

The southeastern NC route is broken down into the following segments:

Table 1 – Southeastern NC Route Segments Figure No. Proposed Segments Address/Location (Appendix I) Starting at 100 Goldleaf Drive, dropping at 143 Rocky Mount to Greenville Washington Street in Rocky Mount, terminating A01 – A09 at 209 Cotanche Street in Greenville.

Greenville to Starting at 209 Contanche Street in Greenville, terminating at 3505 Arendell Street in Morehead B01 – B13 Morehead City City. Starting at 3505 Arendell Street in Morehead City, Morehead City to Jacksonville C01 – C07 terminating at Jacksonville. Starting in Jacksonville, NC, terminating at a Jacksonville to Wilmington Palmettonet hand hole at Hwy 17/Gordon Rd. in D01 – D08 Wilmington.

In western North Carolina, the proposed FEP (Exhibit 1.2, below) will extend through Davie, Caldwell, Catawba, Burke, McDowell, Buncombe, Haywood, Jackson,

Transylvania, Henderson, Polk, Rutherford, Cleveland, Gaston, Lincoln, and Mecklenburg Counties and connect with existing fiber optic networks (depicted as a brown line on Exhibit 1.2, below). The western NC route is also shown on Figures E01 – E03, F01 – F04, G01 – G07, H01 ‐ H15, I01 – I11, and J01 in Appendix I.

Exhibit 1.2 Western NC Route*

Mocksville FIGURE J01 Lenoir ‐ Hickory FIGURES E01 – E03

Old Fort ‐ Asheville Enka/Candler ‐ Sylva FIGURES G01 – G04 FIGURES G01 – G07

Rutherfordton ‐ Huntersville Cashiers ‐ Rutherfordton FIGURES I01 – I11 FIGURES H01 – H15 *Source: Map provided by MCNC and modified by S&ME, Inc.

The western NC route is broken down into the following segments:

Table 2 – Western NC Route Segments Proposed Figure No. Address/Location Segments (Appendix I) Starting at approximately the intersection of Virginia Lenoir to Hickory Avenue and Highway 18 in Lenoir, terminating at the E01 – E03 intersection of 3rd Avenue SE and 9th Street SE in Hickory. Starting at an existing Palmettonet hand hole on US Old Fort to Highway 70 in Old Fort, terminating at 151 Patton Avenue F01 – F04 Asheville in Asheville. Enka/Candler to Starting at 1459 Sand Hill Road in Enka/Candler, G01 – G07 Sylva terminating at approximately 84 Allen Street in Sylva. Starting in Cashiers at approximately the intersection of US Cashiers to Highway 64/NC 107, routing through Brevard and H01 ‐ H15 Rutherfordton Hendersonville, terminating at 1371 Old Caroleen Rd in Forest City. Starting at 1371 Old Caroleen Road in Forest City, Rutherfordton to terminating at the intersection of Highway 73 and Highway I01 – I11 Huntersville 21 in Huntersville. Starting at Energy United splice location at the intersection Mocksville of Highway 801 and Highway 601, terminating at 2475 J01 Milling Road in Mocksville.

The FEP was designed to introduce new fiber connections in areas that are currently at or over existing capacity for fiber demand and, thus, designated as underserved. The FEP will improve the availability and reliability of fiber connections for rural education and other community anchor institutions (CAI) that are currently, or can be, served by NCREN. While NCREN’s focus has been on education CAI’s, the FEP will make enhanced and more reliable connectivity available for other anchor institutions such as libraries, not‐for‐profit hospitals, and county‐operated free health care clinics that are not currently on the NCREN network. The FEP would also provide an opportunity for distance learning, tele‐health services, electronic medical records sharing, and smart‐ grid technology.

In summary, the new FEP build‐out will have the potential to:

• Serve approximately: o 1.8 million households (5.2 million people), o 139,000 businesses, o 1,232 kindergarten through grade 12 schools (three million students), o 55 higher education schools, o 183 libraries, o 63 hospitals, and o 2,400 community anchor institutions.

• Connect approximately : o 58 community colleges, independent colleges, charter schools, o 50 free healthcare clinics, o 179 county health agencies and hospitals, o 181 libraries and public computer labs, and o three of the largest museums located in North Carolina.

1.3.2 Alternatives To meet the project purpose and need, a number of alternatives were broadly considered, including: no action; direct burial construction; microwave wireless transmission; aerial construction; and buried in conduit. Of these, the alternatives chosen for more detailed consideration for this EA were: 1) no action, 2) direct burial construction, 3) aerial construction, and 4) buried in conduit (the preferred alternative and proposed action).

Alternative 1 (no action)

Under this alternative, rural areas of North Carolina included in the study area would remain disadvantaged in comparison to more urban areas of the state and would continue to be unserved and/or underserved of broadband communications. This alternative would not satisfy the project purpose and need.

Alternative 2 (direct burial)

Under this alternative, the fiber cable would not be protected by conduit and would be subject to damage. Although a lower cost approach, the FEP would not be reliable and, therefore, would not meet the project purpose and need of the project.

Alternative 3 (aerial construction)

The cost of the proposed FEP would be prohibitive under this alternative. Costs would be higher due to installation techniques, obtaining line agreements with power, cable, telephone utilities, and maintenance of the line to prevent damage from storms and fallen tree limbs. Furthermore, exposure to the elements would compromise reliability and contribute to a failure to meet the project purpose and need.

1.3.3 Preferred Alternative Installing the fiber optic in conduit was chosen as the Preferred Alterative (proposed action) to cost‐effectively and efficiently satisfy the project purpose and need while avoiding significant impacts to environmental resources described in this EA. As discussed in Section 1.3.1, the Proposed Action would involve installing two 1¼ inch conduits with placement of a 48 count single mode fiber placed in a 38‐ to 42‐inch trench located approximately five to 10 feet from the edge of the pavement or railway in previously disturbed land. Where appropriate, the fiber cable may be installed in steel conduit along side bridges, as well as directionally bored to avoid wetlands, streams, or other sensitive features.

1.3.4 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion Two other alternatives considered to satisfy the project purpose and need included the potential to utilize copper cable and wireless techniques. Copper cable was not discussed further because: it is cost prohibitive; it is unable to transmit the same amount of bandwidth as fiber optic; and it requires more ground disturbance during installation due to its relative large size.

Use of wireless technology to satisfy the project purpose and need was considered but eliminated from further discussion because the required bandwidth of 5Gbps (gigabit per second) cannot be achieved with wireless communications. In addition, wireless communication transmissions are subject to distance and line‐of‐sight issues that would involve environmental impacts associated with constructing tower foundations and removing visual disturbances. For these reasons, wireless technology and use of copper cable are not ideal methods to efficiently and effectively transmit broadband communications and satisfy the FEP purpose and need.

1.4 CHAPTER 3 – EXISTING ENVIRONMENT Representative site photographs are included in Appendix II.

1.4.1 Noise

Southeastern NC Route Noise emissions along this route include those typical of downtown areas, quarries, road construction, railroads, small industry operations, regional airports, highways, and interstates. There are three noise‐emitting industry operations along the southeastern NC route. They include the following locations:

• Weyerhaeuser Timber Production plant near Vanceboro (within the Greenville to Morehead City segment); • Cherry Pont Naval Air Station in Havelock (within the Greenville to Morehead City segment); and • Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base in Jacksonville (within the Morehead City to Jacksonville and Jacksonville to Wilmington segments).

Sources of pleasant sound emissions include waterfront, bird, and tidal sounds within the New Bern to Morehead City, Morehead City to Jacksonville, and Jacksonville to Wilmington segments.

Western NC Route Noise emissions along this route include those typical of downtown areas, quarries, road construction, railroads, small industry operations, regional airports, highways, and interstates. Noise‐emitting industry operations along the western NC route include Blue Ridge Paper Company in Canton and Jackson Paper Company in Sylva, both located within the Enka/Candler to Sylva segment.

Sources of pleasant sounds include high gradient streams and rivers within the Enka/Candler to Sylva and Cashiers to Rutherfordton segments.

1.4.2 Air Quality The North Carolina Division of Air Quality (DAQ) works with the state's citizens to protect and improve outdoor, or ambient, air quality in North Carolina for the health and benefit of all. To carry out this mission, the DAQ has programs for monitoring air quality, permitting and inspecting air emissions sources, developing plans for improving air quality, and educating and informing the public about air quality issues. The DAQ, which is part of the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), also enforces state and federal air pollution regulations. In North Carolina, the General Assembly enacts state air pollution laws, and the Environmental Management Commission adopts most regulations dealing with air quality. In addition, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has designated the DAQ as the lead agency for enforcing federal laws and regulations dealing with air pollution in North Carolina. The EPA developed a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for areas of North Carolina to set air quality standards for industries that emit a number of pollutants including: ozone,

sulfur oxides, suspended particulates, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, lead, and particulate matter as well as open burning standards.

Executive Order (EO) 13514 ‐ Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance was signed on October 5, 2009 to expand the energy reduction and environmental performance requirements of an existing EO 13423 ‐ Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management. The purpose of EO 13514 is for industries to report their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Currently, the North Carolina Division of Air Quality (NC DAQ) will not mandate EO 13514; however it encourages industries to continue to report their GHG emissions on the existing Air Emission Reporting Online (AERO) System. Due to the nature of some industries in North Carolina, the EPA may require GHG emissions be reported to them directly.

For the most part, areas of the project routing segments are open and rural, with little direct impact to air quality from any specific operations in the near region. Since the proposed FEP is located along transportation ROWs, typical pollution sources include automobiles, trucks, buses, tractor trailers, and trains. Other discrete and scattered sources of impacts to air quality include dry cleaners, restaurants, wastewater treatment plants, poultry and hog farms, and industry smokestacks. Some specific sources are described below according to route. These locations have been identified at the EPA Enviromapper for Envirofacts website as current operations that emit pollutants for which air permits are required and emissions are regulated and monitored.

Southeastern NC Route

Rocky Mount to Greenville segment: • Bridgestone Firestone, Inc. 3001 Firestone Parkway, Wilson, NC

Greenville to Morehead City segment: • Greenville Ready Mix Concrete, 5039 Highway 11, South Winterville, NC • Craven County Gin and Cotton Company, 3866 Highway 43, Vanceboro, NC • Weyerhaeuser Company, 1785 Weyerhaeuser Road, Vanceboro, NC • E&J Automotive, Inc., 103 Wanda Avenue, New Bern, NC • Barrus Construction, Co., 1402 Glenburnie Avenue, New Bern, NC • Trader Construction, 2500 Highway 70 East, New Bern, NC • Ready Mix Concrete Co., 417 Miller Boulevard, Havelock, NC • S&W Ready Mix Concrete Co. – Morehead, 5126 Highway 70 W, Morehead City, NC

Morehead City to Jacksonville • ST Wooten Corp – Newton, 3931 NC Highway 24, Newport, NC and 117 Starling Road, Hubert, NC (Photo 1)

• Onslow Grading and Paving, 103 Water Front Road, Hubert, NC • S&W Ready Mix Concrete, 3248 Freedom Way, Hubert, NC • U.S. Marine Corps Base Camp, PSC Box 20004 Building, Camp Lejeune, NC

The Rocky Mount – Greenville segment is composed of the Rocky Mount Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and is currently classified as a non‐ attainment area for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) by the NC Division of Air Quality indicating that the counties are in non‐compliance. The non‐ compliance for the Rocky Mount metropolitan area was for 8‐hour Ozone.

Western NC Route

Lenoir to Hickory segment: • Carolina Paving of Hickory, Inc. 445 9th Street, SE, Hickory, NC • Cox Manufacturing Company, Inc. 220 10th Street, Hickory, NC • Kerrs Ready Mix Concrete, 1126 1st Avenue SW, Hickory, NC • Hickory Business Furniture, 900 12th Street, Hickory, NC • Chemical Coatings, Inc. 3194 Hickory Blvd, Hudson, NC • Fairfield Chair Company, 606 Kincaid Circle SW, Lenoir, NC

Old Fort to Asheville segment: • Pisgah Yarn and Dyeing, 1 Orchard Street, Old Fort, NC • Ingles Markets, 2913 US Highway 70, Black Mountain, NC • Beacon Blankets, 202 Whitson Avenue, Swannanoa, NC • APAC Paving Mix and Block, Highway 70, Swannanoa, NC • Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 1100 Tunnel Road, Asheville, NC

Enka/Candler to Sylva segment: • Blue Ridge Paper Company/Evergreen Packaging, 175 Main Street, Canton, NC • Giles Chemical Corp, 102 Commerce Street, Waynesville, NC • Century Appliance Service, Inc., 19 Forga Plaza Loop, Waynesville, NC • Blue Ridge Paper Products, 1329 Howell Mill Road, Waynesville, NC • Holston Group, Inc., 19119 US Highway 19/23, Waynesville, NC • Jackson Manufacturing Paper Company, 152 West Main Street, Sylva, NC

Cashiers to Rutherford segment: • Ring Industrial Group, 2175 Old Hendersonville Road, Brevard, NC • Coats North America, 1710 Brevard Road, Hendersonville, NC

Rutherford to Huntersville segment:

• Lincolnton Waste Water Treatment Plant, 608 Highway 150 Bypass, Lincolnton, NC • Mako Marine, 1181 Old Caroleen Road, Forest City, NC

According the NC DAQ, non‐attainment areas within the western NC route, based on 8‐ hour ozone and particulate matter standards set in 1997, are as follows:

• Hickory – particulate matter • Mecklenburg, Gaston and Lincoln Counties – ozone

The standards for attainable levels of ozone and particulate matter were revised in 2008. The EPA is currently requesting NC DAQ’s recommendations on areas that are not attaining the stricter standard. These results have not yet been finalized.

1.4.3 Geology and Soils

PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGION

Southeastern NC Route

The southeastern NC route extends through the Fall Line and Coastal Plain physiographic regions. The Fall Line is a low east‐facing cliff paralleling the Atlantic coastline from New Jersey to the Carolinas. It separates hard rocks of the Appalachian Piedmont to the west from the softer sedimentary rocks of the Coastal Plain (USGS 2000).

The wide Coastal Plain belts extends from New Jersey to Texas and is composed of sedimentary rocks, deposited mostly in a marine environment, and later uplifted and tilt seaward, some forming broad, submerged Atlantic Continental Shelf. Sand and gravel are predominately the mineral resources of the Coastal Plain (USGS 2000).

Western NC Route The western NC route extends through the Appalachian Valley and Ridge physiographic region formed by a continental collision millions of years ago. This region originates in New York and extends southerly for 900 miles terminating in Alabama. The region is characterized by beds of old sedimentary rock (USGS 2000).

SOILS

Southeastern NC Route Soil series, along with the drainage class and hydric soil status, mapped within the southeastern NC route are as follows:

Table 3 – Southeastern NC Route Soils* Hydric Soil Series Name Drainage Class Soils

Alaga series (AgB) Excessively drained No

Alpin series (AnB) Excessively drained Yes

Altavista series (AaA) Moderately well drained Yes

Altavista series (AlB) Moderately well drained Yes

Arapahoe series (Ap) Very poorly drained Yes

Augusta series (Ag) Somewhat poorly drained Yes

Autryville series (AuB) Well drained Yes

Aycock series (AyA, AyB2, AyB) Well drained Yes

Baymeade complex (BaB, ByB, BmB) Well drained Yes

Bibb series (BB) Poorly drained Yes

Bladen series (Bd) Poorly drained Yes

Bonneau series (BoB) Well drained No

Bragg series (BrB) Well drained No

Byars series (By) Very poorly drained Yes

Conetoe series (CnB) Well drained No

Corolla complex (Cu) Moderately well drained Yes

Cowarts series (CoC2) Well drained Yes

Coxville series (Co) Poorly drained Yes

Craven series (CrA, CrB2, CrC, CrB) Moderately well drained Yes

Croatan series (Ct) Very poorly drained Yes

Dorovan series (DO) Very poorly drained Yes

Duplin series (DpA) Moderately well drained Yes

Exum series (ExB, ExA) Moderately well drained Yes

Foreston series (FoA) Moderately well drained Yes

Goldsboro complex (GoA, GoB, GuA, GpA, GpB) Moderately well drained Yes

Hydric Soil Series Name Drainage Class Soils

Grantham series (Gr) Poorly drained Yes

Gritney complex (GtB2, Gu) Moderately well drained No

Johnston series (JS, JO) Very poorly drained Yes

Kureb series (KuB, Kr) Excessively drained Yes

Leaf series (La) Poorly drained Yes

Lenoir series (LoA, Le) Somewhat poorly drained Yes

Leon series (LnA, Ln) Poorly drained Yes

Longshoal series (LF) Very poorly drained Yes

Lumbee series (Lu) Poorly drained Yes

Lynchburg complex (Ly, Lc) Somewhat poorly drained Yes

Mandarin series (Mn) Somewhat poorly drained No

Marlboro series (MaA, MaB) Well drained No

Marvyn series (McC, MaC) Well drained Yes

Masontown series (MM, MA) Very poorly drained Yes

Meggett series (Me) Poorly drained Yes

Muckalee series (Mk) Poorly drained Yes

Murville series (Mu) Very poorly drained Yes

Newhan series (Nd) Excessively drained No

Norfolk complex (NoA, NoB, NrA, NrB, NrB2,NuB) Well drained Yes

Ocilla series (OcB) Somewhat poorly drained No

Onslow series (On) Moderately well drained Yes

Osier series (Os) Poorly drained Yes

Pantego series (Pa, Pg)) Very poorly drained Yes

Portsmouth series (Po) Very poorly drained Yes

Rains complex (Ra, Rc, Rb) Poorly drained Yes

Rimini series (Rm) Excessively drained Yes

Hydric Soil Series Name Drainage Class Soils

Roanoke silt loam Poorly drained Yes

Seabrook series (Se) Moderately well drained Yes

Stallings series (St) Somewhat poorly drained Yes

Suffolk series (SuD) Well drained No

Tarboro series (TaB) Somewhat excessively drained No

Tomotley series (Tm, Tt) Poorly drained Yes

Torhunta complex (To, Tc) Very poorly drained Yes

Tuckerman series (Tu) Poorly drained Yes

Udorthents (Ud) Well drained No

Urban land (Ur)

Wagram series (WaC) Well drained No

Wakulla series (Wa) Somewhat excessively drained No

Wando complex (WaB, WuB) Well drained Yes

Wickham series (WkB) Well drained No

Wilbanks series (Wk) Very poorly drained Yes

Woodington series (Wo) Poorly drained Yes

Alaga series (AgB) Excessively drained No

Alpin series (AnB) Excessively drained Yes

Altavista series (AaA) Moderately well drained Yes

Altavista series (AlB) Moderately well drained Yes

Arapahoe series (Ap) Very poorly drained Yes

Augusta series (Ag) Somewhat poorly drained Yes

Autryville series (AuB) Well drained Yes

Aycock series (AyA, AyB2, AyB) Well drained Yes

Baymeade complex (BaB, ByB, BmB) Well drained Yes

Bibb series (BB) Poorly drained Yes

Hydric Soil Series Name Drainage Class Soils

Bladen series (Bd) Poorly drained Yes

Bonneau series (BoB) Well drained No

* Source: USDA and NRCS GIS Soil Data

Western NC Route Soil series, along with the drainage class and hydric soil status, mapped within the western NC route are as follows:

