20071113 All Versions_Complete File_20100726

e,
t -.
TIP Scoping to Regions
Sue Homewood (WSRO): Div 7, 91, 11
Polly Lespinasse (MRO): Div 8, 10, 12
FILE
16
TiP4 - 39
Title of Project:
COPY
County: ` OY
a f e/' (oak ?V?,eisr al'
Date response due date:
7--7,0,.S-
DENR Project review form and pre-application project
materials attached.
T4 5 ?s Y,,,+ s
COOJ . kefl4-
er ;?.
?? f r,`
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
Project Number:
county Date Received: Date Respft!kBu (,
q - 015 F)
VOIPC

This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office Regional Office Arca In-House Review
? Asheville ? Air ? Soil & Water ? Marine Fisheries
.% N
Q Fayetteville ? Water ? Coastal Management

o Mooresville ? Groundwater ildlN ? Water Resources

c3 Raleigh ? Land Quality Engineer ? Environmental Health
? Washington 13 Recreational Consultant ? Forest Resources ? Solid Waste Mgmt
? Wilmington ? Land Resources ' ? Radiation Protection
? Winston-Salem ? Parks & Recreation ? Other
pater Qualit??ti?`
? Groundwater
? Air Quality
Manager Sign-OMRegion: Date: lo-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all apFlicable)
? No objection to project as proposed.
11 No Comment
A Insufficient information to complete review
13 Other (specify or attach comments)
2
e dead ' _ .
Kr, e u eon a v:
Melba McGee
Environmental Coordinator -
Office of Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
t
r
APPROVED:
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Palmer Road Extension
From NC 211 at SR 1149 (East Palmer Road)
To NC 20 at SR 1403 (Oakdale Grin Road) in Raeford
City of Raeford, Hoke County
WBS Element No. 34979. 1.1
Federal Project No. STP-0831(2)
State Project No. 8.2530301
T.I.P. PROJECT U-3816
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
Submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)
?toRTJ4 ? -
P-0
y4
o z
A
yP
FMT Qf At5g0

AV
3 6 a?
Date
l-3 ?1P5- _
Date C ?, ,John F. Sullivan III, P.E., Division Administrator
" Federal Highway Administration
ti
?GJ v
y?o .L- f C
? Pv ?O
?Tr-egory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT

Palmer Road Extension
From NC 211 at SR 1149 (East Palmer Road)
To NC 20 at SR 1403 (Oakdale Gin Road) in Raeford
City of Raeford, Hoke County
WBS Element No. 34979. 1.1
Federal Project No. STP-0831(2)
State Project No. 8.2530301
T.I.P. PROJECT U-3816
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
March 2005
DOCUMENTATION PREPARED IN
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH Willi R!J
SEAL '•
26985
e ' er M aller, P.E., Project Development Engineer •?v? •.?- tiQ?'
ro.ect Development and Environmental Analysis Branch '??ti?' ?? •• • v??•`
S. Eric Midldff, P.E., Project Development Unit Head
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Palmer Road Extension
From NC 211 at SR 1149 (East Palmer Road)
To NC 20 at SR 1403 (Oakdale Gin Road) in Raeford
City of Raeford, Hoke County
WBS Element No. 34979.1.1
Federal Project No. STP-o831(2)
State Project No. 8.2530301
T.I.P. PROJECT U-3816
Division 8, Roadside Environmental Unit
• The appropriate utilities or local government officials will be consulted
concerning possible relocation of utilities during final design.
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch, Division 8, Roadway Design Unit
• Construction encroachment onto the Peddlers Branch floodplain will be avoided.
• If the proposed alignment is altered from what is stated in the planning document,
the NCDOT will contact the appropriate agencies in order to reevaluate any
potential impacts.
• NCDOT will integrate bicycle plans into the proposed alignment and work with
local officials to provide trail connectivity with the proposed city park.
• An additional survey for Michaux's sumac will be conducted within two years of
actual project construction. The results of that survey will be submitted to the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for their review.
U-3816 FONSI
PAGE 1 OF 1
JANUARY 2005
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1. TYPE OF ACTION ............................................................................ 1
H. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ..................................... 1
M. - SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED BENEFICIAL AND ADVERSE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ........................................................ 2
IV. COORIDINATION AND COMMENTS ........................................... 5
V. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ........ 8
VI. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT .............. 9
APPENDICES
A. FIGURES
B. CORRESPONDENCE
TABLES
TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ........................................................ 4
1

Palmer Road Extension
From NC 21.1 at SR 1149 (East Palmer Road)
To NC.20 at SR 1403 (Oakdale Gin. Road) in Raeford.
Ditty of Raeford, Hoke County
S Element No. 34979.1.1
F.A. Project No.:STP-0831(2)
State Project No. 8.2530301
T.I.P. Project No U-3816
1. TYPE OF ACTION
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Administrative Action, Finding
of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The FHWA has determined this project will not have any
significant impact on the human environment. This FONSI is based on the Environmental
Assessment, which has been independently evaluated'by the FHWA and determined to
adequately and accurately discuss the environmental issues and impacts of the proposed
project.
The Environmental Assessment provides sufficient evidence and analyses for
determining that an Environmental Impact Statement is not required. The FHWA takes full
responsibility for the accuracy, scope, and content of the Environmental Assessment.
The improvements outlined in the Environmental Assessment for U-3816 will meet
the purpose and need by enabling safer, more efficient traffic operations within the City of
Raeford.
II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Division of
Highways, and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) propose to construct a
two-lane shoulder section of new location roadway referred to as the Palmer Road Extension.
The limits of construction are from the intersection of NC 211 with SR 1149 (East Palmer
Road) to the intersection of NC 20 with SR 1403 (Oakdale Gin Road), in Raeford. The total
length of this project is 0.9 miles (1.448 km).
Figure 1 illustrates a vicinity map of the project area. Figures 2A and 2B are aerial
views of the project area showing the study corridor for the proposed new alignment for this
project. Figures 3A through 3E show the preliminary design for the proposed extension.
These figures are located in Appendix A. The preliminary design reflects Alternative A,
recommended as preferred in the U-3816 Environmental Analysis signed in October 2003.
Alternative A shows a grade separation at the Aberdeen & Rockfish Railroad crossing. This
alternative was chosen over Alternative B, an at grade railroad crossing, due to railroad
crossing safety concerns and also in order to span a small amount of wetlands.
This project is included in NCDOT's latest approved Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP). Right of way and construction are scheduled for federal fiscal years 2005 and
2006, respectively. The current total cost estimate for the proposed improvements is
$4,238,125, consisting of $4,000,000 for construction and $238,125 for right of way
acquisition.
Preliminary designs indicate the relocation of no residences or businesses will be
necessary for this project. There is no control of access proposed; meaning that Palmer Road
can be accessed by any driveway or intersecting street. A proposed right-of-way width of 150
feet will be required for the Palmer Road Extension. The proposed right-of-way width will
be 75 feet on each side of the proposed centerline. The proposed typical cross-section has one
12-foot wide travel lane in each direction,. plus an 8-foot wide shoulder, four feet of which
will be paved to accommodate -,bicycles. A bridge will span the railroad tracks.
III.
The construction of the Palmer Road Extension would be consistent with the
Thoroughfare Plan for Hoke County and the City of Raeford's Land Development Plan.
By constructing the Palmer Road Extension, there will be several positive impacts on
the community. The Palmer Road Extension will create a more efficient route for the 16
school buses that travel within the project area, servicing students at West Hoke Middle
School and Hoke High School. In addition, the improvement helps Emergency Medical
Service and Fire Department vehicles to have a faster response time. The City of Raeford is
encouraging development-for the immediate area surrounding the project. Currently, this
area is zoned for farmland.uses. The proposed corridor is undeveloped and has been
designated as part of a future industrial park. The area has access to rail and the City of
Raeford has recently installed new water lines in preparation for development associated with
the industrial improvement. The City of Raeford is planning a city park north of the Palmer
Road Extension, however the proposed project does not require any land acquisition from
this future park.
Truck traffic is a primary concern, as it creates congestion and safety concerns
throughout the City. The Palmer Road Extension should alleviate many of these problems.
The Palmer Road Extension will create improved mobility and safety for vehicles,
particularly large commercial trucks that-are currently negotiating the narrow lanes and tight
radii of downtown Raeford. The completion of this project would help the City of Raeford
and Hoke County Economic Development Commission in their efforts to attract new
industry. The City of Raeford indicated that a loop, particularly the southern portion (the
Palmer Road Extension), would spur more industrial growth in the area.
2
Indirect and cumulative impacts could be associated with this project. Indirect
impacts to consider include the possibility of the development of industrial facilities within
the project area. Local planning staff with the City of Raeford and on-site inspections
confirmed that industrial development is anticipated and encouraged. The project area has
been designated as an industrial park and the proposed extension will make the land
accessible for development. New businesses located along the project corridor may bring
additional jobs that would require more workforce in the area. This could create a greater
demand for housing and might lead to increased residential development. The local city
planning office should consider the possible negative effects of urban sprawl on the
community in terms of uncontrolled growth and development along the project corridor.
Indirect impacts from the loss of wetlands could include the long-term decline of sensitive
vegetation and fauna. The project design will minimize the impact to the wetlands. The City
of Raeford has stated that any wetland mitigation necessary might be integrated into the
design of the proposed industrial park.
The project proposes new construction of the roadway facility from NC 211 at SR
1149 (East Palmer Road) to NC 20 at SR 1403 (Oakdale Gin Road). For the year of 2025,
the maximum distances to the 72-dBA and 67-dBA noise level contours are 37 feet and 76
feet from the center of the proposed roadway. Hence, nD receptors are anticipated to
approach or exceed the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria and no noise sensitive receptors
would experience substantial change in exterior noise levels per NCDOT Noise Abatement
Policy. Based on past project experience and low traffic volumes, air quality is not expected
to exceed the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Therefore, the project's impact on
noise and air quality will not be significant.
There are no historic structures or archaeological sites eligible for or listed on the
National Register of Historic Places in the project's Area of Potential Effect (APE).
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered, and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of March 7, 2002, the
USFWS lists the following federally protected species for Hoke County: St. Francis satyr,
red-cockaded woodpecker, Rough-leaved loosestrife, Michaux's sumac, and American
chaffseed. All are classified as endangered in North Carolina. A determination of "NO
EFFECT" has been made for each species based on biologists' field review of the proposed
corridor for the,Palmer Road Extension, with the exception of Michaux's sumac which has
been changed to "MAY EFFECT- NOT LIKELY TO AFFECT" due to potential habitat
present in the project study corridor. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has concurred with
this finding (see letter in Appendix B).
Wetlands were delineated in the field and mapped using the Global
Positioning System (GPS). The proposed right of way is approximately 150 ft wide. Total
impacts to wetlands within the proposed project area slope stake limits for the proposed grade
3
A
separation alternative (the selected' alternative) at the railroad crossing are 0.12 acres. See
Table 1 on the following page for a summary of all direct impacts for U-3816.
TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF DIRECT IMPACTS
U-3816
Palmer Road Extension
TYPE OF IMPACT Alternative A
Grade Se aration
RESIDENTIAL
RELOCATEES
0
BUSINESS RELOCATEES 0
SCHOOLS 0
CHURCHES 0
PARKS 0
CEMETARIES 0
NATIONAL REGISTER
-LISTED PROPERTIES
! 0
WETLANDS
AFFECTED (HYDRIC
SOILS
0.12 ACRES
ACRES HIGH QUALITY
WATER ZONE
0
ACRES WATER SUPPLY
CRITICAL AREAS 0
STREAM EMPACTS T. 0
AGRICULTURAL
BIOTIC COMMUNITY 7.9 ACRES
MESIC HARDWOOD
FOREST 0.69 ACRES
OLD FIELD 2.2 ACRES
AIR
UALITY IMPACTS 0
NOISE EMPACTS 0
PROTECTED
SPECIES 0
ANDHILLS PINE
FOREST 1.2 ACRES
E
LENGTH NEW
LOCATION
0.9
INERCHANGES 0
L LENGTH (NVII.) 0.9

4

IV. COORDINATION AND COMMENTS
A. Circulation of the Environmental Assessment
The Environmental Assessment was approved by the NCDOT Division of Highways and the
FHWA on October 28, 2003. The approved Environmental Assessment was circulated to the
following federal, state, and local agencies for review and comment. An asterisk (*)
indicates a written response was received from the agency. Copies of the correspondence
received are included in the Appendix.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
* U. S. Fish and WildlifeService
* U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
* N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
* N. C. Dept. of Cultural Resources
_N. C. Dept. of Public Instruction _
* N. C. Dept. of Environment & Natural Resources- Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
Region N Planning Agency (MPO)
City of Raeford
Hoke County
B. Comments Received on the Environmental Assessment
1. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Comment 1: Overall, the Service has minimal concern for this project. The Service
supports NCDOT's preferred Alternative A since it has slightly less wetland impacts.
Response: NCDOT has recommended Alternative A as the preferred alternative.
Comment 2: Since potential habitat exists for Michaux's sumac, but no specimens
were found during a plant survey at the project site on June 5, 2002, a "may affect, not
likely to adversely affect" conclusion is more appropriate. An additional survey should
be conducted for this species again within two years of actual project construction. The
results of that survey should be submitted to our office for review.
Response: The Natural Resources Technical Report has been revisAo reflect this ?-
conclusion for Michaux's sumac. In addition, an project commitment has been added
5
regarding a new survey for Michaux's sumac to be conducted within two years of actual
project construction.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Comment 1: EPA has not identified any substantial environmental concerns
regarding the proposed project. However, we recommend that additional analysis and
information be provided on prime and unique agricultural lands and any unresolved
issues with the Oakdale Cotton Gin. NCDOT may also wish to explore the City of
Raeford's request for bicycle shoulder widths in an area where such a use would not be
potentially safe or compatible with other uses.
Response: No prime or unique agricultural lands will be impacted by the project.
Additionally, the Oakdale Cotton Gin has been sold and will no longer be operational.
Bicycle lanes, in--the form qf, a four-foot paved shoulder, are proposed due to plans by the
City of Raeford to construct a city park in the northeast quadrant of the project area. The
proposed project does not require any land acquisition from this future park.
Comment 2: EPA recommends that a summary table of impacts be provided in the
Finding of No Significant Impact Report (FONSI).
Response: A brief summary of indirect and cumulative impacts is included in this
report as requested.
3. N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Comment 1: At this time we concur with the EA for this project.
Response: Comment noted.
Comment 2: All required DOT issued erosion and sedimentation "Approval
Documents" must be carbon-copied to Mr. Ricky Revels, DWQ/FRO. It should be noted
that "Approval Document" must address the need for a required NCGO10000
"Construction Activity" Permit.
Response: Comment noted.
6
4. Division of Water Ouality
Comment 1: DWQ questions why a route intended to divert truck traffic would
include bicycle accommodation and wheelchair ramps.
Response: As stated on page 12 of the Environmental Assessment for V-3816, the
City of Raeford is planning a city park north of the Palmer Road Extension and has asked
that NCDOT integrate bicycle plans into the proposed alignment.
Comment 2: DWQ also prefers a roundabout to a signalized intersection as this
would, if properly designed, expedite the movement of traffic through the intersection
and provide a better level of service.
Response: The intersection of proposed Palmer Road Extension and SR 1403 will
be created due to the realignment of SR 1403. A roundabout design at this location will
not work due to 'geometric 'restrictions caused by the proposed grade separation at the
Aberdeen & Rockfish Railroad.
Comment 3: Direct impacts to wetlands and streams appear to be minimal.
%
However, the number of house and business relocations, impacts to farms (agri-business)
and loss of forested land is unknown.
Response: The Environmental Assessment for U-3816 addresses the direct
impacts. Also, see Table 1 on page 4 of this document for a summary of direct impacts.
Comment 4: Because of the economic development component of the purpose and
need, an analysis of the indirect and cumulative impacts may be required.
Response: A brief summary of indirect and cumulative impacts is included in the
Environmental Assessment. It is agreed that the improvement of the roadway might
accelerate the rate of development along the corridor. Two items might serve to mitigate
the possible future decrease in impervious surface area:
1. Integration of environmentally sensitive planning and design of the
industrial park proposed to the south of the corridor
'2. The construction of a city park to the north of the corridor.
7
C. Comments Received During and Following the Public Hearing
An informal combined public hearing was held on July 29, 2004 from 4 p.m. to 7
p.m. at the Hoke County Government Complex in Raeford. Approximately six people
attended the hearing. One written comment was received from the City of Raeford. See
Appendix B for the public notice and the handout information from the hearing.
1. CityOf Raeford
The Palmer Road Extension would improve traffic flow on local streets and would
allow for the development of a proposed City Park and industrial park. This project is
important to the implementation of their year 2000 Water Improvement Plan.
Response:
V. REI
Comment noted.
Minor revisions to the Environmental Assessment (EA)'?or this project include the following:
In the EA, there is a discrepancy on'the number of trains going
through the area. On page five, the EA'specifies 4 trains per
week, in one paragraph, but 4 trains per day in another. On page seven
the EA again specifies 4 trains per week.
Therefore, minor clarification was made that 4 trains per day travel
through the project area on the Aberdeen and Rockfish Railroad (the
"A&R"
2. The following statement which had been omitted from the EA was
added: No 303(d) streams within 1.0 miles of the project (Natural
Resources Technical Report page 6)
3. The following statement which had been omitted from the EA was
added: No NPDES dischargers within 1.0 miles of the project (Natural
Resources Technical Report page 6)
4. The Biological Conclusion for Michaux's sumac was changed from
No Effect to May Affect- Not Likely to Adversely Affect because of
potential habitat present in the project study corridor.
8
VI. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based upon a study of the impacts of the proposed project as documented in the
Environmental Assessment and comments received from federal, state, and local agencies, it
is the finding of the North Carolina Department of Transportation and the Federal'Highway
Administration that this project will not have a significant impact upon the quality of the
human or natural environment. The project is not controversial from an environmental
standpoint. No significant impacts to natural, ecological, cultural, or scenic resources are
expected. The proposed project is consistent with local plans and will not disrupt any
communities. In view of the above evaluation, it ahs been determined a Finding of No
Significant Impact is applicable for this project. Therefore, an Environmental Impact
Statement will not be required.

9

Man
Hoke
County
'1 - r - - - - Fort9rao0
- r -
To Feyeftwille
Fort Bnpa
To Southern Pines
P(nehurat
9702001 l± \
9703
9703005
9704001 F
ToLourinburp a
- N -
., A tics
o
eowrnore
Oundarrach
To Rod Spring*
Lumberton
N / North Carolina Department
1 0 1 Mile / -.r • `., of Transportation
A' Division of Highways
A ' Project Development And
Corridor Environmental Analysis Branch
Streams/ Rivers Figure 1 Project Location Map
Raeford, Hoke County, North Carolina
Roads Palmer Road Extension from
NC 211 at East oad (SR 1149)
Corporate Limits to
NC 20 at Oakdal Gri nRoad ( SR 1403)
Demographic Study Area T.I.P. Project No. U-3816
s

' \/ID")
F -\i)
I
TI
- I
? I
I
I
O
N D
G- O
i
C-) CD
DD ?--A O d?
-rl rn -0 1 ? ?'
? O r
U-) A or
I
co C,3
n
C? i
?sl
2 n I ??
? i -
? I
z I
GI
1
!/ T / J
M k \
\µ ? N
I
I
I
,L
i
I
' T
1
I
V 1
D
O
D
rte- ? ? ?
m ?
O ? 25
0
_ co'
C (?

D ?

/ T
nS1
SnB-??
n
fv
N
18

n
i? o
35 StTj
z z
50
C
z "d
p?
V a o

K °
3V
? Llf ? I

REVISIONS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sss44444YYY
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
k k
k k
k
k
? k µ
? k k k \
\ k _
p \\`? k N' µ k Ik k
\ k
\\? k k k l
I 1
k k
I
V I
II I
o ?
° I I k
I I k k
k
I I k
k µ
k
I I k µ
k
I I k
k
k
k k
? I I k
I I k k K
I µ
I k k µ
I k
I Q I k µ k
Y k k
k
I I k k k
I k
k k
? I Y' 1 k k
? ? ?• k
I I / k
/ k
/ k
I I % k
k
I / k k
/ k
I I / k k k µ
I1FF// k k
I M
b kkk
kµ
I k k
kkµ µ
k
k kk k
I I k k
I I kk k
I µ k
k
k
k k
I I ' k, k • ,_?
k k
T ..
k µ µ
I I k k •
I µ µ
I kk
I I k
? I k
µ
µ
I k
/ ? k k
i k
k (n?
__ k k O
k k k
k k ?'
__-... k µ k k k k k k µ/ µ µ µ? rY/
k, k k k k k k k k k k k k k J'Y "
k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k
k k k µ k µ µ k k k µ ???
k k k M k k k k k k µ8080 k k _ I
k k k k Z? r? i '- ,
k µ k k k k µ k m m
y N< k µ µ _
k m
k k N k k k k t_+ ?+
k µ kkk k ?
--1 r
v '
w
TA f
,Fn
L
O
o
o m
w v '
C ?
v^ '

U)
1

O
C

O
z
45
?
?
v/^''
T1 / l
C

O
C

C v
C<
u')?

y yyQ
zr so p((_f
c Y
az
8 ? ? tz7
> 'o
pG?
S
0
;< < 6.
SSSSYS44334454
REVISIONS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

b 0
2o
03
_ zz o.
Z cn ZCA Z€ ` T
r ?
s,
?( 1
S
Y
SSSSSSSSSSSSSS
Zz zy ?
United States Department of the Interi
FIS14 AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Camlim 27636.3726
December 31, 2003
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
1
RED
r? ?J
Y

