19960130 Ver 1_Complete File_19960207

r ?
?a , ®• ?. ,
FEB
a 199
"NVIR0N%
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA NrA? Sci`
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
February 1, 1996
D
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
6512 Fall of the Neuse Road, Suite 105
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY

FEB 7 1996
0
ATTENTION: Mr. Mike Smith:
Chief, Northern Section
Subject: Lee County, Widen US 421/NC 42-87 (Horner Blvd.), Federal Aid Project
STP-OOOS(60), State Project No. 8.1540501, TIP No. U-2921.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above
referenced project. The proposed improvements include widening 1.8 miles of US 421/
NC 42-87 (Horner Blvd.) to a five lane curb and gutter facility with a continuous center
turn lane from SR 1107 (Fields Dr.) to NC 42-78 (Main St.) in Sanford. As you know,
US 421/ NC 42-87 at this location is heavily developed, therefore, impacts to
jurisdictional areas are minimal. The project will not involve any impacts to wetlands,
however, culverts at Little Buffalo Creek and three tributaries of Little Buffalo Creek will
be extended. In addition, 25 feet of stream channel modification will be required for a
portion of one of the tributaries. All crossings are located above headwaters and impacts
to surfaces waters resulting from this work are anticipated to be less than 0.20 acres.
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not
anticipate requesting an individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide
Permit in accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23). The provisions of Section
330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be followed in the construction of the
project.
We anticipate that 401 General Certification No. 2745 (Categorical Exclusion) will
apply to this project, and are providing one copy of the CE document to the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of
Environmental Management, for their review.
9
r_
2
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call Mr. Scott P.
Gottfried at 733-3141.
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/spg
cc: w/attachment
Mr. Ken Jolly, COE
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, DEM
Mr. Kelly Barger, PE, Program Development Branch
' Mr. Don Morton, PE, Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, PE, Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John L. Smith Jr., PE, Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, PE, Roadway Design Unit
Mr. F. E. Whitesell, PE, Division 8 Engineer

US 421/NC 42-87 (Horner Boulevard)
from SR 1107 (Fields Drive)
to NC 42-78 (Main Street)
Sanford, Lee County
Federal Project No. STP-OOOS(60)
State Project No. 8.1540501
` TIP ID No. U-2921

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
APPROVED:
Date -47or H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager.
Planning and Environmental Branch
r.
1
5 15 /-1 A 1 4!!?' PLI it
4atW? icho as Graf, P. E.
Division A inistrator;.FHWA

US 421/NC 42-87 (Horner Boulevard)
from SR 1107 (Fields Drive)
to NC 42-78 (Main Street)
Sanford, Lee County
• Federal Project No. STP-OOOS(60)
State Project No. 8.1540501
TIP ID No. U-2921
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
May, 1995
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By
J e A. Hunkin , P. E.
P Ject Planning Engineer, Unit Head
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
A "''•
, ESS 410C?-y4
SE AL
18496
•?.,_ A. H?N..••
C ?u
U s/3i/9S
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . 1

II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
A. Description and Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
B. Project Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
C. Existing Roadway Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1. Length of Roadway Section Studied . . . . . . . 2
2. Route Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Existing Cross Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4. Existing Right-of-Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Access Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
6. Speed Limits . . . .
* . . 3
7. Bridges and/or Drainage
Structures . . . . . . 3
8. Traffic Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
9. Sidewalks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
10. Utilities .. . . . . . . . . . 4
11. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment . . . . . . . 4'
12. Intersecting Roads and Type of Control . . . . . . 4
.13. Degree of Roadside Interference . . . . . . . . 4
14. Railroad Crossings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
15. School Bus Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
16. Airports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
D. Capacity Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Mainline Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2. Intersection Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
E. Accident Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
F. Project Terminals . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . 8
G. Thoroughfare Plan . . . . . . . . . . . 9
H. Benefits to State, Region, and Community . . . . . . 9
III. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
A. General Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
B. Length of Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
C. Cross Section Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
D. Design Speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
E. Right of Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
F. Access Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
G. Intersection Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
H. Bridges and/or Drainage Structures . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Special Permits Required . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
J. Changes in the State Highway System . . . . . . . . . 10
K. Bikeways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
L.
M.
N.
0..
P.
Q.
R.
S.
T.
Multiple Use of Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Sidewalks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Noise Barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Cost Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Utility Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Railroad Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Proposed Highway Improvements in the Area . . . . . . 12
Anticipated Design Exceptions . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Geodetic Survey Markers . . . 12
IV. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . 12
A. Recommended'Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
B. Design Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
C. Postponement of Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
D. "Do-Nothing" Alternative . . . . . . 13
E. Alternate Modes of Transportation . . .. . . . . . 13
V. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS . . . . . . , 14
A. So cial Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . 14
1. Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
a. Existing Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
b. Existing Zoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
C. Proposed Land Use . . . . . . . . . . 14
d. Project Consistency With Local
Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2. Neighborhood Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . 14
3. Rel ocatees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4. Public Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5. Cultural Resources . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . 15
a. Architectural/Historic Resources . . . . . 15
b. Archaeological Resources . . . . . . . . . 16
C. Section 4(f) Properties . . . . . . . . . . 16
B. Economic Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
C. Environmental Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1. Biological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
a. Plant Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
b. Wildlife Communities . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1. Terrestrial . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2. Aquatic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
' c. Protected Species . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1. Federally Protected Species . . . . . 20
2. Federal Candidate Species . . . . . . 22
2. Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3. Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4. Jurisdictional Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5. Permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6. Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
7. Flood Hazard Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . 26
8. Hazardous Wastes/GeologicalImpacts . . . . . . 26
9. Noise Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
10. Air Quality Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
11. Farmland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
12. Construction Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
A. Comments Received . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : .' 30
B. Public Hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
VII. CONCLUSION . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
TABLES
Table 1 - Traffic Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Table 2 - Intersection Configurations . . . . . . . . . . 5
Table 3 - Mainline Capacity Analysis . . . . . . . . . . 6
Table 4 - Intersection Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Table 5 - Accident Rates . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table 6 - Anticipated Biotic Community Impacts '. . . . . 18
Table 7 - Federally Protected Species for
Lee County . . . . . . . . . . 20
Table 8 - Federal Candidate Species for
Lee County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - Proposed Improvements
Figure 3A - Projected 1997 Traffic Volumes
Figure 3B - Projected 2020 Traffic Volumes
' Figure 4 - Thoroughf are Plan
Figure 5 - Proposed Five-Lane Typical Section
Figure 6 - 100-year Floodplain Map
Figure 7 - Existing Intersection Configurations
Figure 8 - Proposed Intersection Configurations
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
` APPENDIX A
Correspondence/Comments Received . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1
Relocation Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-18
APPENDIX B
Geological Environmental Impact Study . . . . . . . . . . B-1
APPENDIX C
Discussion of Division of Highways Relocation
Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