Table 4 – Western NC Route Soils*

Hydric Soil Series Name Drainage Class Soils

Appling Series (ApB) Well drained No

Arents Series (Ae) Well drained No

Arkaqua Series (ArA) Somewhat poorly drained No

Ashe Series (AhF, AhG, AsF, and AnF) Somewhat excessively drained No

Augusta Series (AuA) Moderately well drained No

Biltmore Series (Su) Well drained No

Braddock Series No Well drained (BoD2, BkD2, BrB2, BkC2, BvB, and BvC)

Bradson Series (BaB and BaC) Well drained No

Brasstown‐Junaluska Complex (FfE and FfD) Well drained No

Brevard Series (BvE, BrE, and BrC) Well drained No

Buncombe Series (BuB) Excessively drained No

Cashiers Series (CaE) Well drained No

Cecil Series (CnC2, CaB2, CmB2, CcB, CeB2, No CmC2, CmD2, CeB, CfB, CuB, CfB2, CfD, and CfD2) Well drained

Hydric Soil Series Name Drainage Class Soils

Chandler Series (AdD, CdE, CdC, CfF, and CeG) Somewhat excessively drained No

Chestnut Complex (CaF and AeF) Well drained No

Chewacla Series (Cw, ChA, and Cm) Somewhat poorly drained No

Clifton Series (CkD2, CkC2, CsC, CuD, and CuC) Well drained No

Codorus Series (CoA) Somewhat poorly drained No

Congaree Series (Co) Moderately well drained No

Cowee Complex (CrD) Well drained No

Cullowhee Series (CwA and CxA) Somewhat poorly drained No

Delanco Series (DeA and DeB) Moderately well drained No

Dellwood Series (Rs and DhA) Moderately well drained No

Dillard Series (DrB amd DdB) Moderately well drained No

Dillsoboro Series (DsB, DsC and DuC) Well drained No

Dogue Complex (DoB) Moderately well drained No

Edneyville Series (EdE, EdD, EdF, and EdC) Well drained No

Elsinboro Series (EsB) Well drained No

Enon Series (EnB and EnD) Well drained No

Evard Series (EvD, ChE, ChF, ChD, EwF, EwG, No Well drained EvD2, CrE, EvE2, CrF, EvE, EwE, and ExD)

Fairview Series (FaD2,FaB2, FcB2, and FaC2) Well drained No

Fannin Series (FaD, FaE, FaF and FcE) Well drained No

French Series (FrA) Somewhat poorly drained No

Gaston Series (GaB2) Well drained No

Hydric Soil Series Name Drainage Class Soils

Georgeville Series (GvB2 and GvC2) Well drained No

Grover Series (GrE) Well drained No

Hatboro Series (Ha) Poorly drained Yes

Hayesville Series (HaD2, HcE3, HaC2, HaD, HyE, No HaE, HyB, HaF,HyC, HeD,and HeC) Well drained

Helean‐Worsham Complex (HeB) Moderately well drained No

Hibriten Series (HbF) Well drained No

Iotla Series (IoA) Somewhat poorly drained No

Junaluska‐Tsali Complex (TaF) Well drained No

Leveled Clayey Land (Lc) Well drained No

Lloyd Series (GnB2 and GnC2) Well drained No

Madison Series (MaB2, MaC2, MaD2, MdB2, and No Well drained MdC2)

Masada Series (MaD) Well drained No

Mocksville Seris (MsD, MsB, and MsC) Well drained No

Monacan Series (MO) Somewhat poorly drained No

Mikwasi Series (NkA) Very poorly drained Yes

Oak Level Series (OkB2) Well drained No

Pacolet Series (PaE, PaF, PcB, PcC, PaD2, PeB2, No PcB2, PeC2, PaC2, PcC2, PaD, PaC, PeE, PbD2, Well drained PbB2, PbC2, PrB, PrC, PmB, PmC, PsD2, PtD, PsC2, and PuC.

Pits, quarries (Pt) No

Rasalo Series (RaB) Well drained No

Hydric Soil Series Name Drainage Class Soils

Rhodhiss Series (RhD, RhE, and RdC) Well drained No

Rion Seris (RnB, RnC, RoF, and RnE) Well drained No

Riverview Series (RvA) Well drained No

Rock ooutcrop‐Cleveland Complex (Rk) Not applicable No

Rosman Series (RsA and Ro) Well drained No

Saunook Series (SaC, SdD, ScB, TsD, SdC, and SfC) Well drained No

Skyuka Series (SkB2) Well drained No

State Series (SeB) Well drained No

Statler Series (SuA, StB, and SvB) Well drained No

Sylco‐Cataska Complex (TcG) Well drained No

Sylva‐Whiteside Complex (SyA) Poorly drained No

Tate Series (TeE, TeB, TeC, TeD, TaB, TaD, TaC, No Well drained and TmC)

Toccoa Series (ToA) Moderately well drained No

Tomlin Series (ToB2 and ToC2) Well drained No

Toxaway Series (Tn and To) Very poorly drained Yes

Trimont Series (TrF) Well drained No

Tuckasegee‐Whiteside Complex (TwC) Well drained No

Tusquitee Series (TsE and TuE) Well drained No

Udorthents Series (Ud, Uo, UdC, UoB, UfA, UfB, No Well drained and UhE)

Unaka‐Porters Complex (BrG) Well drained No

Unison Complex (Urb and UrC) Well drained No

Hydric Soil Series Name Drainage Class Soils

Urban Land (Ur, Ux, and UaB) Not applicable No

Watauga Series (WaE and WaF) Well drained No

Wedowhee Series (WeD) Well drained No

Wehadkee Series (Wk) Poorly drained Yes

Whiteside‐Tuckaseege Complex (WtB) Well drained No

Winnsboro Series (WnB) Well drained No

* Source: USDA and NRCS GIS Soil Data

PRIME OR UNIQUE FARMLAND

Southeastern NC Route The following soils mapped along the Southeastern NC Route are classified as prime and unique farmland:

Table 5: Southeastern NC Route Prime and Unique Farmland*

Series Series Name Abbreviation

AaA Altavista fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes AyA Aycock fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes AyB Aycock very fine sandy loam, 1 to 4 percent slopes CrB Craven silt loam, 1 to 4 percent slopes DpA Duplin sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes ExA Exum silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes GoA Goldsboro loamy fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes Ly Lynchburg fine sandy loam MaA Marlboro loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes MaB Marlboro loamy sand, 2 to 5 percent slopes NoA Norfolk loamy fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes NoB Norfolk loamy fine sand, 2 to 6 percent slopes On Onslow loamy sand * Source: NRCS 1998 List of Important Farmlands of North Carolina

Western NC Route The following soils mapped along the Western NC Route are classified as prime and unique farmland:

Table 6: Western NC Route Prime and Unique Farmland *

Series Series Name Abbreviation

ApB Appling sandy loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes

BaB Bradson gravelly loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes

BrB2 Braddock clay loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded

BvB Braddock loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes

CaB2 Cecil sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, moderately eroded

CcB Cecil sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes

CeB2 Cecil sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded

CmB2 Cecil sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded

DdB Dillard sandy loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes, rarely flooded

DeA Delanco (Dillard) loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes

DeB Delanco (Dillard) loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes

DrB Dillard loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes, rarely flooded

DsB Dillsboro loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes

EnB Enon sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes

EsB Elsinboro loam, 1 to 4 percent slopes, rarely flooded

GaB2 Gaston sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded

GvB2 Georgeville clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded

HyB Hayesville loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes

MdB2 Madison sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded

Series Series Name Abbreviation

MsB Mocksville sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes

PcB Pacolet gravelly fine sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes

PcB2 Pacolet sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, moderately eroded

RnB Rion sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes

RsA Rosman fine sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, occasionally flooded

RvA Riverview loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded

ScB Saunook loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes

StB Statler loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes, rarely flooded

SuA Statler loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, rarely flooded

SvB Statler loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes, rarely flooded

TaB Tate loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes

TeB Tate fine sandy loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes

WnB Winnsboro loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes

WtB Whiteside‐Tuckasegee complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes

* Source: NRCS 1998 List of Important Farmlands of North Carolina

1.4.4 Water Resources

SURFACE WATER The proposed FEP will be located within existing ROW that traverses or parallels jurisdictional wetlands, streams and open waters. Except when bridges are present, surface waters are culverted or piped as they are traversed by the ROW. In most of these crossings, the culvert or pipe extends beyond the width of the ROW. Further details of these surface waters are discussed below, according to route.

Southeastern NC Route The southeastern NC route spans across four river basins (USGS 1974). Table 7 below outlines these basins, along with their corresponding hydrologic unit codes (HUC).

Table 7: Southeastern NC Route River Basins*

Square Miles River/Stream Coastal Miles HUC River Basin Miles

03020101 Tar‐Pamlico 5,571 2,566 17

03020202

03020203 Neuse 6,285 3,880 21

03020204

03030007 Cape Fear 9,149 6,386 35

03020106 White Oak 1,264 446 91 03030001

Source: USGS 1974 Hydrologic Unit Code Map

The FEP study area within the southeastern NC route crosses 125 jurisdictional streams (116 perennial and 9 intermittent), one pond, and 39 wetlands (37 forested, two emergent: See Section 1.4.5 ‐ Wetlands), as discussed below:

The Rocky Mount to Greenville segment crosses 10 wetlands (nine forested, one emergent), 44 jurisdictional streams (37 perennial, 7 intermittent), which traverse the following named tributaries: Hominy Swamp Creek, Toisnot Creek, White Swamp Creek, Cattail Swamp Creek, Toisnot Swamp Stream, Duck Branch, Whiteoak Swamp Stream, Thompson Swamp Stream, Jacobs Branch, Black Swamp Creek, Oldwoman Branch, Pine Log Creek, Mill Run Creek, and Harris Mill Run. The streams in this segment demonstrate typical characteristics of those found in more rural counties. Primarily, the streams exhibit sandy and gravely substrate, slow to moderate flow, and visually clear water.

The Greenville to Morehead City segment traverses 12 wetlands (forested) and 42 jurisdictional streams (33 perennial, 9 intermittent), which cross the following named tributaries: Hardee Creek, Indian Well Swamp, Indigo Swamp Creek, Clayroot Swamp Creek, Creeping Creek, Palmetto Swamp Creek, Mauls Swamp Creek, Bear Branch, Swift Creek, Neuse River, Bachelor Creek, Scotts Creek, Trent River, Southwest Prong Creek, Slocum Creek, Caps Branch, Newport River, Blakes Branch, Smiths Swamp Creek, Snows Swamp Branch, Hull Swamp Creek, and Pelletier Creek. The streams in this segment are generally low velocity, exhibiting sandy gravely or sandy mucky substrate. The water clarity is generally clear with some brown water streams likely due to organic content. Waterways such as the Trent River and Scotts Creek exhibit tidal influences and shellfish populations.

The Morehead City to Jacksonville segment traverses five wetlands (forested) and 26 jurisdictional streams (24 perennial, two intermittent), of which 20 cross the following named tributaries: Jumping Run, Gales Creek, Broad Creek, East Prong Sanaders Creek, Sikes Branch, Sanders Creek, Goose Creek, Hunting Island Creek, Deer Creek, White Oak River, Pasture Branch, Queen Creek, Starling Swamp Creek, Bell Swamp Creek (Photo 2), Wallace Creek, Northeast Creek, Scales Creek, Burnt House Branch, New River, and Brinson Creek. The streams in this segment are generally low velocity sandy with some exhibiting sandy mucky substrate. The water clarity is generally clear with some brown/black water streams likely due to organic content. Waterways such as the New River and Northeast Creek exhibit tidal influences and shellfish populations.

The Jacksonville to Wilmington segment crosses 12 wetlands (11 forested, one emergent) and 13 jurisdictional streams (12 perennial, one intermittent), of which five are over the following named tributaries: Tank Creek, Southwest Creek, Hicks Run, Stones Creek, and County Line Branch. The streams in this segment were generally low velocity sandy and with some exhibiting sandy mucky substrate. The water clarity is generally clear with some brown/black water streams likely due to organic content.

The southeastern NC route traverses Section 10 ‐ Navigable Waters of the Rivers and Harbors Act. USACE defines navigable waters as those that have “…been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use (with or without significant improvements) to transport interstate or foreign commerce foreign commerce” or Navigable‐in‐Fact as it is “susceptible to use in its existing condition for any commercial purposes involving navigation.” These include:

• Neuse River, below Falls Lake Dam • New River (Photo 3) • Pamlico River • Trent River • White Oak River (Photo 4) • Northeast River • Swift Creek • Bachelor Creek • Tributaries to Bogue Sound

Western NC Route The western NC route spans across six river basins (USGS 1974). Table 8 below outlines these basins, along with their corresponding hydrologic unit codes.

Table 8: Western NC Route River Basins*

HUC River Basin Square Miles River/Stream Miles

03040101 Yadkin‐Pee Dee 7,221 5,862

03050101 Catawba 3,285 3,285 03050102

03050105 Broad 1,513 1,513

06010105 French Broad 2,830 3,985 06010106

03060101 Savannah 172 176 03060102

06010203 Little Tennessee 1,797 2,565 06010106

Source: USGS 1974 Hydrologic Unit Code Map

The FEP study area within the western NC route crosses 378 jurisdictional streams (367 perennial and 11 intermittent), 10 ponds, and eight wetlands (seven forested, one emergent: See Section 1.4.5 ‐ Wetlands), as discussed below:

The Lenoir to Hickory segment crosses 19 jurisdictional streams (perennial), of which 16 cross the following named tributaries: Lower Creek, Millers Creek, Gunpowder Creek, Angley Creek, Brushy Creek, Billy Branch, Catawba River, Little Gunpowder Creek, Frye Creek, and Geitner Branch. The streams in this segment demonstrate typical characteristics of those found in more urbanized counties. Typically, the streams exhibit silty and cobble substrate, slow to moderate flow, and turbid water.

The Old Fort to Asheville segment traverses two wetlands (forested), 35 jurisdictional streams (perennial), of which 12 cross the following named tributaries: Grassy Branch, Swannanoa River, Patton Cove, Stepp Branch, Tomahawk Branch, Flat Creek, McCoy Cove, Dunsmore Cove, Jarrett Creek, and Mill Creek. The streams in this segment are generally high velocity with rocky substrate and visually clear water quality.

The Enka/Candler to Sylva segment traverses 80 jurisdictional streams (perennial), of which 42 cross the following named tributaries: Scott Creek, Blanton Branch, Ochre Hill Creek, Soapstone Creek, Cashie Branch, Licklong Creek, Carson Branch, Woodfin Creek,

Richland Creek, Redbank Branch, Nolen Creek, Drift branch, Hyatt Creek, Plott Creek (Photo 5), Browning Branch, Eaglesnest Creek, Raccoon Creek, Shallot Branch, Jones Cove Branch, Poison Cove, Conner Branch, Haynes Cove, Sally Haynes Branch, Patton Branch, Pigeon River, Mingus Branch, Hominy Creek, Dutch Cove Creek, Rocky Cove, George Branch, Webb Branch, and Pole Creek. The streams in this segment are similar in appearance to those in the Old Fort to Asheville segment.

The Cashiers to Rutherfordton segment traverses seven ponds, three wetlands, and 165 jurisdictional streams (159 perennial, six intermittent), of which 58 cross the following named tributaries: Morrow Creek, Bracketts Creek, Floyds Creek, Charles Creek, Broad River, Green River, Little White Oak Creek, Horse Creek, Skyuka Creek, Pacolet River (Photo 6), Bear Creek, Camp Creek, Laurel Branch, Laurel Creek, Bat Fork, Kings Creek, Mud Creek, Shaw Creek, Battle Creek, French Board River, Gash Creek, Blythe Mill Creek, Bryson Creek, King Creek, Cherry Tree Branch, Lyday Creek, Davidson River, Lambs Creek, Glade Creek, Kings Creek, Norton Creek, Nicholson Creek, Glady Branch, Spanish Oak Branch, Catheys Creek, Wilson Mill Creek, Limekiln Branch, Patterson Creek, Mushy Creek, Cherryfield Creek, Morgan Mill Creek, Peter Wasmer Creek, North Fork French Broad River, West Fork, Frozen Creek, South Fork Flat Creek, Morton Creek, Toxaway River, Deep Ford Creek, Bearwallow Creek, James Creek, Rock Creek, Hogback Creek, Little Hogback Creek, Mud Creek, Logan Creek, and Horsepasture Creek. The streams in this segment exhibit high gradient and velocity characteristics with bedrock, boulder, cobble, pebble substrate, visually clear water, and significant step‐pool complexes.

The Rutherford to Huntersville segment traverses three wetlands (two forested, one emergent), two ponds (Photo 7), and 69 jurisdictional streams (64 perennial, five intermittent), of which 20 cross the following named tributaries: Caldwell Station Creek, Catawba River, Forney Creek, Killian Creek, Anderson Creek, Reed Creek, Leepers Creek, South Fork Catawba River, Lithia Branch, Indian Creek, Muddy Fork, Buffalo Creek, Hickory Creek (Photo 8), First Broad River, Brushy Creek, Beaverdam Creek, Grog Creek, Hills Creek, Webbs Creek, and Second Broad River. The streams in this segment exhibit characteristics typical of urbanized counties. The streams typically consist of silty substrate and turbid water with slow to moderate flow.

The Mocksville segment crosses No Creek, Elsworth Creek, three unnamed tributaries (perennial), and a pond. The streams in this segment typically consist of boulder, cobble, and sand substrate with visually clear water.

The western NC route traverses the following Section 10 ‐ Navigable Waters of the Rivers and Harbors Act:

• Hominy Creek • Richardson Creek • Davidson River

• French Broad River • Green River • Second Broad River • First Broad River • Broad River • Indian Creek • Buffalo Creek • South Fork Catawba River • Broad River

GROUNDWATER North Carolina has a generally good and abundant groundwater supply, which is the source of drinking water for more than 50% of the state’s population (NC GWA/USGS 2004). In the Fall Line and Coastal Plain Provinces of the southeastern NC route, and in the Blue Ridge and Piedmont Provinces of the western NC route, the slope of the water table under static conditions (no pumping interference) often approximates the land surface topography. Thus, groundwater adjacent to the project generally flows southeasterly toward the Atlantic Ocean through fractures, fissures, and pores within the underlying bedrock and sand (Horton, 1991).