This letter is in response to your November 26, 2003 letter requesting comments from the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed
extension of Palmer Road from NC 211 at SR 1149 (East ,Palmer Road) to NC 20 at SR 1403
(Oakdale Gin Road) in Raeford, Hoke County, North Carolina (TIP No. U-3816). These
comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
(16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C.1531-1543).
The EA addresses two build alternatives, both 0.9 miles long. Both utilize the same horizontal
alignment. Alternative A utilizes a grade separation (bridge) at the railroad crossing, while
Alternative B utilizes an at-grade intersection at the railroad crossing. The North Carolina
Department of Transportation's (NCDOT) preferred alternative is A.
From the information and aerial photograph provided, it appears that most of the alignment will
be placed in open agricultural lands. Wetland impacts are minimal: Alternative A with 0.12
acres of impact and Alternative B with 0.33 acres of impact. No stream impacts will occur. It
also appears that a relatively small amount of wildlife habitat in the form of approximately 1.9
acres of fragmented forest will be impacted. Overall, the Service has minimal concern for this
project. The Service supports NCDOT's preferred Alternative A since it has slightly less
wetland impacts.
There are five federally endangered species listed for Hoke County: the red-cockaded
woodpecker (Picoides borealis), Saint Francis' satyr (Neonympha mitchellii francisci), American
chaffseed (Schwalbea americana), rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia) and
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii). NCDOT has determined that the proposed project will have
no effect on these five species. Due to the lack of habitat, the Service concurs that the project
will have no effect on the red-cockaded woodpecker, Saint Francis' satyr, American chaffseed
and rough-leaved loosestrife. However, since potential habitat exists for Michaux's sumac, but
no specimens were found during a plant survey at the project site on June 5, 2002, a "may affect,
not likely to adversely affect" conclusion is more appropriate. An additional survey should be
conducted for this species again within two years of actual project construction. The results of
that survey should be submitted to our office for review. We believe that the requirements of
section 7 (a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied for now. We remind you that obligations under
section 7 consultation must be reconsidered if. (1) new information reveals impacts Qf this
identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously
considered in this review; (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not
considered in this review; (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat determined that may be
affected by the identified action.
The Service believes that this EA adequately addresses the existing fish and wildlife resources,
the waters and wetlands of the United States, and the potential impacts of this proposed project
on these resources. The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If you have
any questions regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at [phone], ext. 32.
Sincerely,
c
Garland B'; Pardue, Ph.D.
Ecological' Services Supervisor
cc: Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Beth Barnes, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Richard Spencer, USACE, Wilmington, NC
David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington, NC
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGEN
Region 4 G El
Atlanta Federal Center
`61 Forsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8909
MAP a 2004
March 1 2004 a rshON of
' 41GHWAYS ?
DFVELO
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D. ?rAL ANN
Environmental Manager Director, Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
SUBJ: EPA Reyiew of the Federal Environmental Assessment for the Palmer Road
Extension from NC 211 to NC 20, Raeford, in Hoke County; Federal Aid
Project No. STP-0831(2), State Project No. 8.2530301, T.I.P. Project No. U-
3816
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Pursuant to Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has reviewed the referenced North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Palmer Road Extension, Raeford, in Hoke County. The
EA addresses the No-build alternative and two construction alternatives (Alternative A includes a
2-lane facility with a grade separation (bridge) at the railroad crossing and Alternative B which
includes 2-lane facility with an at-grade intersection). The length of the new location extension
project is approximately 0.9 miles. Two-foot bike lanes along the shoulders are also being
provided. The proposed project is a non-Merger Team project.
EPA offers the following comments on the EA.
EPA has no environmental concerns regarding the project's overall purpose and need and
the general alternatives considered as outlined in the EA. However, EPA notes that part of the - -
purpose and need for the project is to divert truck traffic from Raeford. This use seems
incompatible with bicycle lanes as requested by local officials.
? AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Impacts to wetlands (0.12 acres for NCDOT's preferred Alternative A) appear to be
minimal and there is one intermittent stream (Unnamed tributary to Peddlers Branch) within the
study area but it is not expected to be impacted from the proposed project.. There are no
residential or business relocations. There are no impacts expected to noise receptors, air quality,
historic or cultural resources, hazardous material sites or endangered species.
,From the aerial photographs shown in Figures 2A and 2B, the project would appear to
impact farmlands and terrestrial forests. There is no analysis of the potential impacts to these
resources in the body of the EA. According to the Natural Resource Technical Report (NRTR)
in Appendix B, Page 9, the impacts to forest communities are approximately 1.9 acres, including
Sandhills Pine Forest and Mesic Hardwood Forest. Also identified in this table, impacts to
agricultural lands are 7.9 acres. However, there is no analysis or discussion contained in the EA
or NRTR if these agricultural lands are considered prime or unique. There is a letter of concern
dated July 6, 2001, from the Oakdale Cotton Gin in Appendix C that would indicate that the
proposed project alignment would substantially impact their farming operations. NCDOT needs
to provide further information on the status of prime and unique agricultural lands.
? SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
. EPA has not identified any substantial environmental concerns regarding the proposed
project. However, we recommend that additional'analysis and information be provided on prime
and unique agricultural lands and any unresolved issues with the Oakdale Cotton Gin. NCDOT
may also wish to explore the City of Raeford's request for bicycle shoulder widths in an area
where such a use would not be potentially safe or compatible with other uses. Furthermore, we
recommend that a summary table of impacts be provided in the FNSI. This summary table is
consistent with the recommendations being developed by the joint Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), NCDOT and EPA work group on NEPA document streamlining. We
appreciate the opportunity to comment on this EA. Should you have questions regarding these
comments, please feel free to contact Christopher Militscher of my staff at 919-856-4206.
Sincerely,
Heinz J. Mueller, Chief
NEPA Program Office
Office of Policy and Management

MEMORANDUM
CarohnaWkfife Resources Commiq'
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DE-NR
FROM: Travis Wilson, Highway Project Coordinator _
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: January, 2, 2004
SUBJECT: North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDO 1) Environmental
Assessment (EA) for the extension of Palmer Road from NC 211 to NC 20 in
Raeford, Hoke County, North Carolina. TTP No. U-3816, SCH Project No. 04-
0155.
Staff biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the subject
EA and are familiar with habitat values in the project area. The purpose of this review was to
assess project impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Our comments are provided in accordance
with certain provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
NCDrJT proposes to extend Palmer Road from NC 211 ut SR .1. ].49 ;o NC 20 at Q,R 1403,
the project will be constructed as a two-lane shoulder facility. The total project length is
approximately 0.9 miles. The construction of this project will impact 0.12 acres of wetlands for
alternative A and 0.33 acres for alternative B, there will be no impacts to perennial streams.
We have reviewed the data in the EA. Due to the urban nature of this project site the
environmental impacts are .minimal: At this time, we concur with the EA for this project. Thank
you for the opportunity to comment on this EA. If we can be of any further assistance please call
me at [phone].
cc: Gary Jordan, U.S. Fi.sb and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
John Hennessy, DWQ, Raleigh
Richard Spencer, U.S. Army Corps of .Engineers, Wilmington
IblailingAddzesc; Division of Tnlnntl Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC.' 27699_1721
Telenhane: (914 733-3633 csr. Z31 - Fax: [phone]
Charles F. Fvflwood, Exc,cutivC Dir=or
v
INC-DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources Project Number: ?"7
Due Date:
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
After review of this project it has been determined that the DENR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in order for this project
to comply with North Carolina Law. Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of this form.
qll applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Re Tonal Offl
g ce.
1 PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS Normal Process Time
(Statutory Time Limit)
Q Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of construction
facilities, sewer system extensions & sewer systems contracts. On-site inspection. Post-application technical conference usual 30 days
not discharging into state surface waters. . (90 days)
NPDES-permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection preappilcation
permit to operate and cbnstruct wastewater facilities conference usuaLAdditionally, obtain permit to construct wastewater treatment 90 -120 days
discharging into state surface waters.
)GOO
C O /
N C facility-granted after NPD ES. Reply time, 30 days after receipt of plans or issue
of NPOES
i
hi
h (N/A)
Z
. perm
t-w
c
ever is later.
Q Water Use. Permit Preappiication technical conference usually necessary 30 days
(NIA)
I Well Construction Permit
" Complete application must be received and permit issued prior to the 7 days
installation of a well (L` days)
Q Dredge and Fill Permit Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property owner.
Orrsite inspection. Preappliation conference usual. Filling may require Easement 55 days
to Fill from N.C. Department of Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit. (90 days)
1 Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement
} facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15 A NCAC N/A 60 days
(2Q.0100,2Q.0300.2H.0600) %
I ( Any open burning associated with subject proposal
!r! must be in compliance with 15 A NCAC 20.1900
- Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with
15 A NCAC 2D.1110 (a) (1) which requires notification
' N/A 60 days
and
removal prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos (90 days)
Control Group. 919-733-0820.
i Complex Source Permit required under 15 A NCAC
2D.0800
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & sedimentation
control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quali 5ection) at least 30 ,
days before beginning activit
A fee of $40 for the first acre o
an
f
'' 20 days
(30 da
s)
y.
r
y part o
.an acre. M u 5• f CC Cc?
op rav.? y

The Sedimentation P
ll
i
C
l A
f 1
7
d
o
ut
on
ontro
ct o
9
3 must be a
dressed with respect to the referenced Local Ordinance 30 days
Mining Permit On-cite inspection usual. Surety bond fled with OENA Bond amount varies with
I type mine and number of acres, of affected land. Any are mined greater than 30 days
one acre must be permitted. The appropriate bond must be received before (60 days)
i the permit can be issued "
North Carolina Buming-permit On-site inspection by N.C.Divislon of Forest Resources if permit exceeds 4 days 1 day
(WA)
(3 Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit-22 counties On-site Inspection by N.C.Dlviiion of Forest Resources required T more than five 1 day
i in coastal N.C_ with organic soils. acres of ground clearing activities are involved Inspections should be requested (N/A)
at least ten days before actual burn is planned.'
LJ Oil Refining Facilities g0 -120 days
WA
(N/A)
Dam Safety Permit If permit required. application 60 days before begin construction. Applicant
must hire N.C. qualified•engineer to: prepare plans, Inspect construction, certify
construction is according to DENR approved plans. May also require permit under
mosquito control program,and a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers. 30 days
An Inspection of site is necessary to verify Hazard Classification. A minimum (60 days)
fee of $200.00 must accompany the application. An additional processing fee
based on a percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion.
u -• - - _111.10cu,y Vu Vr 94a wnu rue surety pond at 55.000 with DENR running to State of N.C. conditional that any
well opened by drill operator shall, upon abandonment, be plugged according 1
days
to OENR rules and regulations. (
!N/.4)
Geophysical Exploration Permit Application riled with OENR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit. Application 10 days
by letter. No standard application form. (N/A)

State lakes Construction Permit Application fees based an structure size is charged. Must include descriptions
& drawings of structure & proof of ownership of riparian property. 15 - 20 days
(N/A)
401 Water Quality Certification N/A 55 days
(130 days)
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development $250.00 fee must accompany application 60 days
(130 days)
ILI CAMA Permit for MINOR development $50.00 fee must accompany application 22 days
(25 days)
Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monument needs to be moved or destroyed, please notify:
'N.C. Geodetic Survey, Box 27687 Raleigh, N.C.27611
Abandonment of any wells, if required must be in accordance with Title 15A. Subchapter 200100.
Q Notification of the proper regional office is requested if'orphan' underground storage tanks (US M are discovered during any excavation operation
Compliance with 1 SA NCAC 2H 1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required 45 days
(N/A)
* Other corr;ments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to ate comment authority),
k•rCd,
/
arI
/ ,/?1,
jy?.i iSStlt eru?«N S"?Ci,r..a}: `wa ??1A";,-z /UC•._ k.c4
J
fZev215 D(c.'?//=IZC7 71'4f'i ?t1,Q7 r5a.?.u...?-.a?s> a??ls.?lt
tl.rz ?vaer_J>`?r??;vc
_V 'L_
i2'«'ZXj
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed t
?• Asheville Regional Office ? Mooresville Regional Office
59 Woodfn Place 919 North Main Street
Asheville, N.C.28801" Mooresville, N.C.28115
[phone] [phone]
? Fayetteville Regional Office
225 Green Street Suite 714
Fayetteville, N.C. 2830-1-
(91-0) 486-1541
the Regional Office marked below.
? Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, N.C.28405
[phone]
? Raleigh Regional Office
3800 Barrett Drive, P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N.C.2761.1.:.
(919) 5714700
? Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, N.C.17889
[phone]
0 Winston-Salem Regional Office
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, N.C.27107
[phone]
+ U, -1
\' QC.
/??6 f William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
ti Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
I
` , \? to
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
O `C ^•?$ ?? Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality

DOA
February 10, 2004
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator
NCDENR Office of Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
From: Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele, NCDOT Coordinator GC/?W
Subject: Review of Environmental Assessment for proposed Palmer Road Extension from NC 211
at SR 1149 to NC 20 at SR 1403 in Raeford, Hoke County, F.A. Project STP-0831(2),
State Project No. 8.253030 1, TIP Project U-3816, State Clearinghouse Project 04-0155.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has submitted a draft Environmental
Assessment (EA) for the subject project. The NC Division of Water Quality has reviewed the document
and is commenting in accordance with the provisions of § 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA).
PuMose and Need
It is DWQ's understanding that the purpose of this project is to improve traffic flow, provide local and
regional connectivity, remove truck and other traffic from local streets, provide access for the
development of this area of Raeford (economic development) and maintain the functional integrity of
Palmer Road to operate as a major collector. Additional, we understand that Raeford has no loop system
and that this is the third highest priority project for Hoke County.
Traffic Volumes and Level of Service
According to the EA, traffic volumes are currently 6600 vpd and projected to increase to 12.200 vpd;
truck traffic ranges from one to four percent of the total volume. Comparing Table 1 and Table 2 levels
of service, it appears that the LOS for some traffic movements will decrease with the construction of the
project.
Alternatives
The EA presents two basic alternatives with several options for the treatment of the SR 1149 and SR 1403,..
intersection. DWQ prefers Alternative A (Grade separation at railroad crossing), but questions why a
route intended to divert truck traffic would include bicycle accommodation and wheelchair ramps. DWQ
also prefers a roundabout to a signalized intersection as this would, if properly designed, expedite the
movement of traffic through the intersection and provide a better level of service. This option would also
more closely match the stated purpose and need.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919.733-6893 (far.), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/
NCDEN!
., - ,.y
February 10, 2004 • i
' e
Direct and Indirect/Cumulative Impacts to the Human and Natural Environment
Direct impacts to wetlands and streams appear to be minimal. However, the number of house and
business relocations, impacts to farms (agri-businesses) and loss of forested land is unknown.
Because of the economic development component of the purpose and need, an analysis of the indirect and
cumulative impacts may be required. Indeed, according to the information related to the development of
industrial facilities on page 12, the increase in impervious surface area could be significant.
cc: Chris Militscher, USEPA
Gary Jordan, USFWS Raleigh Field Office
Travis Wilson, NCWRC
File Copy
2

NOTICE: OF AN OPEN-HOUSE PUBLIC HEARING
FOR THE PROPOSED PAIAMR ROAD EXTENSION
?s FROM NC 211 AT EAST PALMER ROAD
TO NC 20 AT OAKDALE GIN ROAD
WBS Element 34979.1.1 U-3816 Hoke County
Project.: 8.2530301
The-North Carolina. Department of Transportation will hold the above open house
public hearing on Thursday, July 29, 2004 from 4:00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m. in the Hoke
County Government Complex - Board of Commissioner's Room - located at 227 North
Main Street in Raeford. Interested individuals may attend this hearing at their
convenience between the above stated hours. Division of Highways personnel will be
available to provide information, answer questions, and take comments regarding this
project.
The project proposes to extend Palmer Road on new location from NC 211 to
NC 20 a distance of approximately 1.3 miles. The project would begin at the East
Palmer Road (SR 1149)/NC 211 intersection; proceed in,,an easterly direction;
and end near the Oakdale Gin Road (SR 1403)/NC 20 intersection. A two-lane roadway
with shoulders is proposed. Each lane will be twelve feet wide. Shoulders will be eight
feet wide - four feet paved. The paved shoulders will accommodate bicycle traffic. A new
bridge is planned crossing the Aberdeen & Rockfish Railroad. Existing Oakdale Gin Road
will be realigned west of NC 20 to improve intersection safety. Additional right of way
will be required for this project.
A map setting forth the location and design and a copy of the environmental
document - Environmental Assessment - are available for public review in the Hoke
County Government Complex located at 227 North Main Street in Raeford and in the City
of Raeford Government Complex located at 315 North Main Street in Raeford.
Representatives of the Department of Transportation will be available to discuss
the proposed project with those attending the public hearing. NO FORMAL
PRESENTATION WILL BE MADE. Anyone desiring additional information may
write to Len Hendricks, Public Involvement Unit, 1583 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, NC 27699-1583; telephone [phone]; FAX [phone]; or email
lendricks@dot. state. nc. us.
NCDOT - in compliance with the American's With Disabilities Act - will provide
auxiliary aids and services for disabled persons who wish to participate in the hearing.
To receive special services, please call Mr. Hendricks at the above number to give
adequate notice prior to the date of the hearing.

?V>
:tc•.
PALMER ROAD,
EXTENSION
iF
UO R
Tif '011.,
APO," CA
M NC 211
4410*

0
9

9
1i
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTNEN'I' OP TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR JULY 29, 2004 SEORETARY
DEAR CITIZEN:
THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING THIS OPEN-FORUM PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED PALMER
ROAD EXTENSION. A TWO-LANE ROADWAY WITH SHOULDERS IS PLANNED FOR MOST OF THE
PROJECT; HOWEVER, ADDITIONAL TURN LANES ARE PROPOSED AT BOTH THE PALMER ROAD/..
NC 211 AND PALMER ROAD/NG20 INTERSECTIONS. IN ADDITION,.A BRIDGE IS PROPOSED
CROSSING THE ABERDEEN 8L ROCKFISH RAILROAD. OAKDALE GIN ROAD WILL BE REALIGNED
PROVIDING IMPROVED VISABILITY AND SAFETY. CONTAINED IN THIS HANDOUT PACKAGE IS
INFORMATION ABOUT THE PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT, THE LOCATION/DESIGN, AND RIGHT OF
WAY PROCEDURES. YOU ARE INVITED TO READ THE MATERIALTO BECOME ACQUAINTED WITH
THE PROPOSAL.
THE PROJECT BEGINS AT THE EXISTING WEST PALMER ? OAD/NC 211 INTERSECTION AND
PROCEEDS IN AN EASTERLY DIRECTION ON NEW LOCATION, CROSSES THE ABERDEEN 8L
ROCKFISH RAILROAD, AND ENDS AT NC 20 AT THE EXISTIN9 OAKDALE GIN ROAD INTERSECTION
-A TOTAL DISTANCE OF APPROXIMATELY 1.3 MILE. AS. PA T OF THIS PROJECT, OAKDALE GIN
ROAD WILL . BE REALIGNED INTERSECTING PALMER ROAD EXTENSION APPROXIMATELY 1300
FEET WEST OF THE' CURRENT NC 20 INTERSECTION. UPON COMPLETION OF THE
REALIGNMENT, APPROXIMATELY 1800 FEET OF EXISTING OAKDALE GIN ROAD WILL BE
REMOVED.
Y
A MAP SHOWING THE LOCATION AND DESIGN ALTERNATIVE IS AVAILABLE FOR YOU TO REVIEW.
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ARE
AVAILABLE TO DISCUSS THE PROJECT AND ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE
PLANNING/DESIGN_ REPRESENTATIVES OF THE RIGHT OF WAY BRANCH ARE AVAILABLE TO
DISCUSS THIS AREA AND TO ADDRESS YOUR QUESTIONS.
THE PURPOSE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING IS TO SEEK YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE PROPOSED
PROJECT. YOU MAY PROVIDE THEM BY USING THE COMMENT SHEET IN YOUR HANDOUT.
WRITTEN COMMENTS MAY BE SUBMITTED TO THE MEETING MODERATOR, DEPOSITED IN THE
DESIGNATED CONTAINER, OR MAILED WITHIN THE NEXT 15 DAYS TO THE ADDRESS SHOWN ON.
THE COMMENT SHEET... ALL COMMENTS WILL BECOME PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD.
AGAIN, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING THE OPEN-HOUSE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOR
GIVING US YOUR COMMENTS. A DECISION ON THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL BE MADE IN THE
NEAR FUTURE.
SINCERELY,
LEN HENDRICKS
PUBLIC HEARING OFFICER
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
OFFICE OF HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
1583 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1583
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
PARKER. LINCOLN BLDG
2728 CAPITAL BLVD
RALF_IGH NC 27604
PURPOSE OF PROJECT

The primarypurpose of the project is to improve traffic flow south of Raeford by providing a continuous,
route; from= NC 211- to IVC 20: 1R addition, the. project will provide regional connectivity between US 1. and
1-95 and-16-661' connectivity between other circumferential roadways in Hoke County linking industries that
are planned for this area. The proposed extension will improve safety by removing truck and other
through traffic accessing US 401 and 1-95 via NC 20 from local streets The project will provide access foi
proposed development in this area, including a city park planned for the northeastem quadrant and an
industrial park planned for the southeastern quadrant. The proposed. action will allow Palmer Road- to
operate as a- major thoroughfare.
PURPOSE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Tonight's hearing is one step in the Department of Transportation's procedure for making you, the
public, a part of the planning process. The Department of Transportation is soliciting your views on the
proposed location/design of the Palmer Road Extension from NC 211 to NC 20.
The Department of Transportation's views on. the above project are set forth in the environmental
document - Environmental Assessment, A copy of this report and a copy of the public hearing map is
available for public review in the Hoke County Govemment.Complex located at 227 North Main Street in
Raeford and in the City of Raeford Government Complex located at 315 North Main Street in Raeford.
YOUR PARTICIPATION
Several representatives of the North Carolina Department of Transportation are present at this meeting.
Any of these people will be happy to talk with you, explain the proposal to you, and answer your
questions. Now that the opportunity is here, you are encouraged to participate by voicing your comments
to Department of Transportation representatives at this meeting, by writing them on the comment sheet
and placing it in the designated box, or mailing them during the 15 days following the public hearing.
Those wishing to submit written material may do so to:
Mr. Len Hendricks
Public Hearing Officer
NCDOT
Public Involvement Unit
1583 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1583
Telephone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
email: [e-mail]
WHAT IS DONE WITH THE INPUT?