US 421/NC 42-87 (Horner Boulevard)
from SR 1107 (Fields Drive)
to NC 42-78 (Main Street)
Sanford, Lee County
Federal Project No. STP-OOOS(60)
State Project No. 8.1540501
TIP ID No. U-2921
I. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
To minimize surface water impacts, the following will be observed:
- Instream activities will be scheduled during low flow periods
(summer and fall).
- Non-point sediment sources will be identified and efforts will
be made to control sediment runoff.
- Best Management Practices and Sedimentation Control guidelines
will be strictly adhered to during the construction phase of the
project.
To avoid impacts to the Lee County Courthouse (listed in the National
Register of Historic Places), the following conditions will be observed:-
- The North Carolina Department of Transportation will install
protective fencing along the easement line.
- If roots are encountered during construction, the contractor is
required to cleanly cut them and exercise good tree protection
practices.
- Construction activities within the easement will be limited, as
much as possible.
A 401 Water Quality Certification administered through the North
Carolina Department.of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (DEHNR)
will be required.
The subject project is classified as a Categorical Exclusion and is
likely to fall under Provisions of Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(A)23.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will coordinate with
the City of Sanford and Lee County regarding any possible changes in the
floodplain and will coordinate with the Atlantic and Western Railroad
regarding all improvements at the two railroad crossings.
h
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. Description and Purpose
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to
widen US 421/NC 42-87 (Horner Boulevard) to a five-lane curb and gutter
2
facility with a continuous center turn lane from SR 1107 (Fields Drive) to
NC 42-78 (Main Street) A closed loop traffic signal system will also be
installed at signalized intersections throughout the project, and gates
will be installed at both railroad crossings with US 421/NC 42-87. The
project is located within the Sanford City Limits in Lee County and is
approximately 1.8 miles in length. The general location of the project is
shown in Figure 1. The proposed improvements are shown in Figure 2.
For the purpose of this document, US 421/NC 42-87 will be described
as an east/west highway, SR 1107 (Fields Drive) being the western terminal
and NC 42-78 (Main Street) being the eastern terminal. The studied
improvements to US 421/NC 42-87 will be described as north side or south
side widening.
The implementation of the proposed project is based on the need to
reduce the high number of accidents along the studied roadway segment.
B. Project Status
The NCDOT 1995-2001 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) calls
for widening the existing four-lane roadway to a five=lane undivided curb
and gutter facility. Right-of-way acquisition and construction are
scheduled to begin in Fiscal Years 1995 and 1996, respectively. The TIP
includes a total funding of $ 1,500,000 for the project, including
$ 250,000 for right of way and $1,250,000 for construction. The total
cost of improvements recommended in this report is $ 2,182,000, including
$ 527,000 for right of way and $ 1,655,000 for construction.
The improvements to US 421/NC 42-87 are to be made within the minimum
amount of right of way required to contain the proposed cross-section.
This project is not anticipated to result in significant impacts to the
existing human or natural environment. This action is considered to be a
"categorical exclusion," as defined by the Federal Highway Administra-
tion's environmental guidelines (23 CFR 771.177).
C. Existing Roadway Inventory
1. Length of Roadway Section Studied
The length of the studied section of US 421/NC 42-87 is
approximately 1.8 miles.
2. Route Classification
US 421/NC 42-87 is classified as an Other Principal Arterial and
is a Federal Aid Primary Route.
3. Existing Cross Section
US 421/NC 42-87 is a four-lane, 52-foot curb and gutter roadway
throughout most of the project. The exceptions to this typical
section are at five signalized intersections throughout the project,
where US 421/NC 42-87 is a five-lane, 64-foot curb and gutter
roadway, and at Lee Street where US 421/NC 42-87 is a five-lane,
48-foot curb and gutter roadway with a 22-foot raised traffic island.
3
4. Existing Right of Way
The existing right of way along US 421/NC 42-87 varies from 60
feet to 120 feet.
5. Access Control
Currently, there is no control of access along the project.
6. Speed Limits
The posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour (MPH) within the
project limits.
7. Bridges and/or Drainage Structures
The existing structure at Little Buffalo Creek is the only major
stream crossing associated with this project. It is a single barrel,
7-foot by 7-foot concrete box culvert, and it is located
approximately 1000 feet east of SR 1515 (Third Street), in the
vicinity of the Atlantic and Western Railroad (see Figure 2). This
structure is adjoined at the west (upstream) end to a 96-inch
aluminum pipe under fill, which runs under the parking lot of a
nearby restaurant. This drainage structure is not listed on the state
system.
8. Traffic Data
Current and projected average daily traffic (ADT) volumes are
shown in Table 1 below.
TABLE 1 TRAFFIC VOLUMES
(vehicles per day)
YEAR HIGH LOW
1995 28,700 239500
1997 30,600 25,000
2017 28,100 20,100
2020 33,800 22,600
The traffic volumes generally include 1% truck tractor
" semi-trailers (TTST) and 1% dual tired (DT) vehicles. The design
hourly volume (DHV) is 10% of the ADT (see Figures 3A and 3B for
complete traffic projections). The design year (2017) traffic takes
into account the anticipation that future traffic volumes will be
reduced by the proposed construction of the Sanford Bypass (TIP ID
No. R-2417). The proposed Sanford Bypass is a multi-lane freeway on
new location (see Figure 4).
4
9. Sidewalks
There is one segment of concrete sidewalk along the proposed
project; it extends from Rose Street eastward to Courtland Drive on
the south side of US 421/NC 42-87.
10. Utilities
Several utilities are located along this project, including
aerial power lines, sewer systems, telephone, and the water intake
for the City of Sanford. According to preliminary utility
investigations, the proposed project will have high utility
involvement.
11. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment
Although the terrain in the project vicinity is described as
rolling, US 421/NC 42-87 is relatively flat throughout the project
area. However, there is a section of roadway from slightly east of
Third Street to slightly west of Third Street where the vertical
alignment is undesirable. The horizontal alignment throughout the
project is good, and there are no sharp curves along the project.
12. Intersecting Roadways and Type of Control
All intersections with US 421/NC 42-87 are at grade. The two
intersections of US 421/NC 42-87 with the Atlantic Western Railroad
are controlled by railroad signals. The intersections of US 421/
NC 42-87 with SR 1107 (Fields Drive) and SR 1119 (Woodland Avenue),
Rose Street, Courtland Avenue, SR 1133 (Lee Avenue), SR 1514 (Bragg
Street), and NC 42-87 (Main Street) are currently signalized. The
existing lane configurations at the signalized intersections are
shown in Table 2 on the following page (see Figure 7 for graphic
representation of existing intersection configurations). All other
intersections with US 421/NC 42-87 are stop sign controlled.
13. Degree of Roadside Interference
Roadside interference is heavy throughout the project area due
to the large number of business establishments along the project.
14. Railroad Crossings
The Atlantic and Western Railroad crosses US 421/NC 42-87
approximately 1100 feet west of SR 1514 (Bragg Street) and
approximately 600 feet west of NC 42-78 (Main Street). The crossings
are at-grade and have flashing lights but no signal arms. One to two
trains cross the junction five days per week.
15. School Bus Data
Approximately 40 school buses traveling to six area schools
utilize this section of US 421/NC 42-87 each day.
5
16. Airports
No airports or other aviation facilities are located within one
mile of the project area.
TABLE 2 EXISTING INTERSECTION CONFIGURATIONS
INTERSECTING STREET
WITH US 421/NC 42-87 CONFIGURATION
SR 1107 - Northbound: one through lane with a shared
(Fields Drive) left turn lane and one exclusive right
turn lane
SR 1119 - Northbound: one exclusive left turn lane
(Woodland Avenue) and one through lane with a shared left
turn lane and a shared right turn
Rose Street - Northbound: one through lane with a
shared right turn and one through lane with
shared left turn
Southbound: one through lane with a shared
right turn and one exclusive left turn lane
Courtland Drive - Northbound: one exclusive right turn lane
and one exclusive left turn lane
Southbound: one through lane with both a
shared right turn and a shared left turn
SR 1133 - Northbound: two through-lanes, one of
(Lee Avenue) which has a shared right turn, plus
two exclusive left turn lanes
Southbound: two through lanes, one of which
has a shared right turn, plus one exclusive
left turn lane
SR 1514 - Northbound: one through lane with a
(Bragg Street) shared right turn plus an exclusive left
turn lane
Southbound: one through lane with a shared
R right turn plus two exclusive left turn lanes
NC 42-78 - Northbound: one through lane with a shared
(Main Street) right turn plus an exclusive left turn lane
Southbound: one through lane plus an
exclusive right turn lane and an exclusive
left turn lane
6
D. Capacity Analysis
The concept of level-of-service is defined as a qualitative measure
describing operational conditions within a traffic system and how. these
conditions are perceived by motorists and/or passengers. A level-of
-service definition generally describes these conditions in terms of such
factors as speed, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions,
comfort, convenience, and safety. Six levels are defined for each type of
facility for which analysis procedures are available. They are given
letter designations from A to F, with level-of-service A representing the
best operational conditions and level-of-service F representing the worst.
1. Mainline Analysis
Mainline capacity analyses were performed for the existing
four-lane undivided highway and the proposed five-lane undivided
highway. The results of the capacity analysis show no substantial
difference in the level of service between the four-lane and the
five-lane highway (see Figure 3 below). Because of the short
distance (approximately 100 feet) between SR 1107 (Fields Drive) and
SR 1119 (Woodland Avenue), capacity analysis for this segment was not
performed.
TABLE 3
MAINLINE CAPACITY ANALYSIS
FOR US 421/NC 42-87
SECTION OF ROADWAY
1997/2017 LOS
(W/OUT PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION OF
SANFORD BYPASS)
1997/2017 LOS
(WITH-PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION OF
SANFORD BYPASS)
Fields Drive to
Rose Street C/F C/B
Rose Street to
Courtland Drive B/D B/B
Courtland Drive to
SR 1133 C/F C/B
SR 1133 to SR 1514 C/F C/B
SR 1514 to NC 42-78 C/F C/C
7
The results show that widening the existing facility, in
conjunction with the proposed construction of the Sanford Bypass,
would significantly improve the level of service.
2. Intersection Analysis
Intersection capacity analyses were performed for major
intersections, due to heavy turning movements at these locations (see
Table 4).
TABLE 4 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION WITH 2017 LOS 2017 LOS
US 421/NC 42-87 (NO IMPROVEMENTS) (WITH IMPROVEMENTS)
Rose Street F D
Courtland Drive F C
Lee Avenue F D
Bragg Street F F
NC 42-78 F F
The proposed improvements to US 421/NC 42-87 will slightly
improve the LOS at three of the intersections listed in Table 4. The
intersections would operate at a higher level of service with'the
addition of left-turn, right-turn, and/or through lanes in each
direction on both the mainline and on the intersecting roads;
however, these substantial improvements are considered to be outside
the scope of this project due to numerous business relocations,
adverse impacts to at least one property listed on the National
Register of Historic Places, and increased construction and
right-of-way costs. The primary purpose of the proposed project is
to alleviate the number of rear-end collisions by the provision of a
continuous center turn lane.
A
E. Accident Analysis
A comparison of accident rates along US 421/NC 42-87 and the
statewide rates for urban four-lane "US" routes is shown in Table 5. The
rates shown for US 421/NC 42-87 were obtained from studies conducted from
November 1, 1991 to October 31, 1994. The statewide rates were obtained
from studies conducted from 1991 through 1993.
8
TABLE 5 ACCIDENT RATES
[PER 100 MILLION VEHICLE MILES (MVM)]
Accident Type
Rates along
US 421/NC 42-87
Statewide Average
for US Urban
Routes
4-lanes undivided)
All Accidents
Fatal
Non-Fatal
Nighttime
Wet Conditions
1083.0
0.0
278.9
141.7
270.2
324.6
0.6
131.1
68.1
76.0
The results show that the total accident rate along the studied
segment of US 421/NC 42-87 is more than three times the statewide rate.
Approximately 50.2 percent of the 497 accidents recorded along the
project during the three year study period involved vehicles that
rear-ended other vehicles. Studies have determined that the construction
of five-lane roadway sections in urban areas reduce the occurrence of
rear-end collisions, as compared to a four-lane roadway section in urban
areas; the five-lane section provides a storage area for left turning
traffic, thus keeping stopped vehicles out of traffic flow. It is
anticipated that the proposed widening of the existing roadway and the
provision of a continuous center-turn lane will reduce the likelihood of
this type of accident by providing a separate lane for traffic yielding
and/or stopping to make left turns.
F. Project Terminals
The western terminal of this project is the intersection of US 421/
NC 42-87 and SR 1107 (Fields Drive). US 421/NC 42-87 currently has two
eastbound lanes and two westbound lanes at this location, plus an
exclusive left turn lane in each direction. SR 1107 currently has
two-lane, two way traffic, with an exclusive left turn-lane an exclusive
right-turn lane in the northbound direction.
The eastern terminal of this project is the intersection of US 421/
NC 42-87 and NC 42-78 (Main Street). US 421/NC 42-87 currently has two
eastbound lanes and two westbound lanes at this location, plus an
exclusive left-turn lane in each direction. There is also a shared
right-turn lane in the westbound direction. NC 42-78 currently has one
through lane with a shared right-turn lane in the northbound direction and
one through lane plus an exclusive right turn lane in the southbound
direction. NC 42-78 has an exclusive left-turn lane in both directions.
9
G. Thoroughfare Plan
The Sanford Thoroughfare Plan was adopted in April, 1992 (see Figure
4). US 421/NC 42-87 is a designated major thoroughfare. The proposal to
widen US 421/NC 42-87 to five lanes is in concurrence with the Sanford
Thoroughfare Plan.
• H. Benefits to the State, Region, and Community
The primary benefit of the project will be the anticipated reduction
in rear-end collisions due to the provision of a continuous center turn
lane. In addition, the capacity of the roadway will be slightly improved.
The result will be a safer highway for motorists. It is anticipated that
the improvements to existing US 421/NC 42-87 will also improve access to
businesses and public services in the area.
III. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. General Description
The proposed improvements to US 421/NC 42-87 include widening the
existing roadway primarily on the north side to five lanes from SR 1107
(Fields Drive) to NC 42-78 (Main Street), the provision of gates at the
two rail crossings (Atlantic and Western Railroad) along the.project,•and
the installation of a closed loop traffic signal system at all- signalized
intersections along the project.
The closed loop traffic signal system is a computer-linked, traffic
responsive system, which is designed to adjust signal timing based on
density and speed of traffic. It is anticipated that the utilization of
the closed loop traffic signal system will improve traffic progression and
flow; thus, the level of service of the facility will be improved.
All existing curb 'and gutter along the project will be replaced.
B. Length of Project
The length of roadway to be improved is approximately 1.8 miles.
C. Cross Section Description
It is recommended that US 421/NC 42-87 be widened to a five-lane curb
and gutter roadway (64-foot face to face of curbs). This width includes a
12-foot continuous center-turn lane. Figure 2 shows the proposed widening
of US 421\NC 42-87.
D. Design Speed
The recommended design speed is 50 mph for the entire length of the
project.
10
E. Right of Way
A minimum right-of-way width of 100 feet will be necessary for the
length of the project. In those areas where the existing right-of-way
width is less that 100 feet, additional right of way will be acquired. It '
is estimated that approximately 0.86 acre of additional right of way will
be required for the proposed improvements.
F. Access Control
No control of access is proposed for the segment of US 421/NC 42-87.
G. Intersection Treatment
A closed loop traffic signal system will be installed to tie each of
the existing signalized intersections together along the project, and
gates will be installed at the two intersections of US 421/NC 42-87 with
the Atlantic and Western Railroad. The addition of lanes is proposed at
signalized intersections along the project, with the exception of
Courtland Drive, where resurfacing improvements are anticipated. These
improvements are illustrated in Figure 8.
H. Bridges and/or Drainage Structures
On the basis of preliminary hydraulics analysis and recent field
investigation, the existing 7-foot by 7-foot culvert located approximately
150 feet west of the Atlantic and Western Railroad along US 421/NC 42-87
will be retained and lengthened. Any pipes that are located along the
project will be retained and extended to accommodate the widened roadway.
I. Special Permits Required
It is anticipated that the Department of the Army Nationwide Permit
33 CFR 330.5(a)(14) will be applicable. A Section 401 General Water
Quality Certification 'may be required for activities resulting in a
discharge into any streams involved with this project.
J. Changes in the State Highway System
No changes in the state highway system are anticipated.
K. Bikeways
No special accommodations for bicycles along the project have been
identified.
L. Multiple Use of Space
A
Right of way along the project area will be utilized for public
utilities (within certain limitations).
11
M. Sidewalks
Widening along US 421/NC 42-87 will necessitate the removal and
replacement of existing sidewalk. Approximately 150 feet of existing
sidewalk in the vicinity of the Sanford Post Office (located at the
intersection of US 421/NC 42-87 and Rose Street) and approximately 400
feet of existing sidewalk in the vicinity of the Lee County Courthouse,
(located at the intersection of US 421/NC 42-87 and Courtland Drive) will
be replaced according to current NCDOT standards.
N. Noise Barriers
No noise barriers are proposed for this project.
0. Railroad Involvement
Grade separations at the two intersections of US 421/NC 42-87 with
the Atlantic and Western Railroad are not recommended due to the limited
use of the existing railroad crossings, lack of evidence indicating a
safety hazard, and the high cost of constructing grade separations.
It is recommended that both intersections of US 421/NC 42-87 with the
Atlantic and Western Railroad be controlled by gates and signals. The
center turning lane will be paint striped in the vicinity of the crossing
to deter its use, and a rubberized crossing will be used. All improve-
ments-to US 421/NC 42-87 will be coordinated with the Atlantic and Western
Railroad.
P. Utility Impacts
It is anticipated that the proposed project will impact the following
utilities: power lines, sewer systems, telephone, and the water intake
for the City of Sanford.
Q. Cost Estimates
The estimated cost for the proposed improvements are as follows:
Construction
US 421/NC 42-87 widening $ 1,250,000
Install closed loop traffic system 225,000
Install gates at railroad crossings $ 180,000
Total Construction Cost $ 1,655,000
Right of Way 527,000
Total Cost $ 291829000
12
R. Proposed Highway Improvements in the Area
There are four other TIP Projects in the project area:
1. TIP Project R-2238: Widen NC 24-87 from SR 1451 in Spring Lake
to Sanford City Limits in Lee County. Right-of-way acquisition
for this project is underway and construction is scheduled to
begin in Fiscal Year 1996.
2. TIP Project R-2417: Sanford Bypass from US 421/NC 42-87 south
of Sanford to US 421/NC 42-87 north of Sanford in Lee County.
This project is scheduled for right-of-way acquisition in Fiscal
Year 1999; construction is scheduled for post year (beyond the
year 2001).
3. TIP Project U-2565: SR 1515 (Third Street Extension); construct
a multi-lanef-acility on new location from SR 1560 (Weatherspoon
Street) to US 1 Business (Hawkins Avenue) in Sanford, Lee
County. This project is scheduled for right-of-way acquisition
in Fiscal Year 2001; construction is scheduled for post year.
4. TIP Project B-2843: Replacement of Bridge No. 19 on NC 78 in
Sanford, Lee County. This project is scheduled for right-of-way
acquisition in Fiscal,Year 1997 and construction in Fiscal'.Year
1998.
S. Anticipated Design Exceptions
No design exceptions are anticipated for this project.
T. Geodetic Survey Markers
No geodetic survey markers will be impacted by this project.
IV. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Recommended Improvements
The recommended improvements consist of the following:
1. Widen US 421/NC 42-87 to five lanes from SR 1107 (Fields Drive)
to NC 42-78 (Main Street).
2. Install a closed loop traffic signal system at all signalized
intersections along the project.
3. Install gates and signals at the two intersections of US 421/
NC 42-87 and the Atlantic and Western Railroad.
A