Naturally occurring arsenic is a groundwater pollutant concern in some areas of the Piedmont. Contamination from leaking underground storage tanks and unlined landfills pose some discrete and scattered groundwater pollution concerns across the state (USEPA). Review of the EPA Enviromapper for Envirofacts website indicated several incidents involving groundwater contamination resulting from industry and commercial operations located along the study area (discussed further in Section 1.4.11 Human Health and Safety). For the most part, groundwater is not anticipated to be encountered during installation of the proposed FEP.

COASTAL ZONE WATER RESOURCES

Southeastern NC Route The North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (DCM) has classified five counties within the Southeastern NC route as coastal zones per the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA). They include Craven, Carteret, Onslow, Pender, and New Hanover Counties.

The four areas of environmental concern (AEC) established by the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) and regulated by DCM are estuarine and ocean systems; ocean hazard systems; public water supply; and natural and cultural resources.

Western NC Route The western NC route does not extend through coastal zones.

FLOODPLAINS

Southeastern NC Route The FEP will be installed within existing ROW that parallels or crosses portions of the 100‐year floodplain. When constructed, the ROW was elevated within floodplains to an adequate height so as to not be adversely affected by flood waters during average precipitation events.

Western NC Route The FEP will be installed within existing ROW that parallels or crosses portions of the 100‐year floodplain. When constructed, the ROW was elevated within floodplains to an adequate height so as to not be adversely affected by flood waters during average precipitation events.

WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS

Southeastern NC Route There are no Wild and Scenic Rivers within the southeastern NC route.

Western NC Route

Horsepasture River is classified as a Wild and Scenic River for 4.2 miles from Bohaynee Road (N.C. 281) in Transylvania County downstream to Lake Jocassee in Oconee County, South Carolina. In the Cashiers – Rutherfordton segment, the FEP crosses Horsepasture River upstream of its classification as a Wild and Scenic River. There are no other Wild and Scenic Rivers within the western NC route.

1.4.5 Biological Resources The FEP extends through four Level III ecoregions: Southeastern Plains, Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain, Blue Ridge, and Piedmont (US EPA 2002). This section discusses biological resources typical of these ecoregions and species was observed within the FEP ROW.

WILDLIFE

Southeastern NC Route Wildlife typically observed along the southeastern NC route include mammals, amphibians/reptiles, and birds that are typical of the Southeastern Plains and Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain ecoregions. During the site reconnaissance, mammal species observed along the southeastern NC route include beaver, (Castor canadensis), white‐ tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), eastern cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus), eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), and groundhog (Marmota monax). Reptile species observed include black racer (Coluber constrictor), black rat snake (Elaphe obsolete), northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon), northern copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix mokasen), cottonmouth (Agkistrodon

piscivorus), eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina carolina), Florida cooter (Chrysemys floridana), yellowbelly slider (Chrysemys scripta), and American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis). Bird species include red‐tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), red‐ shouldered hawk, turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), American robin (Thurus migratorius), eastern blue bird (Sialia sialis), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), northern mockingbird (Mimus polygottos), Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), Carolina chickadee (Poecile carolinensis), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), and belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon).

Land within Croatan National Forest is designated as game land and provides hunting opportunities for white‐tailed deer, wild turkey, and black bear. To maintain an ecological balance, wildlife is managed, quotas are established, and hunting and fishing permits are required.

Western NC Route Wildlife typically observed along the western NC route includes mammals, amphibians/reptiles, and birds that are typical of the Blue Ridge and Piedmont ecoregions. During the site reconnaissance, mammal species observed along the western NC route include beaver, white‐tailed deer, eastern cottontail rabbit, eastern gray squirrel, and chipmunk (Tamias striatus). Reptile species observed included black racer, corn snake (Elaphe guttata), and black rat snake (Elaphe obsolete). Bird species include red‐tailed hawk, turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), barn swallow (Hirundo rustica), blue jay, American robin, eastern blue bird, mallard, wild turkey (Meleagris galopavo), mourning dove, and northern mockingbird.

Land within Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests are designated as game lands that provide hunting opportunities for white‐tailed deer and wild turkey. In addition, certain rivers and streams are stocked with trout from local hatcheries to support fishing. To maintain an ecological balance, wildlife is managed, quotas are established, and hunting and fishing permits are required.

VEGETATION Since the FEP spans across four physiographic ecoregions (Southeastern Plains, Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain, Blue Ridge, and Piedmont,) of North Carolina, vegetation observed adjacent to the ROW of the proposed FEP varies greatly; however, vegetation within the FEP proposed routes is typical of that found in maintained/disturbed land associated with roadside shoulders and residential, industrial and commercial development. Species observed are discussed below.

Southeastern NC Route Herbaceous vegetation generally consist of fescue (Festuca sp.), crabgrass (Digitaria sp.), white clover (Trifolium repens), Queen Anne’s lace (Daucus carota), dandelion (Taraxacum sp.), wild onion (Allium sp.), broomsedge (Andropogon sp.), wild onion

(Allium crispum), and goldenrod (Solidago sp.). Vines consisted of poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), porcelain berry (Ampelopsis brevipedunculata), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), morning glory (Ipomoea sp.), ebony spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron), passion‐flower (Passiflora incarnata), kudzu (Pueraria lobata), and grape (Vitus sp.).

Shrub species include blackberry (Rubus sp.), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), silvering (Baccharis glomeruliflora), Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia), and Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense).

The forest edge consists primarily of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), southern red oak (Quercus falcata), rock chestnut oak (Q. montana), white oak, (Q. alba), longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), red maple (Acer rubrum), mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa), black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), sourwood (Oxydendrum arboretum), winged elm (Ulnus alata), Virginia pine (P. virginiana), short‐leaf pine (P. echinata), sassafras (Sassafras albidum), and red mulberry (Morus rubra)

Western NC Route Vegetation observed along the ROW within the western NC route was primarily herbaceous and shrub species located adjacent to edge of forests (Photo 9).

Herbaceous vegetation consists of fescue, hairy vetch (Vicia villosa), common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), galax (Galax urceolata), greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), Japanese honeysuckle, dandelion, henbit (Lamium amplexicaule), kudzu, ox‐eye daisy (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum), English ivy (Hedera helix), English plantain (Plantago lanceolata), Queen Anne’s lace, golden rod, wild strawberry (Fragaria virginiana), fleabane (Erigeron pulchellus), bamboo grass (Microstegium vimineum), pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), poison ivy, and Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia).

Shrub species consist of smooth sumac (Rhus glabra), multiflora rose, mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia), and rosebay (Rhododendron sp.).

The forest edges generally consist of smooth sumac, flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), eastern redbud (Cercis canadensis) Virginia pine, winged elm, tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipfera), mimosa (Albrizia julibrissin), white pine (P. strobus), sweet gum, American holly (Ilex opaca), red maple, silver maple (A. saccharinum), and eastern red cedar.

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES During the initial scoping process of this EA, letters were submitted to the USFWS, Raleigh and Asheville Field Offices on May 14, 2010 requesting their comments regarding the proposed FEP and its potential adverse affects to threatened and endangered (T&E) species. Their comments, as well as state and federally listed T&E species that may be affected by the proposed project, are discussed below.

Southeastern NC Route The USFWS Raleigh Field Office responded to our scoping letter on June 1, 2010 stating that the southeastern route of the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect T&E species or their designated critical habitat, such that Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) has been fulfilled. This statement must be reconsidered if field conditions or construction activities reveal the potential for impacts to T&E species.

The USFWS website (updated January 2009, except for Craven County: updated February 2009 and New Hanover County: updated August 2009) was reviewed for a current inventory of federally‐listed T&E species in Nash, Edgecombe, Wilson, Greene, Pitt, Craven, Carteret, Onslow, Pender, and New Hanover Counties which the Southeastern NC Route traverses.

The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) website (updated April 2010) was also reviewed for state‐listed species in Nash, Edgecombe, Wilson, Greene, Pitt, Craven, Carteret, Onslow, Pender, and New Hanover Counties. Table 9, below, identifies T&E species and their federal and state status obtained from the above sources for the southeastern NC route. An explanation of the status categories is described at the end of the table. Since federally listed species are subject to the ESA, brief descriptions of federally listed species are provided following the table.

Table 9 – Federal and State Listed Threatened and Endangered Species – Southeastern NC Route

Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status

VASCULAR PLANT SPECIES

American chaffseed Schwalbea Americana E E

Awned meadow‐beauty Rhexia aristosa FSC T

Blue witch grass Dichanthelium caerulescens ‐‐ E

Boykin’s lobelia Lobelia boykinii FSC T

Carolina bogmint Macbridea caroliniana FSC T

Carolina grass‐of‐parnassus Parnassia caroliniana FSC E

Carolina grasswort Lilaeopsis carolinensis ‐‐ T

Carolina least trillium Trillium pusillum var. pusillum FSC E

Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status

Carolina spleenwort Asplenium heteroresiliens FSC E

Coastal beaksedge Rhynchospora pleiantha FSC T

Coastal goldenrod Solidago villosicarpa FSC E

Confederate huckleberry Gaylussacia nana ‐‐ E

Cooley’s meadowrue Thalictrum cooleyi E E

Dwarf bladderwort Utricularia olivacea ‐‐ T

Florida scrub frostweed Crocanthemum nashii ‐‐ E

Fragrant beaksedge Rhynchospora odorata ‐‐ E

Amorpha georgiana var. Georgia indigo‐bush FSC E georgiana

Giant spiral orchid Spiranthes longilabris ‐‐ T

Godfrey’s sandwort Minuartia godfreyi FSC E

Golden‐crest Lophiola aurea ‐‐ E

Golden sedge Carex lutea E E

Hirsts’ panic grass Dichanthelium hirstii C E

Hooded pitcher plant Sarracenia minor ‐‐ T

Large‐leaved grass‐of‐ Parnassia grandifolia FSC T parnassus

Loose water‐milfoil Myriophyllum laxum FSC T

Many‐flower grass pink Calopogon multiflorus FSC E

Michaux’s sumac Rhus michauxii E E‐SC

Nutmeg hickory Carya myristiciformis ‐‐ E

Stylisma pickeringii var. Pickering’s dawnflower FSC E pickeringii

Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status

Pinebarren smokegrass Muhlenbergia torreyana ‐‐ E

Pineland plantain Plantago sparsiflora FSC E

Pondberry Lindera melissifolia E E

Rough‐leaved loosestrife Lysimachia asperulaefolia E E

Sandhills milk‐vetch Astragalus michauxii FSC E

Sandhills pixie‐moss Pyxidanthera brevifolia FSC E

Savannah indigo‐bush Amorpha confusa FSC T

Seabeach amaranth Amaranthus pumilus T T

Sensitive joint vetch Aeschynomene virginica T E

Snowy orchid Platanthera nivea ‐‐ T

Southern white beaksedge Rhynchospora macra ‐‐ E

Spiked medusa Pteroglossaspis ecristata FSC E

Spring‐flowering goldenrod Solidago verna FSC E

Thin‐wall quillwort Isoetes microvela FSC E

Thorne’s beaksedge Rhynchospora thornei FSC E

Virginia least trillium Trillium pusillum var. virginianum FSC E

Yellow fringeless orchid Platanthera integra ‐‐ T

VERTEBRATE ANIMAL SPECIES

American alligator Alligator mississippiensis T (S/A) T

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus BGPA T

Bridle shiner Notropis bifrenatus FSC E

Carolina gopher frog Rana capito FSC T

Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status

Carolina madtom Noturus furiosus FSC T

Eastern coral snake Micrurus fulvius ‐‐ E

Eastern diamondback Crotalus adamanteus rattlesnake ‐‐ E

Eastern puma (cougar) Puma concolor couguar E E

Eastern wood rat Neotoma floridana floridana ‐‐ T (coastal plain population) Green sea turtle Chelonia mydas T T

Gull‐billed tern Gelochelidon nilotica ‐‐ T

Hawksbill sea turtle Eretmochelys imbricate E E

Kemp’s ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys kempii E E

Least brook lamprey Lampetra aepyptera ‐‐ T

Leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys coriacea E E

Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta T T

Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus ‐‐ E

Piping plover Charadrius melodus T T

Roseate tern Sterna dougallii dougallii T E

Red‐cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E E

Shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum E E

West Indian manatee Trichechus manatus E E

INVERTEBRATE ANIMAL SPECIES

Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni FSC E

Barrel floater Anodonta couperiana ‐‐ E

Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status

Cape Fear threetooth Triodopisis soelneri FSC T

Creeper Strophitus undulates ‐‐ T

Dwarf wedgemussel Alasmidonta heterodon E E

Eastern lampmussel Lampsilis radiate ‐‐ T

Eastern pondmussel Ligumia nasuta ‐‐ T

Green floater Lasmigona subviridis FSC E

Greenfield rams‐horn Helisoma eucosmium FSC E

Magnificent rams‐horn Planorbella magnifica FSC E

Roanoke slabshell Elliptio roanokensis ‐‐ T

Tar River spinymussel Elliptio steinstansana E E

Tidewater mucket Leptodea ochracea ‐‐ T

Triangle floater Alasmidonta undulate ‐‐ T

Yellow lampmussel Lampsilis cariosa FSC E

Yellow lance Elliptio lanceolata FSC E FSC‐Federal Species of Concern, E‐Endangered, T – Threatened, C – Candidate, T (S/A) – Threatened due to similarity of appearance BGPA: Bald and Gold Eagle Protection Act, EX – Extirpated, SR – Significantly Rare

Vascular Plant Species American chaffseed – Federally Listed Endangered This species occurs in sandy (sandy peat, sandy loam), acidic, seasonally moist to dry soils. It is generally found in habitats described as open, moist pine flatwoods, fire‐maintained savannas, ecotonal areas between peaty wetlands and xeric sandy soils, and other open grass‐sedge systems. Chaffseed is dependent on factors such as fire, mowing, or fluctuating water tables to maintain the crucial open to partly‐open conditions that it requires.

Cooley’s meadowrue – Federally Listed Endangered This species occurs in fire‐maintained savannas. Cooley’s meadowrue is dependent on factors such as fire and mowing to maintain the crucial open to partly‐open conditions that it requires.

Golden sedge – Federally Listed Endangered This species prefers the ecotone between the pine savanna and adjacent wet hardwood or hardwood‐conifer forest, and edges of shrubby depressions within savannas. Most plants occur in the partially tree‐shaded savanna/swamp ecotone, with scattered shrubs and a moderate to dense herb layer. Golden sedge is dependent on factors such as fire, mowing, and plow lines.

Michaux’s sumac – Federally Listed Endangered Michaux's sumac is a densely hairy shrub ranging from one to three feet (30 to 91 cm) in height. The plant flowers from April to June. Michaux’s sumac grows in sandy or rocky open woods and survives best in areas where some form of disturbance has provided an open area.

Pondberry – Federally Listed Endangered Pondberry is mostly associated with wetland habitats such as bottomland and hardwoods in the interior areas, and the margins of sinks, ponds and other depressions in the more coastal sites. The plants generally grow in shaded areas but may also be found in full sun.

Rough‐leaved loosestrife – Federally Listed Endangered This species generally occurs in edges between longleaf pine uplands and pond pine pocosins (areas of dense shrub and vine growth usually on a wet, peaty, poorly drained soil) on moist to seasonally saturated sands and on shallow organic soils overlaying sand.

Seabeach amaranth – Federally Listed Threatened Seabeach amaranth is an annual flower growing in low‐growing clumps on barrier island beaches. It occasionally establishes small temporary populations in other habitats, including sound‐side beaches and blowouts in foredunes. Seabeach amaranth appears to be intolerant of competition and does not occur on well‐vegetated sites.

Sensitive joint vetch – Federally Listed Threatened Sensitive joint‐vetch is an annual plant typically attaining heights of 1 to 2 meters in a single growing season. It’s associated with freshwater to slightly brackish tidal marshes and wet ditches where plants are flooded twice daily. The species seems to prefer the marsh edge at an elevation near the upper limit of tidal fluctuation.

Vertebrate Animal Species American alligator – Federally Listed Threatened The American alligator is a large, semi‐aquatic, armored reptile that is related to crocodiles. Their body alone ranges from 6 ‐ 14 feet long. It prefers fresh to slightly brackish lakes, ponds, rivers, and marshes.

Bald eagle – Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act The bald eagle is a large raptor with a wingspan of approximately seven feet (2 meters). Bald eagle nest sites within the southeast are usually located in living pine or cypress trees. Nest sites are generally located within one‐half mile of open water with a clear flight path leading to the water.

Eastern puma (cougar) – Federally Listed Endangered The eastern puma’s fur is a uniform red‐brown or gray‐brown. Cougars have long, slender bodies with very long tails and broad, round heads with erect, rounded ears. Its preferred habitat is remote areas and extensive forests.

Green sea turtle – Federally Listed Threatened Nesting on beaches and foraging in ocean and sounds, the green sea turtle reaches sizes of about four feet and a weight of 440 pounds. It has a heart‐ shaped shell, small head, and single‐clawed flippers.

Hawksbill sea turtle – Federally Listed Endangered This species is one of smaller sea turtles. Adults range in size from 30 to 36 inches (0.8‐1.0 meters) carapace length, and weigh 100 to 200 pounds (45‐90 kilograms). The name "hawksbill" refers to the turtle's prominent hooked beak. It nests on beaches and prefers foraging in ocean, very rarely in sounds.

Kemp’s ridley sea turtle – Federally Listed Endangered The Kemp’s ridley turtle is one of the smallest of the sea turtles, with adults reaching about two feet in length and weighing up to 100 pounds. It has an oval carapace that is almost as wide as it is long and is usually olive‐gray in color. The Kemp’s ridley has a triangular‐shaped head with a somewhat hooked beak with large crushing surfaces. This turtle is a shallow water benthic feeder, located in oceans and sounds, with a diet consisting primarily of crabs

Leatherback sea turtle – Federally Listed Endangered The leatherback is the largest, deepest diving, most migratory, and wide ranging of sea turtles. The adult leatherback can reach four to eight feet in length and 500 to 2000 pounds in weight. It nests on beaches and prefers foraging in ocean, very rarely in sounds.

Loggerhead sea turtle – Federally Listed Threatened Loggerheads were named for their relatively large heads, which support powerful jaws and enable them to feed on hard‐shelled prey, such as whelks and conch. Mean straight carapace length of adults in the southeastern U.S. is approximately 36 inches (92 cm); corresponding weight is about 250 lbs (113 kg). It nests on beaches and forages in oceans and sounds.