A_ post-hearing-meeting will be conducted after the comment period has ended. This meeting will be
attended by..NCDOT staff representing. Planning, Design, Traffic, Right of Way, Public Involvement,. and
others- wha playa role in the development of a project. When appropriate, representatives from the
Federal Highway-Administration and local 'governmental. officials also attend.
All spoken and. written issues. are discussed at this meeting. Most issues are resolved at the post
hearing meeting The Department of Transportation considers safety, costs, traffic service, social
impacts, and- public comments in making decisions. Complex issues may require additional study and
may be reviewed by higher management, .Board of Tran.&portation Members, and/or the Secretary of
Transportation.
Minutes of the post-hearing meeting are prepared and this summary is available to the public. You may
request this document- on the attached comment sheet.
STATE-FEDERAL RELATIONSHIP
This proposed project is a Federal-Aid Highway Project and thus will be constructed under the State-
Federal Aid Highway Program. Financing of this project will be 80% Federal Funds and 20% State
Funds. The Board of Transportation is responsible for the selection and scheduling of projects on the
Federal Aid System, their location, design, and maintenance cost after construction. The Federal
Highway Administration is responsible for the review and approval of the previously mentioned
activities to ensure that each Federal Aid Project is designed, constructed, and maintained to Federal
Aid Standards.
f. k

NORTH CAROLINA DEPA
OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
U- 3816
RAEFORD
PALMER ROAD EXTENSION
FROM NC 211 AT SR 1149 TO
NC 20 AT SR 1403
HOKE
PROJECT INFORMATION
Length:. 1.27 Miles
Typical Section: From NC 211 To NC' 20;
Two Lanes - Shoulders
Each Lane 1Z Wide 8' Wide14' Paved
'Paved Shoulders May Be Used For Bicycle Traffic
Oakdale Gin Road Realignment
Two Lanes - Shoulders
Each Lane 12' Wide 8' Wide
Right of Way: 150 Feet
'Construction Easements Will Be Required Along Both NC 211 And NC 20 For Intersection Improvements
Relocatees: Residences: 0
Businesses: 0

Total 0 \
Estimated Cost: Right of Way: $ 238,125
Roadway 3,163,000
Structure 837,000
Total $ 4,238,125
Tentative Schedule: Right of Way: August, 2005
Construction: August, 2007

' TYPICAL SECTION.
Palmer-Road Extension
From NC 219'
To NC 20
?W I At I 19Y.
-lr PALMM -RD. EX' MION
Y1_ MAIN sr.
Y2;. HWY 211E -
Y4- NC 20
Yb- ST. PAULS RD.
TYPICAL SECTION
Oakdale Gin Road Realignment
From Approximately 1800 Feet Southwest of NC. 20 Intersection
Intersecting Palmer Road Extension
Approximately 1300 Feet West of NC 20 Intersection
9

(/h?sa?dA??`?e+++A?P??TAeXmi{p?pCeQilrlpib6cin?oAt?mmKq?arprrdesaflesradkshedatar?.lpp?ritle/erdloreriUlpngectbasenoniaaDrr?oiexit?t ?? ?
ifldfllipWrl?i?iCitlfmfK!?Nfh'/NdErJlalldSm!!?'/L'?1(?fllf?J'- ?`?Jndl0Detl?l/Ci?PYb?CPifalpiWr?O/?OAI?I?IOffIWrIESdE?llldrl9W'10(ISpE?CIrKMOj!'Ct1
L. -Dauld1op- LinCidJ tua. 7I10t 11W Plan
Study Initiation
- Conduct initial field. trip
- Meet with local policy boards and technical staff
• - Conduct goals and objectives survey
Establish local steering committee (upon local request)
Data Collection
-.-Collect solo-economic data (land. use, population,.
traffic volumes and employment data)
Coilect.trarupottation network data
Research environmental and cultural concerns
• - Receive input from various local area-sources (needs,
problems, concerns, etc.)
to - local area develops future year socio-economic
forecasts
Data Analysis
- Model adssting transportation-'network
- Generate design year transportation information
Conduct deficiency analysis
Discuss Findings with Local Area Policy Boards, Technical
Staff, and Public
- Discuss deficiencies with local area
• - Discuss possible aftemative solutions
Plan Development
- Develop alternative plans
- Review project impacts
- Conduct cost-benefit analyses
- Disa,ss alternatives with local area staff and policy boards
• - Conduct public information workshop(s)
- Discuss and resolve public comments with local staff
- Select recommended plan in cooperation with local
staff and policy boards
Plan*Adoption
0 - local government conducts public hearing(s)
t?- Present plan for adoption by local government and the
North Carolina Board ofTrarnportation
Plan Implementation
- Local govemment.enforces land use controls
• - Present project requests through TIP process
IL. Develop Transportation Improvement
Program MP)
• - local. governments select priorities to include in TIP
• - Board of Transportation holds annual public meetings
statewide to update the previous year's TIP
- Transcribe comments and material received at public
meetings, and submit to Transportation Board
- Transportation Board members work with NCDOT
staff to update TIP
e - Release draft Transportation Improvement Program
to the press, public. and governments for review.
- Finalize TIP following comments
- Board of Transportation adopts state TIP
- Metropolitan Planning Organizationt receive public
comment and approve local TIP
Secretary of Transporta5m .approves local TIPS
LILT Develop rMn 't+onmetttal Doclnnenft
Notify Public and Government Agencies of Project Study
- Hold citizen information workshops
Evaluate comments received at workshops
- Form citizen's advisory group to get local citizens
involved (upon local request)
Select condors to be studied
Identify feasible corridors and evaluate costs and
environmental impacts
• - Hand information workshop on selected corridors
- NCDOT staff uses recommendations from local citizens,
goverrunents and state agencies to prepare a draft
'Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or Environmental
Assessment (EA)
Prepare Draft Environmental Document
• - Make draft EIS or EA, which addresses the impacts of
each corridor, available to public and send to review
agencies and local officials for comment
• - Hold pubic hearing on location of corridor (1 O-day
comment period follows public hearing)
- NCDOT holds post hearing meeting and a corridor is
recommended using technical data and information
received in conjunction with the public hearing
- Notify public of selected corridor
Prepare Final Environmental Document
- Begin preliminary design of highway in selected
corridor (1)
- If final EIS/Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
required, send to State Clearinghouse (N.C. Dept
of Administration) and federal 'agencies for 30-day
comment period
- Send notification of Final EIS to Review Agencies and
Federal Register
- Publish record of decision on preliminary design using
comments from public, review agencies and the FHWA
• - Hold public hearing on project design (1 O=day public
comment period follows public hearing) {1)
- Hold post hearing meeting where any changes in
design are made if necessary.
{1) Dwse steps are combined vvM corridor locarm for moat =WW projects.
Questions? Call Gt¢en Pa=pawn Out (919) 2504092
® North Carolina Department of Transportation, P.O. Box 25201 Raleigh, N.C. 27611 211196

• ?r -R Lest
12
Project. Plans and Environmental
Documents are Prepared
Right of Way . Plans are Prepared
E.m ght of way acquisition;
l D esign Plans are -Prepared
Construction
r
4 10 RIGHT OF WAY PROCEDURES

After decisions are made regarding the final design, the proposed right of way limits will
be staked in the ground. Affected..owners of property will be contacted by a Right of
Way Agent and a meeting. will be arranged. The agent will explain the plans and the
property owner will be advised as to how the project will affect him. The agent will
inform you of your rights as a property owner.. If permanent right of way is required,
professionals who are familiar with real estate values will evaluate or appraise your
property. The evaluations or appraisals will be reviewed for completeness and
accuracy and then a written offer will be made to you by the Right of Way Agent. The
current market value of the property at its highest and best use when it is appraised will
be offered as compensation. The Department of Transportation must:
1. Treat all owners and tenants equally.
2. Fully explain the owner's rights.
3. Pay just compensation in exchange for property rights.
4. Fumish? relocation advisory assistance.
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
If you area relocatee, that is, if your residence or business is to be acquired as a part
of the project, additional assistance in the form of advice and compensation is
available. You will also be provided with assistance on locations of comparable
housing and/or commercial establishments, moving procedures, and moving aid.
Moving expenses may be paid for you. Additional monetary compensation is available
to help homeowners cope with mortgage increases, increased value of comparable
homes, closing costs, etc. A similar program is available to assist business owners.
The Right of Way Agent can explain this assistance in greater detail.
NOTE: PAMPHLETS SUMMARIZING RIGHT OF WAYAND RELOCATION
PROCEDURES ARE AVAILABLE AT THE MODERATOR'S TABLE.
Palmer Road Extension
From NC 2.11
To NC 20
July 29, 2004
U-3816 Hoke County WBS Element 34979.1.1
Project 8.2530301
L
NAME:
ADDRESS:
COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS:

Comments may be mailed to:
Len Hendricks, Public Hearing Officer
N. C. Department of Transportation, Public Involvement Unit
1583 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1583
Telephone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
email: [e-mail]
Re: U-3816
Subject: Re: U-3816
Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 14:17:18 -0400
From: John Hennessy <[e-mail]>
To: "Jennifer M. Safron" <[e-mail]>
CC: Richard.K. Spencer@ usace.army.mil, John Dorney <[e-mail]>
Jennifer,
}
I apologize if I wasn't clear in my explanation. Allow me to clarify. I
NEVER said anything about the size of the impact being related to the strength
(or lack of said strength) of a P&N. Rather, what I indicated is that ANY
impact to a jurisdictional wetland or waters needs to be justified before I can
issue a 401 WQC. I was attempting to be polite when I indicated that DOT
should not admit that the project lacked an appropriate P&N. Follow up emails
by DOT indicate that there is no traffic or safety problem that needs to be
solved here. I'm am truly sorry if it will take time for DOT to go back and do
the necessary work to show that the project has merit. But, it is important to
note that an appropriate alternatives analysis cannot be done without an
appropriate P&N. Jennifer, please understand, I am trying to be polite here.
It is not very easy to give someone bad news and also convey the fact that I am
very firm in my position, without sometimes sounding harsh. But, please
understand, if DOT cannot demonstrate an appropriate alternative analysis, I
cannot approve the project. I've been in this job for a long time, and I have
dealt with this issue many times. I have always been consistent on this
issue. I truly want to work with DOT to move this project forward. However,
for me to be able to write a legally defensible 401 WQC, DOT will need to
provide the necessary information.
Let me know how you want to proceed. I'm here to help.
Thanks,
John H.
"Jennifer M. Safron" wrote:
> John,
> Nowhere in my e-mail did I admit that U-3816 does not have a strong P&N.
> The fact is, until we do the analysis, it is in question. Should the
> analysis show a weak P&N, by our current definitions, I do not think it
> automatically implies the project purpose is undefendable. I am not
> specifically questioning the P&N for this project, I just used it as an
> example. I am trying to understand a concept that I was not seeing
> clearly. What you are saying here is this, I think:
> The 0.5 acre1150 LF guidelines are only valid for projects with strong,
> defendable purpose and needs.
> I was missing that completely. in my mind, those guidelines could be
> applied to any TIP project. So in doing my job, I may have put off a
> concurrence point 1 meeting until wetlands were delineated, found out less
> than 0.5 acres or 150 LF were impacted, called up Richard just to make sure
> he knew this, then been on my merry way. I have learned that I cannot take
> that route, if I am understanding you. Which is fine, I am just alarmed
> that I missed this concept altogether.
> Thanks for helping me see this subtlety! I will wait to hear from you or
> Richard as to how we will be proceeding.
> Jennifer
I of 1 7/1/02 2:17 P1v
Re: U-3816
s ,'3
Subject: Re: U-3816
Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 10:41:36 -0400
From: John Hennessy <[e-mail]>
To: "Spencer, Richard K SAW" <Rich ard.K.Spencer @ saw02.usace. army.mil>
CC: "'[e-mail]"' <jmsafron@dot. state.nc.us?
John Dorney <[e-mail]>
Guess I should have read ahead on my emails prior to responding. I do think that this issue is important. Ii
the Corps chooses to take it out of the process, it is, obviously, your choice. I will not make a big deal
about. However, DOT needs to understand that they will have to answer the question for issuance of the
401 WQC. If DOT chooses to wait and answer the questions with a let date hanging over their heads, it is
their choice. I will put this email in the project as a reminder for when the 401 comes in. Let me know if
you require any additional information.
Thanks,
John H.
"Spencer, Richard K SAW" wrote:
Jennifer - I pulled the file on this project and I stand corrected. We did agree that if the project wetland impacts were less
than half an acre, there would be no need to put the project through the merger process. If this is the case, the project would
qualify for authorization under a nationwide permit provided the impacts were considered minimal. Thanks for reminding me
of this agreement.
Many things can drive a project including the wishes of the local government and congressional interests. That's not to say
that I agree with it. However, I do recognize that it does occur. The bottom line on these types of projects is that they have to
overcome the benefits verses detriments weighting test. Proponents of these types of project find it very difficult to clear this
hurdle.
John - I've seen the wetlands on the project and do believe that the impacts of this small a magnitude would be considered
minimal in this case and the project could be authorized by NWP. I also, believe that the DOT has identified local termini for
the project. Avoiding the wetlands may not be possible due to minimum curve radius requirements. If you still feel real
strong about this we can talk next week.
Richard
-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] fmailto:[e-mail]
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 1:50 PM
To: Spencer, Richard K SAW
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: U-3816
Richard,
Thanks for your reply and the information too. But if you are saying this
must stay in the merger process, I must raise one last point.
At the P&N meeting I had on Feb 14, 2002 for this project, we all agreed
I of 2 7/1/02 10:46 AM
Re: U-3816
4W - 'IL
that if the prelim. designs showed less than 0.5 acres of wetlands were
impacted, we could drop this project from the merger process. John did not
attend this meeting, and I never received any comments on the P&N report
that I had sent him.
If John is not happy with the P&N, then I can't just go ahead and set up a
meeting as you have advised, as there is much work to be done if I need to
present a traffic or safety problem. With our personnel vacancies in
Statewide Planning and Congestion Managment, it could take months to do
systems analysis of traffic around all of Southern Raeford, to verify there
exists a need based on traffic patterns.
And after all that work, I am not sure we can even show a traffic or safety
problem.
Richard, it sounds like you agree that the P&N can include the want or
desire for a project, which is in my current P&N report. Maybe John could
read the original P&N report and make comments before we even set up a
second meeting. I need to know exactly what everyone expects from the P&N
for this project now.
Thanks again for your time & have a great weekend,
Jennifer
2 of 2 7/1/02 10:46 AM
£f 9Z-SIL (616) :xr3 • I8Z •lxa ££9£-££Z (616) :auoydala•L
I ZZ I-669ZZ DN `V1;)lr2I • aaluaD a-li.vas l!uw I ZZ I . s011a4s?3 pucluj Io uots?nrQ :ss3Jppd,9Ulj!V W
uojBulwpAk `s.iaauii?ug3o sdioD Auuy •S•fl `.iaouadS piug3i-
g2Plu2i `0MQ `XssauuaH uuof
Tg2i3lMd `aoiniaS ZTIPIIM P IC TIsld 'S'fl `uupiof XIBO :oo
'9886-8Z9 (616) W Ow
Iluo osuald oouulsissu x)qj nj Auu jo aq uBo om 3I -Vg sigl uo luawwoo of Aliun:poddo oql ioj noA
xuuq,L •loofo.Td sigl -ioj dg aill pm mouoo Qm `atup sigl IV •luwtutw aiu sloudwi IBluawuo.Itnua
all olis Ioafold sigl jo oinluu uuq n ails of an(I -Vg oill ui Blup aTll pMaina.I anBll aM
•swua.Tls Iuiuua.iad of sloudwi ou ag IIiM azatll `g anTlBUdaIIB .IO3 S01OB ££'0 PuB d antlBU.IaIIB
IOJ spuBllanjo swou Z1.0 loudwl Iltnn loafold sigl jo uoilo"suoo ally •saliw 6'0 Aialuwixo.iddu
si gl2ual loofold Iulol ally •,l[ltliouj 1;)plnogs auuj-onnl u su pop ulsuoo oq llinn loofoad aill
`£0171 2IS IL, OZ DN Ol 6171 i WS IB 11 Z DN wO.g puO-d l;)wPd pualxa of sasodoid ,LOQDN
'(PL99-199 'D'S'fl 91 `•PapuawB su `1017 'IBIS 80 IoH uoiluuiPOOD a3iIPIiM puu usi3
3qI Puu (0)(6Z££17 'D'S'fl Z17) IOV Xotlod IBluawuounug IuuoilBN OgIJO suoisinoid umpoo pm
0OUEP10DOU ui papinoid aiB sluawwoo .m0 •saolnosa.T aiilpli^A puu qsg of sloudwi loafoid ssassu
of SUM M31na3 sill jo osodind z)ql •uaiu loafold;)gj ui sanlun luliquq gjim .TBiliwuj alu puu dg
loafgns aill paMainat anBTI uoissiwwoD sao.inosa-I ajilPiiM 'D 'N oql gum slsiiioioig33BIS
'SSiO
-170 oN Ioafold HAS `9I8£-fl 'ON dI.L 'uuiloiu? TIl1oN `?Cluno? a?IoH `pio?aB?i
uT OZ DX of 11 Z DN wo.IJ puo"I .IawlBd JO uoisualxa QqI Jo3 (Vg) luawssossd
IBluawuo.nnug (,LOQDN) uoijuliodsuuiL jo luou.4ndaQ uuilolLD upoN :,LDHfgflS
17002 `Z A.iunuu f :HlV(i
w191201d uoilumosuoD lBliquH
?? - 01BUip.TOOD loafWd Xt'mggiH `uosliM sinBi,L :L owq
XNHQ `s.IluJJd IBluawU3an021alui pUB OATIUlSI20-I Jo a3gj0
QQDO W BglaW :OZ

.ioaoa.IiQ aApnJaxg °poomllnd •g salaEyo
AJU90 70D 41ION
® uoTSSTUZLUOD saajnosa?j aJripp
N011039 AlllVn 7 831VM
b00Z 9 0 NVr
dnoa) 0 1 SONVI13M
State of North Carolina'
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Acting Director
October 15, 2001
A I*
4*A-
NCDENR
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorn
From: John E. Hennes
Subject: Scoping comments on proposed extension of Raeford-Palmer Road from NC 211 at SR 1149 to
NC 20 at SR 1403 in Hoke County, Federal Aid Project No. STP-0831(2), State Project No.
8.2530301, TIP U-3816, DENR No. 02E-0086
Reference your correspondence dated August 6, 2001 in which you requested comments for the referenced
project. Preliminary analysis of the project reveals that no known impacts to perennial streams or
jurisdictional wetlands are anticipated in the project area. However, further investigations at a higher
resolution should be undertaken to verify the presence of other streams and/or jurisdictional wetlands in the
area. More specifically, The closest observed jurisdictional streams are tributaries of the Pedler Branch
Creek (Class C waters, DWQ index No. 18-31-16) located in the Cape Fear River Basin. In the event that
any jurisdictional areas are identified, the Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT consider the
following environmental issues for the proposed project:
A. The document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts to
wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping.
B. There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is required,
it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental
documentation. While the NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be practical, it should be noted
that for projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance
of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
C_ Review of the project reveals that.no_-Outstanding Resource. Waters, Water Supply Water, High .
Quality Waters, or Trout Waters will be impacted during the project implementation. However,
should further analysis reveal the presence of any of the aforementioned waters, the DWQ requests
that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled "Design Standards in Sensitive
Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout design and construction of the project. This would
apply for any area that drains to streams having WS (Water Supply), ORW (Outstanding Resource
Water), HQW (High Quality Water), SA (Shellfish Water) or Tr (Trout Water) classifications.
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
10/15/01
Page 2
D. When practical, the DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on the existing location with road
closure. If a detour proves necessary, remediation measures in accordance with the NCDWQ
requirements for General 401 Certification 2726/Nationwide Permit No. 33 (Temporary
Construction, Access and Dewatering) must be followed.
E. Review of the project reveals that no High Quality Waters or Water Supply Waters will be impacted
by the project. However, should further analysis reveal the presence of any of the aforementioned
water resources, the DWQ requests that hazardous spill catch basins be installed at any bridge
crossing a stream classified as HQW or WS (Water Supply). The number of catch basins installed
should be determined by the design of the bridge, so that runoff would enter said basin(s) rather than
flowing directly into the stream.
F. If applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent
practicable.
G. Wetland and stream impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures) to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternatives that
minimize wetland impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be required by
DWQ for impacts to wetlands in excess of one acre and/or to streams in excess of 150 linear feet.
H. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation will
be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow. .
I. DWQ prefers replacement of bridges with bridges. However, if the new structure is to be a culvert,
it should be countersunk to allow unimpeded fish and other aquatic organisms passage through the
crossing.
J. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is
approved under General 401 Certification Number 3027/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey
Activities.
K. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules 115A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6)), mitigation will be
required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that
mitigation becomes required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost
functions and values. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules 115A NCAC 2H.0506
(h)(3) 1, the Wetland Restoration Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
L. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
M. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater should not be permitted to
discharge directly into the creek. Instead, stormwater should be designed to drain to a properly
designed stormwater detention facility/apparatus.
N. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and soil surveys is a useful office tool,
their inherent inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior
to permit approval.
r'
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo '+*
10/15/01
Page 3
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality standards are met
and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require additional information,
please contact John Hennessy at [phone].
cc: Richard Spencer, Corps of Engineers
Tom McCartney, USFWS
David Cox, NCWRC
Personal Files
File Copy
C:\ncdot\T P U-3816\comments\U-3816 scoping comments.doc
Department o? Environment and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
Project Number County- Date Received: Date Response Du (firm deadline):
NL- ?? zl L 1 D
C-•E-:?_eoSIP,

This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office Regional Office Area In-House Review
o A
heville Il & Water ....,-.- _ . - _ .. o Marine Fisheries
s
01ayetteville IQ-Whter o Coastal Management
o Mooresville PGroundwater ildlife _ n Water Resources
_
o Raleigh o -and Quality Engineer -Eironmental Health
o Washington o Recreational Consultant -a-Forest Resources o Solid Waste Mgmt
o Wilmington C) Land Resources o Radiation Protection
o Winston-Salem & Recreation o Other
ater Quality?41,u„
o Groundwater
o Air Quality
Manager Sign4)WRegion: Date: In-House Reviewer,'Agency
Response (check all applicable)
El No objection to project as proposed.
o No Comment
A Insufficient information to complete review
o Other (specify or attach comments)
Melba McGee
Environmental Coordinator
Office of Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
o• STATpo
??wwws?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR August 6, 2001 SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: Mrs. Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse
Department of Administration f
FROM: William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager_?-.:. -
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Hoke County, Raeford-Palmer Road Extension from NC 211 at
SR 1149 to NC 20 at SR 1403, State Project No. 8.2530301,
F. A. Project No. STP-0831(2). TIP Number U-3816
The Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch has begun studying the
proposed improvements to U-3816. The project is included in the 2000-2008 North Carolina
Transportation Improvement Program and is scheduled for right of way in fiscal year 2005 and
construction in fiscal year 2006.
This project involves the extension of Palmer Road from NC 211 at SR 1149 to NC 20 at
SR 1403. This is a new location project of approximately 0.9 miles in length and several cross
sections and alignments will be studied. There is one railroad crossing involved.
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful in evaluating
potential environmental impacts of the project. If applicable, please identify any permits or
approvals which may be required by your agency. Your comments will be used in the
preparation of a federally funded Environmental Assessment. This document will be prepared in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. It is desirable that your agency respond
by October 1, 2001 so that your comments can be used in the preparation of this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Jennifer Safron, P. E.,
Project Development Engineer, of this Branch at [phone], Ext. 244.
WDG/plr
Attachment
CILE IS
AUG 13 20011
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
N.C. sTArE CLEARINGS €OIJK..
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WESSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC

c?
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
c PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
U- 3 816
RAEFORD
PALMER ROAD EXTENSION
FROM NC 211 AT SR 1149 TO
NC 20 AT SR 1403
HOKE COUNTY
FIGURE 1
1'?y
f
?' SfA7g o-
<?d
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
Mr. John Hennessy
DENR- Division of Water Quality/Wetlands
2321 Crabtree Blvd.
Raleigh, NC 27607
RE: Notice of Team Meeting for TIP No. U-3816, Palmer Street Extension from NC
211 at SR 1149 (East Palmer) to NC 20 at SR 1403 (Oakdale Gin Road).
State Project No. 8.2530301, F.A. Project STP-1424(3), Division 08
Dear Mr. Hennessy,
This letter is to confirm the subject team meeting is scheduled for Thursday,
February 14, 2002, at 1:00 p.m. in the Transportation Building Board Room.
The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the Purpose and Need statement for the
subject project. Attached to this letter for your review is the Purpose and Need Report for
TIP Project U-3815. This report addresses only the purpose and need for the project, and
alternatives will be addressed in a future report. Please review the attached report and
submit any specific items for discussion by February 8, 2002.
If you have any questions or concerns prior to the Team Meeting, please call me
at [phone], extension 244, or send e-mail to [e-mail].
Thank you for your time and effort on this project.
Sincerely, o
Jennifer Safron, P. E.
January 8, 2002
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
r
722002
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
?W x f," C
or
PURPOSE AND NEED OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT U-3816
A. General Description of Proposed Project
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to construct a new-location
facility from NC 211 at SR 1149 (East Palmer Street) to NC 20 at SR 1403 (Oakdale Gin
Road). This project is commonly referred to as the Palmer Street Extension. This project
is located in the City of Raeford in Hoke County, Division 8. See Figure 1 for a map of
the location. The length of the project is approximately 0.9 miles and the NC 2002-2008
Transportation Improvement Plan has funded a two-lane facility.
B. Summary of Need
This project was requested by the City of Raeford and is the third highest priority
project for Hoke County. The Palmer Street extension would complete the southern
portion of an outer loop for Raeford. Existing Palmer Street is classified as a Rural
Major Collector on the North Carolina Functional Classification System.
The extension would provide a continuous route from NC 211 in northwest
Raeford to NC 20. Since NC 20 provides a direct link to I-95, trucks and other traffic on
NC 211 would have access to 1-95 without using the local streets. Also, several
industries and a Raeford City park will be constructed in the area of the project corridor.
This project will provide safe and efficient access to these sites.
C. Summary of Purpose
The purpose of the proposed action is:
1. Improve traffic flow while minimizing social/environmental disruption in the
southern portion of Raeford by providing a continuous route from NC 211 to
NC 20.
2. Provide regional connectivity between US 1 and I-95.
3. Provide local connectivity between other circumferential facilities in Hoke
county and the industries that are coming to this area.
4. Remove from local streets truck and other through traffic accessing US 401
and I-95 via NC 20.
5. Provide access for the development to this area of Raeford, including a City
Park planned for the northeastern quadrant of the project.
6. Maintain the functional integrity of Palmer Street to operate as a major
collector and major thoroughfare.
D. Background Information/Area Description
Raeford is located in Hoke County in the southwestern part of the Coastal Plain section
of North Carolina, approximately 20 miles west of Fayetteville and 90 miles southwest of
Raleigh. As the county seat and with access to US 401, NC 211, and NC 20, Raeford
has become a hub for industrial and residential development in the area.
This project has been part of the NC DOT Transportation Improvement Plan since
1998. The city of Raeford first adopted a thoroughfare plan in 1980, which was updated
in 1997. The plan was developed to meet the transportation needs through the design
year 2025. The Palmer Street Extension is classified as a major thoroughfare on the
Raeford Thoroughfare Plan (see Figure 2 for the Raeford Thoroughfare Plan). The City
of Raeford has already expressed their intention to purchase the right-of-way for this
project.
E. Existing Roadway Characteristics
Existing Palmer Street is classified as a Rural Major Collector on the North
Carolina Functional Classification System. The project corridor lies within an area that is
mostly farmland and is expected to grow and develop for industrial use. The proposed
project is approximately 0.9 miles in length. The Palmer Street Extension will connect
Palmer Street, a major thoroughfare that serves the western and southern areas of Raeford
from Turnpike Road to NC 211 and Oakdale Gin Road (SR 1403). Palmer Street is
currently 18 feet in width with 60 feet of right-of-way. Oakdale Gin Road is currently 22
feet wide.
Currently there is no loop system around the southern side of Raeford. The
extension of Palmer Street from NC 211 to NC 20/Oakdale Gin Road (SR 1403) will
provide excellent east-west flow to southern Raeford.
F. Existing (Year 2000) Traffic Conditions
The Highway Capacity Manual 2000 and its accompanying software were used to
determine the current (2000) and future (2025) levels of service.
Traffic Forecasts were provided by NC DOT's Statewide Planning Branch and
are attached to this document. Current traffic volume on existing Palmer Street is
approximately 6,600 vehicles per day. The volume projections for the design year 2025
show existing Palmer Street with 12,200 vehicles per day. Approximately 4,500 vehicles
per day are present on Oakdale Gin Road with this number expected to rise to 11,000 by
2025.
G. Projected (Year 2025) Level of Service
For a no-build scenario, based on preliminary capacity analysis, the 2025 daily
volume of 12,200 vehicles will result in a Level of Service E on the two-lane section.
This will create delays at the Palmer Street- NC 20 intersection as drivers are forced to
stop and turn. A similar situation will occur at the Oakdale Gin Road-NC 211
intersection. Creating a through movement will ease the burden on these intersections
and help to keep traffic flowing down the existing streets, which are residential in nature.
Both project termini will be studied for signalization.
The projections show that there will be between 11,500 and 15,000 vehicles per
day would use the Palmer Street Extension in the design year, 2025, indicating the
Extension would be a well-used section.
H. System Linkage
Currently Raeford has no continuous east-west movement in its southern portion.
US 401 serves as an east-west movement for northern Raeford. US 401 Business serves
as an east-west facility for Raeford's Central Business District as well as for southern
Raeford, bringing significant traffic through downtown. Completion of a southern loop
would relieve the downtown area of this through traffic and provide connectivity to the
excellent radial system already in place in southern Raeford.
The Aberdeen and Rockfish Railroad has one track crossing the project corridor.
The track carries 4 to 5 trains per week at an average speed of 25 miles per hour.
1. Social and Economic Conditions
Demographics:
As the county seat and with accessibility to US 401, NC 211, and NC 20, Raeford
has become a hub for industrial and residential development. The growth of Hoke
County has outpaced North Carolina nearly 2 to 1. In 1985, the County population was
21,614 and grew to 28,144 in 1996, a 2.4% increase. From 1990 to 1996, the County
experienced a 3.5% increase. During those same periods, the Statewide population
averaged 1.65% annual growth. The City of Raeford posted an average annual growth
rate of 2% during the past thirty years, most of which occurred during the 1990s. The
population of the study area is expected to grow to 17,900 persons by the year 2025.
Economic Data:
Most of Raeford's industry is located west of town between NC 211 and Turnpike
Road (SR 1203) and south of US 301 Business between NC 211 and Oakdale Gin Road
(SR 1403). These areas have the potential for future industrial growth. With most of the
new residential development expected to occur in the eastern and northwestern sections
of the region, a continuous east-west loop system in the southern region will clearly aid
traffic flow (see Figure 3 for current land use).

NORTH
OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS E
U- 3 816
RAEFORD
PALMER ROAD EXTENSION
FROM NC 211 AT SR 1149 TO
NC 20 AT SR 1403
HOKE COUNTY
FIGURE 1
. 1 r-
'I? ? I
U9 `d J
'v. SR 311
MOC G9 RD Hll R .
1 Yi
IE y'? ? G`?FCe
S r` f9?
_- -. - - o I ? x,Y RO
< y
?? ? 1 ? r is xl ? 77
- I
VI
fly
I
s T
VASS R,, - ,I O
I
LJL F-7?
? 'oa
BR i
PO
•
.? IW S $ 6 p
?D? 6 g d
? oA ? I
1 Ys ? _ ,
I? I
1 1- sN, -
;a
I i
-iZ -?Gm ? n
z ?n n w ?
?? ?° D -o 1:
O o O
A X
zn rn T ?D ?m =
N D m 2 -? 7° Z m
o °O n O -Did mm A D
0 0 o O m m m Z 'n
?p ??n C T ??
o ; T ? D <n ?
Z m o i i "g K v d 1 1 1 O W '? O Z ? O m
rn
d T Z? X
F
N3 ZO
B°a bz <TI ?^ m -I in
3A: -? Z
?o? o N Z "0 n Z n N OD r71
V Ny o °o ZO
= D
m p p " -+
> T `O
°z o i n N j 10
O Z Z vZi D V w w
o ? v, A io io O
m 10 ?O V V
14 --4
0 D I o
LJw --.-
°o 0
Z I o

n'

l \

-
\ - - ?
16 '

A?
rr
y
Y \ ?
) 311

? / I
? G
MOO GB Rb WL

_ _t s
'ASS kD ' A

G -_
C_ y , i 13
!' r 'as
1111 _... '<
, -
st - _
S -?
- - o I r
D

-- I

o

Lb O
® S ? g 1
rp a
3 1-
12

® - _-?

I9 L --- ?Vill

c: 1

I°
l _ 1

°
0 Z
cO
a? = P. -o
m
mC (1 m
v
O
s= O
? m pn m
N
o c

UO
o „ 0 (1
O

T ?Z
O (A !1
> D
r 0

1

8
?
o> C
D?
Z C

Z

m ° pp
O m
' s m
a ; a Rl

C r O

z
D

?,
(A

rn^
r
V,
m $ D o i ? i Z C-
a s _. _
_o H 11?r?Z®
o z ro r z rn
o
°
y
:?;u
rn
Cz

o
o °o
z z D ®
z Z 70
"" O w
o a r
A Z
ti.l
0 o 0
°o o Z €*ts.
eo 0
? N O
r- O
? ? N
? a O
? W o
M
o ? N
?? ? c U ao
W
CJ
V ° o A
r! (f E_y CO0 N R Zi .?-? ..fir O
O Yvd t R iz (Y fl?o? a" a LYj H W ?O
N Nd
U-) 00
cc en
CD '?/ JI N O o °Z eV W [??
O a c a 0 ? p,
aw U A
a
U
a
c
? o
_ rn
.a .
m
0
Z
LO
N
O
N
•N
(f'E)
? r' l"a X09 f`
N ti
U~ it(fz) 1
Z CO wd
p .7
O
n> A
a e O
•• z
I a>Q go vo
aa?+ aa+ "EQ
F
z ??c ° ?.x a?a-•
O cn
W >?axaz OF
a D.a ;yF OUW?
o, 0
0
N A" aQ
T- W
W V
i? A Gi A Ci v
M ?
O ?
O O
r N
r O
LO {Yi ~
fA W o
M
tn
. ;. " N
C V 00
'L7 V] •? Q 0
o a ,;; W
CD a WE) a N COQ
N zf (wd-?09 ?N a wd ?°9 E- U ,aMO o o A
LO -; z -4
0 00
CD ?
N ?- , F; C M 00
U
H oN W H "
ro)
o z 2 ° y
aWw OU A H
0
LO
r
c
N M
.a .a ? N .?. tJ
LO
N M
r
z c
N
LO ~
r 1?.
r
b ?Wr
G
°a
Lf) CC) O ° A
r N CD >4 e ?
N o) ?? Aa w z
U ?? u(wd?09 a \U
WE)
rl to
OFPr r?
wd M (D A .a x ? .a
W??z o?aze0?
a:.
0
O A` aA A
M
V' r yC ? aA• wV
? r
M p
C O
r ? ? N
M
N W o
o ? N
et G W 00
po `rn A O
o cc «? W
-4 CD C:
i c w
V Cl
o A
z/ WE) ?q cr) ?- a Z ;,
C Wd ?, F" Q ??r ?p
00
N d 7 Z L `a C M
U C'4 CN Q i U
Z
o b z °a .
0 "?'' H
A
0
?\J
c
? V) M
W L
O
Z
N
t? • N?
ZI WE)
r
r co
ti 5 0
04 Wr) LO
Z r, M Wd 81? .
M
W
o?
?O
? q
e e>4
c
A
z ao
tz-
A F
? o O 5 9oW...
W U?p? ?"?OrnA?..
old Wd'?E" W OUIy?
OUW QZo<FAO?
?eo.?At
(D ?
iC ? o?iA Wv
U
WATF9
QG
--l
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
February 10, 2004
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator
NCDENR Office of Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
From: Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele, NCDOT Coordinator GQ:?Iu
Subject: Review of Environmental Assessment for proposed Palmer Road Extension from NC 211
at SR 1149 to NC 20 at SR 1403 in Raeford, Hoke County, F.A. Project STP-0831(2),
State Project No. 8.2530301, TIP Project U-3816, State Clearinghouse Project 04-0155.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has submitted a draft Environmental
Assessment (EA) for the subject project. The NC Division of Water Quality has reviewed the document
and is commenting in accordance with the provisions of § 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy,
Act (NEPA).
Purpose and Need
It is DWQ's understanding that the purpose of this project is to improve traffic flow, provide local and
regional connectivity, remove truck and other traffic from local streets, provide access for the
development of this area of Raeford (economic development) and maintain the functional integrity of
Palmer Road to operate as a major collector. Additional, we understand that Raeford has no loop system
and that this is the third highest priority project for Hoke County.
Traffic Volumes and Level of Service
According to the EA, traffic volumes are currently 6600 vpd and projected to increase to 12,200 vpd;
truck traffic ranges from one to four percent of the total volume. Comparing Table 1 and Table 2 levels
of service, it appears that the LOS for some traffic movements will decrease with the construction of the
project. 1
Alternatives
The EA presents two basic alternatives with several options for the treatment of the SR 1149 and SR 1403
intersection. DWQ prefers Alternative A (Grade separation at railroad crossing), but questions why a
route intended to divert truck traffic would include bicycle accommodation and wheelchair ramps. DWQ
also prefers a roundabout to a signalized intersection as this would, if properly designed, expedite the
movement of traffic through the intersection and provide a better level of service. This option would also
more closely match the stated purpose and need.
ffi-
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), hftp://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/
Comments on Palmer Road Extension EA
Hoke County
February 10, 2004
Direct and Indirect/Cumulative Impacts to the Human and Natural Environment
Direct impacts to wetlands and streams appear to be minimal. However, the number of house and
business relocations, impacts to farms (agri-businesses) and loss of forested land is unknown.
Because of the economic development component of the purpose and need, an analysis of the indirect and
cumulative impacts may be required. Indeed, according to the information related to the development of
industrial facilities on page 12, the increase in impervious surface area could be significant.
cc: Chris Militscher, USEPA
Gary Jordan, USFWS Raleigh Field Office
Travis Wilson, NCWRC
File Copy
2
Palmer Road Extension
From NC 211 at SR 1149 (East Palmer Road)
To NC 20 at SR 1403 (Oakdale Gin Road) in Raeford
City of Raeford, Hoke County
WBS Element No. 34979. 1.1
Federal Project No. STP-0831(2)
State Project No. 8.2530301
T.I.P. PROJECT U-3816
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
Date
/o/00/03
Date
f.Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
1 Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
4/1John F.
Federal

III, Division Administrator
Administration
Palmer Road Extension
From NC 211 at SR 1149 (East Palmer Road)
To NC 20 at SR 1403 (Oakdale Gin Road) in Raeford
City of Raeford, Hoke County
WBS Element No. 34979. 1.1
Federal Project No. STP-0831(2)
State Project No. 8.2530301
T.I.P. PROJECT U-3816
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
OCTOBER 2003
DOCUMENTATION PREPARED IN
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
/o -.?.2.03
Date
O
ate
Vyltthia D. Sharer, PIE., Project Development Unit Head
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
BRANi?C
• ?Ijj, ?i
w ?
4
SEAL
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
Palmer Road Extension
From NC 211 at SR 1149 (East Palmer Road)
To NO 20 at SR 1403 (Oakdale Gin Road) in Raeford
City of Raeford, Hoke County
WBS Element No. 34979. 1.1
Federal Project No. STP-0831(2)
State Project No. 8.2530301
T.I.P. PROJECT U-3816
Division 8, Roadside Environmental
1. The appropriate utilities or local government officials will be consulted
concerning possible relocation of utilities during final design.
2. NCDOT Best-Management Practices (BMPs) for the Protection of Surface
Waters will be followed during construction of this project in order to ensure
minimal impact to water resources.
3. Construction encroachment onto the Peddlers Branch floodplain will be
avoided.
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch, Division 8, Roadway Design
4. If the proposed alignment is altered from what is stated in the planning
document, the NCDOT will contact the appropriate agencies in order to
reevaluate any potential impacts.
5. NCDOT will integrate bicycle plans into the proposed alignment and work
with local officials to provide trail connectivity with the proposed city park.
U-3816 EA
PAGE 1 OF 1
OCTOBER 2003
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SUMMARY .......................................................................................... i
I. DESCRIPTION AND BASIS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ...... 1
II. PURPOSE AND NEED OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ............... 1-5
A. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
B. PURPOSE STATEMENT
C. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EXISTING FACILITY
D. TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LEVEL OF SERVICE
E. SYSTEM LINKAGE
III. ALTERNATIVES OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ........................ 5-6
A. BUILD ALTERNATIVES
B. NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE
IV. RECOMMENDATION FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION ............ 6-10
A. RIGHT OF WAY AND RELOCATIONS
B. ACCESS CONTROL
C. INTERSECTION TREATMENT, RAIL CROSSINGS AND TYPE OF CONTROL
D. PROJECTED LEVEL OF SERVICE
E. HYDRAULICS
F. SIDEWALKS
G. BICYCLE PROVISIONS
H. PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
V. EFFECTS TO THE ENVIRONMENT .............................................10 -13
A. SUMMARY OF EFFECTS TO WATER RESOURCES
B. SUMMARY OF EFFECTS TO PROTECTED SPECIES
C. NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
D. COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
E. AIR QUALITY
F. HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE/CONSTRUCTION NOISE ANALYSIS
G. GEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ............................................13 -14
A. SCOPING AND AGENCY MEETINGS
t B. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
U C. CORRESPONDENCE
' D. COORDINATION
LIST OF TABLES
PAGE
Table 1 - Intersection Capacity Analysis, No-Build Scenario ................. 4
Table 2 - Intersection Capacity Analysis, Build Scenario, 2-lanes.......... 8
Table 3 - Project Costs ............................................................................ 10
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Figures
Appendix B - Natural Resources Technical Report, Relocation Report
Appendix C - Correspondence and Coordination
'. :' er' mad Ex#enon
a
rom `N. fi 1'l tat,SR X1449 (East Palmer4Roaa)
NC 20 at SR 1403.(Oakdaler,Gin Road}jj+in Raefor
r r+ ?s ° J yt? ?,'i d i»,s "r x` ?i?'ffFE : ?''t'S,! r'? ' z a 4
?TX Pro jkt No, U 3516 > f K >
'` r :Stag Project:No,.8.2530301,
F roj&tW6. STP 0831 2
Hflk County?k?
?Z ' ? ?,, rF??" ,•,'`:x . `k ? .K ? ax-' ?yg
K
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Description of Proposed Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Division of Highways,
proposes to construct a two-lane shoulder section of new location roadway referred to as the
Palmer Road Extension. The limits of construction are from the intersection of NC 211 with
SR 1149 (East Palmer Road) to the intersection of NC 20 with SR 1403 (Oakdale Gin Road),
in Raeford.
Alternatives
Two "build" and one "no build" alternatives are addressed in this Environmental
Assessment (EA). Both "build" scenarios utilize the same horizontal alignment and cross
section, differing only in the vertical alignment. Alternative A includes a grade separation
(bridge) at the railroad crossing and Alternative B includes an at-grade intersection (electric
crossing signal) at the railroad crossing.
Estimated right-of-way costs for both Alternative A and Alternative B are $238,125.
Construction costs for the Alt. A is $ 4,000,000 and for Alt. B is $3,150,000.
Environmental Impacts
The project's impact on noise and air quality will not be significant. Impacts to
wetlan will be minor, 0.12 acres (0.05 ha) for Alternative A and 0.33 acres (0.13 hectares)
for alternative B. There are no stream impacts anticipated. The project will require the
relocation of no residences or businesses. ere are no historic structures or archaeological
sites on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places in the project's Area
of Potential Effect (APE).
Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated from the subject project.
Consequently, construction activities will require permits and certifications from various
regulatory agencies in charge of protecting the water quality of public water resources.
A general permit, specifically a Nationwide Permit (NWPS), is likely to be applicable
for all or most impacts to Waters of the United States resulting from the subject project.
Nationwide permits (NWPS) are a type of general permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and are designed to regulate with little, if any, delay or paperwork certain activities
having minimal impacts. This permit authorizes discharges of dredged or fill material into
wetlands or waters of the United States.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the Division of
Water Quality (DWQ) prior to the issuance of the Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the
Clean Water Act requires that the state issue or deny water certification for any federally
permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge to Waters of the United States.
Section 401 Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily impacted for the duration of
the construction or other land manipulation.
Coordination
Federal, state and local agencies were notified and consulted during the preparation of
this EA. In addition, local residents, business owners, and other interested parties provided
verbal and written comments during a Citizens' Informational Workshop, held on June 28,
2001.
Additional Information
Additional information concerning the proposal and assessment can be obtained by
contacting the following individuals:
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.,
Environmental Management Director,
,Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
North Carolina 27699-1548
)hone: [phone]
Mr. John F. Sullivan, III
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone: [phone]
ii
Federal Environmental Assessment
Prepared by
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
k North Carolina Department of Transportation
I. DESCRIPTION AND BASIS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Division of Highways,
proposes to construct a two-lane shoulder section of new location roadway referred to as the
Palmer Road Extension. The limits of construction are from the intersection of NC 211 with
SR 1149 (East Palmer Road) to the intersection of NC 20 with SR 1403 (Oakdale Gin Road),
in Raeford. The length of this project is 0.9 miles (1.448 km).
Figure 1 illustrates a vicinity map of the project area. Figures 2A and 2B are aerial
views of the project area showing the study corridor for the proposed new alignment for this
project. These figures are located in Appendix A. This project is included in NCDOT's latest
approved Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Right of way and construction are
scheduled in the 2004-2010 TIP for federal fiscal years 2005 and 2006, respectively.
Based on findings from the planning and environmental studies, NCDOT anticipates
this project will have a minor overall impact on the human and natural environments.
NCDOT will take all reasonable and feasible actions to avoid and minimize wetland impacts.
The project will not result in a change of route classification of Palmer Road. In addition,
land use issues are not controversial. It is concluded that a Federal Environmental
Assessment (EA) is applicable for this project.
H. PURPOSE AND NEED OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The project development and design processes to extend Palmer Road began in 1998
when feasibility studies were completed. Raeford is located in Hoke County in the
southwestern part of the Coastal Plain section of North Carolina, approximately 20 miles
west of Fayetteville and 90 miles southwest of Raleigh. As the county seat and with access
to US 401, NC 211, and NC 20, Raeford has become a hub for industrial and residential
development in the area.
This project has been part of the NC DOT Transportation Improvement Plan since
1998. The city of Raeford first adopted a thoroughfare plan in 1980, which was updated in
1997. The plan was developed to meet the transportation needs through the design year
2025. The Palmer Road Extension is classified as a major thoroughfare on the Raeford
Thoroughfare Plan. The City of Raeford has expressed their interest in purchasing the right-
of-way for this project in order to expedite construction.
B. PURPOSE STATEMENT
The purpose of the proposed action is:
1. Improve traffic flow while minimizing social/environmental disruption in the
southern portion of Raeford by providing a continuous route from NC 211 to NC
20.
2. Provide rejional connectivity between US 1 and I-95.
3. Provide local connectivity between other circumferential facilities in Hoke county
and the industries that are coming to this area.
4. Remove from local streets truck and other through traffic accessing US 401 and
I-95 via NC 20.
5. Provide access for the development to this area of Raeford, including a city park
.•?? planned for the northeastern quadrant of the project and an industrial park planned
LZ for the southeastern quadrant.
6. Maintain the functional integrity of Palmer Road to operate as a major collector
and major thoroughfare.
This project was requested by the City of Raeford and is the third highest priority
project for Hoke County. CtiiTent there is no loop system around the southern side of
Raeford. The extension of Palmer Road from NC 211 to NC 20/Oakdale Gin Road (SR
1403) will provide excellent east-west flow to southern Raeford by completing the southern
portion of an outer loop. It would provide a continuous route from NC 211 in northwest
Raeford to NC 20 that provides a direct link to I-95, thereby reducing the high truck traffic on"
local residential and downtown streets.
C. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EXISTING FACILITY
Existing Palmer Road is classified as a Rural Major Collector on the North Carolina
Functional Classification System. The project corridor lies within an area that is mostly
farmland and is expected to grow and develop for industrial use. The proposed project is
approximately 0.9 miles (1.448 km) in length. The Palmer Road Extension will connect
Palmer Road, a major thoroughfare that serves the western and southern areas of Raeford
from Turnpike Road to NC 211 and Oakdale Gin Road (SR 1403). Palmer Road is currently
18 feet (5.5 m) in width with 60 feet (18.3 m) of right-of-way. Oakdale Gin Road is
currently 22 feet (6.7 m) wide.
2
D. TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LEVEL OF SERVICE
1. Existing and Predicted Traffic Volumes
Traffic volume on existing Palmer Road for the year 2000 is approximately 6,600
vehicles per day. The volume projections for the design year 2025 show existing Palmer
Road with 12,200 vehicles per day. Approximately 4,500 vehicles per day are present on
Oakdale Gin Road with this number expected to rise to 11,200 by 2025.
Figure 4A, 4B, and 4C, located in Appendix A, show detailed traffic data, including
turning movements directional distribution, truck percentages, and directional flow
percentages for the years 2000 and 2025. 3 y,
2. Capacity Analysis
Level of service, abbreviated as LOS, describes operational conditions within a traffic
stream, and how motorists perceive these conditions. A LOS definition generally describes
these conditions in terms of speed, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions,
comfort, convenience, and safety. Six levels of service are possible, with letter designations
from level A (best) to level F (worst). For this project, two-lane and five-lane scenarios were
investigated, as well as all signalized intersections.
On freeways, or stretches of roadway with no stopping conditions, density is the
parameter used to define levels of service for basic sections. LOS A describes free-flow
operations, with vehicle density not exceeding 10 passenger cars per mile per lane (pc/mi/ln).
Vehicles are almost completely unimpeded in their ability to maneuver within the traffic
stream. LOS B represents reasonably free flow with densities not exceeding 16 pc/mi/ln.
LOS C is defined by a maximum density of 24 pc/mi/ln, where freedom to maneuver is
noticeably restricted and lane changes require more vigilance on the part of the driver. LOS
D occurs between 24 and 32 pc/mi/ln. At this density, freedom to maneuver is more
noticeably limited and the driver experiences reduced physical and psychological comfort
levels. LOS E describes operation at capacity. Maximum densities at LOS E range between
36 and 48 pc/mi/ln depending on the free-flow speed and number of lanes. Operations in this
level are volatile because there are virtually no useable openings in the traffic stream and
maneuverability is extremely limited. Finally, LOS F represents breakdowns in vehicular
flow, with highly variable speeds and stop-and-go operations.
At signalized intersections, level of service is based on the average stopped delay per
vehicle for various movements within the intersection. Delay is the measure of the quality of
service experienced by the motorist. LOS A describes the best operations at a signalized
intersection, with delays up to 5 seconds per vehicle. LOS B is defined as motorist delay on
the average of 5 to 15 seconds per vehicle. LOS C has operations where delay is between 15
and 25 seconds per vehicle. At this level of service, some motorists may not clear the
intersection on one cycle. LOS D has delays from 25 to 40 seconds, and congestion becomes
more noticeable at this level. LOS E describes operations with delays of 40 to 60 seconds per
3
vehicle. Most agencies consider LOS E to be the threshold of delay that motorists will
accept. LOS F indicates delays greater than 60 seconds per vehicle, which are considered
unacceptable to most motorists.
The Highway Capacity Manual (Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board,
1985, updated in 2000.) was used to determine the LOS for the current year (2000) and for
the design year (2025). Table 1 (below), summarizes existing of service for Palmer Road and
the two existing intersections that represent the project termini.
TABLE 1
EXISTING LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR INTERSECTIONS IN THE PROJECT AREA
(No-Build Scenario)
The following analysis was provided by the NC DOT Traffic Engineering and Safety
Systems Branch, using 2000 and 2025 traffic projections for Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
with the Highway Capacity Manual 2000. Please refer to Appendix A, Figure 4A through 4C
for a diagram of the ADTs used in this analysis.
Intersection