13
B. Design Alternatives
Two different widening alternates were studied. They are:
1. Widening to five lanes primarily on the north side of US 421/
NC 42-87 (Recommended)
2. Symmetrical widening to six lanes
The alternate which proposed symmetrical widening from four
lanes to six lanes was dropped from further consideration
because it has been determined that this type of substantial
improvement is outside the scope of this project; numerous
business relocations, adverse impacts to at least one property
listed in the National Register of Historic Places (the Lee
County Courthouse), and increased construction and right-of-way
costs are anticipated to result from its implementation.
Because of funding constraints, these substantial improvements
cannot be included in the project scope.
Widening exclusively on the south side of US 421/NC 42-87 was
not considered due to the fact that it would result in adverse
impacts to at least one property listed in the National Register of
Historic Places (the Lee County Courthouse).
C. Postponement.of Project
Postponement of the project would result in a continuing
deterioration of traffic and safety conditions in the future as traffic
demand increases. Therefore, this alternative is not recommended.
D. "Do Nothing" Alternative
Although this alternative would avoid the limited environmental
impacts that are anticipated to result from the project, there would be no
positive effect on the traffic capacity and safety of the highway.
Therefore, this alternative is not recommended.
E. Alternate Modes of Transportation
No alternate mode of transportation is considered to be a practical
alternative. Highway transportation is the dominant mode of transporta-
tion in the project area, and the project involves widening the existing
highway. Furthermore, the purpose of the proposed project is to reduce
accident potential along the existing highway corridor; therefore, mass
transit and congestion management options do not meet the purpose and need
of the project and, consequently, were not considered as part of this
study.
14
V. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. Social Effects
1. Land Use
a. Existing Land Use
The proposed widening is located in an urbanized portion of
the City of Sanford. The immediate vicinity can best be
described as "strip commercial," as it is dominated by fast food
restaurants, gas stations, and other convenience stores.
b. Existing Zoning
The entire area is zoned General Business, which is also
the land use type identified in the City of Sanford's 1979 Land
Development Plan for the project area.
C. Proposed Land Use
The City's Historic and Appearance Commission recently
explored the possibility of improving the streetscape along
Horner Boulevard by initiating a tree planting project.
However, limited right of way and conflicts with driveways,
utility-poles, and structures thwarted the plan.
A newly constructed Bojangle's restaurant is located on the
north side of Horner Boulevard at the intersection of Fields
Drive. Access to the restaurant and to the Hardee's restaurant
(located to the south) is provided by a new road which is
located directly across from Fields Drive and Woodland Avenue.
This has created a "five points." intersection. The developer is
also making improvements to the traffic signal at the
intersection.
d. Project Consistency With Local Plans
An update to Sanford's Land Development Plan the plan is
underway, with completion likely in 1995. The City of Sanford
has no plans to extend or construct sidewalks or bikeways in the
project area, nor will the proposed widening conflict with any
plans.
2. Neighborhood Characteristics
The proposed project is located in Lee County. Lee County is
located in the central section of the state and is bounded by
Harnett, Moore, and Chatham Counties. According to the North Carolina
State Data Center, in 1992 Lee County had a population of 43,086.
Its population density (persons per square mile) in 1990 was 160.81.
'In terms of racial composition, 1990 data indicates that there are
31,216 classified as whites and 10,158 classified as nonwhites in the
county.
15
The project area is characterized by commercial development.
All establishments are located far enough from the proposed project
improvements to avoid significant impacts.
3. Relocatees
It is anticipated that three businesses will be relocated as a
result of this project (see Relocation Report in Appendix A, page
A-15). With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT
staff will be available to assist business displacees with
information such as availability and prices of businesses for sale or
rent. The Relocation Moving Payments Program, in general, provides
for payment of actual moving expenses encountered in relocation.
See Appendix C for further discussion of the NCDOT Relocation
Programs.
4. Public Facilities
Public facilities along the project include the U. S. Post
Office, Lee County's Sheriff's Office, Lee County's Courthouse, and
the Family :Practitioner's Center. These public facilities are .
outside the proposed construction corridor of the project; therefore,
they will not be impacted.
5. Cultural Resources
a. Architectural/Historic Resources
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended,
implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
To comply with Section 106, the Area of Potential Effect
(APE) of the subject project was reviewed by an NCDOT staff
architectural historian in the field. The Lee County Court-
house, which is listed in the National Register of Historic
Places, is located on the south side of US 421/NC 42-87 and is
within the APE. Although it is anticipated that a temporary
construction easement will be necessary for the Lee County
Courthouse Property and because widening will occur to the north
side of US 421/NC 42-87 in the vicinity of the courthouse, it
has been determined that the project will have no effect on this
historic resource. The State Historic Preservation Office has
concurred with this determination (see Appendix A, page A-3).
Two other structures over fifty years old are located
within the APE on the south side of US 421/NC 42-87. The
Sheriff's Office, which is located approximately 600 feet west
of Courtland Drive, and the H. F. Ohler House, which is located
16
approximately 300 feet east of Courtland Drive, are both over
fifty years old and are located within the APE. However, it has
been determined that neither property is eligible for inclusion
in the National Register of Historic Places. The SHPO has
concurred with this determination.
To avoid impacts to the Lee County Courthouse (listed in
the National Register of Historic Places), the SHPO recommends
the following conditions be observed:
(1) The North Carolina Department of Transportation will
install protective fencing along the easement line.
(2) If roots are encountered during construction, the
contractor is requirec to cleanly cut them and
exercise good tree protection practices.
(3) Construction activities within the easement will be
limited, as much as possible.
Since there are no other properties either listed on or
eligible for-listing in the National Register of Historic Places
within the APE of this undertaking, no further compliance with
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 or
the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 is necessary.
b. Archaeological Resources
No previously known archaeological sites are located within
the APE. Under the advisement of the SHPO, no further
investigation was conducted in connection with this project.
The correspondence from the SHPO is included in Appendix A (see
page A-5). This completes compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act.
C. Section 4(f) Properties
The Lee County Courthouse, which is listed in the National
Register of Historic Places, is located on the south side of
US 421/NC 42-87 and is within the APE. It is anticipated that a
temporary construction easement will be necessary on a portion
of the Lee County Courthouse property. A temporary occupancy of
land is so minimal that is does not constitute Section 4(f) when
the following conditions are satisfied:
(1) Duration must be temporary, i.e., less than the time needed
for construction of the project, and there should be no
change in ownership of land;
(2) Scope of the work must be minor, i.e., both the nature and
the magnitude of the changes to the Section 4(f) resource
are minimal;
17
(3) There are no anticipated permanent adverse- physical
impacts, nor will there be the resource, on either a
temporary or permanent basis;
(4) The land being used must be fully restored, i.e., the
resource must be returned to a condition which is at least
as good as that which existed prior to the project; and
(5) There must be documented agreement of the appropriate
Federal, State, and Local officials having jurisdiction
over the resource regarding the above conditions.
The FHWA concurs that the above criteria have been met
regarding the Lee County Courthouse; therefore, no Section 4(f)
documentation is necessary. This completes compliance of
Section 4(f) and of the Department of Transportation Act of
1966, as amended.
B. Economic Effects
During the month of April 1994, Lee County had a labor* force of
23,060. Out of this total, 22,140 persons were gainfully employed. This
left an unemployment total of 920, or 4.0 percent.
The proposed widening of the existing alignment will have a positive
impact. on the businesses along the proposed project.. Although the
proposed widening may eliminate parking spaces for some of the business
establishments, businesses may benefit by the improved access and
visibility. The proposed widening will also improve traffic flow in the
immediate area. This may generate more customers for commercial district,
which could enhance the area's economy.
C. Environmental Effects
1. Biological Resources
a. Plant Communities
Three plant communities were identified in the project
area: Man-dominated, Pine Forest, and Hardwood Forest.
Man-Dominated
Commercial development and roadside shoulders constitute
man-dominated communities in the project area, where man's
structures or activities preclude natural plant succession.
Maintained shoulder slopes and lawns support fescue (Festuca
sp.) as the dominant vegetative component, complemented with
landscape ornamentals. Redbud (Cercis canadensis), dogwood
(Cornus florida), azaleas (Azalea spp.), pecan (Carya
illinoensis), red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), loblolly pine
(Pinus taeda), and various oak trees ( uercus spp.) are common.
Mowing is frequently associated with this community.
18
Pine Forest
An even-aged stand of loblolly pine, approximately 11
inches in diameter at breast height (dbh), is surrounded by
commercial development in the project area. The stand is less
than 0.10 acre in size. No subcanopy or shrub layer is present.
Poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) and Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica are dominant vine components. Ebony
spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron) was the only herbaceous plant
noted.
Hardwood Forest
A small tract of hardwood forest occupies a dry ridgetop
and an associated mesic slope. The canopy contains mixed
hardwood species, the presence of which is largely dictated by
hydrologic conditions. On the well-drained ridgetop, common
canopy species such as white oak ( uercus alba), southern red
oak (Q falcata), post oak (L stellata), and mockernut hickory
(Carya tomentosa) may be found. Red cedar and sourwood
(Ox_ydendrum arboreum) are typical understory components,
complimented with shrubs such as blueberries (Vaccinium
staminium and V. arboreum). Christmas fern (Pol_ystichum
acrostichoides), pipsissewa (Chimaphila maculata), partridge
berry (Mitchella repens), crane-fly orchid (Tipularia discolor),
and heartleaf (Hexastylis arifolia) are common herbaceous
plants.
Mesic slopes support a canopy of tulip tree (Liriodendron
tulipfera) and sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), while the
understory consists of red maple, water oak ( uercus nigra),
iron wood (Carpinus caroliniana), and American holly (Ilex
o aca).
The proposed construction will minimally impact the
Man-dominated, Pine forest, and Hardwood forest communities. A
narrow strip of forest will be lost, resulting in a direct loss
of plant species from grubbing operations, soil compaction, and
soil erosion. Future widening will mainly eliminate portions of
roadside shoulders and commercial development.
Impacts to each community are summarized in Table 6 below.
Calculations are based on right-of-way limits of 100 to 120
feet.
TABLE 6 ANTICIPATED BIOTIC COMMUNITY IMPACTS
PLANT COMMUNITY
Man-dominated Areas
Pine Forest
Hardwood Forest
ESTIMATED IMPACTS
2.8 acres
0.1 acre
0.4 acre
TOTAL IMPACTS 3.3 acres
19
b. Wildlife Communities
1. Terrestrial
Impacts due to the proposed widening will be reflected
in the alteration and elimination of previously existing
habitat. Subterranean, burrowing, and slow moving