Piping Plover – Federally Listed Threatened The piping plover prefers ocean beaches and is known to breed on island‐end flats. Its coloration consists of a pale brown above, lighter below; black band across forehead, bill orange with black tips; legs orange; white rump. The normal adult size for the plover is seven‐inches (18 cm) in length.

Roseate tern – Federally Listed Threatened The roseate tern is about 40 centimeters in length, with light‐gray wings and back. Its primary habitat is sand flats on maritime islands.

Red‐cockaded woodpecker – Federally Listed Endangered The red‐cockaded woodpecker is a rather small (22 centimeters) black‐and‐white woodpecker with longish bill. They are typically found in mature open pine forests, mainly in longleaf pine.

Shortnose sturgeon – Federally Listed Endangered The shortnose sturgeon is a fresh and saltwater fish reaching lengths of three to four feet in length. In the southeastern United States, they are typically found in brackish water of large rivers and estuaries. They spawn in freshwater areas.

West Indian manatee – Federally Listed Endangered The West Indian manatee is a marine mammal found in marine, estuarine, and freshwater environments. Manatees have large, seal‐shaped bodies with paired flippers and a round, paddle‐shaped tail. Adult manatees, on average, are about nine feet long (three meters) and weigh about 1,000 pounds (200 kilograms).

Invertebrate Animal Species Dwarf wedgemussel – Federally Listed Endangered The dwarf wedgemussel is a small, freshwater mussel rarely exceeding 45 millimeters in length. Dwarf wedgemussels are found in large rivers and small streams. They are often burrowed into clay banks among the root systems of trees. Landscape in areas occupied by the mussel is largely wooded, with trees near the stream being relatively mature and tending to form a shaded area over smaller streams, creeks, and headwater river habitats.

Tar River spinymussel – Federally Listed Endangered The Tar River spinymussel has a small, semi rhomboid shell which grows to a maximum length of 60 millimeters. In North Carolina, this species is found in relatively short stretches of the Tar River and three creeks (Shocco, Sandy/Swift and Fishing/Little Fishing) in the Tar River basin and one creek (Little River) in the Neuse River basin. Their preferred habitat is relatively fast flowing, well oxygenated water with a substrate comprised of relatively silt‐free loose gravel and/or coarse sand.

Suitable habit was evident for four plant and one vertebrate species. The plant species include rough‐leaf loosestrife, golden sedge, Cooley’s meadowrue, and American chaffseed. The vertebrate species include the red‐cockaded woodpecker. The field assessments did not reveal the presence of these or other federally listed plant and animal species.

Western NC Route The USFWS Asheville Field Office responded to our scoping letter on May 21, 2010 stating that the four segments of the western route of the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect T&E species or their designated critical habitat, such that Section 7 of the ESA has been fulfilled. These segments are Old Fort to Asheville, Enka/Candler to Sylva, Cashiers to Rutherfordton, and Lenoir to Hickory. This statement must be reconsidered if field conditions or construction activities reveal the potential for impacts to protected species.

Two segments (Mocksville and Rutherfordton to Huntersville) may adversely affect two T&E plant species (Michaux’s sumac and Schweinitz’s sunflower) which prefer disturbed ROW, roadsides or edges of maintained clearings, are known to exist in these counties. The USFWS recommended a field survey for these species be conducted along the FEP within these counties. The results of this survey are below.

Similarly as with the southeastern NC route, the USFWS website was reviewed for a current inventory of federally‐listed T&E species for Davie, Caldwell, Catawba, Burke, McDowell, Buncombe, Haywood, Jackson, Transylvania, Henderson, Polk, Rutherford, Cleveland, Gaston, Lincoln, and Mecklenburg Counties (updated January 2008 except for Burke County: updated in August 2009).

The NCNHP website was also reviewed for federal and state‐listed species Davie, Caldwell, Catawba, Burke, McDowell, Buncombe, Haywood, Jackson, Transylvania, Henderson, Polk, Rutherford, Cleveland, Gaston, Lincoln, and Mecklenburg Counties (updated April 2010). Table 10, below, identifies T&E and their federal and state status obtained from the above sources for the Southeastern NC Route. An explanation of the status categories is described at the end of the table. Since federally listed species are subject to the ESA, brief descriptions of federally‐listed species are provided following the table.

Table 10 – Federal and State Listed Threatened and Endangered Species – Western NC Route

Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status

VASCULAR PLANT SPECIES

Alabama least trillium Trillium pusillum var. ozarkanum FSC E

Appalachian filmy fern Trichomanes boschianum ‐‐ T

Barratt’s sedge Carex barrattii ‐‐ E

Bear oak Quercus ilicifolia ‐‐ T

Bent avens Geum geniculatum FSC T

Bigleaf scurfpea Orbexilum macrophyllum FSC E

Blue ridge goldenrod Solidago spithamaea T E

Bog rose Arethusa bulbosa ‐‐ E

Bunched arrowhead Sagittaria fasciculata E E

Cain’s reed grass Calamagrostiscainii FSC E

Divided‐leaf ragwort Packera millefolium FSC T

Dwarf filmy fern Trichomanes petersii ‐‐ T

Dwarf‐flowered heartleaf Hexastylis naniflora T T

Fraser’s loosestrife Lysimachia fraseri FSC E

French broad heartleaf Hexastylis rhombiformis FSC T

Georgia aster Symphyotrichum georgianum C T

Gorge filmy fern Hymenophyllum tayloriae FSC E

Heller’s blazing star Liatris helleri T T‐SC

Highland rush Juncus trifidus ‐‐ E

Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status

Large‐leaved grass‐of‐ Parnassia grandifolia FSC T parnassus

Littleleaf sneezeweed Helenium brevifolium ‐‐ E

Long‐stalked holly Ilex collina ‐‐ T

Michaux’s sumac Rhus michauxii E E‐SC

Mottled trillium Trillium discolor ‐‐ T

Mountain golden heather Hudsonia Montana T E

Mountain heartleaf Hexastylis contracta FSC E

Mountain sweet pitcher plant Sarracenia rubra ssp. jonesii E E‐SC

New Jersey Rush Juncus caesariensis FSC E

Piedmont quillwort Isoetes piedmontana ‐‐ T

Piratebush Buckleya distichophylla FSC E

Prairie dropseed Sporobolus heterolepis ‐‐ E

Queen‐of‐the‐prairie Filipendula rubra ‐‐ E

Radford’s sedge Carex radfordii FSC E

Robin runaway Dalibarda repens ‐‐ E

Rugel’s ragwort Rugelia nudicaulis FSC T

Schweinitz’s ragwort Packera schweinitziana ‐‐ E

Schweinitz’s sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii E E

Single‐flowered sandwort Minuartia uniflora ‐‐ E

Single‐sorus spleenwort Asplenium monanthes ‐‐ E

Small whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides T E

Smoky Mountain Mannagrass Glyceria nubigena FSC T

Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status

Smooth coneflower Echinacea laevigata E E‐SC

Spreading avens Geum radiatum E E‐SC

Swamp pink Helonias bullata T T‐SC

Sweet gale Myrica gale ‐‐ E

Virginia spiraea Spiraea virginiana T E

White fringeless orchid Platanthera integrilabia C E

White irisette Sisyrinchium dichotomum E E

Yellow fringeless orchid Platanthera integra ‐‐ T

NONVASCULAR PLANT SPECIES

A Liverwort Cheilolejeunea evansii ‐‐ E

A Liverwort Sphenolobopsis pearsonii FSC E

Ammons’s tortula Tortula ammonsiana ‐‐ E

Gorge moss Bryocrumia vivicolor FSC E

Highland’s moss Schlotheimia lancifolia ‐‐ T

Rock gnome lichen Gymnoderma lineare E T

Worthy shield lichen Canoparmelia amabilis FSC E

VERTEBRATE ANIMAL SPECIES

American brook lamprey Lampetra appendix ‐‐ T

American burying beetle Nicrophorus americanus E SR

Appalachian Bewick’s wren Thryomanes bewickii altus FSC E

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus BGPA T

Blackbanded darter Percina nigrofasciata ‐‐ T

Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status

Blotchside logperch Percina burtoni FSC E

Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii T (S/A) T

Carolina northern flying squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus E E

Eastern puma (cougar) Puma concolor couguar E E

Gray bat Myotis grisescens E E

Green salamander Aneides aeneus FSC E

Indiana bat Myotis sodalis E E

Log perch Percina caprodes ‐‐ T

Paddlefish Polyodon spathula FSC E

Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus ‐‐ E

Rafinesque’s big‐eared bat Corynorhinus rafinespuii FSC T (mountain species) rafinesquii

Robust redhorse Moxostoma robustum FSC E

Rosyface chub Hybopsis rubrifrons ‐‐ T

Sicklefin redhorse Moxostoma sp. 2 C T

Southern Appalachian northern Aegolius acadicus pop 1 FSC T saw‐whet owl

Spotfin chub Erimonax monachus T T

Spruce‐fir moss spider Microhexura montivaga E SR

Turquoise darter Etheostoma inscriptum ‐‐ T

Virginia big‐eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii E ‐‐

INVERTEBRATE ANIMAL SPECIES

Appalachian elktoe Alasmidonta raveneliana E E

Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status

Bennett’s Mill Cave Water Caecidotea Carolinensis Slater FSC E

Brook floater Alasmidonta varicosa FSC E

Carolina heelsplitter Lasmigona decorate E E

Carolina creekshell Villosa vaughaniana FSC E

Creeper Strophitus undulates ‐‐ T

Engraved covert Fumonelix orestes ‐‐ T

Slippershell mussel Alasmidonta raveneliana ‐‐ E

Smokey Mountain covert Inflectarius ferrissi ‐‐ T

Tan riffleshell Epioblasma florentina walkeri E EX

Tennessee clubshell Pleurobema oviorme FSC E

Tennessee heelpsplitter Lasmigona holstonia FSC E

Yellow lampmussel Lampsilis cariosa FSC E FSC‐Federal Species of Concern, E‐Endangered, T – Threatened, C – Candidate, T (S/A) – Threatened due to similarity of appearance BGPA: Bald and Gold Eagle Protection Act, EX – Extirpated, SR – Significantly Rare

Vascular Plants Blue ridge goldenrod – Federally Listed Threatened Blue ridge golden rod is a perennial herb growing from 4‐16 inches tall. Blue ridge goldenrod is a pioneer species, occurring on acidic soils (hummus or clay loams) and in areas where full sun is available.

Bunched arrowhead – Federally Listed Endangered Bunched arrowhead is an immersed, aquatic, perennial herb in the water‐ plantain family. Flowering and fruiting occurs from May to July. The habitat of bunched arrowhead is seepage areas with slight flow and no stagnancy. The soil within the seepage is usually sandy loam overtopped by a muck layer.

Dwarf‐flowered heartleaf – Federally Listed Threatened Dwarf‐flowered heartleaf is an evergreen, perennial herb in the birthwort family. The flowers, which appear in late March and early April, are borne near the

ground surface, often under leaf litter, and are brownish to greenish in color. The habitat of dwarf‐flowered heartleaf is open deciduous woods, along streambanks, often on Pacolet, Madison, or Musella soils.

Heller’s blazing star – Federally Listed Threatened Heller’s blazing star is a perennial herb that grows up to 16 inches tall. It is recognized by one or more, three to eight inch purple flowering spikes that bloom between July and September. Habitat for Heller’s blazing star occurs on high elevation rock outcrops in acidic soils.

Michaux’s sumac – Federally Listed Endangered Michaux's sumac is a densely hairy shrub with erect stems ranging from 1 to 3 feet in height. The plant flowers from April to June; its fruit, a dull red drupe, is produced in October and November. Michaux’s sumac grows in sandy or rocky open woods in association with basic soils. This plant survives best in areas where some form of disturbance has provided an open area.

Mountain golden heather – Federally Listed Threatened Mountain golden heather is a small shrub with needle like leaves. It typically grows in small clusters of approximately eight inches wide and six inches tall. Flowers in this species are yellow‐green in color, appear in June or July and have five blunt tipped petals. Mountain golden heather is a high elevation plant that can be found on rock outcrops.

Mountain sweet pitcher plant – Federally Listed Endangered Mountain sweet pitcher‐plant is a perennial herb in the pitcher‐plant family. The hollow, trumpet‐shaded leaves or pitchers are a waxy dull green with criss‐ crossing maroon‐purple veins. The habitat of mountain sweet pitcher‐plant is restricted to bogs and streamsides along the Blue Ridge Divide. Populations are usually found in level depressions associated with floodplains.

Schweinitz’s sunflower – Federally Listed Endangered Schweinitz’s sunflower is a perennial herb in the aster family that generally grows up to 1.5 meters (five feet) in height. The habitat of Schweinitz’s sunflower is open woods, roadsides, and powerline easements, often on basic soils with bare spots or a gravel component. The preferred sites are characterized by abundant sunlight and little competition in the herbaceous layer.

Small whorled pogonia – Federally Listed Threatened Small whorled pogonia is a perennial herb in the orchid family. The flower or occasionally two is borne at the top of the stem and is present from mid‐May to mid‐June if the plant flowers. The habitat of small whorled pogonia is open, dry, deciduous woods with acid soil where there is a high shrub or sapling density.

Smooth Coneflower – Federally Listed Endangered Smooth coneflower is a perennial herb that generally grows up to five feet (1.5 meters) in height. The habitat of smooth coneflower is open woods, cedar barrens, roadsides, clear‐cuts, dry limestone bluffs, and powerline ROW.

Spreading avens – Federally Listed Endangered Spreading avens is a tall perennial in the rose family. Flowers in this species are typically one inch across, yellow, and appear between June and September. Habitat for this species is shallow acidic soil on high altitude rock outcrops, steep slopes and taluses with full exposure to sun.

Swamp pink – Federally Listed Threatened Swamp‐pink is an evergreen, perennial herb in the lily family. It is in flower from March to May. The habitat of swamp‐pink is several different wetland habitat, including Atlantic white cedar swamps; Blue Ridge swamps; swampy forested wetlands which border small streams; meadows; and spring seepage areas.

Virginia spiraea – Federally Listed Threatened Virginia spiraea is a small shrub in the rose family. It is characterized by its short growth pattern, growing often in upright clumps not exceeding 5‐6 feet. Virginia spiraea is typically found in higher order (2nd or 3rd) streams in areas of high sediment deposition, though not areas of high erosion. Substrate in these areas is typically bedrock or large gravel.

White irisette – Federally Listed Endangered White irisette is a perennial herb in the iris family. The habitat of white irisette is clearings and the edges of upland woods where the canopy is thin and often where down‐slope runoff has removed much of the deep litter layer typically associated with these areas. The white irisette depends of disturbance to maintain the open quality of its habitat.

Nonvascular Plants

Rock gnome lichen – Federally Listed Endangered Rock gnome lichen is a squamulose lichen in the reindeer moss family. The habitat of rock gnome lichen is areas of high humidity, limited to vertical rock faces where seepage water from forest soils above cliffs flows at very wet time, generally occurs above an elevation of 5,000 feet (1,500 m).

Vertebrate Animal Species

American burying beetle – Federally Listed Endangered The American burying beetle is a large (up to 1.5 inch) beetle that feeds on carrion and buries carrion for its young. Habitat for the American burying beetle

is diverse, it has been found in oak pine woodland, oak hickory forests, and edge habitat. It is thought that reproductive habitat is the limiting factor for this species, though it is still being researched at this time.

Bog Turtle – Federally Listed Threatened The bog turtle is a small semi‐aquatic turtle, with a distinctive patch on each side of the head which can vary from yellow, orange to red depending on the population. The bog turtle is a habitat specialist and is most commonly found in bogs, swamps, and wet meadows that have slow and shallow streams with deep soft muck soils and tussock‐forming, early successional, herbaceous vegetation. Carolina northern flying squirrel – Federally Listed Endangered The Carolina northern flying squirrel is a small arboreal mammal that is primarily nocturnal. Habitat for the Carolina northern flying squirrel is northern hardwood forests that occur adjacent to spruce fir forests. Nesting trees for this species are almost exclusively yellow birch.

Gray bat – Federally Listed Endangered The gray bat is distinguished from other bat species by its uniform gray pellage that fades to a reddish chestnut brown following molting. The gray bat typically roosts in limestone karst caves, forming large colonies.

Indiana bat – Federally Listed Endangered The Indiana bat is a small (2 inches long, less than an ounce in weight, and a 9‐10 inch wingspan) flying mammal. It is migratory and can be found in 28 states. During the winter, this species utilizing caves in which to hibernate. In the summer they disperse and feed in a wide variety of habitat. Females form large maternity colonies beneath the bark of dead or dying trees typically along stream corridors.

Spotfin chub – Federally Listed Threatened The Spotfin chub is a small freshwater fish (chub or shiner, 9 centimeters in length). Habitat includes cool and warm, typically clear, large creeks or medium‐

sized rivers of moderate gradient, in upland and montane areas, generally in or near moderate and swift currents over gravel to bedrock, rarely over sand or silt.

Spruce‐fir moss spider – Federally Listed Endangered The Spruce‐fir moss spider is a small (2.5 ‐ 3.8 mm adult size) terrestrial spider ranging in color from light brown to a darker reddish brown. The Spruce‐fir moss spider lives in high‐elevation spruce‐fir forest communities on moist but well‐ drained moss mats growing on rocks and boulders in well‐shaded locations. It is known from conifer forests dominated by red spruce (Picea rubens) and Fraser Fir (Abies fraseri).

Virginia big‐eared bat – Federally Listed Endangered The Virginia big‐eared bat is a medium sized bat distinguished by large (greater than 1‐inch) ears that connect at the middle of the head. The Virginia big eared bat inhabits limestone karst caves year round that occur in oak‐hickory or maple‐ beech‐hemlock forests.

Invertebrate Animal Species

Appalachian elktoe – Federally Listed Endangered The Appalachian elktoe is a freshwater mussel found in gravelly substrate, often mixed with cobble and boulder, or in cracks in bedrock. Water depths typically have been shallow, and current velocities have varied from moderate to fast. The majority of the surviving occurrences appear to be small to extremely small (few live specimens per site) restricted to scattered pockets of suitable habitat. Despite intensive surveys no more than one to three specimens of the Appalachian elktoe have been found at most of the sites where it presently occurs in the Toe, Cane, North Toe, and South Toe Rivers, North Carolina.

Carolina heelsplitter – Federally Listed Endangered The Carolina heelsplitter is most often found in small to large streams with shaded banks in a variety of substrates. This mussel is known from two streams in the Yadkin‐Pee Dee basin in North Carolina, Goose Creek and Duck Creek in Union County.