i LOS
2000 No-build LOS
2025 No-build
NC 211 & SR 1149
Northbound left A B
Eastbound left, right F F
NC 20 & SR 1403
Northbound left, through, right A A
Southbound left, through, right A A
Westbound left, through, right C F
Eastbound left, through, right C F
Note: Levels of Service are for am. and p. m. unless otherwise noted.
This analysis shows that in the year 2025, there will be problems with capacity for
some turning movements under the no-build scenario. The worst delays will be for vehicles
wanting to cross or turn onto NC 211 or NC 20, as these future levels of service are expected
to be LOS F.
The proposed improvements outlined in the next section will provide certain
operational and safety benefits compared to existing conditions.
E. SYSTEM LINKAGE
Currently Raeford has no continuous east-west movement in its southern portion.
U.S. 401 serves as an east-west movement for northern Raeford. US 401 Business serves as
4
an east-west facility for Raeford's Central Business District as well as for southern Raeford,
thereby bringing significant traffic through downtown. Completion of a southern loop would
relieve the downtown area of this through traffic.and provide connectivity to the radial
system already in place in southern Raeford.
The Aberdeen and Rockfish Railroad (the "A&R"), founded in 1892 by John Blue,
has one track crossing the project corridor. See Figure 2A in Appendix A for location of
railroad on project, and see Figure 6 in Appendix A for the system map for the A&R railroad.
Industries served on the line include over twenty-five businesses, including Burlington
Industries and Dupont. The track carries approximately four trains per week at a maximum
allowable train speed of 35 miles per hour.
III. ALTERNATIVES OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. BUILD ALTERNATIVES
1. Alternative A -Grade separation at railroad crossing (RECOMMENDED)
Alternative A utilizes a "grade separation", or a bridge-type structure that would span
the railroad tracks. The proposed typical cross-section has two lanes, one 14-foot (4.3-m)
wide travel lane in each direction, plus 8-foot (2.4 m) shoulders, 4-feet (1.2 m) of which will
be paved. Each fourteen-foot lane includes 2 feet (0.6m) for bike lanes on this project.
Please refer to Appendix A, Figure 3 for a diagram of the proposed roadway cross-section.
The Department of Transportation has developed guidelines for the treatment of highway-
railroad intersections on new construction projects. The grade separation guidelines are
based on use of an exposure index, which is a product of the number of trains per day and the
projected average daily highway traffic. Grade separated structures should be considered in
rural areas when the exposure index is 15,000 or more. Four trains per day pass through this
area at a maximum allowable train speed of 35 MPH. The exposure index for the proposed
crossing exceeds that of the Department's guidelines, so a grade separated structure would be
warranted for this project.
A grade-separated structure would increase construction costs by approximately
$850,000, while increasing safety for motorists as well as bicyclists and pedestrians.
2. Alternative B - At-grade intersection at railroad crossing
This alternative is the same as Alt. A with respect to the horizontal alignment,
or what is called the "bird's eye" view of the road. The difference will be in the vertical
alignment, or the "elevation" view of the road. This alternative is a two-lane new-location
roadway that crosses the A&R Railroad at a 90-degree skew at the existing rail elevation.
The proposed typical cross-section has two lanes, one 14-foot (4.3-m) wide travel lane in
5
each direction, plus 8-foot (2.4 m) shoulders, 4-feet (1.2 m) of which will be paved. Each
fourteen-foot lane includes 2 feet (0.6m) for bike lanes. There is no control of access
proposed, meaning that the Palmer Road Extension can be accessed by any driveway or
intersecting street. Please refer to Appendix A, Figure 3 for a diagram the proposed cross-
section of the roadway.
Two existing intersections will be improved as a result of this project for either Alternative A
or B, Palmer Road at NC 211 and Oakdale Gin Road at NC 20. Both intersections at the
project termini will have traffic signals.
No additional alternatives were suggested by citizens, property or business owners
located on the project, local representatives, or consulting agencies.
B. No -BUILD ALTERNATIVE
The No-Build. Alternative gives an indication of traffic conditions that would likely
be expected in the design year (2025) if the proposed project is not constructed. In addition,
the No-Build Alternative serves as a base for comparing alternatives and determining
whether the benefits of the recommended alternative outweigh the negative impacts. By not
providing the highway improvements outlined for this project, congestion and delays will
occur on Palmer Road causing motorists to seek alternative routes to reach their destinations.
Traffic volumes would increase on residential streets and other roads that are not designed to
accommodate through traffic. Truck traffic in downtown Raeford would also continue to
increase.
IV. RECOMMENDATION FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. RIGHT OF WAY AND RELOCATIONS
The proposed right-of-way width for the Palmer Road Extension Alternative A is 160
feet (48.8 m) total width. The right of way width would decrease slightly for Alternative B,
to 150 feet (45.7 m). Where additional right of way is needed for grading and drainage, a
temporary construction easement will be purchased by NCDOT.
A certain amount of private property must be acquired to provide North Carolinians
with safer and more modern highways. The North Carolina Department of Transportation
must:
? Treat all property owners and tenants impartially without regard to
race, color, religion, sex or national origin.
? Fully explain an owner's legal rights.
? Pay just compensation in exchange for property rights.
6
u Furnish relocation advisory assistance, in accordance with federal
and state regulations.
o Initiate legal action should a settlement not be reached.
Preliminary designs indicate no relocation of homes or businesses will be necessary
for this project. The official relocation report can be found in Appendix B of this document.
When the highway design is complete, all affected property owners will be contacted by a
right-of-way agent. In most cases, the NCDOT will have an appraisal or evaluation made on
each property affected by the highway project. The appraiser makes an independent and
impartial appraisal based on an inspection of the property. In making the appraisal, the
appraiser investigates and analyzes recent sales of similar properties in the area. The
appraiser also compiles and obtains information concerning building costs, rental values and
all other necessary information to provide an accurate estimate of the fair market value of the
property. It is the NCDOT's policy to make every reasonable effort to acquire property by
negotiations. In the event the department is unable to reach an agreement with a property
owner, a settlement will then be reached by the courts under Article 9 of Chapter 136 of the
General Statutes of the State of North Carolina.
B. ACCESS CONTROL
Currently, there is no control of access on existing Palmer Road, meaning access to
Palmer road is allowed from any property or intersecting street. There will be no change in
access control on Palmer Road with the proposed improvements.
C. INTERSECTION TREATMENT, RAIL CROSSINGS, AND TYPE OF CONTROL
Surface street (at-grade) intersections at the project termini will be enhanced by this
project. At the eastern terminus, the extension will tie into existing Palmer Road, creating a
four-leg intersection. Oakdale Gin Road will be realigned in order to avoid a turning lane
conflicts at the western terminus. Please refer to figure 5D and 5E to see the proposed
realignment of Oakdale Gin Road.
The Aberdeen and Rockfish Railroad has one track crossing the project corridor. See
Figure 6 in Appendix A for the system map for the A&R railroad. The track carries
approximately four trains per week at a maximum allowable train speed of 35 miles per hour.
The NC DOT Rail Division has recommended a grade-separation for this crossing based on
the number of trains per day and the projected average highway traffic.
D. PROJECTED LEVEL OF SERVICE
The following analysis was provided by the NC DOT Traffic Engineering and Safety
Systems Branch, using 2000 and 2025 traffic projections for Average Daily Traffic (ADT).
7
Please refer to Appendix A, Figure 4A through 4C for a diagram of the ADTs used in this
analysis.
Estimated mainline volumes along Palmer Road Extension, from NC 211 to NC 20,
range from 11,500 to 15,000 vehicles per day in 2025. Based on a two-lane typical section
throughout the project and the recommended intersection geometries, the mainline is
expected to operated at LOS C throughout the project limits in the 2025 design year. Table
2, shown below, gives projected levels of service for the intersections in the project area for
the build scenario.
TABLE 2
PROJECTED LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR INTERSECTIONS IN THE PROJECT AREA
(Build scenario, 2-lanes)
LOS A;0
?p bulw

Intersection LOS
2025 Build
NC 211 & SR 1149
Signalized C
NC 20 & SR 1403
Signalized C
SR 1149 & SR 1403
Signalized C
Roundabout B
Unsignalized
Westbound left B
Northbound left
Northbound right 01

Note: Levels of Service are for am. only unless otherwise noted.
s? P, q
The signalization of the NC 211 and NC 20 intersections with Palmer Road will
produce a LOS C in the 2025 design year. The new intersection created from the realignment
of SR 1403 would be best served by a traffic.signal or a roundabout, since this intersection
will operate at a LOS F for northbound left and right turns by the design year. It will not
been determined that a roundabout is feasible geometrically until more detailed design has
been completed.
8
E. HYDRAULICS
There are no major stream crossings associated with this project. The project
corridor crosses Peddlers Branch approximately 600 feet east of NC 211. This crossing will
require a minor (smaller than 72") drainage structure. The corridor parallels Peddlers Branch
for about 1200 feet east of this crossing of Peddlers Branch. Roadway encroachment onto
Peddlers Branch's floodplain will be avoided.
The project is located in the Cape Fear River Basin. Hoke County is a participant in
the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. Peddlers Branch is located in a designated
flood hazard zone. The flood hazard zone for Peddlers Branch ends 400 feet west of
Aberdeen and Rockfish Railroad, well before the branch crossing. It is not anticipated that
the proposed project should have any adverse impacts on the existing floodplain. The project
is not located within a water supply watershed or any other sensitive water areas.
No more than 0.3 acres of wetlands will be impacted by this project. Groundwater
resources will not be affected by the project, as the roadway is primarily on fill. It is
anticipated that a United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) Nationwide permit will
be applicable. Existing drainage patterns will be maintained to the extent practicable.
Erosion and sedimentation will be controlled through the specification, installation, and
maintenance of standard erosion and sedimentation control methods. Recommendations of
this report are preliminary and could be subject to change based on information obtained
from a more detailed analysis during the final hydraulics design phase of the project.
F. SIDEWALKS
No sidewalks are proposed for this project thus far. Since the City of Raeford
ed bicycle lanes be included with this-project, it is_possible that sidewalks be a
occurs, five-foot concrete sidewalks would be constructed in accordance with
the NCDOT Pedestrian Policy. Wheel chair ramRs will be provided at all street andriveway
crossings. ov( Q ?yuQQ i??%CG?
G. BICYCLE PROVISIONS
This project corridor does not correspond to a bicycle TIP project, nor is it a
designated bicycle route. However, the City of Raeford has specifically requested that bicycle
lanes be included with the construction of the Palmer Road Extension. For this reason, .
each fourteen-foot lane proposed includes es 2 feet (0.6m) to accommodate bicycles -
y???d2?U:?Yt?J ,,?,?- J? (1kti'??/r49e /S ;6c- C gal
9
H. PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Estimated construction and right of way cost estimates for the build alternative are as
shown in Table 3.
TABLE 3
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES
Alternative A Alternative B
Palmer Road grade-separated railroad at-grade railroad
Extension crossing crossing
(RECOMMENDED)'
RIGHT-OF-WAY $ 238,125 $ 238,125
CONSTRUCTION $4,000,000 $3,150,000

TOTAL __ $4,238,125 ` $3,388,125
V. EFFECTS TO THE ENVIRONMENT
A. SUMMARY OF EFFECTS TO WATER RESOURCES
The project study corridor is located within sub-basin 03-06-05, hydrologic unit
03030004 of the Cape Fear River Basin. One intermittent stream, an unnamed tributary (UT)
to Peddlers Branch, is located within the study corridor. No flow was present at the time of
investigation. Its channel width is 3.0 to 4.0 ft and depth is 1.0 to 2.0 ft. No water resources
are located within the project area. No surface waters or high quality resources exist within
the study corridor.
According to the DWQ classification system, the best usage classification of
Peddler's Branch and its tributaries are "C" (NCDENR-DWQ 2000b). The "C" classification
denotes waters suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation and agriculture. No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), or Water
Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped watersheds or WS-II: predominantly undeveloped watersheds)
occur within 1.0 miles (1.6 km) of project study area.
10
Wetlands were delineated in the field and mapped using the Global Positioning
System (GPS). The proposed alignment is approximately 100 ft wide. Impacts to wetlands
within the proposed project area slope stake limits for the proposed grade separation
alternative at the railroad crossing are 0.12 ac (0.05 ha) and impacts to wetlands for the
proposed at grade crossing at the railroad intersection will be 0.33 ac (0.13 ha).
B. SUMMARY OF EFFECTS TO PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered, and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of March 7, 2002, the
USFWS lists the following federally protected species for Hoke County: St. Francis satyr,
red-cockaded woodpecker, Rough-leaved loosestrife, Michaux's sumac, and American
chaffseed. All are classified as endangered in North Carolina. A determination of "NO
EFFECT" has been made for each species based on biologists' field review of the proposed
corridor for the Palmer Road Extension.
C. NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
The information given above is based on the Natural Resources Technical
Report submitted on August 12, 2002. This report is included in its entirety in Appendix B
of this document.
D. COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
The addition of the Palmer Road Extension would be consistent with the
Thoroughfare Plan for Hoke County and the local Land Development Plan. The proposed
alignment is also consistent with the City of Raeford's Land Development Plan.
By constructing the Palmer Road Extension, there will be several positive impacts on t,,c a
the community. The Palmer Road Extension will create a more efficient route for the 16 Lo- _40
school buses that travel within the project area, servicing students at West Hoke Middle wlt?
School and Hoke High School. In addition, Emergency Medical Service and Fire be? .
Department vehicles will have a farmer response time. The City of Raeford is encouraging
development for the immediate area surrounding the project. This area is zoned for farmland
uses. The proposed corridor is undeveloped and has been designated as part of a future
industrial park. The area has access to rail and City of Raeford has recently installed new
wat es in preparation for development associated with the improvement.. The City of
is planning a city park north of the
Truck traffic is a primary concern, as it creates congestion and safety concerns
throu out the City. The Palmer Road extension should alleviate many of these problems.
The Palmer Road Extension will create improved mobility and safety for vehicles,
particularly large commercial trucks that are currently negotiating the narrow lanes and tight
11
radii of downtown Raeford. The completion of this project would help the City of Raeford
and Hoke County economic development commission in their efforts to attract new industry.
The City of Raeford indicated that a loop, particularly the southern portion (the Palmer Road
Extension), would spur more industrial growth in the area.
. Local officials have requested that NCDOT include bicycle lanes as a part of the
project. The City of Raeford is planning a city park north of the Palmer Road Extension and
has asked that NCDOT locate the project as close to the southern border of the park as
possible to avoid unusable remnant parcels between the southern boundary and the proposed
road. NCDOT will integrate bicycle plans into the proposed alignment and work with local
officials to provide trail connectivity with the proposed park, which would be located along
the corridor, and the corporate limits.
Overall, community stability should not be impacted as a result of this project, since
there are very few homes in the project area. No relocations of homes or businesses will
result from this project. As the proposed corridor is primarily undeveloped, the Palmer Road
Extension's visual impact to the area should be minimal.
Indirect and cumulative impacts could be associated with this project. Indirect
impacts to consider include the possibility of the development of industrial facilities in the
project area. Contacts with the local planning staff and on-site inspections confirmed that
industrial develo ment is anticipated and encouraged in the project area. The project area has
been designated as an industrial park; the project makes the land accessible for development.
When new businesses locate along the project are completed, they might bring additional
jobs that would require more workforce in the area. This could create a greater demand for
housing and might lead to increased residential development. The local city planning office
should consider the possible negative effects of urban sprawl on the community in terms of
uncontrolled wth and development along the project corridor. Indirect impacts from the
loss of wetlands could include the long-term decline ofsensitive vegetation and fauna. The
project design will minimize the impact to the wetlands. The City of Raeford has stated that
any wetland mitigation necessary might be integrated into the design of the proposed
Get e A , industrial park.
The complete Community Impact Assessment Report is available upon request from
the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch of NC DOT.
E. AIR QUALITY
The project is located in Hoke County, which has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Because the proposed
project is located in an attainment area, 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93 is not applicable. This
project is not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this
attainment area.
12
If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with
applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina state air quality implementation
plan (SIP) for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes
the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise of Title 23 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 772, and for air quality of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the
NEPA process, and no additional reports are necessary.
F. HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE/CONSTRUCTION NOISE ANALYSIS
The project proposes new construction of the roadway facility from NC 211 at SR
1149 (East Palmer Road) to NC 20 at SR 1403 (Oakdale Gin Road). For the year of 2025,
the maximum distances to the 72-dBA and 67-dBA noise level contours are <37 feet and
76 feet from the center of the proposed roadway. Hence, no receptors are anticipated to
approach or exceed the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria and no noise sensitive receptors
would experience substantial change in exterior noise levels per NCDOT Noise Abatement
Policy. Based on past project experience and low traffic volumes air quality is not expected
to exceed the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Therefore, the project's impact on
noise and air quality will not be significant.
G. GEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. Underground Storage Tank (UST) Facilities
Based on the field reconnaissance survey, two UST sites were found within the
project area. In each of these cases, it does not appear the UST System will be impacted by
the project.
2. Landfills and Other Potentially Contaminated Properties
The Geographical Information Service (GIS) was consulted for the project corridor.
The research shows that no regulated or unregulated landfills or dumpsites occur within the
proposed project limits.
VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. SCOPING AND AGENCY MEETINGS
Since the beginning of the project development phase, the NCDOT has held several
meetings on this project. The initial scoping meeting was held on February 8, 2001.
Representatives of the City of Raeford were present. One agency meeting was held on
February 14, 2002, where it was decided no further agency meetings were required due to
minimal environmental impacts.
13
B. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
A Citizens' Informational Workshop was held on June 28, 2001, which was attended
by approximately 15 citizens. Comment sheets were provided to each workshop attendee.
Most citizens were generally in favor of the project. The managers of the Oakdale Cotton
Gin requested the realignment of Oakdale Gin Road be reconsidered, as it would bisect the
field they use to store cotton prior to it being processed.
A formal Public Hearing will be held in the upcoming months to display a
preliminary design of the project to the public. At this hearing, NCDOT will make a
presentation of the project details, and then the floor will be opened up for comments from
the attending citizens and business owners. All comments will be recorded at the hearing,
and practicable recommendations will be considered for inclusion in the final design of the
project.
C. CORRESPONDENCE
Copies of pertinent documentation can be found in Appendix B and C of this report.
D. COORDINATION
During the project development phase of this project, contact was maintained with
local, state and federal agencies. Memoranda and letters requesting environmental input
were sent to the following agencies and replies were received from those marked with an
asterisk (*):
* U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
* U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
* N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
* N. C. Dept. of Cultural Resources
N. C. Dept. of Public Instruction
* N. C. Dept. of Environment & Natural Resources
Region G Planning Agency (MPO)
City of Raeford
Hoke County
Copies of responses from the agencies listed above and other correspondence can be found in
Appendix C to this report.
14
APPENDIX A
Silver

I
1
\1
a PR(
-
43
1 144'•.,
BYP
,g 401
J
L
InA
I I
I I ? ?El
I
I
r.r¦:¦. ¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦
3 1458 4 6
11 1455 •
:
:
PROJE
,may rmes ;
,NAy H/?Ati :
p X E
?f\MOnu y ?, •
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
S PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
U- 3816
RAEFORD
PALMER ROAD EXTENSION
FROM NC 211 AT SR 1149 TO
NC 20 AT SR 1403
HOKE COUNTY
FIGURE 1
u? Y e
A1A• i•
N
At.

•,t ?' ?t ? i

a
n
h k %r
?y .r .
`at .yF
tf.. ?y
r ?2- a a

1

., 1.

1 44
,
? ??k. s ?? a r by
- ?
n 1 a
? C3

O Z .
°
0
? A
Y

^.jd 'AkKA? "i1 3 fig` 'b
{1 # y?5 t?? ?X
F
'? T _ - { t s f i.c t !? kTr 'rte `< r
I IN,
f r A A 3 i ??'F ' -_
t j afd^ SY '1:
i A'A
•1
ri=
t?
? i
R
D a ?,
M T
A ? 1 s?l Y? ++?Y
00,
3 1„1 W1???`?y?f rk rp tJ
Zl .2
71

.s?
i'
Z
v

a
c?