organisms will be eliminated. Larger, faster animals will
simply be displaced. Road-kills will decrease numbers of
individuals of.certain species.
Disturbed roadside communities and urban areas provide
shelter for opportunistic animal species, such as the
Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), white-footed mouse
(Peromyscus leucopus), house mouse (Mus musculus), eastern
harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys humilis), hispid cotton rat
(Sigmodon hispidus), and eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus
floridanus mallurus). These are primarily animals of
disturbed environments, brushy edges, and other habitats
characterized by mixtures of herbaceous* vegetation and
shrubby plants. Gray squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis) were
frequently observed in the project area, as were bird
species, such as the rock dove (Columba livia), northern
cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), dark eyed junco' (Junco
hyemalis), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), and European.
starling (Sturnus vulgaris).
The most commonly seen in the canopy of forested
habitats are the pileated woodpecker (Picoides pubescens),
brown creeper (Certhia familiaris), northern cardinal,
yellow-rumped warbler (Dendrocia coronata), and the
Carolina wren (Th omanes bewickii Brown-headed
nuthatches (Sitta usp it a are common in the pine forested
stands.
The eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), slimy
salamander (Plethodon glutinosus), worm snake (Carphophis
amoenus), and black racer (Coluber constrictor) are
reptiles and amphibians that may be found in the project
area, utilizing fallen logs and the litter layer for cover.
2. Aquatic
The majority of waterbodies in the project area are
comprised of small, intermittent Piedmont streams. In the
winter and spring, water is present. In summer, stream
beds are dry but may retain small pools of water. Sections
of these stream courses occur in urbanized areas, resulting
in degraded water quality and habitat for aquatic species.
Aquatic insects and snails were noted at several crossings,
as were crayfish (Cambaridae) burrows. Neither fish nor
mussel fauna were seen during field investigations. Fish
diversity is expected to be low in waters without continual
20
flow. Shiners (Notropis spp.), creek chub (Semotilus
atromaculatus), and bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) may
utilize these intermittent tributaries for spawning during
periods of flow.
Amphibians are water-dependent, laying shell-less eggs
in freshwater or in moist places and having an aquatic
larval stage. Amphibians which may inhabit ditches and
streams in the project area include the southern cricket
frog (Acris r llus , spring peeper (Hyla crucifer),
pickerel frog (Rana palustris), and two-lined salamander
(E. bislineata). Insects, snails and worms are important
food sources of these species.
C. Protected Species
1. Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE)
and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions
of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended.
The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (US.FWS) .lists
three federally protected species for Lee County as'of
November 17, 1994 (see Table 7). Descriptions and. habitat
requirements for each species are summarized below.
TABLE 7 FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES FOR LEE COUNTY
SCIENTIFIC NAME COITION NAME STATUS
Notropis mekistocholas Cape Fear shiner E
Picoides borealis red-cockaded woodpecker E
Ptilimnium nodosum harperella E*
"*" No specimen from Lee County found in at least twenty years.
21
No?tropis mekistocholas (Cape Fear shiner) E
Animal Family: Cyprinidae
Date Listed: 9/26/87
Distribution in N.C.: Chatham, Harnett, Lee, Moore,
Randolph.
The Cape Fear shiner is a small, moderately stocky
minnow. Its body is flushed with a pale silvery yellow,
and a black band runs along its sides. The fins are
yellowish and somewhat pointed. The upperlip is black, and
the lower lip has a black bar along its margin.The Cape
Fear shiner habitat occurs in streams with gravel, cobble,
or boulder substrates. It is most often observed
inhabiting slow pools, riffles, and slow runs associated
with water willow beds. Juveniles can be found inhabiting
slackwater, among large rock outcrops, and in flooded side
channels and pools. The Cape Fear shiner is thought to
feed on bottom detritus, diatoms, and other periphytes.
Captive specimens feed readily on plant and animal
material.
The Cape Fear shiner is limited to three populations
in North Carolina. The strongest population of the Cape'
Fear shiner is in Chatham and Lee Counties from the
Locksville dam upstream to Rocky River and Bear Creek.
Another population is located above the Rocky River
Hydroelectric Dam in Chatham County, and the third
population is found in the Deep River system in Randolph
and Moore Counties.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect.
Intermittent tributaries do not provide suitable
habitat for the Cape Fear shiner, nor does suitable habitat
exist downstream of the project area.'
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) E
Animal Family:- P cidae
Date Listed: 10/13/70
Distribution in N. C. :. Anson, Beaufort, Bertie, Bladen,
Brunswick, Camden, Carteret, Chatham, Columbus,
Craven, Cumberland, Dare, Duplin, Forsyth, Gates,
Halifax, Harnett, Hertford, Hoke, Hyde, Johnston,
Jones, Lee, Lenoir, Montgomery, Moore, Nash, New
Hanover, Northampton, Onslow, Orange, Pamlico, Pender,
Perquimans, Pitt, Richmond, Robeson, Sampson,
Scotland, Tyrrell, Wake, Wayne, Wilson.
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.
22
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 greater than
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. This acreage must be contiguous with suitable
nesting sites.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect.
The pine-dominated stand present is too small to
support the RCW.
Ptilimnium nodosum (harperella) E
Plant Family: Apiaceae
Federally Listed: September 28, 1988
Flowers Present: late July - August
Distribution in N.C.: Chatham, Granville, Lee.
Harperella is an annual herb in the carrot family,
with fibrous roots and erect to spreading stems. The stems
are green and often have a purplish tinge at the base and
they may branch above mid-stem. The leaves are hollow,
cylindrical, and septate, with broadly clasping bases.
Flowers are umbels, each umbel subtended by an involucre of
small lanceolate bracts.
North Carolina currently has two known populations of
harperella, one in Granville County and one in Chatham
County. This plant can be found in two types of habitat:
rocky or gravel shoals and the margins of clear,
swift-flowing stream sections; and the edges of
intermittent pineland ponds or low, wet savannah meadows in
the coastal plain. It is always found in saturated
substrates and tolerates periodic, moderate flooding.
There is a preference for sunny areas and this species is
abundant where it is sheltered from stream erosion, usually
on the downstream side of large rocks or amidst thick
clones of water willow.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect.
No suitable habitat is present. Streams in the
project area are highly modified and do not provide water
flow year round to support this species.
2. Federal Candidate Species
Candidate 2 (C2) species are not legally protected
under the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any
of its provisions until they are formally proposed or
listed as Threatened or Endangered.
23
Plants or animals with state designations of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T) or Special Concern (SC) are
granted protection by the State Endangered Species Act and
the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of
1979, administered and enforced by the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission and the North Carolina
Department of Agriculture.
The following table includes Federal Candidate species
listed for Lee County and their state statuses (see Table
8). These species may potentially occur in the project
area; however, organisms and their suitable habitat were
not surveyed for. The National Heritage Program (NHP) data
base was reviewed to determine if any protected species
have been verified in the project area. None were
recorded.
TABLE 8 FEDERAL CANDIDATE SPECIES
FOR LEE COUNTY
COMM NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME CAT. NC
Bog spicebush Lindera subcoriacea C2 E
Carolina
grass-of-parnassus Parnassi_a caroliniana* C2 E
*" No specimen from Lee County found in at least twenty years.
2. Soils
The majority of Lee County lies in the Piedmont Physiographic
Province, with a small area in the eastern part of the county lying
in the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. The City of Sanford is
divided between these two provinces and, thus, is located within two
soil systems: Upper Coastal Plain and Piedmont System and the
Triassic Basin System. Topography in the immediate study area is
somewhat rolling, dissected by numerous streams.
The dominant map unit in the project area is Mayodan-Urban land
complex. This map unit consists of areas of Mayodan soil that is
well-drained and areas of Urban land.
Mayodan soils have a yellowish brown fine sandy loam surface
layer. Subsoil varies from yellow clay loam in the upper part to a
red silty clay in the lower subsoil. The underlying material is red
saprolite that crushes to loam.
The Urban land part of this map unit consists of areas that are
covered with impervious material, such as parking lots and commercial
development. The extent of site modification varies greatly.
24
Chewacla silt loam underlies drainages in the study area. This
soil is nearly level, somewhat poorly drained, and contains hydric
inclusions of Wehadkee. The surface layer is brown silt loam, with a
subsoil comprised of brown silty clay loam.
3. Water Resources
The project crosses Little Buffalo Creek and three tributaries 01
to Little Buffalo Creek. Points of crossing of these streams are
above headwaters. These waters pass beneath existing US 421/NC 42-87
by way of culverts and pipes, eventually draining into the Deep
River, located within the Cape Fear River basin.
All crossings are intermittent, have very narrow channel widths
from three feet to five feet, and have no associated wetlands. Due
to heavy rainfall at the time of the field visit, water levels were
high (one foot) and the flow rate was fast. Most stream substrates
are highly silted. The drainage pattern is dendritic, highly
dissecting the landscape.
"Best usage" classifications are assigned to the waters of North
Carolina by the Division of Environmental Management (DEM). Little
Buffalo Creek and unnamed tributaries to Little Buffalo Creek are
assigned a best usage classification of C and WS-IV, respectively, by
the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources (DEHNR). Unnamed streams carry the same classification as-
that assigned to the stream segment to which it is tributary.
Class C waters are suitable for aquatic life propagation and
survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture.
Waters classified as WS-IV are waters protected as water supplies
which are generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds;
point source discharges are permitted; local programs to control
nonpoint source and stormwater discharge of pollution are required;
and these waters are suitable for all Class C uses.
The Benthic Macro invertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) addresses
long term trends in water quality at fixed monitoring sites by
sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrates. These organisms
are sensitive to very subtle changes in water quality. No data is
available for Little Buffalo Creek.
Neither High Quality Waters, Outstanding Resource. Waters, nor
waters classified as WS-I and WS-II are located in the study area or
within one mile downstream. No National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits have been issued for the project
area.
4. Jurisdictional Wetlands
The Corps of Engineers is responsible for regulating activities
in "Waters of the United States" based on the following laws: Section
10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 USC 403); Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344); and Section 103 of the Marine
25
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended (33 USC
1413). Any action that proposes to impact "Waters of the United
States" falls under the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers.
Generally, "Waters of the United States" are defined as navigable
waters, their tributaries and associated wetlands and is usually
subdivided into "wetlands" and "surface waters."
Surface-waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the
United States," as defined in 33 CFR 328.3. Jurisdictional areas
impacted by the proposed alignment are confined to defined channel
boundaries of headwater tributaries and fall under the jurisdiction