Tan riffleshell – Federally Listed Endangered The Tan riffleshell is a rare freshwater mussel found in headwaters, riffles, and shoals in sand and gravel substrates, known from the Cumberland and Tennessee River systems. Populations also exist in Big South Fork Cumberland River in Tennessee and Kentucky and Indian Creek (tributary of the upper Clinch River) in Virginia. Additional populations may persist in the Hiwassee River, Polk County. Specimens were historically collected from the French Broad Creek in North Carolina.

A field assessment of the federally listed and state listed terrestrial species identified in Table 10 and their suitable habitat was conducted concurrently with the site reconnaissance. Habitat is present for four federally protected plant species ( blue ridge goldenrod, Michaux’s sumac, Schweinitz’s sunflower, and white irisette), whose preferred habitat is disturbed ROWs or forest edges with full sun, and two federally protected vertebrate species (American burying beetle and bald eagle) whose preferred habitat is edge habitats and near open water, respectively. No individuals of these species were observed.

CRITICAL HABITATS Critical habitats are designated by the US FWS for federally listed species that are known to occur in a specific habitat of a certain geographic area. These critical habitats may be protected or managed to further protect the listed species. The proposed FEP ROW does not encroach critical habitats, as discussed further below. As previously mentioned in Section 1.4.5 Biological Resources (Threatened and Endangered Species), the USFWS commented on the proposed project in two letters dated May 21 and June 1, 2010 stating that their records do not reveal that the proposed FEP extends through designated Critical Habitats.

Southeastern NC Route The US FWS designated the following critical habitats for the Piping plover located in counties traversed by the southeastern NC route of the FEP ROW: • Carteret County: The critical habitat area is within the Cape Lookout National Seashore. This area is south of and outside of the FEP study area. • Onslow County: The majority of the critical habitat area is privately owned, with the remainder falling within Hammocks Beach State Park. This area is south and west of and outside of the FEP study area. • Pender County: The critical habitat area is privately owned and extends 1.0 kilometer northeast of Topsail Inlet on Topsail Island to 0.53 km southwest of Rich Inlet on Figure Eight Island. This area is south of and outside of the FEP study area. This area is south of and outside of the FEP study area.

• New Hanover County: The critical habitat includes areas within Myrtle Grove Sound on Masonboro Island, the North Carolina National Estuarine Research Reserve, and privately owned land. These areas are south of and outside of the FEP study area.

Western NC Route The US FWS designated the following critical habitat for the Appalachian elktoe located in counties composed of the FEP ROW:

• Transylvania County: The main stem of the Little River from Cascade Lake Power Plant to its confluence with the French Broad River. This area is south of and outside of the FEP study area. • Jackson County: The main stem of the Tuckasegee River from SR 1002 bridge in Cullowhee downstream to the NC Highway 19 Bridge in Swain County, North Carolina. This area is south and west of and outside of the FEP study area. • Haywood County: o The main stem of the West Fork Pigeon River from the confluence of the Little East Fork Pigeon River to the confluence of the East Fork Pigeon River. This area is south of and outside of the FEP study area. o The main stem of the Pigeon River from the confluence of the West Fork Pigeon River and the East Fork Pigeon River to the NC Highway 215 Bridge, south of Canton, North Carolina.

The Spruce‐fir moss spider has critical habitat designations in Haywood and Caldwell Counties, south and north, respectively, outside of the FEP study area. The Mountain golden heather has a critical habitat designation in Burke County, northwest and outside of the proposed FEP ROW.

WETLANDS The potential for the presence of jurisdictional wetlands along the FEP ROW was assessed in accordance with the United States Army Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual, which states that wetlands possess three essential characteristics: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. Both routes were preliminarily assessed through database review for the presence of hydric soils. During the field reconnaissance, the three‐parameter analysis was implemented for assessment of potential areas of concern. Details per route are provided as follows.

Southeastern NC Route Within the southeastern NC route, there are 31 soil map units classified as hydric, including (USDA 1995):

• Arapahoe fine sandy loam (Ap), • Bibb loam, frequently flooded (BB), • Bladen fine sandy loam (Bd), • Byars loam (By), • Coxville fine sandy loam (Co), • Croatan muck (Ct), • Dorovan muck, frequently flooded (DO), • Grantham silt loam (Gr), • Johnston loam, frequently flooded (JS),

• Johnston soils (JO), • Leaf silt loam (La) • Leon fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes (LnA), • Leon sand (Ln) • Longshoal muck, very frequently flooded (LF), • Lumbee sandy loam (Lu), • Masontown mucky fine sandy loam and Muckalee sandy loam, frequently flooded (MM), • Masontown mucky loam, frequently flooded (MA), • Meggett sandy loam (Me), • Muckalee loam (Mk), • Murville mucky sand (Mu), • Osier loamy sand (Os ), • Pantego fine sandy loam (Pa), • Pantego loam (Pg), • Portsmouth loam (Po), • Rains fine sandy loam (Ra), • Roanoke silt loam (Ro), • Tomotley fine sandy loam (Tt), • Torhunta mucky fine sandy loam (To), • Tuckerman fine sandy loam (Tu), • Wilbanks silt loam (Wk), and • Woodington loamy fine sand (Wo).

During the site reconnaissance, 39 jurisdictional riparian wetlands (37 forested, two emergent) were present along the FEP ROW. Forested wetlands were dominated by tulip poplar, red maple, water oak (Quercus nigra), willow oak (Q. phellos), bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), American elder , (Sambucus canadensis) black willow (Salix nigra), and river birch (Betula nigra). Dominant sub‐canopy vegetation included silky dogwood (Cornus amomum), tag alder (Alnus serrulata), black willow, Chinese privet, wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), and Virginia willow (Itea virginica). Herbaceous vegetation consist of jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), greenbrier (Smilax sp.), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), leathery rush (Juncus coriaceus) and poison ivy, golden bamboo (Phyllostachys aurea), and sedges (Carex spp.). Emergent wetlands were dominated with fescue, cattails (Typha sp.), sedge, and soft rush (Juncus effusus).

Western NC Route Within the western NC route, five soil map units classified as hydric include (USDA 1995):

• Hatboro loam (Ha), • Nikwasi fine sandy loam, zero to two percent slopes, frequently flooded (NkA),

• Toxaway loam, zero to two percent slopes, frequently flooded (Tn), • Toxaway silt loam (To), and • Wedhadkee loam, frequently flooded (Wk).

During the site reconnaissance, eight jurisdictional riparian wetlands (seven forested, one emergent) were present within the limits of the ROW. The forested wetlands were densely vegetated with black willow, tulip tree, cherry (Prunus serotina), sweet gum, soft rush, blackberry, and multiflora rose. The emergent wetland was located in maintained residential lawn and was vegetated primarily with fescue and soft rush.

ECOREGIONS

Southeastern NC Route The southeastern NC route is composed of two Level III ecoregions: Middle Atlantic Coastal and Southeastern Plains (USEPA 2002). The Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain ecoregion is further classified by seven Level IV sub‐ecoregions, of which the FEP extends through the following five:

• Nonriverine Swamps and Peatlands – characterized by flat, poorly drained areas containing organic soils of peat and muck. The dark reddish‐brown to black soils, acidic and nutrient‐poor, often contain logs, stumps, and other woody matter from bald cypress and Atlantic white cedar trees. Pocosin lakes occur in some areas. The vegetation of the high and low pocosins contains a dense shrub layer, along with stunted pond pine, swamp red bay, and sweet bay. Swamp forests are dominated by swamp tupelo, bald cypress, and Atlantic white cedar. Fire during drought periods, logging, and construction of drainage ditches has affected natural vegetation patterns. Several areas of mineral and shallow organic soils have been drained and cultivated for crops of corn, soybeans, and wheat (USEPA 2002).

• Mid‐Atlantic Flatwoods – characterized by lower gradient streams and swamps on flat plains of marine terraces. This sub‐ecoregion is dominated by longleaf pine stands and pond pine forests with some oak‐ hickory and mixed forests. Extensive ditching networks have resulted in loblolly and longleaf pine plantations along with agricultural crops of corn, soybeans, and tobacco (USEPA 2002).

• Carolinian Barrier Islands and Coastal Marshes – characterized by dunes, beaches, barrier islands, and marshes, it covers most of the North Carolina coast. The maritime forests include live oak, laurel oak, loblolly pine, red cedar, yaupon holly, wax myrtle, dwarf palmetto, with cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto) in the south. Pamlico Sound is a shallow estuary supporting an important nursery for 90 percent of all the commercial

seafood species caught in North Carolina, as well as vast recreational fisheries (USEPA 2002).

• Carolina Flatwoods – characterized by lower gradient streams and swamps (Carolina bays) on flat plains of marine terraces. This sub‐ ecoregion is dominated by longleaf pine stands and pond pine forests with some oak‐hickory and mixed forests. Compared to Mid‐Atlantic flatwoods, Carolina Flatwoods have a larger occurrence of forested wetlands and blueberry farms (USEPA 2002).

• Mid‐Atlantic Floodplains and Low Terraces – characterized by flat, poorly drained areas containing organic soils of peat and muck. The dark reddish‐brown to black soils, acidic and nutrient‐poor, often contain logs, stumps, and other woody matter from bald cypress and Atlantic white cedar trees. Pocosin lakes occur in some areas. The vegetation of the high and low pocosins contains a dense shrub layer, along with stunted pond pine, swamp red bay, and sweet bay. Swamp forests are dominated by swamp tupelo, bald cypress, and Atlantic white cedar. Fire during drought periods, logging, and construction of drainage ditches has affected natural vegetation patterns. Several areas of mineral and shallow organic soils have been drained and cultivated for crops of corn, soybeans, and wheat (USEPA 2002).

The Southeastern Plains ecoregion is further classified into four sub‐ecoregions, of which the FEP extends through only the Rolling Coastal Plain.

• Rolling Coastal Plain – characterized by broad interstream divides with gentle to steep side slopes dissected by numerous small, low to moderate gradient streams. Forested areas are dominated by longleaf pine, loblolly pine, with mixed hardwood forests. It is an important agricultural area for poultry and hogs along with cropland species of cotton, soybeans, corn, wheat, sweet potatoes, peanuts, and tobacco (USEPA 2002).

Western NC Route The western NC route is composed of two Level III ecoregions: Blue Ridge and Piedmont (USEPA 2002). The Blue Ridge ecoregion is further classified by nine Level IV sub‐ ecoregions, of which the FEP extends through the following two:

• Broad Basins – characterized by drier, lower elevation rolling hills that are vegetated with mixed oak and pine tree species including shorleaf pine, Virginia pine, white oak, southern red oak, black oak and scarlet oak. Compared to the other sub‐ecoregions of the Blue Ridge, the Broad Basin

is more suitable for agriculture and residential, commercial, and industrial development (USEPA 2002).

• Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountains – characterized by higher elevations ranging from 1,200 to 4,500 feet and steep topography, this sub‐ecoregion is dominated by chestnut oak on slopes and ridges. Apple orchards, pasture and crop land, and Christmas tree farms also thrive in this sub‐ecoregion (USEPA 2002).

The Piedmont ecoregion is further classified into seven sub‐ecoregions, of which the FEP extends through the following three:

• Southern Inner Piedmont – is characterized as a transitional region from the Blue Ridge ecoregion ranging from rolling to hilly terrain. The sub‐ ecoregion is primarily vegetated with oak‐pin and oak‐hickory forests with pastureland (USEPA 2002).

• Southern Outer Piedmont – is characterized as a lower elevated, more level region than the Southern Inner Piedmont. Forested areas are dominated by shortleaf and loblolly pines with mixed oak forests (USEPA 2002).

• Northern Inner Piedmont – is characterized by higher elevations and more rugged terrain than other sub‐ecoregions of the Piedmont. This sub‐ecoregion also differs from others in the Piedmont due to its short growing season, colder temperatures, and higher snow fall (USEPA 2002).

FISHERY RESOURCES The proposed FEP ROW extends through fishery resources which inhabits anadromous fish and provides primary spawning areas. As discussed below, NC DWQ implements and enforces North Carolina Riparian Buffer Rules along sensitive aquatic systems to protect water quality from non‐point source pollution associated with activities including agriculture, development, and forestry. In addition, the NC WRC regulates and manages fishing by requiring permits, restocking rivers and lakes, setting catch and size limits or implementing catch and release programs.

Southeastern NC Route The Neuse and Tar Rivers are two major river systems located in the southeastern NC route and both flow to Pamlico Sound, which is a shallow estuary supporting an important nursery for 90 percent of the commercial seafood species caught in North Carolina, as well as recreational fisheries (NC DWQ 2004).

To help protect the commercial seafood and recreational fisheries, a 50‐foot wide riparian buffer adjacent to surface waters such as intermittent and perennial streams,

lakes, ponds, and estuaries, excluding wetlands, are regulated by the NC DWQ within the Neuse and Tar‐Pamlico River basins. Ephemeral (stormwater) streams, man‐made ditches and conveyances other than modified natural streams, and man‐made ponds and lakes are not subject to the riparian buffer regulations.

Western NC Route As discussed in Section 1.4.5 Biological Resources (Wildlife), the western NC route extends through areas of hatchery‐supported and native trout streams that provide popular fishing opportunities. Trout waters are managed and regulated by NC WRC, the National Park Service or the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians.

Ten counties (Caldwell, Burke, McDowell, Buncombe, Haywood, Rutherford, Jackson, Henderson, Transylvania, and Polk) in the western NC route are classified as Trout Counties. These counties contain streams and rivers classified by the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (NC EMC) and the NC WRC as Trout Waters. Trout waters are defined by the NC EMC as “waters which have conditions which shall sustain and allow for trout propagation and survival of stocked trout on a year‐round basis” (NC EMC 2009). These streams also include their named and unnamed tributaries.

Under the Division of Land Resources (DLR) Sedimentation Pollution Act of 1973, a minimum 25‐foot vegetative, undisturbed buffer exists along Trout Waters to help protect water quality for trout vitality. The proposed western NC route of the FEP does not encroach within these protective buffers outside of the existing ROW.

The main stem of the Catawba River and its seven main stem lakes from Lake James to Lake Wylie near the South Carolina border are subject to the NC DWQ Catawba Riparian Buffer Protection Rule which implements a two zone, 50‐foot buffer to protect the surfaces water of the Catawba River and its lakes. Surface waters subject to these buffers located within the western NC route are Lake Hickory, Lake Norman, and the main stem of the Catawba River. Exemptions to these buffer rules are footprints of existing uses, such as a ROW.

1.4.6 Historic and Cultural Resources As stated previously, the FEP will be installed in existing ROW that has been previously disturbed and is continuously maintained land. Although work will be completed and contained in the ROW, the route was designed to avoid disturbance near historic and cultural resources including archaeological and architectural resources, native resources, tribal lands, and cemeteries.

The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians of North Carolina is the only federally‐recognized Native American tribe in North Carolina (BIA, 2009). The FEP is located south of their tribal land or native resources within western North Carolina. During the scoping process of this EA, numerous telephone calls and a written scoping letter was mailed on

May 25, 2010 to the THPO of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians of North Carolina Nation to obtain their comments regarding the proposed project (Appendix III). On July 1, 2010, Mr. Tyler Howe responded indicating that the proposed FEP will not result in new ground disturbance that might adversely affect sites eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

On May 13, 2010, S&ME initiated the scoping process through the North Carolina SCH to obtain comments from appropriate state agencies, including the SHPO. SHPO responded on June 7, 2010 stating that, although their records indicate several properties of historic and architectural significance within the areas of potential affect, the proposed FEP is expected to have minimal affects on nearby historic properties since it is confined to existing ROWs (Appendix III). SHPO further stated that no known archaeological sites are known to be present within the proposed FEP study area. SHPO has determined an archaeology survey will not be necessary.

As discussed below, the FEP will extend through historic downtown districts and pass historic structures. Prior to construction of the FEP, proper approval and agreements will be obtained from the local historic district committees.

Southeastern NC Route The ROW along the southeastern NC route traverses through the six historic downtown districts (NRHP, 2010). Historic districts located within 50‐feet of either side of the FEP ROW include:

• Rocky Mount to Greenville: Swansboro Historic District • Greenville to Morehead City: Greenville Commercial Historic District, East Wilson Historic District, Rocky Mount Central City Historic District • Skinnersville‐Greenville Heights Historic District • Woodward Family Rural Historic District

In addition, historic structures located within 50‐feet of either side of the FEP ROW include (NRHP 2010):

• Rocky Mount to Greenville: William Edward Mattocks House • Morehead City to Jacksonville: E.B. Flickan House and Jesse R. Moye House • Jacksonville to Wilmington: Poplar Grove Historic Home

Western NC Route The FEP ROW along the western NC route traverses through the 10 historic downtown districts (NRHP 2010). Historic districts located within 50‐feet of either side of the FEP ROW include.

• Lenoir to Hickory: Kenworth Historic District and its boundary expansion • Old Fort to Asheville: Black Mountain Downtown Historic District and Downtown Asheville Historic District • Enka/Candler to Syva: Canton Main Street Historic District, Frog Level Historic District, and Waynesville Main Street Historic District • Cashiers to Rutherfordton: Main Street Historic District and Saluda Main Street Historic District • Rutherfordton to Huntersville: Central Shelby Historic District and its expanded boundary and East Marion‐Belvedere Park Historic District

In addition, historic structures located within 50‐feet of either side of the FEP ROW include (NRHP 2010):

• Old Fort to Asheville: Monte Vista Hotel and Zealandia • Enka/Candler to Sylva: Frank Smathers House • Cashiers to Rutherfordton: Godfrey‐Barnette House, Grey Hosiery Mill, Mill Farm Inn, and Railway Clerks’ Mountain Home • Rutherforton to Huntersville: The Bankers House and Tuckers Grove Camp Meeting Ground

1.4.7 Aesthetic and Visual Resources

NATURAL FEATURES (WATER BODIES, VEGETATION) Natural Features, including water bodies and vegetation, designated by the NC NHP as Significant Natural Heritage Areas are discussed in Protected Areas, further below.

Southeastern NC Route The southeastern FEP contains four unique natural feature areas. They include the Swansboro White Oak River, New Bern Trent River, Vanceboro Swift Creek and NC‐24 Bogue Sound. These areas exhibited large waterways with pleasant sights, sounds, and aromas from these waterways and their natural residents.

Western NC Route The following natural features are located adjacent to the western NC route: Lake Junaluska, Fairfield Lake, Sapphire Lake (Photo 10), Lake Toxaway, Kings Mountain Reservoir, and Lake Norman. These open water features provide pleasing sights and sounds.

ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES In addition to the architectural features discussed below, Section 1.4.6 Historic and Cultural Resources identified historic districts through which the proposed FEP extends. The quaint and simple atmosphere of these historic districts is found by most to be aesthetically pleasing.