0 n
M fA
Z-< m-<
n r-
z? SO m
OO ?vO m
„ p' A Z
OT mT
A z0
v
z
0
Z
O
v
Wo.
a 9
AI X" sy
91*4
;.?? "? ? 3 ` a',_.'kiid?J_°?sTit>`• ?.Y?'"i:..:. t ti "-'? ... "AVM ??"- •"'? --
i
w
i

.f

t
4L

i
?S-
t
?x

D
cn D
X m
o0
(A) Z
M
O
v
70
1 -0
Q
• f
14
rwy.

oil:

.
sF
y' ? J S
S
F,
ZZ
N
N
I? W Q(A
OD :)

W z
000 CL
-

UNQ
W > O
?
he >
0
?
Im<

-
_ LU? w

.< Ica
Q?Q
c
00
LL U
as
LL U-
00
? GC e

4wm

0a
W LU
t/1 N
00
00 co
-
0 LO
W- I-
M
LO E,. o
0
N
Qt/ O
U) W o
tri
ON N
\ C W 00
u O
0 0
dNM ^:? ?
E U o ° u q
04
wa kii,
N a E" xi \O 11
ee M
Z N ?
N U
co
U A E.,
N M ?14
O ?
Z =
O
CD
0
N
• NOyy,
u (r EI??
T-
T-
cy)
ti a
N U-)
: o
U i u rF 7-- 09 LO
z iYd aie .
CV)
W
o ?
q > A
> e? w
aA z
41` w>w ?o eo
2 a Dx ,?DG
CY3
q w cc n o? ? w
a m
Z >
e- u?o axpyva?a
LW7 wyF°a?..' ?a?x?wa?Faty-
W wW > x(.p"OUw?
?Uw o Z002O
e
? a? Aw
10
Xc
M O
dC' O
T V. N C
C/3 W o
M
eq
N
V &0 v A Q
o ? w
1[.. U O O C? "?'j Q
N ?z? ?s O
rt WE) 00-09 WE)
Yd V Wd 0= A V M
04
U A H
L
p
2 p
.M
W
O
Z
N
C) t
N •"aa
T Z1 WE)
w A
1 _ L
e- ? T = o
U ?? ty ?? a (F z*1o9 T b?
iYd to
Z _ co
W
a C
?O
> w
09 A W O O_
A y#zw c py F?w
Q a .,
V.rw.0 y>iW„"..ACrA'?'e
?- C4 _ O
u? wcn -.4
cn wda+ ?dEW+aF
W wai > aCVw`?
OUw E L d cw.?z
O >
A? E C W ? x A
N > AaGc.A Cr
N
T W
w
x ? >
Rt 3t r?C' A a A °
M O
? O
`O N
? a M
N _ W o
va a W 06
vW A C
o a C' W
p u ?r'f1?? N z?WE)
;vd
-0v £ V o o
N Wd to
C I?
U co a tx E'-' x
Z ct z` ra d r-4
N r O ?" H M
Q yN ti H ?
vwz ? ? ? ?
awS a ?
U A H
0
c
U) M
L rim
s
m
N M CD • N?
(/? 5 0
Ln ~
y h
e W
LD to r
°a
?O
r N L Cep D• w
N ?? as ?a z
?
N a w a _ ?.
Z u WE)fl9 cr) (D iYd z? A G a W
7 Fk ,.?
W ?Fa?
b C? Wes''" a:°?xWQFaF
W Oxaz<o
o z° c3?
j V qaQ
c? > w
F
%
_ ??®ascar_ -^Wsr s? ?yo?exrc-r.:r?a-+t .r..?-.,-.?+wsc.T'
REVISIONS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
B/17/99
t$$$s 3835SSSSSSDGNEE44ESSEESESSEES
1z r
?co
CC)
C F-
x .
x ?x m
_ CA
00 °
CC)
D
n ?
v 90
Q co
LAJ ?p U) N n
v, ?Co O
C-) 0
. D w o t ?--
-A 0
.
o Sn8
? ?io--A I ! it Jam' ` w
z ? i I ? k
n N V
,
?n
Cwt Iz X .
10
n( ?
c.? S 11' I
G o ?
s? s0 €
? o
Z? 4M
REVISIONS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ssssSSSSSSSSSS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
µ
µ
µ
I
? II
I
I
I
?I{rI
I
?fI
I
I
1
µ ? k
I

b
µ
µ If if µ If µ µ µ µ µ
µ
IE IF K" µ µ µ µ E
IF fl?f
µ µ A' µ IF
µ µ IF IF k
K, I! µ m m n
N' µ N-
IF 1! 1! It _
µ µ µ
µ µ a
µit IF o N- / ?
?
1

/l

W
co
rn
^?
C
0

20
i
r
µ
I µ IF
N
IF
µ µ IE
' If
It µ
A'
It µ
µ µ
µ
I
µ
I
N
IF
IF
I IE
IF ?
µ µ
M k µ
µ ?.
µ
I
9 µ
I„
I
If
µ k
It
µ
µ
µ µ o
µ µ Kµ µ µ in
µ µ µ
IF µ
µ µ
i µ IF
IF µ µ •
Ik
a <
N o
o
W
C
C7
F7l
U)
FT?
co
/V
O
C
c?
25

C

OFTI
0
® m?
OD r?

co
CA
o QJ
C
C7 ? ?
c
C
S /
30

b
10
Z
o=p r 3 0
y~
1? ?
a 41 Z ?
Z
Z "'e ! t?7 O
> 3
?r ?y Z3
iy ?
zQ
L.
M
c
M
l
c
ssssssssssssss
REVISIONS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
y1 zC7
x
z
0

REVISIONS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------
0
0
v
sass

-

Z
?C
b

\ S??1LwS\ S

IS FD
?d
d ?
O?d S? t, a z o
?'Pr
s
4 L
?z zy

.r

D?
CSI
z I'
m?
C/'r
Dr
?r
ml
rr
rl
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
? r
REVISIONS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sssssssssss -------------------------------------------- -------------------------------
JV
G` \

??39dAVO SIN`.
?J
C?
Z

/Q
b
z SZ
sr so A
Z
a ? a to °
?r 3? i?
zz xCZn =C
v, ? n
CSX'r

RALEIGH
Area of
-? FAYETTEVILLE A Area
COLUMBIA i
FIGURE 6
South Carolina North Carolina
APPENDIX B
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF PALMER ROAD EXTENSION ON NEW LOCATION
FROM NC 211 AT SR 1149 (EAST PALMER ROAD) TO NC 20 AT SR 1403 (OAKDALE
GIN ROAD) IN RAEFORD
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
TIP NO. U-3816
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2530301
FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. STP-0831(2)
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT AND DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
NATURAL SYSTEMS UNIT
RACHELLE BEAUREGARD, NATURAL SYSTEMS SPECIALIST
August 12, 2002
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Description ............................................................................................................. .. 1
1.2 Purpose .................................................................................
. 1
.................................
............ ..
1.3 Methodology ...................................................................................................................... ..1
1.4 Qualifications of Principal Investigator ........................................................._.................... .. 5
1.5 Terminology ....................................................................................................................... .. 5
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................................ ...5
2.1 Regional Characteristics ..................................................................................................... .. 6
2.2 Soils .............................................................................. 6
...................................................... ..
2.3 Water Resources ................................................................................................................. .. 6
2.3.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics ............................................................................. 6
2.3.2 Best Usage Classifications ............................................................................................. 6
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ...................................................................................................................... ...7
3.1 Biotic Communities .............................................................................................................. 7
3. 1.1 Mesic Hardwood Forest ................................................................................................. 7
3.1.2 Sandhills Pine Forest ..................................................................................................... 7
3.1.3 Old Field ........................................................................................................................ 8
3.1.4 Maintained/Disturbed Community ................................................................................ 8
3.1.5 Agricultural Field ........................................................................................................... 8
3.2 Wildlife ................................................................................................................................. 8
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Terrestrial Impacts ........................................................................ 9
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS ............................................................................................................ .10
4.1 Waters of the United States ................................................................................................. 10
4. 1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters ......................................................... 10
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ................................................................................ 10
4.1.3 Permits ......................................................................................................................... 10
4.1.4 Mitigation ..................................................................................................................... 11
4.1.4.1 Avoidance ......................................................................................................... 11
4.1.4.2 Minimization ..................................................................................................... 11
4.1.4.3 Compensatory Mitigation ................................................................................. 11
4.2 Rare and Protected Species ................................................................................................. 12
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species ......................................................................................... 12
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern ......................................................................................... 16
5.0 CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................17
6.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 18
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Study Area Soils and Characteristics ................................................................................ 6
Table 2. Anticipated Biotic Community Impacts ........................................................................... 9
Table 3. Federally Threatened and Endangered Species for Hoke County .................................. 12
Table 4. Federal Species of Concern for Hoke County .................................................................16
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Vicinity Map for Project U-3816 .................................................................................... 2
Figure 2: Project Area Map for U-3816 .......................................................................................... 3
ii
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is submitted to assist in the
preparation of documentation required under the National Environmental Policy Act. The
project is located in the central part of Hoke County (Figure 1).
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project consists of constructing the Raeford-Palmer Extension on new
location from NC 211 at SR 1149 (East Palmer Road) to NC 20 at SR 1403 (Oakdale Gin Road)
(Figure 2). The project length is 0.9 miles (mi) [(1.5 kilometers) (km)] and will have a right-of-
way of 120 feet (ft) [(36.6 meters) (m)]. Oakdale Gin Road will be realigned on new location to
the proposed Raeford-Palmer Extension (Figure 2).
The proposed alignment is approximately 100 ft (30.5 m) wide and has two alternatives
for the intersection at the railroad owned by the Aberdeen & Rockfish Railroad Company. One
alternative is to have a grade separation that will construct a bridge over the railroad crossing. A
second alternative would build an at-grade crossing (Figure 2).
The cross section for the proposed project has been determined to be a two-lane shoulder.
Two 12 ft lanes each having 2 ft of paved shoulder and 4 ft of grass shoulder.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to inventory, catalog, and describe the various
natural resources likely to be impacted by the proposed action. This report also attempts to
identify and estimate the probable consequences of the anticipated impacts to these resources.
These descriptions and estimates are relevant only in the context of current design concepts. If
design parameters and criteria change, additional field investigations will need to be
conducted.
1.3 Methodology
Research was conducted prior to field investigations. Information sources used in this pre-
field investigation of the study area include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle map
(Raeford, NC, 1972, revised 1982), Natural Resource Conservation Service soils information for
Hoke County (USDA 1984), and NCDOT aerial photography (1:500) of the project area. Water
resource information was obtained from publications of the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality (NCDENR-DWQ 2000a) and
from the NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (Environmental Sensitivity Base
Map of Hoke County 1995) and Geographic Information Systems database (July 2001).
Information concerning the occurrence of federal and state protected species in the study area
was gathered from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list of protected species and
federal species of concern and from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP)
database of rare species and unique habitats (Amoroso 1999, LeGrand and Hall 1999).
cYP ?
1 ity 401
Xll
L II I fly---- `?
i? Saunders
??' f! I I I i ? ' I I
`1` I- - f ( -I I •
1. 'EN PROJECT
i. I
I i
- ,? rrln,nuu?.n,
• 2b J J
`? IBEGIN PRC?JEC? .
• tee.
,
23
:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
I: DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
U- 3 816
RAEFORD
PALMER ROAD EXTENSION
FROM NC 211 AT SR 1149 TO
NC 20 AT SR 1403
HOKE COUNTY
FIGURE 1
I
m d
-i x?1
04 \ O
2 ?1 O O
i

i Q
N
W r" a min 9
N
1
o ? ' y5& s,lWS ?;a
r
?
'' .. i ll ? i? ? ?
ikci'• ? c ? 1? ?? t?i
?i'

n
2 ^ A
1 V tD N ?
p , O °,
N O
D
S
0
o
p 3
19323
Mig
?o
m
`D
_
m ? ?' a x
m NO j ;'? 0 >
z
rt o
1 v
N

o N
N
_
N
O W
O
0
LA saees? o ?J
m v A
°o Z ? oc
O y
C
v
II
N Do
I rn
0 44
1
?•.. l? ? Cy ? f'

I
I
I
I
(D O fTl
?. U Gl
Q Cif
-h
n
T
(D
r-
Q?

i
I
i
?I
i
!I
r
r
N /F
1:': Cr
c
z
m
N
A
n
m i
r r
rr:l
I
ISFp 1 L4
)) w
r
QOB
?' 0^ e5\ lit
9 ( ?
\• s
2///? n•' \ I A I VU v V
O b
O
03
z _ 1.
i w ?N raw O ? ' ? cli
r t ??
n ?'o
m N rn Zor W I 12 [.?
o :Q o o ro ?L 2y'HN '11 4 O
.' 9 W51 ;
?f
J J-?_ Q N 1 f? ? ?'
C r ) Ff
N
N
I C•n Nom, N O
N .?
L4
ei
Ln 5n ' J
N? a
? s cm
m
O Z G
O f,
o• c - - 2
,
L n ^ o
M Z CN o Z
2 N; 1 O
/ N
` I y
A
to
m
r
rn
0
S 2 x
, v s n a
l 9 m N
'0 o n o i
N v
o ?
A o
?
3
z
O N D 0 0
C p r
W ? O y
m ?
m O n 7
?=y
? I -
w° II
.