of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE). No
jurisdictional wetlands are located within the project area.
Surface water impacts are anticipated for all stream crossings.
Culverts and pipes will be extended, reducing the linear feet of
natural stream channel. Other potential impacts are increased
sedimentation from construction and/or erosion, increased
concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff and/or toxic
spills, scouring of stream beds due to the channelization of streams,
alterations of water levels due to interruptions or additions to
surficial and/or groundwater flow, and changes in light incidence due
to the removal of vegetative cover.
It is estimated that approximately 25 feet of stream channel
modification. and/or relocation will be required for a portion'of an
unnamed tributary to Little Buffalo Creek. This shall be treated as
a "minor relocation," applicable when less than 100 feet of total
relocation is required at a given crossing, or less than 50 feet-is
relocated on any one side (upstream or downstream). Relocation
should be similar to the original channel in width, depth, gradient,
and substrate. The establishment of bank vegetation with planting
regime is required.
To minimize surface water impacts, the following will be
observed:
- Instream activities will be scheduled during low flow periods
(summer and fall).
- Non-point sediment sources will be identified and efforts will
be made to control sediment runoff.
- Best Management Practices and Sedimentation Control guidelines
will be strictly adhered to during the construction phase of the
project.
A 401 Water Quality Certification administered through the DEHNR
will be required.
26
5. Permits
The subject project is classified as a Categorical Exclusion and
is likely to fall under Provisions of Nationwide Permit 33 CFR
330.5(A)23. This permit authorizes any activities, work and
discharges undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or
financed, in whole or in part, by another federal agency and that the
activity is "categorically excluded" from environmental documentation
because it is included within a category of actions which neither
individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the
environment. However, final permit decisions are left to the
discretionary authority of the United States Army Corps of Engineers
(COE).
A 401 Water Quality Certification administered through the DEHNR
will be required. This certificate is issued for any activity which
may result in a discharge into waters for which a federal permit is
required.
6. Mitigation
Mitigation is generally not required where Nationwide permits or
General permits are authorized, according to the Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA') and
the COE. Final discretionary authority in these matters rests with
the COE.
1. Flood Hazard Evaluation
The City of Sanford and Lee County are both participants in the
National Flood Insurance Program. Little Buffalo Creek is not
included in a detailed flood study. Figure 6 shows the floodway map
which delineates the approximated limits of the 100-year floodplain
in the vicinity of this crossing. The floodplain area impacted by
the project is urban and developed; however, there are no known
buildings with floor elevations below the 100-year flood level. The
proposed widening will not raise the existing flood levels nor have
an adverse effect on the existing floodplain.
The project lies within a water supply watershed; however, it is
well upstream of the critical area and it is not in a designated high
quality water zone. No significant wetland impacts are anticipated,
and the Little Buffalo Creek crossing is above headwaters; therefore,
it is anticipated that no individual environmental permits will be
required for this project.
The NCDOT will coordinate with the City of Sanford and Lee
County regarding any possible changes in the floodplain.
8. Hazardous Wastes/Geological Impacts
A reconnaissance survey of the project corridor identified ten
sites which contain or have the potential for underground storage
tanks (UST's). A records search of the DEM/Groundwater Section was
conducted, and the information is provided in Appendix B.
27
The files at the DEM/Groundwater Section indicated that Lee Iron
and Metal Company, Inc. and Holt Truck and Tractor Co. are small
generators of hazardous wastes. There have been no listings of any
sort of contamination or spillage problems associated with either of
these sites. Lee Iron and Metal Company, Inc. is located outside of
the project corridor. Holt Truck and Tractor Company is fairly close
to the proposed project; any sort of problematic activity involving
the generation of hazardous wastes at this business is most likely
located farther back from the road on the north side of the building,
although the exact location of the wastes is not known.
A Solid Wastes files search was also completed but revealed
nothing relevant to this project. It is recommended that all effort
be made to avoid impact to both the UST sites and the above ground
storage tank (AST) sites mentioned above. Although findings did not
indicate leakage from the tanks, it has been shown in past experience
that 80% of tanks assessed by the NCDOT of its contractors have some
degree of leakage.
9. Noise Analysis
In dealing with traffic noise predictions in the vicinity of the
project, a "worst case" scenario was used. The maximum extent of the
67 Leq and the 72 Leq is 236 feet and 140 feet from the centerline of
the proposed project; it is predicted to be approximately 3 dBA.
Generally, a 3 dBA increase is considered to be a ,barely perceptible
change. If the project was not constructed, noise levels will
increase in the vicinity of the project 2 to 3 dBA. Noise levels
could increase in the area during construction but will be temporary.
Therefore, the proposed projects impact on noise quality will be
insignificant. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements
for highway traffic noise (23 CFR Part 772) and no additional reports
are necessary.
10. Air Quality Analysis
This project is located within the jurisdiction for air quality
of the Raleigh Regional Office of the North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Lee County has been
determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse
effect on the air quality of the region of this attainment area.
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 Implementation Program (SIP) for Air Quality in
compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the
assessment requirements for air quality (1990 CAAA and NEPA) and no
additional reports are required.
28
11. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies
or their representatives to consider the impact of land acquisition
and construction projects on prime and important farmland soils, as
designated by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service. Land which is
developed or planned for urban development by the local governmental
authority is exempt from the requirements of the Act. The proposed
project is located in an urbanized area with a mix of commercial and
industrial land uses. Therefore, no further consideration of
farmland impacts is required.
12. Construction Impacts
To minimize potential effects caused by construction, the
following measures will be enforced during the construction phase:
a. All possible measures will be taken to insure that the
public's health and safety will not be compromised during
the movement of any materials to and from construction
sites along the project and that any inconveniences imposed
on the public will be kept to a minimum.
b. Dust control will be exercised at all times to prevent
endangering the safety and general welfare of the public
and to prevent diminishing the value, utility, or
appearance.of any public or private properties.
C. The contractor shall be required to observe and comply with
all laws, ordinances, regulations, orders and decrees,
including those of the North Carolina State Board of Health
regarding the disposal of solid waste. All solid waste
will be disposed of in accordance with the standard
specifications of the Division of, Highways. These
specifications have been reviewed and approved by the Solid
Waste Vector Control Section of the Division of Health
Services, North Carolina Department of Human Resources.
d. Waste and debris will be disposed of in areas outside of
the right of way and provided by the contractor, unless
otherwise required -by the plans or special provisions or
unless disposal within the right of way is permitted by the
engineer. Disposal of waste and debris in active public
waste disposal areas will not be permitted without prior
approval by the engineer. Such approval will not be
permitted when, in the opinion of the engineer, it will
result in excessive siltation or pollution.
e. The construction of the project is not expected to cause
any serious disruptions in service to any of the utilities
serving the area. Before construction is started, a
preconstruction conference involving the contractor,
29
pertinent local officials, and the Division of Highways
will be held to discuss various steps to be taken during
the time of construction that will minimize interruption of
service.
f. Prior to construction, a determination will be made
regarding the need to relocate or adjust any existing
utilities in the project area. A determination of whether
the NCDOT or the utility owner will be responsible for this
work will be made at that time.
g. During construction of the proposed project, all materials
resulting from clearing and grubbing, demolition, or other
operations will be disposed of by the contractor. Any
burning will be done in accordance with applicable local
laws and ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina
SIP for Air Quality. Care will be taken to insure burning
will be done at the greatest distance practicable from
dwellings and not when atmospheric conditions are such as
to create a hazard to the public. Burning will be
performed under constant surveillance.
h. An erosion control schedule will be devised by the
contractor before work is started. The schedule will show
the time relationship between phases of the work which must
be coordinated to reduce erosion and shall describe
construction practices and temporary erosion control
measures which will be used to minimize erosion. In
conjunction with the erosion control schedule, the
contractor will be required to follow those provisions of
the plans and specifications which pertain to erosion and
siltation. These contract provisions are in accordance
with the strict erosion control measures, as outlined in
the U. S. Department of Transportation's FHPM 6-7-3-1.
Temporary erosion control measures, such as' the use of
berms, dikes, dams, silt basins, etc., will be used as
needed.
i. Prior to the approval of any borrow source developed for
use on this project, the contractor shall obtain a
certificate from the State Department of Cultural Resources
certifying that the removal of material from the borrow
source will have no effect on any known district, site,
building, structure, or object that is included in or
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places. A copy of this certification shall be furnished to
the Engineer prior to performing any work on the proposed
borrow source.
j. Traffic service in the immediate project area may be
subjected to brief disruption during construction of the
project. Every effort will be made to insure that the
transportation needs of the public will be met both during
and after construction.
30
VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Comments Received from Federal, State, and Local Agencies
The project has been coordinated with the following federal, state,
and local agencies. Comments were received from the agencies marked with
an asterisk (*):
*U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
U. S. Federal Emergency Management Administration
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Services
U. S. Geological Survey
*State Clearinghouse
*N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
*N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
*N. C. Division of Land Resources
*N. C. Wildlife Resource Commission
*N. C. Department of Public Instruction
Region J Council of Governments
Lee County Commissioners
*Lee County Public Schools
*City of Sanford
Copies of the comments received are included in Appendix A.
B. Public Hearing
A public hearing will be held following approval of this report to
provide additional information on the proposed project to local citizens
and to gather further input.
VII. CONCLUSION
On the basis of the above discussion, the NCDOT and the FHWA conclude
that no adverse environmental effects will result from the implementation
of the project.
MLP/plr
0
OF
US 421 /NC 42-87
FROM SR 1107 (FIELDS DRIVE)
TO NC 42-78 (MAIN STREET)
SANFORD, LEE COUNTY
TIP NO. U-2921
0 MILE '/2
1 FIG.l
[ LAL?L?11?V A1?L L'1??li1V1?1?1 L'1?lAL
BRANCH