Southeastern NC Route As discussed in Section 1.4.6, architectural features present along the FEP ROW that provide pleasing aesthetics are as follows:

• Rocky Mount to Greenville: William Edward Mattocks House • Morehead City to Jacksonville: E.B. Flickan House and Jesse R. Moye House • Jacksonville to Wilmington: Poplar Grove Historic Home

Western NC Route As discussed in Section 1.4.6, architectural features present along the FEP ROW that provide pleasing aesthetics are as follows:

PROTECTED AREAS (NATIONAL AND STATE PARKS)

Southeastern NC Route The southeastern NC route extends through the Croatan National Forest and Game Land which is composed of 159,885 acres of coastal land between the towns of New Bern and Morehead City and is bordered by the Neuse River, Bogue Sound, and White Oak River. Much of the forest consists of pine forests, salt estuaries, bogs, and pocosins. The proposed FEP project will not encroach upon undisturbed portions of the forest.

The southeastern NC route crosses or parallels areas designated as Significant Natural Heritage Areas (NCNHP 2010). These areas and corresponding figure located in Appendix I include:

• Lower Tar River Aquatic Habitat (Figures A09 and B01) • Neuse River Floodplains and Bluffs (Figure B06) • Trent River/Brice Creek Marshes (Figure B08), Riverdale Goldenrod Roadsides (Figure B09) • Havelock Station Flatwoods and Powerline (Figure B11) • Masontown Pocosin (Figure B11) • Hibbs Road Pine Ridges (Figure B12) • Patsey Pond Limesink Complex (Figure C02) • Bogue Inlet/Bogue Sound Bird Nesting Island (Figure C04) • Queens Creek Tidal Marshes (Figure C05)

• Camp Lejeune Pocosin Road Flatwoods (Figure C06) • New River Swamps and Marshes (Figure D01) • Camp Lejeune Great Sandy Run Pocosin (Figure D03) • Camp Lejeune Dixon Pine Savanna (Figure D03) • Folkstone Savannas (Figure D04)

Western NC Route The western NC route extends through the Pisgah and Nantahala National Forests. Pisgah is composed of 512,670 acres of mountainous terrain within the Blue Ridge and Great Balsam Mountains of the Appalachian Mountain range, encircling the towns of Brevard and Asheville and the French Broad River valley.

The Nantahala National Forest is composed o 531,212 acres of mountains and valleys in the far western portion of the state. Numerous waterfalls are present. The proposed FEP project will not encroach upon undisturbed portions of these forests.

The western NC route crosses or parallels areas designated as Significant Natural Heritage Areas (NCNHP 2010). These areas and corresponding figure located in Appendix I include:

• Little Gunpowder Creek Rare Plant Site (Figure E02) • Pigeon River Aquatic Habitat (Figure G03) • Balsam Gap Natural Area (G05 and G06) • Willits Hornblende Slope Natural Area (Figure G06) • Beta Wetland (G07) • Horsepasture River Bog and Dillard Canyon and Cliffs (Figure H01) • Toxaway River Gorge and Savannah River Headwater Aquatic Habitat (Figure H02) • West Fork French Broad River Aquatic Habitat (Figure H03) • Catheys Creek Aquatic Habitat (Figure H04) • Costa Bog (Figure H06) • East Flat Rock Bog Remnant (Figure H09) • Cedar Cliff/Warrior Mountain (Figure H10) • Rhyne Conversation Preserve (Figure I07) • Beth Haven Church Road Forest (Figure I09) • Little Egypt Woods (Figure I10)

1.4.8 Land Use

LOCAL ZONING/LOCAL MASTER PLANS As discussed in Section 1.4.6 ‐ Historic and Cultural Resources, the proposed FEP will traverse historic downtown districts in both the southeastern and western NC routes. Activities are regulated and discussions regarding the implementation of the proposed

FEP plans in these areas are ongoing with the appropriate local historic district committees. The local historic district committees have been working with FEP design team to coordinate acceptable plans that will not compromise the historic integrity of the districts. These plans include implementation of improvements to sidewalks, including much needed handicap‐accessible ramps at intersections and at store fronts. Approval with the local historic district committee will be obtained prior to disturbance. The FEP is not in conflict with local land use plans, and it is not expected to alter land uses in or near the FEP ROW.

The southeastern NC route extends through five counties designated by DCM as coastal zone counties and development within these counties is under the jurisdiction of DCM and is subject to CAMA regulations. Land use and coastal zone counties are discussed further, below.

Southeastern NC Route The Rocky Mount to Greenville segment traverses Rocky Mount, Sharpsburg, Elm City, Wilson, and Greenville. Land use in this segment is three urbanized areas and small rural towns, each with a community‐supporting industry, between the urbanized cities. Land uses between the towns consist of undeveloped forests, lakes, and farming establishments. Remains of former industry are located in downtown Wilson.

The Greenville to Morehead City segment traverses Greenville, Winterville, Ayden, Vanceboro, Emul, New Bern, James City, Havelock, Newport, and Morehead City. Land use in this segment is four urbanized areas and small rural towns, each with a community‐supporting industry, between the urbanized cities. Land uses between the towns consist of Croatan National Forest and other undeveloped forests, waterways, agriculture, and marine businesses. Historic areas are present in New Bern and its surrounding communities. Havelock is home to Cherry Point Naval Air Station and its supporting industries. This segment traverses two coastal zone counties (Craven and Carteret).

The Morehead City to Jacksonville segment traverses through Morehead City, Bogue, Cape Carteret, Swansboro, Hubert, and Jacksonville. Land use in this segment is primarily small rural towns each with a community‐supporting industry along with the two urbanized terminus areas. Land uses between the towns consist of undeveloped forests, estuaries, recreation facilities, and tourist resorts. An active historic downtown area exists in Swansboro along the White Oak River with restaurants, other retail and small businesses. Jacksonville is home to Camp Lejeune, the largest U.S. Marine base. This segment traverses two coastal zone counties (Carteret and Onslow).

The Jacksonville to Wilmington segment traverses through Jacksonville, Sneads Ferry, Holly Ridge, Surf City, Hampstead, Kirkland, and Wilmington. Land use in this segment is primarily small rural towns each with a community‐supporting industry along with the two urbanized terminus areas. Land uses between the urbanized areas consist of

undeveloped forests, estuaries, golf courses, recreation facilities, and tourist resorts. Three counties, Onslow, New Hanover and Pender, are coastal zone counties.

Western NC Route The Lenoir to Hickory segment traverses Lenoir, Hudson, and Hickory. This segment is urbanized with dense development of residential, institutional, commercial, and industrial uses. Remains of former industry are located in downtown Hickory.

The Old Fort to Asheville segment traverses small towns of Old Fort, Black Mountain, and Swannanoa. Land use in these areas is rural with quaint downtown areas. The segment ends in Asheville which consists of dense urban development of commercial, retail, residential, and institutional with minimal industrial operations. A portion of the proposed FEP ROW extends along a greenway from Black Mountain to Old Fort where vehicular access is restricted.

The Enka/Candler to Sylva segment traverses through Enka, Candler, Canton, Clyde, Lake Junaluska, Waynesville, Hazelwood, and Sylva. Land use in this segment is primarily small rural towns each with a community‐supporting industry. Land uses between the towns consist of undeveloped forests, lakes, golf courses, recreation facilities, and tourist resorts.

The Cashiers to Rutherfordton segment extends through the towns of Cashiers, Lake Toxaway, Cherryfield, Brevard, Penrose, Etowah, Horseshoe, Brightwater, Hendersonville, East Flat Rock, Saluda, Valhalla, Columbus, Beulah, Alexander Mills, and Rutherfordton. The towns of Brevard and Hendersonville are larger populated towns with downtown districts and dense development compared to the remainder of the segment. Primarily, land use in this segment is rural with small towns located within the Pisgah and Nantahala National Forests. This segment is provides popular recreational opportunities due to extensive number of waterfalls and golf courses and hiking, hunting, and fishing areas.

The Rutherford to Huntersville segment extends through the towns of Rutherfordton, Mooresboro, Swainsville, Shelby, Stubbs, Waco, Cherryville, Crouse, Roseland, Lincolnton, Boger City, Hicks Crossroads, and Huntersville. Land use along this segment consists of larger towns (Rutherfordton, Shelby, Lincolnton, and Huntersville) with dense commercial, retail, and residential development. In between these larger towns, land use is rural with undeveloped woods and agricultural fields.

The Mocksville segment extends through a small portion of western Mocksville and is rural. Land use consists of residential, agricultural fields and churches.

COASTAL ZONE LAND USE

Southeastern NC Route The proposed FEP spans through five counties classified as coastal zone by the NCDCM per the CAMA. These counties include Craven, Carteret, Onslow, Pender, and New Hanover.

Western NC Route The western NC route does not extend into coastal zones.

FARMLANDS

Southeastern NC Route The southeastern FEP is located in several of North Carolina’s agricultural counties. The counties involved with this project include Nash, Wilson, Greene, Pitt, Craven, Carteret, Onslow, Pender, and New Hanover. Support for these counties’ farming operations is provided by North Carolina Cooperative Extension (CES). It is based at North Carolina’s two land‐grant institutions, NC State University and NC A&T State University, in North Carolina’s 100 counties and the Cherokee Reservation.

The southeastern FEP is located in region known for very fertile soils, which contributes to crop and animal agriculture sectors. According to the NC Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, North Carolina ranked in the most recent US survey (2008) first in tobacco and sweet potatoes and second in hogs and turkeys. Large investments into these four markets are conducted in the counties involved with this southeastern FEP. Other significant crops located in the southeastern FEP include corn, soybeans, cotton, strawberries, peanuts, blueberries, landscape plants, and chicken products.

Western NC Route The western NC route traverses through few and scattered farmlands.

FOREST SERVICE LANDS

Southeastern NC Route As discussed in Section 1.4.7 Aesthetics and Visual Resources (Protected Areas and State Parks), the southeastern NC route traverses through the Croatan National Forest and Croatan Game Land which are managed and protected by the USFS.

Western NC Route As discussed in Section 1.4.7 Aesthetics and Visual Resources (Protected Areas and State Parks), the western NC route traverses through Pisgah and Nantahala National Forests and associated Game Lands which are managed and protected by the USFS. In addition, a portion of the Asheville to Old Fort segment is along a vehicle‐restricted greenway maintained by the USFS (Photo 11).

OTHER LAND USES

Southeastern NC Route Within the southeastern NC route, the FEP ROW is adjacent to the following United States Military Bases:

• Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station located in the Greenville to Morehead City segment is a U.S. military jet base on approximately 29,000 acres in size. The base also provides housing and services for marines, sailors, civilians and their families. The air station has been in operation since 1942 and on‐site facilities include residential dwellings, churches, child development programs, and a veterinarian.

• Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base located in the Morehead City to Jacksonville segment spans across 156,000 acres and 11 miles of coast. The population of the base and surrounding community is approximately 170,000 marines and civilians. The base was established in 1941 and consists of residential units, retail stores, banks, fitness centers, and movie theatres. The base operates its own water treatment facility and landfill.

Western NC Route No other land uses were observed within the western NC route.

1.4.9 Infrastructure Prior to land disturbance, existing utilities will be identified, marked, and avoided to the maximum extent practical. If relocation of utilities, including water lines, will be necessary for construction of the proposed FEP, then a utility relocation plan will be submitted to the appropriate local water service provider for review and approval.

Southeastern NC Route Since the FEP will be constructed in existing ROW, the project has convenient and efficient access to the availability of waste disposal, emergency services, and highways and roads. In addition, utilities, including natural gas, sanitary sewer, existing fiber optics, and electricity are also within or adjacent to ROW along the FEP.

Western NC Route Since the FEP will be constructed in existing ROW, the project has convenient and efficient access to the availability of waste disposal, emergency services, and highways and roads. In addition, utilities, including natural gas, water lines, sanitary sewer, existing fiber optics, and electricity are also within or adjacent to ROW along the FEP.

1.4.10 Socioeconomic Resources

Southeastern NC Route The demographics of counties traversed by the southeastern NC route are outlined in Table 11, below.

Table 11 – Demographics – Southeastern NC Route

Race Percentage Population Number of Median (percentage) below the County (based on 2000 households Income poverty level census) (as of 2000) (as of 2008) White Black (as of 2008)

Nash 87,385 60.7 37.2 33,644 44,719 15.5

Wilson 73,814 58.9 39.4 28,613 39,285 21.0

Greene 18,974 58.2 40.6 6,696 38,530 21.7

Pitt 133,702 63.9 33.5 52,539 40,742 22.0

Craven 91,523 72.7 23.8 34,582 45,747 14.9

Carteret 59,360 90.1 7.4 25,204 49,443 11.8

Onslow 150,348 76.8 17.4 48,122 46,186 14.8

Pender 41,056 79.0 19.2 16,054 42,872 14.8

New Hanover 160,330 81.7 15.6 68,183 51,098 14.0 Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Western NC Route The demographics of counties traversed by the western NC route are outlined in Table 12, below.

Table 12 – Demographics – Western NC Route

Race Percentage Population Number of Median (percentage) below the County (based on 2000 households Income poverty level census) (as of 2000) (as of 2008) White Black (as of 2008)

Davie 34.835 91.4 6.9 13,750 52,408 10.8

Caldwell 77,382 93 5.4 30,768 40,966 15.4

Catawba 141,682 87.3 8.5 55,533 43,737 13.8

Burke 89,153 88.4 6.7 34,528 37,225 15.5

McDowell 42,139 93.7 4.0 16,604 37,394 14.6

Buncombe 206,270 90.1 7.2 85,776 43,805 13.9

Haywood 54,033 96.9 1.5 23,100 39,042 14.5

Jackson 33,124 84.9 2.4 13,191 41,506 16.9

Transylvania 29,297 93.1 4.8 12,230 42,608 12.4

Henderson 89,225 94.5 3.3 37,414 46,047 12.7

Polk 18,324 93.3 5.5 7,908 44,362 12.3

Rutherford 62,903 87.3 11.0 25,191 36,866 16.8

Cleveland 96,165 77.5 20.8 37,046 39,049 17.5

Gaston 190,436 82.4 15.2 73,936 46,265 15.1

Mecklenburg 695,378 64.4 29.6 273,416 57,293 10.9

Lincoln 63,783 91.8 6.7 24,041 49,743 12.4 Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Portions of the western NC route extend through homeless, lower income, and minority communities in the towns of Sylva, Waynesville, Shelby, and Hickory.

1.4.11 Human Health and Safety To be in compliance with NCDOT guidelines currently in effect to protect human health and safety, construction crews will adhere to NCDOT traffic safety guidelines as described in NCDOT Procedure 1101.02 during implementation of the FEP and operate

within normal daytime working hours. Sources contributing to the adverse affects of human health and safety along the proposed FEP ROW, including hazardous waste sites, were included among the elements to be observed during the site reconnaissance. A database search of the EPA Enviromapper for Envirofacts, in addition to the site reconnaissance, was conducted along the proposed FEP ROW for the presence of potentially hazardous waste sites, including National Priority Lists (NPL) sites, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) sites, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) sites, Toxic Substances Contact Act (TSCA) sites, and brownfield sites that may adversely affect the human health and safety in these areas.

The database search, as well as the site reconnaissance, revealed the presence of numerous automobile repair shops and gas stations identified as RCRA facilities. These facilities may have resulted in areas of soil or groundwater contamination from petroleum products, though not likely within the FEP ROW.

Southeastern NC Route Review of the EPA Enviromapper website revealed the following sites in the vicinity of the proposed FEP study area of the southeastern NC route:

NPL Sites: • Cherry Point Marine Air Station, Roosevelt Boulevard and Slocum Road, Havelock, NC is an active military facility operating since 1942. Past waste disposal and storage methods have caused groundwater and surface and subsurface soil contamination. Active cleanup is on‐going.

• US Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, PSC Box 20004 Building 1 Camp Lejeune, NC is an active military base that is primarily industrial but also provides recreational, residential, and commercial opportunities. Site operations since 1942 has caused contaminated soil, sediment, surface water, and groundwater. Cleanup activities are on‐going.

• ABC One‐hour Cleaners 2127 Lejeune Boulevard, Jacksonville, NC is a dry cleaning facility established in 1954. Long term operations at this facility has caused soil and groundwater contamination of chlorinated solvents and chemical residuals. Groundwater and soil treatment are on‐going.

Brownfields: • Sturgeon City Project / City of Jacksonville, 4 Court Street, Jacksonville, NC.

CERCLIS: • Weyerhaeuser Mercury Spill, 1785 Weyerhaeuser Road, Vanceboro, NC

Western NC Route Review of the EPA Enviromapper website revealed the following sites in the vicinity of the proposed FEP study area of the Western NC route:

NPL Sites: • Barber Orchard, US Highway 70, Waynesville, NC is an orchard in operation since 1908. Use of insecticides and herbicides contaminated soil and groundwater in the area. Portions of the orchard have been developed with a residential subdivision. These residences requested testing of the groundwater. The results of the testing determined groundwater contamination which initiated the NPL status.

• General Electric Lighting Systems, Inc./Shepherd Farm, 3010 Spartanburg Highway, Hendersonville, NC at Bat Fork Creek. Continuous, long‐term storage of hazardous waste has contaminated soil and groundwater in the area. The proposed FEP crosses Bat Fork Creek where a groundwater monitoring well was observed (Photo 12).

Brownfields: • Baxter Oil, 619 Spartanburg Highway, Hendersonville, NC • Historic Cotton Mill, 200 King Street, North, Hendersonville, NC • Swannacoa Plasmisano Property, 2151 US Highway 70, Swannanoa, NC

CERCLIS • Beacon Blankets, 202 Whitson Avenue, Swannanoa, NC

1.5 CHAPTER 4 – ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES This section compares direct and indirect environmental impacts (both positive and negative) to resource categories identified in Chapter 3 (Section 1.4) between the Proposed Alternative (buired in conduit) and Alternative 1 (no action), Alternative 2 (direct burial), and Alternative 3 (aerial construction). These alternatives were discussed in Chapter 2. The proposed project will provide and improve broadband and advanced networking technologies and systems to existing unserved and underserved rural communities. The addition of these communication improvements may result in some indirect and cumulative effects due to the potential for the following:

• Increases in student body populations at schools, universities, and colleges serviced by the proposed FEP, • Revitalization of local economy, bringing industry and other jobs to communities serviced by the proposed FEP, and • Increases in population and residential, commercial, and retail development as a consequence of economic revitalization.

However, in contrast to new service from the installation of water and wastewater service lines, the construction of the FEP would likely result in a much smaller stimulus for new development. Accordingly, negative environmental effects due to the indirect and cumulative impacts associated with the FEP will likely be insignificant.

Due to the general similarity of anticipated environmental consequences for the southeastern NC route and the western NC route, discussion of impacts to resource categories included in Section 1.4, Chapter 3, are not addressed separately.