O
A N

A
m
3
N
N n
?+ o
o w
0
9

I
/ I I
? I I
I •
111.`{? :?1 "?
1
? cn r-
(D O m
(D M
CL v? 0
-i
D
CD
1--
(D

j?
? ' ?? ? = ?-?,. may. ? .?•f
?..
•`1 ..11. r^
t.
11• I IN \'/ ? ??h •
m h^i
W
..:
-u wo
,• • r F
' o
'• N
I., L Z N,
I VI
j
z
? m .
v
m 'G
r
r
• ? m
I
F`
?s
C. \? ?$F(1 rJ J (A
\ ?J•S %?
oio? s 'a )\?y. ? w f
A study corridor ranging from 300 to 500 ft was chosen for natural resource
investigation. General field surveys were conducted along the proposed study corridor by
biologists Eric Black and Mike Eagan (from Stantec Consulting Services) on October 26, 2001
and November 14, 2001 and Rachelle Beauregard and Mike Eagan on December 13, 2001. Plant
communities and their associated wildlife were identified and recorded. Wildlife identification
involved using one or more of the following observation techniques: active searching and
capture, visual observations (binoculars), and identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds,
scat, tracks, nests and burrows).
Jurisdictional wetland determinations were performed utilizing delineation criteria
prescribed in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual" (Environmental Laboratory,
1987) and rated using the "Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina"
(Division of Environmental Management 1995). Jurisdictional surface water determinations
were performed using guidance provided by N.C. Division of Water Quality [(DWQ), formerly
known as the Division of Environmental Management (DEM)], "Field Location of Streams,
Ditches, and Ponding" (NCDENR-DWQ 1997) and NCDWQ Stream Classification Form
(NCDENR-DWQ 1999a).
A proposed alignment within this corridor has been selected and impacts to biotic
communities, wetland and streams are based on the slope stake lines of the alignment.
1.4 Qualifications of Principal Investigators
Investigator: Rachelle Beauregard, Environmental Specialist, NCDOT.
Education: B.S. Fisheries and Wildlife Science, North Carolina State University.
Experience: Biologist, Dr. J.H. Carter III and Associates, Inc., March 1997 - January 2001.
NC Department of Transportation, March 2001- present.
1.5 Terminology
Definitions for aerial descriptions contained in this report are as follows: Project Study
Area denotes the area bounded by proposed construction limits; Project Vicinity describes an
area extending 0.5 mi. (0.8 km) on all sides of the project study area; and Project Region is
equivalent to an area represented by a 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle map with the project
occupying the central position. Study corridor (study area) is the area bounded by the
proposed outside alternatives for the project.
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
2.1 Regional Characteristics
The proposed project lies within the Sandhills physiographic region of North Carolina.
Topography within this region is characterized by broad, sandy ridges and long, less sandy side
slopes with elevations ranging from 270 to 527 ft above mean sea level (msl). The project region
is composed of industrial, residential, agricultural, and forested landscapes with Raeford, North
Carolina serving as the largest municipality. The physical resources located within the project
area directly influence the composition and distribution of a biotic community's flora and fauna.
5
2.2 Soils
Seven major soil phases occur within the project area boundaries. All project area soils
and their characteristics are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Project Area Soils and Characteristics
Map Unit Specific Map Unit Percent Drainage Class Hydric Class
Symbol Slope
BaD Blaney loamy sand 8 to 15 Well drained non hydric
CaB Candor sand 1 to 8 Somewhat excessively non hydric
drained
Co Coxville loam Nearly Poorly drained hydric
level
Dn Dunbar loam Nearly Somewhat poorly drained non-hydric
level with hydric
inclusions
DpA Duplin sandy loam 0 to 3 Moderately well drained non hydric
NoA Norfolk loamy sand 0 to 2 Well drained non hydric
WaB Wagram-Urban land 0 to 8 non hydric
complex
2.3 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water resources likely to be impacted
within the project study corridor and project area. Water resource information encompasses
physical aspects of the resource, its relationship to major water systems, Best Usage Standards
and water quality of the resources. Probable impacts to these water bodies are also discussed, as
are means to minimize those impacts.
2.3.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics
The project study corridor is located within subbasin 03-06-05, hydrologic unit 03030004
of the Cape Fear River Basin, the largest river basin in the state of North Carolina. This river
basin covers 9,149 sq mi (23,695 sq km) and twenty-seven counties (NCDENR-DWQ 2000a).
One intermittent stream, an unnamed tributary (UT) to Peddlers Branch, is located within the
study corridor. No flow was present at the time of investigation. Its channel width is 3.0 to 4.0
ft and depth is 1.0 to 2.0 ft. No water resources are located within the project area. No high
quality resources exist within the study corridor.
2.3.2 Best Usage Classifications
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of Water Quality
(DWQ). Unnamed tributaries have the best usage classification of the named receiving stream.
The classification of Peddler's Branch and its tributaries are "C" (NCDENR-DWQ 2000b). The
"C" classification denotes waters suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing,
wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture. No waters classified as High Quality Waters
(HQW), or Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped watersheds or WS-II: predominantly
undeveloped watersheds) occur within 1.0 mi (1.6 km) of project study area.
6
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources located in-the project area include terrestrial communities. This section
describes those communities encountered and the relationships between fauna and flora found
within these communities. The composition and distribution of biotic communities throughout
the project area are reflective of the topography, hydrologic influences, and the project area's
past and present land uses. Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of
plant community classifications and follow those presented by Schafale and Weakley (1990)
where possible. The dominant flora and fauna observed, or likely to occur, in each community
are described and discussed.
Scientific nomenclature and the common names (when applicable) are provided for each
described animal and plant species. The plant taxonomy generally follows Radford et al. (1968).
Animal taxonomy follows Burt and Grossenheider (1976), Conant (1986), Martof et al. (1980),
Peterson (1980) and Webster et al. (1985). All subsequent references to the same organism will
include the common name only. Fauna observed during the site visit is denoted with an asterisk
(*). Spoor evidence or tracks equate to observation of the species. Published range distributions
and habitat analysis are used in estimating fauna expected to be present within the project area.
3.1 Biotic Communities
Five terrestrial communities are located in the project study area. These include a mesic
hardwood forest, sandhills pine forest, old field, maintained/disturbed and agricultural
communities. Community boundaries within the study area are generally well defined without a
significant transition zone between them. Many faunal species likely to occur within the study
area may exploit all communities for shelter and foraging opportunities, or as movement
corridors.
3.1.1. Mesic Hardwood Forest
The mesic hardwood forest is located on lower slopes and on well drained small stream
bottoms, on acidic soils. Observed canopy vegetation includes red maple (Acer rubrum), tulip
poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), white oak (Quercus alba),
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red mulberry (Morus rubra), black cherry (Prunus
serotina), mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa), and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). Shrub/sapling
and woody vine species include red maple, sweetgum, American holly (11ex opaca), flowering
dogwood (Corpus florida), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), water oak (Quercus nigra), black
cherry, greenbriar (Smilax sp.), and wild muscadine (Vitis sp.). Herbaceous species include
ebony spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), and
cranefly orchid (Tipularia discolor).
3.1.2. Sandhills Pine Forest
The Sandhills Pine forest is dominated by pine trees with various hardwood species
present in the understory. This community is located the project study area on moderately well
drained, sandy loam soils. Dominant canopy vegetation associated with the Sandhills Pine forest
consists of loblolly pine. Shrub/sapling and woody vine species include red maple, willow oak
(Quercus phellos), southern red oak (Quercus falcata), flowering dogwood, mockernut hickory,
wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), and Vitis spp. Herbaceous species include cranefly orchid, ebony
spleenwort, horsenettle (Solanum carolinense), and spotted wintergreen (Chimaphila maculata).
7
3.1.3 Old Field
The old field community includes abandoned pastures that are located in the project area.
These areas display evidence of recent land disturbance and all vegetation consists of early
successional growth. Shrub/sapling vegetation observed in these areas consists of loblolly pine,
winged sumac (Rhus copallina) and sweetgum. Woody vines include blackberry (Rubus sp.) and
Japanese honeysuckle. Herbaceous vegetation associated with the early old field community
includes goldenrod (Solidago sp.), broom sedge (Andropogon sp.), fescue (Festuca spp.), asters
(Asters sp.), wild onion (Allium canadense) and Eupatorium species.
3.1.4. Maintained/Disturbed Community
The maintained/disturbed community consists of two habitats. Those habitats included in
this description are road shoulders and residential landscapes. Road shoulders are those areas
that are irregularly maintained, receiving only periodic mowing and herbicide applications.
These areas may act as buffers between the roadway and surrounding communities by filtering
storm water run-off and reducing runoff velocities. Woody vegetation observed on the road
shoulder includes pond pine (Pinus serotina), loblolly pine, southern red oak, red mulberry,
blackberry and Japanese honeysuckle. Herbaceous vegetation includes fescue, horse nettle, wild
onion, crabgrass (Digitaria sp.), plantain (Plantago sp.), chickweed, and broom sedge
(Andropogon sp.).
Residential landscapes are areas that receive more frequent mowing, general maintenance
and disturbance than road shoulders. Woody vegetation associated with the residential landscape
include red maple, loblolly pine, white pine (Pinus strobis) and eastern red cedar. Lawn areas
are dominated by fescue, english plantain, and crabgrass.
3.1.5 Agricultural Fields
The agricultural field community includes land currently being used for the growth of
cotton.
3.2 Wildlife
Many faunal species are highly adaptive and may populate or exploit the entire range of
biotic communities discussed. Generally, the community boundaries are abrupt, with little
transitional area between them. The forested tracts and drainageways provide habitat for species
requiring a forest community, and provide shelter and movement corridors for other wildlife
species within the project vicinity.
Mammals that commonly exploit habitats found within the project area consists of the
whitetail deer* (Odocoileus virginianus), Virginia opossum* (Didelphis virginiana), gray fox
(Urocyon cinereoargenteus), gray squirrel* (Sciurus carolinensis), striped skunk (Mephitis
mephitis) and eastern cottontail* (Sylvilagus floridanus).
Forests and forest edge habitats located in the project area also provide opportunities for
foraging and shelter for avian species such as the Carolina chickadee* (Parus carolinensis),
chipping sparrow* (Spizella passerina), red bellied woodpecker*(Melanerpes carolinus), yellow
shafted flicker*(Colaptes auratus), pileated woodpecker* (Dryocopus pileatus), sharp-shinned
hawk* (Accipiter striatus), American woodcock* (Scolopax minor), prairie warbler*(Dendroica
discolor), ruby crowned kinglet* (Regulus calendula), brown headed nuthatch (Sitta pusilla),
8
blue jay* (Cyanocitta cristata), and northern mockingbird* (Mimus polygottos). Other avian
species who may utilize open habitat within the project area includes the turkey
vulture*(Cathartes aura), red tailed hawk*(Buteo jamaicensis), mourning dove* (Zenaida
macroura) and eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna).
A variety of reptiles and amphibians may also be expected to utilize the terrestrial
communities within the project area. These animals include the copperhead (Agkistrodon
contortrix), southern hognose snake (Heterodon simus), rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), eastern box
turtle (Terrapene carolina) and eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus).
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Terrestrial Impacts
Construction related activities in or near the previously described resources have the
potential to impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies impacts to the
natural resources in terms of area impacted and ecosystems affected. Temporary and permanent
impacts are considered here as well.
- Some of the plant communities found along the proposed project area serve as nesting
and sheltering habitat for wildlife. Project construction will reduce habitat for faunal species,
thereby diminishing faunal numbers. Additionally, habitat reduction concentrates wildlife into
smaller areas of refuge, thus causing some species to become more susceptible to disease,
predation, and starvation.
Areas modified by construction (but not paved) will become road shoulders and early
successional habitat. Increased traffic noise and reduced habitat will displace some wildlife
fiuther from the roadway while attracting other wildlife by the creation of more early
successional habitat. Animals temporarily displaced by construction activities may repopulate
areas suitable for the species. This temporary displacement of animals will result in an increase
of competition for the remaining resources.
The calculated impacts to biotic resources reflect the relative abundance of each
community present within the study area. Project construction will result in clearing and
degradation of portions of these communities. Table 2 summarizes potential quantitative losses
to these biotic communities resulting from project construction. Estimated impacts are derived
using the slope stake lines of the proposed alignment [approximately 100ft (30.5 m)].
Table 2. Anticipated Biotic Community Impacts.
Community Impacts
Terrestrial
Agriculture 7.9 ac (3.2 ha)
Maintained/Disturbed 0.02 (0.01 )
Mesic Hardwood Forest 0.69 (0.28)
Old Field 2.2 (0.89)
Sandhills Pine Forest 1.2 (0.49)
Total 12.0 (4.87)
9
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This section provides descriptions, inventories, and impact analysis pertinent to two
important issues--Waters of the United States and rare and protected species.
4.1 Waters of the United States
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) promulgated the definition of "Waters of
the United States" under 33 CFR §328.3(a). Waters of the United States include most interstate
and intrastate surface waters, tributaries, and wetlands. Areas that are inundated or saturated by
surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions are considered "wetlands" under 33 CFR §328.3(b). Wetlands generally include
swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Any action that proposes to place dredged or fill
materials into waters of the United States falls under the jurisdiction of the USACE, and must
follow the statutory provisions under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C.
1344).
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Potential wetland communities were investigated following the 1987 "Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual". The three parameter approach is used where hydric soils,
hydrophytic vegetation, and prescribed hydrologic characteristics must all be present for an area
to be considered a wetland.
Two wetlands are present within the study corridor and project area and are associated
with the Mesic Hardwood Forest community. Soils within the wetland areas have a sandy loam
and sandy/clay loam texture and a Munsell color notation of l OYR 3/1. Hydrological indicators
include inundation, soil saturation, drainage patterns, and water stained leaves. Vegetation
within the wetlands includes tulip poplar, red maple, Chinese privet, tag alder, needle rush,
Polygonum spp., and elderberry.
One intermittent stream, a UT to Peddler's Branch, is located within the study corridor.
No surface waters are located within the project area.
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Wetlands were delineated in the field and mapped using the Global Positioning System
(GPS). The proposed alignment is approximately 100 ft wide. Impacts to wetlands within the
proposed project area slope stake limits for the proposed grade separation alternative at the
railroad crossing are 0.12 ac (0.05 ha) and impacts to wetlands for the proposed at grade crossing
at the railroad intersection will be 0.33 ac (0.13 ha).
4.1.3 Permits
Factors that determine Section 404 Nationwide Permit (NWP) applicability include
hydrology, juxtaposition with a major resource, whether the impacts occur as part of the
widening of an existing facility, or as the result of new location construction. Although an
individual site may qualify under NWP authorizations, overall, cumulative impacts from a single
and complete project may require authorization under an Individual Permit (IP).
10
A North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Section 401 Water Quality
Certification (WQC) is required prior to the issuance of a section 404 permit. It is anticipated
that a NWP 14 and its corresponding water quality certification (WQC 3289) will be required for
the proposed project.
4.1.4 Mitigation
The USACE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), a
wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and
sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological and
physical integrity of Waters of the United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland
impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands), minimizing
impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and compensating for impacts (40 CFR
1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation)
must be considered sequentially.
4.1.4.1 Avoidance
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting
impacts to Waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the USACE, in determining
"appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should be
appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing
technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes.
The proposed alignment was chosen to avoid impacts to the intermittent stream and
wetlands that are located in the northern part of the study corridor.
4.1.4.2 Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce the
adverse impacts to Waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps will be required
through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on
decreasing the proposed project footprint through the reduction of median widths, ROW widths,
fill slopes, and/or road shoulder widths. Other practical minimization mechanisms include: strict
enforcement of sedimentation control BMP's for the protection of surface waters during the
entire life of the project; reduction of clearing and grubbing activity; reduction/elimination of
direct discharge into streams; reduction of runoff velocity; re-establishment of vegetation on
exposed areas, judicious pesticide and herbicide usage; minimization of "in-stream" activity; and
litter/debris control.
Impacts to wetlands have been minimized by selecting an alignment that has
perpendicular crossings to the wetlands in the project area.
4.1.4.3 Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to Waters
of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible. It is
recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved in every
permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable
adverse impacts that remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been required.
11
Compensatory actions often include restoration, creation, and enhancement of Waters of the
United States. Such actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the
discharge site. It is anticipated that compensatory mitigation will be required for the wetland
impacts for the at-grade alignment:
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline due to
either natural forces or their inability to coexist with human activities. Federal law (under the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that any action, likely
to adversely affect a species classified as federally-protected, be subject to review by the
USFWS. Other species may receive additional protection under separate state laws.
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered, and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9
of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of March 7, 2002, the USFWS lists the
following federally protected species for Hoke County (Table 3). A brief description of each
species' characteristics and habitat follows.
Table 3. Federally Threatened or Endangered Species for Hoke County.
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS
Neon m ha mitchellii ancisci St. Francis satyr E
Picoides borealis red-cockaded woodpecker E
L simachia a erulae olia Rough-leaved loosestrife E
Rhus michauxii Michaux's sumac E
Schwalbea americana American chaffseed E*
r, aenotes hnciangered (a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range).
Name: St. Francis satyr (Neonympha mitchellii francisci)
Family: Satyrinae
Federal Status: Endangered
Date Listed: April 18, 1994
The St. Francis satyr is a small butterfly with a wingspan of 34-44 mm. It has light
brown, translucent wings with rows of prominent eyespots on the lower margins of the
undersides of both sets of wings. These eyespots are dark brown with borders of yellow and
dark brown, and may reflect slightly silver in some lights. There are two bright orange bands
along the posterior edge of the wing and two dark brown bands in the central portion of the wing.
The larvae are green and white striped, and spindle-shaped.
The St. Francis satyr is found in a very limited geographic area. The only known
population is found in one location on a military base in North Carolina, and extensive searches
throughout North and South Carolina have not discovered any additional populations. This
population was initially estimated to produce fewer than 100 adults per year (Parshall and Kral
1989). After its rediscovery in 1992, searches did not produce any single counts higher than 11
adults (Hall 1993).
12
Preferred habitat consists of wide, wet meadows dominated by sedges, grasses, and
rushes. This habitat is often a result of herbaceous succession after beaver activity or fire. Little
is known about the life history of this species, but it is known to be bivoltine, with two
generations per year. The larvae apparently feed on the sedges and other graminoids found in
the preferred habitat.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
No suitable habitat in the form of wide, wet meadows dominated by sedges, grasses, and
rushes were found within the study corridor. Additionally, an October 22, 2001 a review of the
Natural Heritage Programs database of threatened and endangered species revealed no known
populations of St. Francis satyr within one mile of the project area. Consequently, the proposed
project will have "No Effect" on St. Francis satyr.
Name: Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
Family: Picidae
Federal Status: Endangered
Listed: October 13, 1970
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has a plumage that is entirely black and white
except for small red streaks on the sides of the nape in the male. The back of the RCW is black
and white with horizontal stripes. The breast and underside of this woodpecker are white with
streaked flanks. The RCW has a large white cheek patch surrounded by the black cap, nape, and
throat.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf pine (Pinus
palustris), for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at least 50% pine, lack
a thick understory, and be contiguous with other stands to be appropriate habitat for the RCW.
These birds nest exclusively in trees that are > 60 years old and are contiguous with pine stands at
least 30 years of age. The foraging range of the RCW is up to 500 acres (202 hectares). This
acreage must be contiguous with suitable nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and usually in trees that are
infected with the fungus that causes red-heart disease. Cavities are located in clusters from 12-100
ft (3.6-30.4 m) above the ground and average 30-50 ft (9.1- 15.2 m) high. They can be identified
by a large incrustation of running sap that surrounds the tree. The RCW lays its eggs in April,
May, and June; the eggs hatch approximately 10 to 12 days later.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Habitat in the form of old growth stands of southern pine lacking a thick understory are not
present within the project area. No RCW trees were found and no active clusters are located
within one-half mile from the study corridor. Additionally, an October 22, 2001 a review of the
Natural Heritage Programs database of threatened and endangered species revealed no known
populations of red cockaded woodpeckers within one-half mile of the project area. Consequently,
the proposed project will have "No Effect' 'on the red cockaded woodpecker.
13
Name: Rough-leaved Loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia)
Family: Primrose (Primulaceae)
Federal Status: Endangered
Date Listed: June 12, 1987
Best Search Time: late May - early June
Rough-leaved loosestrife is a perennial herb growing from 12 - 24 in (30 - 60 cm) tall.
Its sessile leaves, in whorls of three to four, are broadest at the base and have three prominent
veins. The leaves are entire, slightly revolute (rolled under along the margins), yellow-green or
blue-green in color and lustrous. Rough-leaved loosestrife flowers from May to June. The
yellow flowers are formed in a loose, cylindrical, terminal raceme that is 1.2 - 3.9 in (3-10 cm)
long. Each corolla is 0.6 in (1.5 cm) across and contains five dotted or streaked petals. Fruits in
the form of a capsule are formed by August but don't dehisce until October. Rough-leaved
loosestrife depends on rhizomatous growth rather than sexual reproduction for short-term
survival. The leaves turn a reddish color in fall and the plant overwinters in a dormant stage.
Stipitate glands are found on most parts of the plant.
Typical habitat for rough-leaved loosestrife is the ecotone between high pocosin and
longleaf pine (or oak) savannas that contain sandy or peaty soils and full sunlight. Rough-leaved
loosestrife sometimes occurs in low pocosin openings where light is abundant at ground level.
Other habitats where this species is found include ecotones of stream-head pocosins in the
Sandhills and Sandhill Seeps where wet sands are underlain by clay, allowing water to seep to
the surface along slopes.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Habitat in the form of the ecotone between high pocosin and longleaf pine (or oak)
savannas that contain sandy or peaty soils and full sunlight, low pocosin openings where light is
abundant at ground level is not found within the study corridor. Habitat in the form of ecotones of
stream-head pocosins in the Sandhills and Sandhill Seeps where wet sands are underlain by clay,
allowing water to seep to the surface along slopes were also not found within the corridor.
Additionally, an October 22, 2001 and review of the Natural Heritage Programs database of
threatened and endangered species revealed no known populations of rough-leaved loosestrife
within one mile of the project area. Consequently, the proposed project will have "No Effect" on
the rough-leaved loosestrife.
Name: Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii)
Family: Cashew (Anacardiaceae)
Federal Status: Endangered
Date Listed: September 28, 1989
Best Search Time: During the growing season (June - September)
Michaux's sumac is a dioecious shrub growing to a height of 1.0-2.0 ft (0.3-0.6 m).
Plants flower in June, producing a terminal, erect, dense cluster of 4-5 parted greenish-yellow to
white flowers. Fruits, produced from August through September, are red, densely short-
pubescent drupes, 0.25 in (5-6 mm) across. Most populations, however, are single sexed and
reproduce only by rhizomes. The entire plant is densely pubescent. The deciduous leaves are
composed of 9-13 sessile, oblong leaflets on a narrowly winged or wingless rachis. The acute to
14
acuminate leaflets have rounded bases and are 1.5-3.5 in (4-9 cm) long and 1.0-2.0 in (2-5 cm)
wide. They are simply or doubly serrate.
This species prefers sandy; rocky, open woods and roadsides. Its survival is dependent
on disturbance (mowing, clearing, and fire) to maintain an open habitat. It is often found with
other members of its genus as well as with poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). There is no
longer believed to be an association between this species and specific soil types.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Habitat in the form of sandy, rocky, open woods and roadsides are present within the
project area. During a plant by plant survey on June 5, 2002 no species were found. An October
22, 2001 review of the Natural Heritage Programs database of threatened and endangered species
revealed no known populations of Michaux's sumac within one mile of the project area.
Therefore, this project will have "No Effect" on Michaux's sumac at this time.
Name: American Chaffseed (Schwalbea americana)
Family: Snapdragon (Scrophulariaceae)
Federal Status: Endangered
Date Listed: September 29,1992
Best Search Time: April through June in the south.
American chaffseed is an erect herb to 12 - 24 in (30 - 60 cm). It is densely hairy
throughout, including the flowers. The entire leaves are alternate, lance shaped to elliptic and
0.8 - 2.0 in (2.5 - 5.0 cm) long. The upper leaves are reduced to narrow bracts. The tubular
flowers are two-lipped and purplish-yellow in color. They are 1.2 -1.4 in (3.0 - 3.5 cm) long
and borne singly on short stalks in the axils of the uppermost leaves (bracts) and form a many
flowered spike-like raceme. Fruits are narrow capsules approximately 0.4 - 0.5 in (10 -12 mm)
long. Numerous seeds are produced and they are greenish brown or yellowish tan in color.
American chaffseed is most often found in sandy (sandy peat, sandy loam) acidic,
seasonally moist to dry soils. Plant communities with which this species is most often associated
with include pine flatwoods, fire maintained savannas, ecotones between peaty wetlands and
xeric sandy soils and other open grass-sedge systems. This species is believed to be shade
intolerant and is therefore found in areas maintained in open to partially open conditions. Most
extant populations are in areas subject to frequent fire. This species is also known to occur on
road shoulders and in power line rights-of-way that experience frequent mowing.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Habitat occurring in sandy (sandy peat, sandy loam) acidic, seasonally moist to dry soils is
present within the project area, however these areas are densely vegetated and fire suppressed. A
review of the Natural Heritage Programs database of threatened and endangered species on
October 22, 2001 revealed no known populations of American chaffseed within one mile of the
project area. Therefore, this project will have "No Effect" on American chaffseed.
15
4.2.3 Federal Species of Concern
Federal Species of Concern are not afforded federal protection under the ESA and are not
subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as
Threatened or Endangered. Federal Species of Concern are defined as those species, which may
or may not be listed in the future. These species were formally candidate species, or species
under consideration for listing for which there was insufficient information to support a listing of
Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered and Proposed Threatened. Organisms which are
listed as Endangered, Threatened, Significantly Rare, or Special Concern by the NCNHP list of
rare plant and animal species are afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species
Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 4. Federal Species of Concern for Hoke County.
Scientific Name Common Name NC Habit
Status at
Aimpohila aestivalis Bachman's sparrow SC No
Amorpha georgiana var. Georgia indigo-bush E No
georgiana
Astragalus michauxii Sandhills milkvetch T Yes
Corynorhinus rafinesquii Rafinesque's big-eared
bat
Dionaea muscipula Venus flytrap C-SC No
Heterodon simus Southern hognose snake SR/PSC * Yes
Kalmia cuneata White wicky E-SC No
Lilium iridolae Sandhills bog lily T No
Lindera subcoriacea Bog spicebush E No
Litsea aestivalis Pondspice C No
Lobelia boykinii Boykin's lobelia C No
Myriophyllum laxum Loose watermilfoil T No
Oxypolis ternata Savanna cowbane Wl No
Parnassia caroliniana Carolina grass-of- E No
parnassus
Parthenium radfordii Wavyleaf wild quinine Wl Yes
Pituophis melanoleucus Northern pine snake SC** Yes
melanoleucus
Potamogeton confervoides Conferva pondweed C No
Pteroglossaspis ecristata Spiked medusa E Yes
Pyxidanthera barbulata var. Sandhills pyxie-moss E Yes
brevifolia
Rana capito capito Carolina gopher frog SC/PT No
Rhexia aristosa Awned meadowbeauty T No
Rhynchospora crinipes Alabama beaksedge E No
Solidago verna Spring-flowering T Yes
goldenrod
Stylisma pickeringii var. Pickering's dawnflower E Yes
pickeringii
Tofceldia glabra Carolina aspholdel C No
Xyris scabrifolia Roughleaf yellow-eyed C No
grass
16
"E"--An Endangered species is one whose continued existence as a viable component of the
State's flora is determined to be in jeopardy.
"T"--A Threatened species is one which is likely to become endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
"SC"--A Special Concern species is one which requires monitoring but may be taken or collected
and sold under regulations adopted under the provisions of Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the
General Statutes (animals) and the Plant Protection and Conservation Act (plants). Only
propagated material may be sold of Special Concern plants that are also listed as
Threatened or Endangered.
"C"--A Candidate species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20
populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction,
direct exploitation or disease. The species is also either rare throughout its range or disjunct
in North Carolina from a main range in a different part of the country or the world.
"SR"--A Significantly Rare species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-
20 populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat
destruction, direct exploitation or disease. The species is generally more common
elsewhere in its range, occurring peripherally in North Carolina.
"W 1 "--A Watch Category 1 species is a rare species whose status in North Carolina is relatively
well known and which appears to be relatively secure at this time.
"/P_"--denotes a species which has been formally proposed for listing as Endangered, Threatened,
or Special Concern, but has not yet completed the listing process.
* -- Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
* * -- Obscure record - the date and/or location of observation is uncertain.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
Within the study corridor for this project are 2 wetland areas and 1 intermittent stream A
proposed alignment was chosen that avoids impacts to the intermittent stream and parts of the
wetland areas. Impacts to wetlands will be no more than 0.3 ac. There are five endangered
species listed in Hoke County by the USFWS pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act 1973, as amended. A biological conclusion of "no effect' 'was rendered for all federally
listed species.
The grade separation alternative at the railroad crossing is recommended. Because the
bridge would expand over the wetlands as well as the railroad crossing, this would further reduce
impacts to wetlands.
17
6.0 REFERENCES
Amoroso, J.L. 1999. "Natural Heritage Program list of the rare plant species of North
Carolina". North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh.
Burt, W.H. and R.P. Grossenheider, editors. 1976. A field guide to the mammals: North
America North of Mexico. 3rd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
DW, R., editor. 1986. A field guide to reptiles and amphibians (Eastern and Central North
America). 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,"
Technical report Y-87-1m U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Hall, S. 1993. A rangewide status survey of Saint Francis's satyr Neonympha mitchellii francisci
(Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species
Field Office, Asheville, NC. 44 pp.
LeGrand Jr., H.E., and S.P. Hall. 1999. Natural Heritage Program list of the rare animal species
of North Carolina". North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison. 1980. Amphibians and reptiles of
the Carolinas and Virginia. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. 264 pp.
NCDEHNR. 1995. Guidance for rating the values of wetlands in North Carolina. Fourth
Version. Environmental Science Laboratory.
NCDENR-DWQ. 1999. Stream Classification Form. Environmental Science Laboratory.
NCDENR-DWQ. 2000a. Basinwide Assessment Report Cape Fear Basin. Environmental
Science Laboratory.
NCDENR-DWQ. 2000b. Stream Classification (Hydrologic Listings) Webpage.
(http://h2o.ehnr.state.nc.us/strmelass/hydro/fbroad.htin.).
Nemuras, K. T. 1967. Notes on the Natural History of Clemmys muhlenbergi. Bulletin of the
Maryland Herpetological Society. 3(4): 80-96.
Parshall, D. K., and T. W. Kral. 1989. A new subspecies of Neonympha mitchellii (French)
(Satyrinae) from North Carolina. J. Lep. Soc. 43:114-119.
Patrick, T.S., J.R. Allison, and G.A. Krakow. 1995. Protected Plants of Georgia. Georgia
Department of Natural Resources. 248 pp.
Peterson, R.T., editor. 1980. A field guide to the birds of eastern and central North America.
4th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
18
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.
Refsnider, R. 1991. Emergency rule to list the Mitchell's satyr as endangered. Federal Register
56(122):28825.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakly. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina. Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks
and Recreation, NCDEHNR.
State of North Carolina. 1969. Kernersville Quadrangle [7.5 minute Topographic map].
Revised 1994. Reston: U.S. Geological Service. 1 sheet.
State of North Carolina. 1995. Hoke County [Environmental Sensitivity Base Map]. Raleigh:
N.C. Center for Geographic Information and Analysis. 1 sheet.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. 1984. Soil Survey of Hoke and
Cumberland Counties, North Carolina.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Michaux's Sumac Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. Atlanta, GA. 30 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Rough-leaved Loosestrife Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. Atlanta, GA. 32 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. American Chaffseed (Schwalbea americana) recovery
plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Hadley, MA. 62 pp.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia, and
Maryland. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.
19
RELOCATION REPORT
71 E.I.S. = CORRIDOR = DESIGN
I.D. NO.: U-3816 F.A. PROJ
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Palmer R
ESTIMATED' DISPLACEES:
Type of
North Carolina. Department of Transportation
Hl emate 1 of 1 Altematl
STP-1424(3)
on, from NC 211 at SR 119 (East Palmer St.) to NC 20 at SR 1403 (Oakdale Gin Rd.)
INCOME LEVEL
Dlsplacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities
Residential 0 0 0 ?
Businesses 0
Farms 0 0 0 0
Non-Profit 0 0 0 O
ANSWER ALL`QUESTIONS
Yes No Explain all 'YES' answers.
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary?
X 2. Will schools or churches be affect by
displacement?
X 3. Will business services still be available after
project?
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so,
indicate size, type, estimated number of
- employees, minorities, etc.
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
X 6. Source for available housing (list).
X 7. Will additional housing programs be needed?
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
X 10. Will public housing be needed for project?
X 11. Is public housing available?
X 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
- housing available during relocation period?
X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
X 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
0 15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? 0 =
E.T. RABENS, III September 23, 2002
Right of Way Agent Date
Form 15.4 Revised 10/00
0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
0 0 I 0
0 0
VALUE OF DWELLING D SS DWEL
LING AVAILABLE
Owners Tena nts For S al
e For R ent
0-20M 0 $ 0-150 0 0-20M 0 $ 0
-150 0
20-40M 0 150-250 0 20-40M a 150-250 0
40-70M 0 250-400 0 40-70M
D 250-400 0
70-100M