t

SA`JFORD
( r_

ra ? ?
00-
as
p
ri
! vi ?? s
? , ? ...tea- •lA.,
i Y
MATCH LINE Q
Nf
11
dw
... .. - _10 J N.?
0
n
aN 3T e?° _ O ? c
tr .y a > Op N
FQQ
1 ?v N ? y
? w

r?
z W co
c 1- z
j w0 N
W m oC
j Q a
N A ,
u fp

1 F
?
? N 1 Q

I N
y
W

j
N ?

,
i
W
W
H H

y w
i Q
1 ft
i
Q
cr
U
a
Qi
O
w w
w
0

N i
N
1-
W Q
O
N

O
W
GC
a
04

I N
v w o
J r
F
?
ca
°o r
-
N

a a° o
Cl
cq
? J" N q
yQ> N r N p
N ? J r

F~-OG Ham=
1-pG
N
Q J n N

NO O Nt7p
}-Jr P3 ?
Q > t ? FJr
y
DO
~ G
~
F
- F
-
O
c*
to
N

N ? CD
4 ?^

!
N
U I
7 ` O t.rp
Q_ w J r
1

? yQ>
~
I
-00
C
kD
N
4
m t A b
t?j w
N \ e e
w ?! f! w p
cn >

I

.=. ?l Ho l dive

?., O ? ? ? of ?I j Try
v
Cr Z t Z Q U j i? ??
-'?
??

Lu
t
I m i p i r T
T
??
r'?"1
o h ;
iuj 4co
o t`OI ?N
?+ tL t CY 0 Q 4t i w v i

Q c .af Ni
!I"
o
10 1*- _

CO
UJ !
N
w
U i
LL

Q cn
moj
? I
N ?
m =
? a?,
b. O W
o C7 ? ,
Q .J
M 0
>
JU
Q

R w
01 ?
i
H i
i
i
j

a i

a.
V
n
O
Z,
R
Ci
r c
fI Q MATCH LINE Q N
I o
? N .
N ?
o gl?
.-a r Q N N ?J ?
co
h
t7
ZW ' N
W Q
;9 ro e,
J H ?

d >
N ? r
~ ~
-DD
1
c w
7 N
WO

o a ?Q

A 0? o C c?
?
F
N r '' O
r N ? 1
?" J
U) P ?
SD
c

m
0

I ? f Qi

?
jz? ,a
LL
?ZICc Co) DW
fz
?