1.5.1 Noise The Proposed Alternative (buried in conduit) would result in temporary direct increases in noise during construction due to the operation of equipment, boring under natural features, installing the fiber cable along bridges, demolishing sidewalks and other pavement, and constructing pull boxes. However, the noise will be minimal and will generally blend in with existing traffic noise typical of the majority of the FEP ROW. There are no recognized sensitive receptors along the routes that would be adversely affected by project construction. The relocation of utilities, if necessary, would result in a minor temporary increase in noise levels. No blasting is anticipated. Powered equipment used for construction will be equipped with noise mufflers. Construction will be limited to daylight hours to mitigate disturbance of the peace of nearby residents and communities.

As indicated in the introduction to this section, there may be a measure of stimulus for new jobs and development associated with the implementation of this project. However, the indirect and cumulative associated with such are not expected to be significant.

Alternative 1 (no action) would not result in direct increases in noise levels. This alternative seems unlikely to result in indirect or cumulative impacts to noise levels, but it is impossible to forecast all consequential outcomes associated with non‐ implementation of the project.

Alternative 2 (direct burial) would result in similar direct and indirect impacts as the Proposed Alternative.

Alternative 3 (aerial construction) would result in lower noise levels than the Proposed Alternative, as demolition of sidewalks/other pavement and directional bore under streams and other natural features would not be necessary. In addition to similar indirect and cumulative effects as the Proposed Alternative, this alternative may result in further secondary noise effects associated with the necessary on‐going maintenance activities to avoid damage to the fiber cable from storms and fallen limbs.

1.5.2 Air Quality The Proposed Alternative (buried in conduit) would result in minimal temporary direct effects on air quality. Air emissions would be elevated during construction from the operation of petroleum‐ or electric‐powered equipment. Construction vehicles will be expected to be in compliance with North Carolina’s vehicle emissions control standards. No open burning or blasting will occur during construction. Secondary and cumulative adverse effects on air quality due to as the implementation of the proposed project are expected to be minor. Though there may be a measure of stimulus from the project for new industry, commercial, and residential development, the consequential impact on air quality is likely to be insignificant. Industry operations with air emissions would need an air permit and would be required to monitor compliance with air emission regulations.

Alternative 1 (no action) would not result in direct impacts to air quality. This alternative would not likely result in indirect or cumulative effects on air quality.

Alternative 2 (direct burial) would result in similar direct, indirect and cumulative environmental effects as the Proposed Alternative.

Alternative 3 (aerial construction) would result in similar direct and secondary impacts to air quality as the Proposed Alternative. This alternative may result in additional indirect impacts to air quality during the continued maintenance required with aerial construction to avoid storm damage.

1.5.3 Geology and Soils Due to the fact that installation of the Proposed Alternative will generally take place within existing prior‐disturbed ROW, the project will result in minimal direct adverse effects on geology and soils. Construction equipment used to install the conduit will minimally and temporarily disturb soils of the ROW. Storage of equipment and materials will be kept within the ROW limits. No blasting will occur. To avoid erosion and sediment into receiving waters, proper Best Management Practices (BMPs, e.g. silt fence) would be implemented during construction activities, directional boring under natural features, and relocation of existing utilities. Affected areas will be stabilized with vegetation, seeding, and geotextile material as appropriate. There will be some limited subsurface horizontal penetration the soils at locations where horizontal directional bores are made to avoid impacts to jurisdictional areas; however, these impacts will have only minor direct environmental consequences.

Secondary and cumulative effects in this category are expected to be minor. While the FEP has potential for contributing to some additional build out, e.g. a new school campus, it seems likely that such consequential development will be limited in nature. Related ground disturbing activities which disturb an acre or more of land are required to submit, and have approved by the local municipality, a Sediment Erosion Control plan, which will mitigate construction erosion impacts. The impervious surface that

accrues in a given subwatershed as a consequence of the FEP should not pose a significant cumulative impact.

Under Alternative 1 (no action), direct impacts to geology and sediments would not occur. This alternative would not likely result in indirect or cumulative effects on geology and soils.

Under Alternative 2 (direct bury), direct and indirect impacts to geology and sediments would be similar to that of the Proposed Alternative.

Under Alternative 3 (aerial construction), direct impacts to geology and soils would not occur since ground disturbance would not be necessary. This alternative would result in similar indirect and cumulative effects on geology and soils as the Proposed Alternative.

1.5.4 Water Resources

SURFACE WATER The Proposed Alternative (buried in conduit) will not result in direct impacts to surface waters. Through early coordination with Mr. James Shern with the USACE, Raleigh Regulatory Office, it was determined that if disturbance associated with the proposed project remains within the staked‐sloped limits of the ROW, as planned, a Section 404 permit from the USACE will not be required. The proposed FEP was designed to avoid impacts to surface waters by utilizing directional bore methods or hanging the fiber cable along bridges. In addition, BMPs will be installed to avoid sedimentation into receiving surface waters. Storage of equipment and materials will be kept within the ROW limits. As the implementation of the proposed project may result in a minor increase in development, there may be related minor indirect and cumulative effects on surface waters. These effects would likely be insignificant, and would be mitigated by Clean Water Act (CWA) regulations. As discussed previously, ground disturbing activities which disturb an acre or more of land are required to submit, and have approved by the local municipality, a Sediment Erosion Control plan. Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are regulated by the USACE and the NCDWQ and impacts to jurisdictional surface waters require authorization from these agencies, for which further mitigation might be a condition. In the event the Proposed Alternative would result in impacts to jurisdictional surface waters, the appropriate permits will be obtained from USACE and NC DWQ.

Alternative 1 (no action) would not result in direct impacts to the surface waters present along the FEP ROW. This alternative would not likely result in indirect or cumulative effects on surface water.

Alternative 2 (direct bury) would result in similar direct, indirect and cumulative effects on surface waters as the Proposed Alternative.

Alternative 3 (aerial construction) would not result in direct impacts to surface waters since ground disturbance would not be necessary. This alternative would result in similar secondary impacts to surface waters as the Proposed Alternative.

GROUNDWATER The Proposed Alternative (buried in conduit) would result in only minimal direct impacts to groundwater. Groundwater would generally not be anticipated to be encountered or impacted during construction. Horizontal directional bores, to avoid impacts to jurisdictional features, would likely penetrate to groundwater in some crossing locations, but the environmental effect will be insignificant. Potential indirect and cumulative effects from stimulated development along the FEP service corridor should likely be minimal. Any new facility that uses an underground storage tank could potentially contribute to a release of contaminant in the groundwater. However, state and federal regulations control the installation and operation of such tanks, and serve ultimately to mitigate their potential adverse effects. Furthermore, due diligence investigations prompted by stimulus for new development may identify current leaking USTs and serve to prompt their remediation.

Alternative 1 (no action) would not result in direct or secondary impacts to groundwater.

Alternative 2 (direct bury) would result in similar direct, indirect and cumulative effects on groundwater as the Proposed Alternative.

Alternative 3 (aerial construction) would not result in direct impacts to groundwater since ground disturbance would not be necessary. This alternative would result in similar indirect and cumulative effects on groundwater as the Proposed Alternative.

COASTAL ZONE WATER RESOURCES The southeastern NC route extends through coastal zones. The Proposed Alternative (buried in conduit) would not result in direct impacts to these coastal zone water resources along the southeastern NC route.

• is in one of the 20 counties covered by CAMA; • is considered “development” under CAMA; • is in , or it affects, an AEC established by the CRC; and • does not qualify for an exemption.

Telephone communication on June 25, 2010 with Mr. Cameron Weaver, CAMA/NCDWQ Express Coordinator, revealed that a DCM consistency review will likely be required to determine proper compliance with CAMA. In addition, telephone communication with Doug Huggett DCM Major Permits and Consistency Manager on July 19, 2010 revealed that a CAMA Major Permit obtained from DCM will also be required prior to construction of the FEP. This review will demonstrate that the FEP complies with the enforceable policies of the CAMA program. Early communications with CAMA indicated that the FEP is consistent with CAMA requirements and DCM’s rejection of the project, as well as mitigation, are not anticipated. The consistency review and Major Permit will be prepared concurrently upon receipt of the FONSI and before construction of the FEP. Since there are no anticipated impacts to waters of the U.S. or other AECs, delays or denial of the project are not anticipated.

There is potential for minimal indirect and cumulative effects to coastal zone water resources due to erosion and sedimentation impacts during construction; however, these effects are anticipated to be minimal and insignificant, and will be largely mitigated through the implementation of BMPs. The DCM regulates activities and development within the coastal zones, such that development‐related indirect and cumulative effects should be minimal.

Alternative 1 (no action) would not result in direct effects on this resource category, and would not likely result in indirect or cumulative adverse environmental effects.

Alternative 2 (direct bury) would result in similar direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to coastal zones as the Proposed Alternative.

Alternative 3 (aerial construction) would not result in direct impacts to coastal zone water resources along the southeastern NC route. This alternative would likely result in similar indirect and cumulative secondary impacts to coastal zones as the Proposed Alternative.

FLOODPLAINS The Proposed Alternative (buried in conduit) would not result in direct impacts to floodplains since the FEP is contained in existing ROW. Storage of equipment and materials will be kept within the ROW limits. Potential indirect and cumulative effects from stimulated development along the FEP service corridor should likely be minimal. Development that would occur in floodplains (i.e. 100‐year floodplain) requires a floodplain development permit from the local jurisdiction. In addition, construction within the floodplain would require a no rise/no impact certification that would show that the proposed development would not adversely affect rising flood waters and impact adjacent development or resources.

Alternative 1 (no action) would not result in direct impacts to floodplains, and would not likely result in indirect or cumulative adverse environmental effects.

Alternative 2 (direct bury) would result in similar direct, indirect and cumulative effects on floodplains as the Proposed Alternative.

Alternative 3 (aerial construction) would not result in direct impacts to floodplains since the project would be aerial, and above the floodplain. This alternative would result in similar indirect and cumulative effects on floodplains as the Proposed Alternative.

WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS The Proposed Alternative (buried in conduit) would not result in direct, indirect or cumulative effects on Wild and Scenic Rivers since 1) none are present within the southeastern NC route, and 2) none are within close proximity along the western NC route.

Alternative 1 (no action) would not result in direct impacts to Wild and Scenic Rivers, and would not likely result in indirect or cumulative adverse environmental effects.

Alternative 2 (direct bury) would not result in direct, indirect or cumulative effects on Wild and Scenic Rivers.

Alternative 3 (aerial construction) would not result in direct, indirect or cumulative effects on Wild and Scenic Rivers.

1.5.5 Biological Resources

WILDLIFE The Proposed Alternative (buried in conduit) would result in minimal direct adverse impacts to wildlife during construction activities. Construction methods used to implement the Proposed Alternative (as discussed in Section 1.3.1) will involve some minimal ground and vegetation disturbance, which may temporarily disrupt ROW‐ utilizing wildlife. Potential indirect and cumulative effects from stimulated development along the FEP service corridor should likely be minimal, but may result in an insignificant measure of habitat impact. The temporary direct disturbance of wildlife along the FEP construction corridor will be mitigated by the short duration of construction activities. Indirect and cumulative effects will be mitigated by state and federal regulations protecting T&E species and their habitats, jurisdictional features, and riparian buffer zones.

Alternative 1 (no action) would not result in direct impacts to wildlife or their habitat, and would not likely result in indirect or cumulative adverse environmental effects.

Alternative 2 (direct bury) would result in similar direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to wildlife as the Proposed Alternative.

Alternative 3 (aerial construction) would result in similar direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to wildlife as the Proposed Alternative.

VEGETATION The Proposed Alternative (buried in conduit) would result in minimal direct adverse impacts to vegetation as a result of construction activities. Since the FEP is located in existing maintained ROW, clearing of vegetation would be minimal. The nature of ROW vegetation species in general is such that they will readily repopulate the disturbed ground areas. Disturbance of larger areas associated with directional boring activities would require minimal clearing of vegetation; these disturbances will be mitigated by prescribed reseeding following completion of construction activities. Potential indirect and cumulative effects from stimulated development along the FEP service corridor should likely be minimal, but may result in an insignificant measure of vegetation impact.

Alternative 1 (no action) would not result in direct impacts to vegetation, and would not likely result in indirect or cumulative adverse environmental effects.

Alternative 2 (direct bury) would result in similar direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to vegetation as the Proposed Alternative.

Alternative 3 (aerial construction) would not result in minimal direct impacts to vegetation since the project would be aerial. This alternative would result in similar indirect and cumulative effects on vegetation as the Proposed Alternative.

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES The Proposed Alternative (buried in conduit) will not result in direct impacts to protected, federally‐listed, threatened and endangered species. During the site reconnaissance, no federally‐listed protected species were found to be present within the proposed FEP construction corridor. Special attention was given to searching for Schweinitz’s sunflower and Michaux’s sumac as these species are known to inhabit existing ROWs; however, no specimens of these taxa were found. No evidence of other federally‐listed species was observed along the FEP ROW. The use of directional bore methods to cross jurisdictional features (e.g. streams, open water, wetlands), and the implementation of BMPs, will mitigate the potential for sedimentation of receiving waters during construction and, thereby, mitigate potential adverse effects on federally‐ listed aquatic species. In the event federally listed species are encountered during implementation of the Proposed Alternative, avoidance of impacts to the species will be practiced and the USFWS will be consulted. Construction companies will be furnished a list of federally‐listed species in the work area along with a reference guide to assist in identifying suspect federally‐listed species.

Potential indirect and cumulative effects from stimulated development along the FEP service corridor should likely be minimal, and will be mitigated by state and federal regulations protecting T&E species and their habitats

Alternative 1 (no action) would not result in direct impacts to vegetation, and would not likely result in indirect or cumulative adverse environmental effects on federally‐listed protected species.

Alternative 2 (direct bury) would result in similar direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to federally‐listed T&E species as the Proposed Alternative.

Alternative 3 (aerial construction) would result in similar direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to federally‐listed T&E species as the Proposed Alternative.

CRITICAL HABITAT The Proposed Alternative (buried in conduit) would not result in direct, indirect or cumulative effects on Critical Habitat since none are designated within close proximity to the FEP ROW.

Alternative 1 (no action) would not result in direct impacts to Critical Habitat, and would not likely result in indirect or cumulative adverse environmental effects on this resource category.

Alternative 2 (direct bury) would not result in direct, indirect or cumulative impacts to Critical Habitat.

Alternative 3 (aerial construction) would not result in direct, indirect or cumulative impacts to Critical Habitat.

WETLANDS The Proposed Alternative (buried in conduit) would not result in direct impacts to wetlands. As discussed in Section 1.5.4 Surface Waters, through early coordination with Mr. James Shern with the USACE, Raleigh Regulatory Office, it was determined that if disturbance associated with the proposed project remains within the staked‐sloped limits of the ROW as planned, a Section 404 permit from the USACE will not be required. The proposed FEP was designed to avoid impacts to wetlands by utilizing directional bore methods, hanging the fiber cable along bridges, or installing the fiber cable on the other side of the ROW where wetlands are not present. In addition, BMPs will be installed to avoid sedimentation into adjacent wetlands. Storage of equipment and materials will be kept within the ROW limits. Potential indirect and cumulative effects from stimulated development along the FEP service corridor should likely be minimal, but may result in an insignificant measure of wetlands impact. These effects would likely be insignificant, and would be mitigated by Clean Water Act (CWA) regulations.

Impacts to wetlands require authorization from the USACE and NC DWQ, and additional mitigation is often a required condition.

Alternative 1 (no action) would not result in direct impacts to this resource category, and would not likely result in indirect or cumulative adverse environmental effects on wetlands.

Alternative 2 (direct bury) would result in similar direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to wetlands as the Proposed Alternative.

Alternative 3 (aerial construction) would result in similar direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to wetlands as the Proposed Alternative.

ECOREGIONS The Proposed Alternative (buried in conduit) would not result in direct impacts ecoregions present along the FEP since the proposed project will remain in existing ROW. Even the above considered minor potential for new development as a consequence of the FEP should not likely affect, indirectly or cumulatively, the ecoregions crossed by the project corridor.

Alternative 1 (no action) would not result in direct, indirect or cumulative effects on ecoregions.

Alternative 2 (direct bury) would result in similar direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to ecoregions as the Proposed Alternative.

Alternative 3 (aerial construction) would result in similar direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to ecoregions as the Proposed Alternative.

FISHERY RESOURCES The Proposed Alternative (buried in conduit) will not result in direct impacts to fishery resources. The proposed FEP was designed to avoid impacts to surface waters and wetlands, which would support fishery resources, by utilizing directional bore methods, hanging the fiber cable along bridges, or installing the fiber cable on the opposite side of the ROW, away from the resource. In addition, BMPs will be installed to avoid sedimentation into fishery resources. Potential indirect and cumulative effects from stimulated development along the FEP service corridor should likely be minimal, and would likely result in only an insignificant measure of impact on fishery resources. Federal and state regulatory measures associated with the CWA, plus state riparian buffer rules and ordinances, will serve as mitigative measures to further minimize potential adverse effects

Alternative 1 (no action) would have no direct effects on fishery resources, and would be unlikely to result in indirect or cumulative effects to this resource category.

Alternative 2 (direct bury) would result in similar direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to fishery resources as the Proposed Alternative.

Alternative 3 (aerial construction) would result in similar direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to fishery resources as the Proposed Alternative.

1.5.6 Historic and Cultural Resources The Proposed Alternative (buried in conduit) will not result in adverse direct impacts to archaeological resources, architectural resources, or native resources/tribal lands. Portions of the proposed FEP parallel archaeological and architectural resources and historic districts; however, since the FEP is confined to existing ROW, adverse impacts to these resources are not expected. During the planning stage of the proposed FEP, the project team consulted with local historic districts. The local historic districts were receptive to the project because much needed improvements to sidewalks, including handicap accessible ramps, would be incorporated into post construction mitigation.

SHPO responded to the proposed FEP during the initial scoping process stating that, although their records indicate several properties of historic and architectural significance within the areas of potential affect, the proposed FEP is expected to have minimal affects on nearby historic properties since it is confined to existing ROWs (Appendix III). SHPO further stated that no known archaeological sites are known to be present within the proposed FEP study area. SHPO has determined an archaeology survey will not be necessary. As discussed in Section 1.4.6, the FEP is located south of the Cherokee tribal land and native resources within western North Carolina; these resources will not be adversely affected by the project. Mr. Tyler Howe with the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians stated in his July 1, 2010 letter that, although impacts to sites eligible for listing on NRHP are unlikely, if cultural resources or human remains are encountered during construction, work should stop immediately and their office contacted.