100 up 0

0 400-600

600 UP 0

0 70-
100M
100 up 0

s?s 400-600

600 uP 0

0
TOTAL 0 0 0 _
- REMARKS (Respond by Number)
2 7-6
Approved Date
Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy Division Right of Way
Office
REQUEST FOR R/W COST ESTIMATE
DATE RECEIVED: 08-06-02 DISTRIBUTED: 08-06-02 REVISION:NO
I.D. NUMBER: U-3816
PROJECT NUMBER: 8.2530301
COUNTY: HOI E
ENGINEER: JENNIFER SAFRON / PDEA
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:
PALMER ROAD EXTENSION, FROM NC 211 AT SR 1149 TO NC 20 AT SR 1403
TYPE OF PLANS FURNISHED FOR ESTIMATE: PRELEVIINARY
DATE DUE: 10-01-02
PRIOR ESTIMATES OF LAND AND DAMAGES (WITH DATES):
N/A
IF INCREASES OR DECREASES ARE SIGNIFICANT, PLEASE EXPLAIN:
N/A
AMOUNT THAT HAS BEEN ADDDED TO LAND AND DAMAGE TO COVER
CONDEMNATION AND ADMINISTRATIVE INCREASES: $ AND/OR 25%
ESTIMATED BY: ANDREW QUETE COMPLETED DATE: 10-09-02
UTILITY COMPLETED DATE: 08-27-02
ALTERNATES
1
ESTIMATED NO. OF PARCELS: 6
RESIDENTIAL RELOCATIONS: 0/0
BUSINESS RELOCATIONS: 0/0
LAND AND DAMAGE: 178,125
UTILITIES: 30,000
ACQUISTION: 30,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED RIW COST: 238,125
k a ? Imo' C
IPPEN,
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Wilmington District
Action ID: 200100391
County: Hoke
Notification of Jurisdictional Determination
Requestor: Authorized Agent:
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1548
Size and Location of Project (waterbody, Highway name/number, town, etc.): TIP Project No. U-
3816, State Project No. 8.2530301, Proposed Palmer Street Extension from NC 211 at SR 1149 to NC 20
at SR 1403 in Bladen County, North Carolina.
Basis for Determination: Onsite field inspection of jurisdictional areas.
On January 11, 2001 the undersigned inspected the Section 404 jurisdictional boundaries as field delineated by
the NCDOT and/or its representatives for the subject NCDOT project/corridor. The project site was inspected and
the delineated jurisdictional boundaries were found to accurately reflect the limits of Corps jurisdiction. The field
delineated wetland jurisdictional limits, as shown on the attached plan can be relied on for project planning and
impact assessment. This verification is valid for five (5) years from the date of this letter.
Any placement of dredged or fill material within the delineated jurisdictional limits will require
Department of the Army authorization pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, as amended (33
USC 1344). Any un-authorized placement of dredged or fill material within the delineated jurisdictional
limits would be a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1311) and subject to
enforcement action. If you have any questions regarding this verification or the Corps of Engineers'
regulatory program, please contact Mr. Richard K. Spencer at 910-251-4172.
Project Manager Signature /??a? . ??
Richard K. Spen er
Date February 20, 2002
Expiration Date Februarv 20, 2007
CF: Rachelle Beauregard, PDEA NCDOT /
Jennifer Safron, P.E., PDEA NCDO
Art King, DEO, Div. 8 NCDOT
° a
i
X ?
N.

t
U
S CD cro crz
?. o o z
LLJ
'J
a-??
cm
V) om

E

v

n ? b L
?
vew
rte..
8
W
4
0
N
Jd
a
d
i b
sssssssssssss
? a
m
a
a
0
v
w
o a
0 0Ow Oo
r
x
z o" 00
w 29 r
t??6bv.*?
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726
September 14, 2001
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
NCDOT
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Rai%igh, North CarOiirla 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:

Thank you for your letter of August 6, 2001 requesting information from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) for the purpose of evaluating the potential environmental impacts
of the proposed extension of Raeford-Palmer Road from NC 211 at SR 1149 to NC 20 at
SR 1403, at Raeford, Hoke County, North Carolina (TIP No. U-3816). This report provides
scoping information and is provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (FWCA) (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). This report also serves as initial
scoping comments to federal and state resource agencies for use in their permitting and/or
certification processes for this project.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to extend Raeford-
Palmer Road on new location for approximately 0.9 mile. There is one railroad crossing
involved. The following recommendations are provided to assist you in your planning process
and to facilitate a thorough and timely review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practical as outlined in Section 404 (b)(1) of the Clean Water Act
Amendments of 1977. In regard to avoidance and minimization of impacts, we recommend
that proposed highway projects be aligned along or adjacent to existing roadways, utility
corridors, or previously developed areas in order to minimize habitat fragmentation and
encroachment. Areas exhibiting high biodiversity or ecological value important to the
watershed and region should be avoided. Crossings of streams and associated wetland
systems should use existing crossings and/or occur on a structure wherever feasible. Where
bridging is not feasible, culvert structures that maintain natural water flows and hydraulic
regimes without scouring, or impeding fish and wildlife passage, should be employed.
Highway shoulder and median widths should be reduced through wetland areas. Roadway
embankments and fill areas should be stabilized by using appropriate erosion control devices
and techniques. Wherever appropriate, construction in sensitive areas should occur outside
fish spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons.
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map of the Raeford 7.5 Minute Quadrangle indicates
there are wetland and stream resources in the specific work area. However, while the NWI
maps are useful for providing an overview of a given area, they should not be relied upon in
lieu of a detailed wetland delineation by trained personnel using an acceptable wetland
classification methodology.
We reserve the right to review any federal permits that may be required for this project, at the
public notice stage. Therefore, it is important that resource agency coordination occur early in
the planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise and minimize delays in
project implementation.
In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the environmental documentation for
t..l'i:s ,, Project t include the fo1:1 :o:vi t sufficient cinnt detail to ?u.,? n th:..,.c.- i.,',,? t. of the
i.. ? cil ..tato uag.. rev the
action:
A clearly defined and detailed purpose and need for the proposed project, supported by
tabular data, if available, and including a discussion of the project's independent
utility;
2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being
considered, including the upgrading of existing roads and a ""no action" alternative;
A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact area that may be directly or indirectly affected;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be
impacted by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact
should be differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of
the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Wetland boundaries should be determined by
using the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
5. The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be
likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also
include the extent to which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to
natural resources, and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative adverse
effects;
6. Design features and construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize the fragmentation or direct loss of wildlife habitat value;
7. Design features, construction techniques, or any other mitigation measures which
would be employed at wetland crossings and stream channel relocations to avoid or
minimize impacts to waters of the United States; and,
8. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, we recommend that every effort be made
to identify compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include
a detailed compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts.
Opportunities to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity, preferably via conservation
easement, should be explored at the outset.
The enclosed list identifies the federally-listed endangered and threatened species, and Federal
Species of Concern (FSC) that are known to occur in Hoke County. The Service recommends
that habitat requirements for these federally-listed species be compared with the available
habitat at the project site. If suitable habitat is present within the action area of the project,
biological surveys for the listed species should be conducted. Environmental documentation
should include survey methodologies and results.
FSC's are those plant and animal species for which the Service remains concerned, but further
biological research and field study are needed to resolve the conservation status of these taxa.
Although FSC's receive no statutory protection under the ESA, we encourage the NCDOT to
be alert to their potential presence, and to make every reasonable effort to conserve them if
found. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted for information on
species under state protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please continue to advise
us during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact
Tom McCartney at 919-856-4520, Ext. 32.
Sincerely,
f
r. Garland B. Pardue
Ecological Services Supervisor
Enclosure
cc: COE, Wilmington, NC (David Timpy)
NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC (John Hennessy)
NCDNR, Creedmoor, NC (David Cox)
EPA, Atlanta, GA (Ted Bisterfeld)
FWS/R4:TMcCartney:TM:09/13/01:919/856-4520 extension 32:\U-3816.tip
NCWRC,HCP,FALLS LAKE TEL:[phone] Sep 25'01 13:04 No.001 P.06
North Caro6aLIk4 e Resources Commission 92
Charles R Pulhvood, Executive Director ?-
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and IntmTovennmental Affairs, DENR
David Cox, Highway Nect Cog r
Habitat Conservation Program J
DATE: September 25, 2001
0w1:?)
16?
SUBJECT: Request for infprmation from the N. C. Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) regarding fish and wildlife concur= for the Raeford-Paimcr
Road extension, from NC 211 at SR 1149 to NC 20 at SR 1403, Hoke
County, North CaroliM, TIP No. U-3816, SCH Project No. 02-E-0086.
This memorandum responds to aarequest from Mr. William D. Gilmore of the
NCDO'1' for our concerns regarding impacts on fI and wildlife resources resulting from
the subject project. Biologists on the staff of the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) have reviewed the proposed improvements, Our comments are provided in
accordance with certain provisions of the Natigagl Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(e)}and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661.667d).
We have na specifC ConCcrns regarding this project. However, to help facilitate
document preparation and the review process, our genes informational needs are
outlined below:
1. i)escription of fishery and wildlife resources within the project area,
including a listing of federally of atate designated threatened, endangered,
or special concern species. -potNtial borraty areas to be used for project
contraction should be included is the invcmtories. A listing of designated
plant species can be developed tht'ough consultation with:
The Natural Heritage program
N- C. DiVision of Parks and Recreation
1615 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N. C. 27699-1615
[phone]
Mailing, Address: l?visioli of Inland Ftsheriex • 1721 Mul Service Center • 1L?lcigh, NC 276y9-1721
Telephone: [phone] exc 281 I. RAY. ry, o, „z
a X State of North Carolina Reviewing Office:- J AL y
NCI)ENR department of Environment and Natural Resources Project Number: 0-"E' 00$4Due Date: 01l/ _1// o/
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
After review of this project it has been determined that the DENR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in order for this project
to comply with North Carolina Law. Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of this form.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Regional Office.
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS Normal Process Time
(Statutory Time Limit)
Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of construction

facilities, sewer system extensions & sewer systems
contracts. On-site inspection. Post-application technical conference usual 30 days

not discharging into state surface waters. . (90 da
Ys)
Q NPDES-permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection preapplication
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to construct wastewater treatment 90 -120 days
discharging into state surface waters. facility-granted after NPDES. Reply time, 30 days after receipt of plans or issue (N/A)
of NPDES permit-whichever is later.
Water Use Permit Preapplication technical conference usually necessary 30 days
(N/A)
Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued prior to the 7 days
installation of a well. 0 5 days)
Dredge and Fill Permit Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property owner. '
On-site inspection. Preapplication conference usual. Filling may require Easement 55 days

to Fill from N.C. Department of Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit. (90 days)
Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15 A NCAC N/A 60 days
(2Q.01 00, 2 Q.0300, 2 H.0600)
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15 A NCAC 2D.1900
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with
15 A NCAC 213.1110 (a) (1) which requires notification N/A 60 days
and removal prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos (90 days)
Control Group 919-733-0820.
Complex Source Permit required under 15 A NCAC
13.0800
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & sedimentation
control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Section) at least 30 20 days
days before beginning activity. (30 days)
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referenced Local Ordinance. 30 days
Mining Permit On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with DENR. Bond amount varies with
type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any are mined greater than 30 days
one acre must be permitted. The appropriate bond must be received before (60 days)
the permit can be issued.
131 North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division of Forest Resources if permit exceeds 4 days 1 da
y
• (N/A)
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit-22 counties On-site inspection by N.C. Division of Forest Resources required "if more than five 1 day
in coastal N.C..with organic soils. acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections should be requested (N/A)
at least ten days before actual burn is planned.'
E3 I Oil Refining Facilities 90-120 days
N/A (N/A)
Dam Safety Permit if permit required, application 60 days before begin construction. Applicant
must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans, inspect construction, certify
construction is according to DENR approved plans. May also require permit under
mosquito control program, and a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers. 30 days
An inspection of site is necessary to verify Hazard Classification. A minimum (60 days)
fee of $200.00 must accompany the application. An additional processing fee
based on a percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion.
A.-% 700-A
NCDENR
Norm Carolina
Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
' ? ? North Carolina
FOREST' Division of Forest Resources
SERVICE
NBC Stanford M. Adams, Director
2411 Old US 70 West
Clayton, NC 27520
September 11, 2001
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Office of Legislative Affairs
FROM: Bill Pickens, NC Division Forest Resources
SUBJECT: DOT scoping for the Proposed Palmer Road Extension on New Location near
Raeford
PROJECT #: 02-0086& TIP # U-3816
The North Carolina Division of Forest Resources has reviewed the referenced scoping document
and offer the following comments that should be addressed in the EA concerning impacts to
woodlands.
1. woodiands maybe impacted by the project. To evaluate the scope and significance of the
impacts to forest resources we need the acres of forest land, by timber type, removed or taken out
of forest production as a result of the project. Age of the stands, height, diameters, and stocking
levels would be helpful. Efforts should be made to align corridors to minimize impacts to
woodlands in the following order of priority:
• managed, high site index woodland
• Productive forested woodlands
• Managed, lower site index woodlands
• Unique forest ecosystems
• Unmanaged, fully stocked woodlands
• Unmanaged, cutover woodlands
• Urban woodlands
2. To evaluate the permanent loss of productivity for timber products, a listing of the forest's site
quality index (based on the soil series) should be provided. This information is found in the Soil
Survey for HokeCounty or can be calculated by on-site measurement.
3. The provisions the contractor will take to utilize the merchantable timber removed during
construction. Emphasis should be on selling all wood products. However, if the wood products
cannot be sold then efforts should be made to haul off the material or turn it into mulch with a
tub grinder. This practice will minimize the need for debris burning, and the risk of escaped
fires and smoke management problems to residences, highways, schools, and towns.
Typically NCDOT leaves disposal of wood products up to the contractor. We feel this policy
results in needless waste of a valuable natural resource, and that specific contract provision
requiring clearing contractors to utilize timber products should be adopted.
1616 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone- 919 - 733-2162 \ FAX 919 - 7.3.3-0138 \ lnterner www Mr state nc us

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND Project Number
NATURAL RESOURCES 2C, --
10 DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Coun
`f
Inter-Agency Project Review Response
Project NamAlr D&fr- e4d? Type of Project `e?` a?i 4?? y
The applicant should be advised that plans and specifications or all water system
improvements must be approved by the Division of Environmental Health prior to the
award of a contract or the initiation of construction (as required by 15A NCAC 18C
.0300et. seq.). For information, contact the Public Water Supply Section, (919)
733-2321.
? This project will be classified as a non-community public water supply and must comply
with state and federal drinking water monitoring requirements. For more information the
applicant should contact the Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
? If this project is constructed as proposed, we will recommend closure of feet of
adjacent waters to the harvest of shellfish. For information regarding the shellfish
sanitation program, the applicant should contact the Shellfish Sanitation Section at (252)
726-6827.
? The soil disposal area(s) proposed for this project may produce a mosquito breeding
problem. For information concerning appropriate mosquito control measures, the
applicant should contact the Public Health Pest Management Section at [phone].
? The applicant should be advised that prior to the removal or demolition of dilapidated
structures, a extensive rodent control program may be necessary in order to prevent the
migration of the rodents to adjacent areas. For information concerning rodent control;
contact the local health department or the Public Health Pest Management Section at
[phone].
? The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding their
requirements for septic tank installations (as required under 15A NCAC 18A. 1900 et.
sep.). For information concerning septic tank and other on-site waste disposal methods,
contact the On-Site Wastewater Section at [phone].
? The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding the
sanitary facilities required for this project.
If existing water lines will be relocated during the construction, plans for the water line
relocation must be submitted to the Division of Environmental Health, Public Water
Supply Section, Technical Services Branch, 1634 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27699-1634, [phone].
? For Regional and Central Office comments, see the reverse side of this form.
Reviewer Secti Branch Date
North Carolina Department of Cultural Reso
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
Office of Archives and History
September 12, 2003
MEMORANDUM
s

LU ly c ¢ O Q

65 tl
z
Wes a
.I X
ICZ)
GA ,
CO

'
Di on of Ryan„
TO: Greg Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM: David Brook 1L NoD?
SUBJECT: Proposed Improvements for Palmer Street Extension from NC 211 at
SR 1149 (East Palmer) to NC 20 at SR 1403, Hoke County, U-3816,
ER01-8500
Thank you for having a staff engineer transmit, in a letter of August 26, 2003, aerial
photographs of the proposed project. Based upon alignment of the corridor we recommend
that no archaeological survey be conducted for the project as proposed currently.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with
Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above-
referenced tracking number.
cc: John F. Sullivan, FHWA
Matt Wilkerson, NCDOT
ADMINISTRATION
REs,ropuL,rION
SURVEY & PLANNING
www
Location
507 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC
515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC
515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC
.state.nc.us
Mailing Address
4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617
4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617
4617 Mall Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-1617
Telephone/Fax
[phone] • 733-8653
[phone] • 715-1801
[phone] • 715-1801
Federal Aid # TIP # 0-391(, County: 40K E
8 . a53o 301
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Description: EXTE-N D PALM E A, f ?0R p (!s p, 114 1-) F:P, pM ti G all To A/C ;10 AT S)V y03.
7MC.
.OnaOOO, representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Ef Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
El North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
? Other
reviewed the subject project at
? Scoping meeting
tK Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
? Other
All parties present agreed
? there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects.
® there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criteria Consideration G
within the project's area of potential effects.
® there are properties over fifty years old within the project's Area of Potential Effects (APE), but based
on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, the property identified
as (List Attached) is considered not eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation of it
is necessary. ?K6PE (ZT IBS -ft :1-- 4
there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effects.
? all properties greater than 50 years of age located in the APE have been considered at this consultation,
and based upon the above concurrence, all compliance for historic architecture with Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act and GS 121-12(a) has been completed for this project.
L"LG
State Historic Preservation Officer
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
FHWA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
OAKDALE COTTON GIN, INC.

July 6, 2001
RE: Palmer Rd. Extension- T.I.P. Project No. U-3816
Dear Ms. Safron,
Thank you very much for taking the time to explain the upcoming project to me at the information
session held June 28, 2001 in Raeford.
As we discussed, during the months of Oct, Nov, Dec and Jan. Oakdale Cotton Gin Inc generates about
4000 trips in and out of our facility by large trucks. This is in addition to regular traffic that we have
during our business hours. 95% of these trips turn into our plant coming from the east off of Bghway20
and leave using the intersection of Oakdale Gin Rd. and 20 turning left and heading back east.
Although the flow of our truck traffic concerns me, my biggest concern has to do with your proposed
realignment of Oakdale Gin Rd. Your map shows it will bisect the field we use to store our Cotton prior
to it being processed. At times during the cotton harvest we have between four and five hundred Modules
stored on this site. As that the rest of our land tends to get wet during the fall and winter months, we have
spent much time, effort and money on this site. I hope that you can come up with another alternative to
this route, as we really don't have an alternative site to store our cotton.
Sincerely,
JU;7 )gd?
Steve Wilburn
VP Operations, Oakdale Cotton Gin, Inc.
0 V y' ?9QG
o511:? "?'
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
From: Polly Lespinasse
micnaei r. r-asiey, vuvcmur
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
JUL 0 6 2005
June 29, 2005
WETlAN D 'AND TORMWATER BRANCH
Subject: Comments on the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Palmer Road
Extension from NC 211 at SR 1149 (East Palmer Road) to NC 20 at SR 1403 (Oakdale Gin
Road) in Raeford, City of Raeford, Hoke County, TIP U-3816, WBS Element No.
34979.1.1, Federal Project No. STP-0831(2), State Project 8.2530301, DENR Project No. 05-
0370
This office has reviewed the referenced document. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is responsible for the
issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities that impact Waters of the U.S., including
wetlands. It is our understanding that the project as presented will result in impacts to jurisdictional wetlands
and streams. The DWQ offers the following comments based on review of the aforementioned document:
A) As part of the 401 Water Quality Certification Application process, NCDOT is respectfully reminded to
include specifics for both onsite and offsite mitigation plans. If mitigation is required, it is preferable to
present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental documentation. While
NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be practical, it should be noted that for projects requiring
mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required in conjunction with the issuance of a 401 Water
Quality Certification. We understand that NCDOT will request compensatory mitigation through the NC
Ecosystem Enhancement Program for offsite mitigation.
B) NCDOT is respectfully reminded that all impacts, including but not limited to, bridging, fill, excavation and
clearing, to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers need to be included in the final impact
calculations. These impacts, in addition to any construction impacts, temporary or otherwise, also need to
be included as part of the 401 Water Quality Certification Application.
C) Future documentation, including the 401 Water Quality Certification Application, should continue to
include an itemized listing of the proposed wetland impacts with corresponding mapping.
D) Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable. Impacts to wetlands in
borrow/waste areas could precipitate compensatory mitigation.
E) The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed methods for
stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater should not be permitted to discharge directly into
streams or surface waters.
NOne Caro na
_tura??y
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301
Intemet h2o.enr.state.ne.us Mooresville, NC 28115
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
F) Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
G) Please be advised that a 401 Water Quality Certification requires satisfactory protection of water quality to
ensure that water quality standards are met. Final permit authorization will require the submittal of a formal
application by the NCDOT and written concurrence from the NCDWQ. Please be aware that any approval
will be contingent on appropriate avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts to the maximum extent
practical, the development of an acceptable stormwater management plan, and the inclusion of appropriate
mitigation plans where appropriate.
The NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project. Should you have any questions
or require any additional information, please contact Polly Lespinasse [phone].
cc: US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington Office
Gary Jordan, USFWS
Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Chris Militscher, EPA
Rob Ridings, NCDWQ
File Copy

w
tf,.i&\ ays3s5
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 276363726
December 31, 2003
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
?LANC4 1404 GROUP
JAN 2 0 2004
°" rTj
jVd"tL
This letter is in response to your November 26, 2003 letter requesting comments from the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed
extension of Palmer Road from NC 211 at SR 1149 (East Palmer Road) to NC 20 at SR 1403
(Oakdale Gin Road) in Raeford, Hoke County, North Carolina (TIP No. U-3816). These
comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
(16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
The EA addresses two build alternatives, both 0.9 miles long. Both utilize the same horizontal
alignment. Alternative A utilizes a grade separation (bridge) at the railroad crossing, while
Alternative B utilizes an at-grade intersection at the railroad crossing. The North Carolina
Department of Transportation's (NCDOT) preferred alternative is A.
From the information and aerial photograph provided, it appears that most of the alignment will
be placed in open agricultural lands. Wetland impacts are minimal: Alternative A with 0.12
acres of impact and Alternative B with 0.33 acres of impact. No. stream impacts will occur. It
also appears that a relatively small amount of wildlife habitat in the form of approximately 1.9
acres of fragmented forest will be impacted. Overall, the Service has minimal concern for this
project. The Service supports NCDOT's preferred Alternative A since it has slightly less
wetland impacts.
There are five federally endangered species listed for Hoke County: the red-cockaded
woodpecker (Picoides borealis), Saint Francis' satyr (Neonympha mitchelhi francisci), American
chaffseed (Schwalbea americana), rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia) and
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii). NCDOT has determined that the proposed project will have
no effect on these five species. Due to the lack of habitat, the Service concurs that the project
will have no effect on the red-cockaded woodpecker, Saint Francis' satyr, American chaffseed
and rough-leaved loosestrife. However, since potential habitat exists for Michaux's sumac, but

no specimens were found during a plant survey at the project site on June 5, 2002, a "may affect,
not likely to adversely affect" conclusion is more appropriate. An additional survey should be
conducted for this species again within two years of actual project construction. The results of
that survey should be submitted to our office for review. We believe that the requirements of
section 7 (a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied for now. We remind you that obligations under
section 7 consultation must be reconsidered if. (1) new information reveals impacts of this
identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously
considered in this review; (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not
considered in this review; (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat determined that may be
affected by the identified action.
The Service believes that this EA adequately addresses the existing fish and wildlife resources,
the waters and wetlands of the United States, and the potential impacts of this proposed project
on these resources. The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If you have
any questions regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at [phone], ext. 32.
Sincerely,
Garland B. Pardue, Ph.D.
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Beth Barnes, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Richard Spencer, USACE, Wilmington, NC
David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington, NC