I
W
ON
=
(..?

rn ..
p,.
c4j
CO
u.
a
0
diNOQ Icot;
?
c
A C
CD O C.) W:
W! oI al,
J!
N;
N ? ?? ?` OBI
I.? ? V
a
a
Q ,n o
Q a
J r

F ? S
F-DD
a
Q.
r L
w
Z
O r
? Z
? ?
N
C ?` ,cf.,
' ? 7 ? J
( ?
N
.o-
too
w fI Y m C? N?o m?
Q ` h J r W
$ y Q >

w
W
D Uy
N `r

r e e e
N r y
r t.
O
J r
1

?-DD
M
N
?m
y ?
a? o ?
s7?
? N N O OD \?,
? ti
i7 Ma>

I- D D
N
Q
N
o ?. 4
o ?
Fro ..
J
c/1 Q >
f~-DD

Z 0 t r. co
q N
H
C
U
O
C4
ti F
C
w
O
G
t ' N J r

??S
1- D D

N
N

l cl)
t mot" O
P
_
C',+ ?
? tV o a° o
N !1
? ;+? r r O
Y ) t J

ih
N
? ?
3,ti17 Nr^.1:1Jn1
U
LL
LL
m O
•F- _O
Z
W
W
Q J
w0
> >
a
r
i
I
j
p
U
n ?
C !
^1

MIUVWSNWM AVMYOM'lM=U
rounmod rm A AMBRI YYO Wn
wr rluWUOeer
rokwo MrMV V a "IVAILIVA" M Ao won"
HCLLV uo M ul 40 L13MLIUM vwiorvo "IMM
w u..e.M
VNII0UV3 HLUON
Amnoo an
aao:INVS d0 AIJ3
Nrld 3UV:JI4!DnomoHl
O HMVtlY4136 30Vw0
O 30NVH3M3l M
--??- 3wVA*Xx im MONO
••¦¦¦ ¦••? 3w &IMOYOH1 wcxvw
mamas
a? sum AVM883WX3 / MUM
DRM
----- bN t rLL likidr
??'0 iv7r
Lgl'li lgldl/
_-___iN` c H?erw
1N31111WA0 IJ'H
?aHrua3"ivi?
OYOMWS i0 ALA
DNWV3H 3116nd
:A6 031d00V

"IS-401inW1 Jo 8;1WVe tut M1?II awo4wR
1NTIF-.a 'Y aOlwiYlll w ISIZ
OW)WA H
??' : Ohs , c? . s 0
.?__1?? r? • ?j / `w rI .//2. AY• O J S 1 UY _- l
y f.
ONE
0
"Ass 0
fr NIJ38 1
s•
0 or
r
ir
,i
1
It I

1 ?\ o
/ .t
? r
O
0

/ .--
l
le
40
?- n? ouYOaMrimw ?..
(SSVdA9 (180 Nb'S) L LtZ a ?\ .
4 04'1
( !A
5
i
i
s
T
N
N
U
W
MM)
0
OC
a.

cr
LU
0
Cl
z
m
cr
D
W
Z
Z
O
U
w
Cl)
U

LL
O
S
C'3
cr.
0
0
T
z
O
U
w
CD
w
CO
O
U
w
CD
O
IL
a
(V
3
Q
O
iC
Z
X
W

N
T
N
Q
W
H
H
0 D
z Q)
/ \
I I
CO) Z
X Q
W
m
m
D
U
w
I-
W
rD
V/ o
On
CL Z
11?`\ V a
:
D
U
i
L~
I
0)
.E
W
0
IL
^0
A
1
Z
?a
W
M
. ? CC
o a
O W
Z U. -3 1
ol 0
,l
O w m
V cz?
W °
W
J r ??
H
O Q co
?VI ^?
Q
UJ
z
O
a
w U.
Z
O uj
N
w ,
a was 1 ? ? ?
j
111 ?`°.
s
o,
,s

0

Ts?oO s . ?
a
m
o?
?O to
sA
psh St
fS
r .0
Vic` ? ld
op Job ?o`?
CON

-s.,0
a
f
T.I.P PROJECT U-2921
EXISTING INTERSECTION
CONFIGURATIONS
4 14
US 421/NC 42-87
(HORNER BOULEVARD) - - - - -

1 •
SR 1107 SR 1119
(FIELDS DRIVE) (WOODLAND AVENUE)
US 421/NC 42-87
(HORNER BOULEVARD)
I
I
1
1
r
I
I
ROSE STREET
FIGURE 7A
T.I.P. PROJECT U-2921
EXISTING INTERSECTION
CONFIGURATIONS
COURTLAND DRIVE
Ir
1
I
I
1
I
I

US 421 /NC 42-87
(HORNER BOULEVARD)
SR 1616
(THIRD STREET)
US 421/NC 42-87
(HORNER BOULEVARD)
I I
1 1
1
I
1
1
r - -
1 I 1
1 I 1
SR 1133
(LEE AVENUE)

F IGURE 7B

T.I.P. PROJECT U-2921
EXISTING INTERSECTION
CONFIGURATIONS
SR 1514
(BRAGG STREET)
I I
I 1
I 1
1 1
I 1
I 1
US 421 /NC 42-87 I 1
(HORNER BOULEVARD) i W'.
I 1 V/'
I
I
i
i
i
SR 1137
1LRYMPLE STREET)
FIGURE 7C
-----------------
1
T.I.P. PROJECT U-2921
EXISTING INTERSECTION
CONFIGURATIONS
NC 42-78
(MAIN STREET)
I I
1 1
1 I
1 I
I
I I
1 I
1
US 421/NC 42-87
(HORNER BOULEVARD)
- - - - - - - - - -
41
FIGURE 7D
-- - - - - - - - - - - -
-----------
r
T.I.P. PROJECT U-2921
PROPOSED INTERSECTION
CONFIGURATIONS

c
US 421/NC 42-87
(HORNER BOULEVARD) - _ - - - - ?.
COURTLAND DF
4T;r
I
1
1
I
I
ROSE STREET
I I
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
1 1
I I ? 11 "
I
I I 1
1 I I
1 I 1
I I 1
I
1 I
US 421 /NC 42-87
(HORNER BOULEVARD)
FIGURE 8A

?-
T.I.P. PROJECT U-2921
PROPOSED INTERSECTION
CONFIGURATIONS
US 421/NC 42-87
(HORNER BOULEVARD)
US 421/NC 42-87
(HORNER BOULEVARD)
-------- .
----------
. SR 1614
(BRAGG STREET)
1 1 1
1 1
I i I
I I i
1 1
I 1 I
?!li 1?l??
i
1
1
I I ?
I 1 1
SR 1137
(DALRYMPLE STREET)
SR 1616
(THIRD STREET)
I , 1 1 1
, 1 1 I I
X 1 1 1 I
1 1 1 1
i 1 1 1
41,41
1 1 i
, I 1 i I
, 1 I 1 i
I 1 1 1 1
I 1 1 1 1
I 1 1 I
' 1 1 1 1
SR 1133
(LEE AVENUE)

14
s
----------------
t-
r ------------??

T.I.P. PROJECT U-2921
PROPOSED INTERSECTION
CONFIGURATIONS
NC 42-78
(MAIN STREET)
1 I I
1 { I
1 I I
I I I
I i I
I I I
1 1 1
1 I 1
' 1 I 1
41!111* I

US 421/NC 42-87
(HORNER BOULEVARD)
-----------
------------
lI 1 I?
1 I
1 I
I I
I !
I
I
I
r ----------
FIGURE 8C
APPENDIX
A
CORR ESPON DANCE\COM M ENTS
RECEIVED
fy\%?_? P0_4?
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
July 29, 1993
"REPLY REFER To
Planning Division
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
\rNViRO ,"t. „
This is in-response to your letter of May 18, 1993, requesting.
our comments on the initiation of a study of the project,
"US 421/NC 42-87 (Horner Boulevard) From NC 42-78 (Main Street) to
SR 1107 (Fields Drive), Lee County, Federal Aid No. STP-OOOS(60);
State Project No. 8.1540501; TIP No. U-2921" (Regulatory Branch
Action I.D. No. 199302710).
From the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) perspective, our
comments involve impacts to COE projects, flood plains, and other
environmental aspects, primarily waters and wetlands. The proposed
project would not involve any COE-constructed navigation or flood
control project.
The proposed project is sited in Lee County, which participates
in the National Flood Insurance Program. From a review of the
September 1989 Flood Insurance Rate Map, the proposed improvements
cross a portion of the Little Buffalo Creek flood plain which was
mapped by approximate methods.- We recommend that you coordinate
with the county for compliance with their flood plain ordinance
and for any possible changes to their flood insurance map.
Our Regulatory Branch has reviewed your letter and has the
following comments. During the site inspection, it was determined
that most of the widening of the road will occur within commercially
developed areas. However, it was noted that there may be potential
for impacts to Little Buffalo Creek, located north of Tony's Seafood
Restaurant on the east side of Horner Boulevard. Altrough no
wetlands were found associated with the creek for approximately
120 feet east of Horner Boulevard, a Department of the Army permit
will be required for any work associated with either piping and
filling the creek or relocating the creek.
A-1
-2-
The only other area within the construction corridor found
to be subject to our regulatory authority is a small drain (less
than 5 to 10 feet wide) located west of Horner Boulevard and south
of Birch Street. Any mechanized land clearing or discharges of fill
material into these areas will require that Department of the Army
authorization be obtained prior to commencement of construction.
Questions or comments related to the permit may be directed
to Ms. Jean Benton, Raleigh Field Office, Regulatory Branch, at
[phone].
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project.
If we can be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate
to contact us. n
S' cer
Lawre
Chief,
1 \.
l J
W Saunders
1 ning Division