Potential indirect and cumulative effects from stimulated development along the FEP service corridor should likely be minimal, and should have no significant impact on historic and cultural resources. Guidelines and restrictions for development in historic preservation districts will help mitigate potential adverse effects. To the extent that the FEP results in economic revitalization of, historic downtown districts and repopulation of currently empty store fronts, those areas may benefit from additional municipal revenue that could be used to restore historic properties.

Alternative 1 (no action) would have no direct effects on historic and cultural resources, and would likely have no indirect or cumulative adverse effects on this resource category, other than an absence of the potential positive effects described for the Proposed Alternative.

Alternative 2 (direct bury) would result in similar direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to historic and cultural resources as the Proposed Alternative.

Alternative 3 (aerial construction) would result in similar direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to historic and cultural resources as the Proposed Alternative.

1.5.7 Aesthetic and Visual Resources

NATURAL FEATURES The Proposed Alternative (buried in conduit) would not result in direct impacts to natural features, including water bodies and vegetation, identified along the FEP since the project is restricted to existing ROW. Potential indirect and cumulative effects from stimulated development along the FEP service corridor should likely be minimal, but may result in an insignificant measure of impacts to natural features such as forest fringe or fields. No high quality or special significance natural feature would likely experience indirect or cumulative adverse effects as a consequence of the FEP.

Alternative 1 (no action) would have no direct effects on natural features, and would likely have no indirect or cumulative adverse effects on this resource category.

Alternative 2 (direct bury) would result in similar direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to natural features as the Proposed Alternative.

Alternative 3 (aerial construction) would result in similar direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to natural features as the Proposed Alternative.

ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES The Proposed Alternative (buried in conduit) would not result in direct impacts to architectural features identified along the FEP since the project would be restricted to existing ROW. Potential indirect and cumulative effects from possible consequential development along the FEP service corridor should likely be minimal, and should have no significant impact on architectural features.

Alternative 1 (no action) would have no direct, indirect or cumulative effect on architectural features.

Alternative 2 (direct bury) would result in similar direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to architectural features as the Proposed Alternative.

Alternative 3 (aerial construction) would result in similar direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to architectural features as the Proposed Alternative.

PROTECTED AREAS The Proposed Alternative (buried in conduit) would not result in direct impacts to protected areas identified along the FEP because the project would be restricted to existing ROW. Indirect and cumulative effects on protected areas are not anticipated since development activities within these areas are restricted.

Alternative 1 (no action) would have no direct, indirect or cumulative effect on protected areas.

Alternative 2 (direct bury) would result in similar direct, indirect and cumulative effects on protected areas as the Proposed Alternative.

Alternative 3 (aerial construction) would result in similar direct, indirect and cumulative effects on protected areas as the Proposed Alternative.

1.5.8 Land Use

LOCAL ZONING/MASTER PLANS The Proposed Alternative (buried in conduit) would not result in direct adverse impacts to local zoning/master plans, including historic districts and CAMA zoning. The proposed project would result in positive indirect and cumulative impacts to rural areas along the FEP by providing places of employment and, as discussed previously, much needed improvements to sidewalks, including handicap accessible ramps, would be constructed during post construction activities within historic districts.

Alternative 1 (no action) would result in no direct impacts to local zoning/master plans and would not likely result in indirect or cumulative impacts to local zoning/master plans.

Alternative 2 (direct bury) would result in similar direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to local zoning/master plans as the Proposed Alternative.

Alternative 3 (aerial construction) would not result in positive or negative direct, indirect or cumulative impacts to local zoning/master plans.

COASTAL ZONE LAND USE As discussed in Section 1.5.4 Coastal Zone Water Resources, the southeastern NC route extends through coastal zone land use. The Proposed Alternative (buried in conduit) would not result in direct impacts to these coastal zone land uses since the proposed project will remain in existing ROW. Telephone communication on June 25, 2010 with Mr. Cameron Weaver, CAMA/NC DWQ Express Coordinator, revealed that a DCM consistency review will likely be required to determine proper compliance with CAMA and further mitigate any direct impacts to coastal zone land use. In addition, telephone communication with Doug Huggett, DCM Major Permits and Federal Consistency

Manager, on July 19, 2010 revealed that a CAMA Major Permit obtained from DCM will also be required prior to construction of the FEP. This review will demonstrate that the FEP complies with the enforceable policies of the CAMA program. Early communications with CAMA indicated that the FEP is consistent with CAMA requirements and DCM’s rejection of the project, as well as mitigation, are not anticipated. The consistency review and Major Permit will be prepared concurrently upon receipt of the FONSI and before construction of the FEP. Since the FEP will be located within existing ROW, delays or denial of the project are not anticipated.

Adverse indirect and cumulative impacts to coastal zone land use may occur as the implementation of the proposed project may result in an increase of industrial, commercial, and residential development. These impacts would largely be mitigated by the DCM regulation of development within the coastal zones. The four AEC established by the CRC and regulated by DCM are estuarine and ocean systems; ocean hazard systems; public water supply; and natural and cultural resources. CAMA permits are required if project plans meet the following conditions:

• is in one of the 20 counties covered by CAMA; • is considered “development” under CAMA; • is in, or it affects, an AEC established by the CRC; and • does not qualify for an exemption.

Alternative 1 (no action) would result in no direct impacts to coastal zone land use and would not likely result in adverse indirect or cumulative impacts to coastal zone land use.

Alternative 2 (direct bury) would result in similar direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to coastal zone land use as the Proposed Alternative.

Alternative 3 (aerial construction) would not result in direct impacts to coastal zone land use along the southeastern NC route. This alternative would result in similar indirect and cumulative impacts to coastal zone land use as the Proposed Alternative.

FARMLANDS The Proposed Alternative (buried in conduit) would not result in direct impacts to farmlands since the proposed project will remain in existing ROW. Adverse indirect and cumulative impacts to farmlands may occur as the implementation of the proposed project may result in an increase of industrial, commercial, and residential development that may buy‐out farmland.

The presence of improved broadband may result in a positive indirect impact to farmers who would have access to information and improved communication that would improve their business and farming practices. This is evidenced by communication with CES county offices and farmers in which they conveyed optimistic results from the

proposed FEP during our field work. Many of those questioned indicated that their current mode of communication is limited to land‐line telephones or satellites.

Alternative 1 (no action) would result in no direct, indirect or cumulative impacts to farmlands.

Alternative 2 (direct bury) would result in similar direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to farmlands as the Proposed Alternative.

Alternative 3 (aerial construction) would not result in direct impacts to farmlands. This alternative would result in similar indirect and cumulative impacts to farmlands as the Proposed Alternative.

FOREST SERVICE LANDS The Proposed Alternative (buried in conduit) extends along a portion of ROW maintained by the USFS. This portion of the ROW prohibits vehicular traffic. Direct adverse impact to forest service lands would be mitigated for as the appropriate ROW permissions would be obtained prior to implementation of the proposed project. Indirect impacts to forest service lands may result as the implementation of the proposed project may result in an increase in local development that may increase visitor traffic in forest service lands, impacting land use.

Alternative 1 (no action) would not result in direct, indirect or cumulative impacts to forest service lands.

Alternative 2 (direct bury) would result in similar direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to forest service lands as the Proposed Alternative.

Alternative 3 (aerial construction) would not result in direct impacts to forest service lands. This alternative would result in similar indirect and cumulative impacts to forest service lands as the Proposed Alternative.

OTHER LAND USES The Proposed Alternative (buried in conduit) would not result in direct impacts to other land uses. Indirect and cumulative impacts to other land uses may result as the potential for development would encroach upon these land uses.

Alternative 1 (no action) would not result in direct impacts to other land uses and would not likely result in adverse indirect or cumulative impacts to other land uses.

Alternative 2 (direct bury) would result in similar direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to other land uses as the Proposed Alternative.

Alternative 3 (aerial construction) would result in similar direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to other land uses as the Proposed Alternative.

1.5.9 Infrastructure The Proposed Alternative (buried in conduit) would result in positive direct impacts to infrastructure as the proposed FEP would improve existing broadband telecommunications along the project corridor. Temporary direct impacts to infrastructure would occur during construction associated with potential vehicular travel lane closures, storage of equipment along the ROW, hanging the fiber cable along bridges, and directional bore activities. Prior to construction, existing utilities that may also be present along the ROW will be located and, if necessary, will be moved to accommodate the FEP. In order to mitigate for these potential impacts, prior approval from the local utility provider will be obtained before utility relocation occurs. Secondary and cumulative adverse impacts to infrastructure may occur associated with the potential of increased development that may cause congestion to existing roads and highways and may require capacity upgrades for other utilities.

As previously discussed, in historic downtown areas, affected sidewalks would be repaired with the addition of handicapped‐accessible sidewalks, creating positive indirect impacts to infrastructure.

Alternative 1 (no action) would not result in adverse direct impacts to infrastructure; however, by not implementing the Proposed Alternative, adverse indirect and cumulative impacts would result as improved broadband service would not be as readily available as a part of the existing infrastructure.

Alternative 2 (direct bury) would result in similar direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to infrastructure as the Proposed Alternative.

Alternative 3 (aerial construction) would result in similar positive direct impacts to infrastructure as the Proposed Alternative. Under this alternative, it would not be anticipated that relocation of existing utilities would be necessary. Furthermore, the positive indirect impact of sidewalk improvements within historic downtown areas would not be implemented under this alternative.

1.5.10 Socioeconomic Resources The Proposed Alternative (buried in conduit) would result in numerous positive direct impacts to socioeconomic resources. These positive outcomes would include:

• Provide employment during construction for rural areas with high unemployment and poverty rates; • Contribute to the local hospitality and retail economies during construction; • Provide positive impacts to local students in unserved/underserved communities as, in the past, 25,000 students were given access to laptop

computers through the NC Learning with Technology Initiative; however, recent surveys suggested that over half of the students did not have access to broadband service.

The Proposed Alternative would result in positive indirect and cumulative impacts to socioeconomic resources as implementation of the proposed project would have the likelihood of revitalizing local economy and provide employment opportunities. No disproportionate impacts to low or minority populations are anticipated associated with the FEP.

Alternative 1 (no action) would not result in positive direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to socioeconomic resources. The No Action alternative would result in negative indirect impacts as local economies and communities would continue to be unserved and underserved with broadband technologies and would be at a disadvantage to those located in more urban areas that have access to broadband.

Alternative 2 (direct bury) would result in similar direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to socioeconomic resources as the Proposed Alternative.

Alternative 3 (aerial construction) would result in similar direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to socioeconomic resources as the Proposed Alternative.

1.5.11 Human Health and Safety The Proposed Alternative (buried in conduit) would not result in adverse direct impacts to human health and safety. As mentioned in Section 1.4.11, implementation of the FEP will be in compliance with NCDOT guidelines currently in effect to protect human health and safety. Construction crews will adhere to NCDOT traffic safety guidelines as described in NCDOT Procedure 1101.02 during implementation of the FEP and operate within normal daytime working hours. Since the depth of the trench required to implement the FEP would be no deeper than 48 inches, disturbance of contaminated groundwater during construction would not be anticipated. Furthermore, the type of equipment cuts a trench in the ground and does not require extensive grading. Entrance and exit points of directional bores would not extract groundwater. If contaminated soil and groundwater are suspected to be encountered, any adverse impacts to human health and safety would be mitigated for by sampling, testing, and then properly disposing of the contaminated soil and water at a licensed treatment or disposal facility.

Alternative 1 (no action) would not result direct, indirect or cumulative impacts to human health and safety.

Alternative 2 (direct bury) would result in similar direct indirect, and cumulative impacts to human health and safety as the Proposed Alternative.

Alternative 3 (aerial construction) would result not result in direct, indirect or cumulative impacts to health and human safety as ground disturbance is not anticipated under this alternative.

1.6 CHAPTER 5 – APPLICABLE ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS Once the FONSI is received and prior to implementation of the FEP, permits will be obtained for crossing railroads, National Parks Service lands, and NCDOT ROW. Impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and waters of the state (isolated) are not anticipated, therefore, permits associated with Section 404 and Section 401 of the Clean Water Act would not be required. Although not anticipated, in the event impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. beyond the staked‐sloped limit within the ROW would be necessary, appropriate Section 404 and Section 401 permits would be obtained from the USACE and from NC DWQ and necessary mitigation for impacts will be implemented.

In addition, upon receipt of the FONSI, the CAMA consistency review will be conducted and a Major Permit applied prior to construction of the FEP.

1.7 CHAPTER 6 ‐ LIST OF PREPARERS

S&ME, Inc. Michael Wolfe – Client Contact, Peer Review, Field and EA Support Mr. Wolfe is the Natural Resources Department Manager with over 20 years experience managing a wide array of ecological projects and environmental documents.

Suzanne Knudsen, C.E. – EA Principal Author, Project Manager, Field Support Ms. Knudsen is a Certified Ecologist and a Natural Resources Staff Professional with seven years experience working on a wide variety of natural resources and environmental projects.

Chris Hamblet, CHMM – EA Support Mr. Hamblet is an Environmental Scientist and Project Manager accredited as a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager with 13 years experience managing various types of environmental and industrial hygiene projects.

Darrin M. Peine, QEP – Field and EA Support Mr. Peine is a Qualified Environmental Professional and Natural Resources Project Professional with more than 10 years experience working on environmental and natural resources projects.

Crystal J. Fox – Field and EA Support Ms. Fox is a Natural Resources Staff Professional with four years experience with natural resources and environmental projects.

Walter Cole, LSS – Field Support Mr. Cole is a is a North Carolina licensed soil scientist and a Natural Resources Staff Professional with 15 years experience working on a wide variety of natural resources projects.

Jason Volker, LSS – GIS Mr. Volker is a North Carolina licensed soil scientist and Environmental Staff Professional with four years experience working on environmental assessment projects.

David Homans – GIS, EA Support Mr. Homans is a Natural Resources Staff Professional / GIS Analyst with four years experience with natural resources and environmental projects and six years experience in natural resources GIS analysis, data management, and mapping.

Dane Horna, P.E. – EA Senior Reviewer Mr. Horna is a registered professional engineer and Vice President with over 30 years of experience working on a wide variety of environmental and natural resources projects.

Keller Environmental, LLC Jay Keller – Project Management, Field Support, EA Contributor – Southeastern NC Route Jay Keller is the Principal of Keller Environmental, LLC with over 20 years of environmental experience specializing in natural resources, land management, and stormwater issues.

1.8 REFERENCES Broadband USA Application Database. MCNC Executive Summary from their application for the “Building a Sustainable Middle‐Mile Network for Underserved Rural NC

Bureau of Indian Affairs, 2009 revised accessed at http://www.bia.gov/index.htm

CAMA Handbook for Development in Coastal North Carolina : Section 5: Applying for a CAMA Permit. Accessed at http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us/handbook/section5.htm

Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base website accessed at http://www.lejeune.usmc.mil/about/

Cherry Point Marine Air Station website accessed at http://www.usmc.mil/unit/mcascherrypoint/Pages/mcascherrypoint/AboutCP.aspx

Greater Hickory Metropolitan Planning Organization accessed at http://trans.wpcog.org/programs_airquality.asp

Horton, Jr. J. Wright and Zullo A. Victor. The Geology of the Carolinas. University of Tennessee Press, 1991.

National Wild and Scenic Rivers accessed at http://www.rivers.gov/wildriverslist.html

Natural Resources Conservation Service List of Important Farmlands of North Carolina May 1998

NatureServe Explorer website accessed at http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/

North Carolina Division of Air Quality, June 1, 2010. 2010 Annual Monitoring Network Plan for the NCDAQ, Volume 2. Northern and Southern Coastal Plain Monitoring Region

North Carolina Division of Air Quality, November 2009. NC Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory Instructions for Voluntary Reporting, accessed at www.ncair.org

North Carolina Division of Coastal Management, CAMA Handbook for Development in Coastal Carolina, October 24, 2007 accessed at http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us/Handbook/contents.htm

NC Division of Coastal Management regulations access at http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us/index.htm

North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service website accessed at http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/

North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services website accessed at http://www.agr.state.nc.us/stats/ncrank.htm

North Carolina Division of Land Resources, Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 (Amended, 1999).

North Carolina Division of Water Quality Riparian buffers fact sheet for the Catawba River and Main Stem Lakes http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/nps/documents/FactSheet7‐29‐ 04.pdf

North Carolina Division of Water Quality, August 1, 2004. Surface Waters and Standards Redbook

North Carolina Environmental Management Commission – Protecting Trout Waters of North Carolina fact sheet obtainable at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/csu/documents/FAQ‐ Trout‐Buffers‐19May2009.pdf

North Carolina Existing and Previous Non Attainment Area Boundaries accessed from http://daq.state.nc.us/planning/ozone/o3boundary/Existing_NAA_Boundary_Map.pdf

North Carolina Groundwater Association website accessed at http://www.ncgwa.org/index.shtml

North Carolina Natural Heritage Program website accessed at http://www.ncnhp.org/

North Carolina River Basin Map accessed at http://www.eenorthcarolina.org/public/ecoaddress/riverbasins/riverbasinmapinteractiv e.htm

North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office, 2010. North Carolina Listings in the National Register of Historic Places (provided by ONUG Communications)

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Trout Fishing Information accessed at http://www.ncwildlife.org/Fishing/Fish_Trout_Fishing_Info_NC.htm

U.S Census Bureau accessed at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/37/37119.html

U.S. Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources Conservation Service GIS Soils Data

U.S. Department of Agriculture National Hydric Soils List. February 2010. Accessed at http://soils.usda.gov/use/hydric/lists/state.html

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1995. Hydric Soils of North Carolina.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2003. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils, Version 5.01.

USACE 1987, Wetland Delineation Manual

USACE – Raleigh Regulatory Field Office. Mr. James Shern 919‐554‐4884, personal communication.

US EPA Envriomapper for Envirofacts website application. Accessed at http://www.epa.gov/enviro/emef/

US EPA, 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina.

US EPA Region 4 North Carolina State Implementation Plan accessed from http://www.epa.gov/region4/air/sips/nc/content.htm

US EPA Groundwater and Drinking Water website accessed at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/index.html

US Fish and Wildlife Ecological Services Website. Threatened and Endangered Species in North Carolina, updated January 2008 and February 2009 accessed at http://www.fws.gov/nc‐es/es/countyfr.html

US Forest Service Dept of Agriculture National Forests in North Carolina accessed at http://www.cs.unca.edu/nfsnc/

USGS, 1974. Hydrologic Unit Map for North Carolina

USGS, 2002 Physiographic Region Map http://tapestry.usgs.gov/physiogr/physio.html

Wilmington Regional Office Express CAMA/DWQ Express Coordinator ‐ Cameron Weaver. Phone conversation June 25, 2010 with Jay Keller – Keller Environmental.

DCM Major Permits and Federal Consistency Manager – Doug Huggett. Phone conversation July 19, 2010 with Jay Keller – Keller Environmental.