r

A-2
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr.. Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary William S. Price, Jr., Director
May 17, 1995 CN
Nicholas L. Graf Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442 Re: US 421 /NC 42-87 from SR 1107 to NC 42-78, LeeCounty, U-2921, Federal Aid project STP-OOOS(6),
State Project 8.1540501, ER 95-8994
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of May 3, 1995, concerning the above project.
We have reviewed your determination of effect for the above project and concur
that the project will have no effect on the Lee County Courthouse if the following
conditions are made a part of the environmental commitments and construction
contract:
1. The North Carolina Department of Transportation will install protective
fencing along the easement line.
2. If roots are encountered during construction, the contractor is required to
cleanly cut them and exercise other good tree protection practices.
3. Construction activities within the easement will be limited, as much as
possible.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 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.
Sincerely,
hIS BDeputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slww
cc: " H. F. Vick A-3
B. Church ?
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ?p?
aaAA$v
awa
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary William S. Price, Jr., Director
? C, E l y?
June 4, 1993 Q.
MEMORANDUM
TO: L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager JUN 0 8 , 1993
Planning and Environmental Branch Z v
Division of Highways 2 DIVISION OF ?'
Department of-Transportation HIGHWAYS
FROM: David Brook !Vi/,R?
Deputy State Histo Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Widening of US 421/NC 42-87 (Horner Boulevard) from
NC 42-87 (Main Street) to SR 1107 (Fields Drive), Sanford,
Lee County, U-2921, 8.1540501, STP-000S(60), CH 93-E-
4220-0937
We have received information concerning the above project from the State Clearinghouse.
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and have located the following structures of
historical or architectural importance within the general area of the project:
Lee County Courthouse (LE 2). Homer Boulevard and McIntosh, Sanford. The
courthouse was placed on the National Register of Historic Places on May 10, 1979.
Sanford Milling Company (LE 486). 914, 923, 1003, 1017 North Lee Avenue, Sanford.
The Sanford Milling Company has been placed on our state study list (July 8, 1992)
bejause it appears worthy of further investigation to definitely determine its eligibility
for listing in the National Register. For purposes of Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act and barring a finding to the contrary, we consider this
property eligible for the National Register and protection under federal law.
The following historic properties in the area of potential effect have not been evaluated
for National Register-eligibility:
H. F. Ohler House (LE 463). 1508 South Horner Boulevard, Sanford.
208 West Makepeace, Sanford.
206 McIntosh Street, Sanford.
426 East Main Street, Sanford.
A-4
OD
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ??
L. J. Ward
June 4, 1993, Page 2
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based on our
present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources which may be
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the project
construction.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966 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.
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
Nicholas Graf, Federal Highway Administration
B. Church
T. Padgett
A-5
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources AYA
Division of Environmental Management James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary E) E H N F I
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
June 17, 1993
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
FROM: Monica Swihart, Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #93-0937; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Proposed Improvements to US 421/NC 42-87 (Horner Blvd.)
From NC 42-78 (Main Street) To SR 11Q7 (Fields Drive)
TIP #U-2921
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The
stream classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated, it
is requested that- the channel ized/ relocated stream banks be
revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. WiAl permanent spill catch'basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to
be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
A-6
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Melba McGee
June 17, 1993
Page 2
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands"been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from
DEM.
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
1. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. Please provide a detailed discussion for.mass-transit as an
option.
K. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
L. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2.t on-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same watershed
is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be
required for this project. Applications requesting coverage under
our General Certification 14 or General Permit ?l will require
written concurrence. Please be aware that 401 Certification may be
denied if wetland impacts have not been avoided and minimized to
the maximum extent practicable.
9432er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb

A-7
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Governor PROJECT REVIEW CXX94ENTS
Wiliam W. Cobey. jr., Secretary
Charles H. Gardner
Director
Project Number: >o 9 County:
Project Name: (/ S 7 2?/jvG ???^?j
Geodetic Survey
This project will impact geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be contacted prior .to construction at P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
11- This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at
Revie er Date
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
No comment
[phone].
s
ntation ?}
lr/if more` V
This project will require approval of an erosion and sed
control plan prior to beginning any ljand-disturbing acti
than one (1) acre will be disturbed:
If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements; the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at [phone].
.4 I,r1?0e-Reviewer Date'
Y
R
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
f Regional Office --
lumber. Due Date:
- 07'A ZA
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) andlor approvals indicated may need to 'be obtained in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
..._ ee..'-.1 ntti?e Inelieatad nn the reverse of the form. f`
Questions regarding these permits snouto Die awuicaaw ,...._ --- ---- -
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same
Normal Process
Regional Office. time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES of REQUIREMENTS (statutory time
limit)
Permit to construct 3 operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
? facilities, sewer system extensions. & sewer construction contracts On-site inspection. Post-application
(90 days)
systems not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual
14PDES • permit to discharge into surface water andlor Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection. 90.120 days
? permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities
rface waters
t
i Pre-application conference usual. Additionally. obtain permit to
construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPDES. Reply
(NIA)
.
e su
nto sta
discharging time. 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichever is later.
30 days
? Water Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary (NIA)
7 days

? Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued
prior to the installation of a well. 15 days)
( Ys)
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property 55 days
Dredge and Fill Permit owner. On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling
? may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of (90 days)
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.

0 Permit to construct R operate Air Pollution Abatement
15A NCAC 21 H
NIA 60 days
(90 days)
. .
facilities andlor Emission Sources as per
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 20.0520.
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
60 days
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15A
? NCAC 2D.0525 which requires notification and removal NIA
prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group
(90 daysi
919.733.0820.
? Complex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 20.0810
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion b sedimentatio
Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Ouatity Sect.) at least 30
rb
t
d
d
20 days
? is
u
e
.
control plan will be required if one or more acres to be
da s before be innino activity. A fee of S30 for the first ac and S20.00 for-each additional acre or part must accompany the plan (30 davsi
? The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenceb Local Ordinance: 130 days)
On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR. Bond amount
? Mining Permit varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land Any area
d 30 days
(60 days)
mined greater than one acre must be permited. The appropriate bon
must be received before the permit can be issued.
? North Carolina Burning permit On-site Inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources it permit 1 day
(NIA)
' exceeds 4 days
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22 On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required -if more 1 day
NIA
? counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections
" )
I
should be requested at least ten days before actual burn is planned.
•
90.120 days
? Oil Relining Facilities NIA (NIA)
if permit required. application 60 days before begin construction.
Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans. 30 days
? Dam Safety Permit inspect construction. certify construction is according to EHNR approv•
ed plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. And (60 days)
a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers. An inspection of site is neces-
sary to verity Hazard Classification. A minimum fee of $200.00 must ac•
company the application. An additional processing fee based on a
percentage'or the total project cost will be required upon completion
Continued on reva-
ft 1W_
Normal Process
Tim-
.
(statutory time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS limit)
File surety bond of 55,000 with EHNR running to State of N.C. 10 days
? Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well conditional that any well opened by drill operator shall, upon (NIA)
abandonment, be plugged according to EHNR rules and regulations.
? Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with EHNR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit 10 days
Application by letter. No standard application form. (NIA)

? State.Lakes Construction Permit Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must include 15.20 days
descriptions & drawings of structure 5 proof of ownership (NIA)
of riparian property.
? 60 days
401 Water Quality Certification NIA (130 days)
? 55 days
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development $250.00 fee must accompany application (150 days)

? 22 days
CAMA Permit for MINOR development 550.00 fee must accompany application (25 days)
? Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monuments need to be moved or destroyed. please notify:
l
i
N
76
7
R
C
gh,
.
11
,
a
e
. 2
N.C. Geodetic Survey, Box 2768
? Abandonment of any wells. If required, must be in accordance with Title 15A, Subchapter 2C.0100.
? Notification of the proper regional office is requested if --orphan" underground storage tanks (USTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
? Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H.1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required.
T
< NIA)s
• Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority):
??QS ?,?Y1r?ir.+r-¢- ?lLvSr.ot?l (,oJ.lTti.x. Jt^??Sf (?+? fMG?tEs?? sIJ .?-ealepq,Iy-r,6?
w / TA DO S I oJ?-?o GR t . / IJ .QQ Rat-?..?--.?Yz+
14a0e--Q A5 - 1*4t++_d4_AE4_
)
Co.'J ?7'o?-s ?s?,o?r??t?.,- ZY'-APS? ->?s?r B£ 0&-S.1c-Wi 0 AT As
5 +..?? C? ? -t- 5 1 Cr-4,JJ a 07-1.4-7-X

t
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
? Asheville Regional Office ? Fayetteville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Asheville, NC 28801 Fayetteville, NC 28301
[phone] [phone]
? Mooresville Regional Office
919 North Main Street, P.O. Box 950
Mooresville, NC 28115
[phone]
? Washington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue
Washington, NC 27889
[phone] A-10
? Raleigh Regional Office
3800 Barrett Drive, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone]
? Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
[phone]
? Winston-Salem Regional Office
8025 North Point Blvd.
Suite 100
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
[phone]
. i.
ORTH CAROLINA
Mace"
•?• DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
301 North Wilmington Street, Education Building BOB ETHERIDGE
Raleigh, NC 27601-2825 State Superuuendent
June 9, 1993
X C E
X
10
0
00
'JUN 10:1993
MEMORANDUM ? piV
(SIGN O?q
HIC,N14r.YS'
'Vi
TO: L. J. Ward, P.E.
Manager of Planning and Research
NC Division of Highways -
FROM: Charles H
Assistant 6ftpb(e)jrintendent
Auxiliary Services
RE: US 421/NC 42-87 (Horner Boulevard) from NC 42-78 (Main Street) to SR
1107 (Fields Drive), Lee County, Federal Aid No. STP-OOOS(60; State
Project No. 8.1540501; TIP No. U-2921
Please find attached communicatiah from Donny L. Hunter,,, Superintendent for Lee
County Schools, relative to subject project.
t
mrl
Attachment
a 14 ;.
ti
i;9?3
7
A-11

RE North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO:.. Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
Dept. of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources
FROM: David Yow, Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE : June '23 , ' 1993
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) regarding fish and wildlife
concerns for improvements to US 421/NC 42-87 (Horner
Blvd.) from NC 42-78 (Main St.) to SR 1107 (Fields
Dr.), Lee County, North Carolina, TIP No. U-2921, SCH
Project No. 93-0937.
This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. L. J. Ward of
the NCDOT for our concerns regarding impacts on fish and wildlife
resources resulting from the subject project. The N. C. Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC)?has reviewed the proposed
improvements, and project impacts were discussed,at an
interagency scoping meeting on April 8, 1993. Our comments are
provided in accordance with 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).
The proposed work involves widening of existing facilities
in an area of extensive urban development. Wildlife habitat in
the project area is limited, and no significant impact on
wildlife resources is anticipated. Aquatic habitat is limited to
one previously culverted headwater channel, and fisheries impacts
are likewise anticipated to be negligible. The NCWRC supports
the choice of a widening alternative for the subject project.
Recent NCDOT documents for projects of this scope have
generally provided satisfactory information on project impacts.
For purposes of reference, our informational needs are listed
below:
A-12
Memo
Page 2 June 23, 1993
1. Description of fishery and wildlife resources within
the project area, including a listing of federally or
state designated threatened, endangered, or special
concern species. When practicable, potential borrow
areas to be used for project construction should be
.included in the inventories. A listing of designated
plant species can be developed through consultation
with:
The.Natural Heritage Program
N. t. Division of Parks and Recreation
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
and,
Cecil C. Frost, Coordinator
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. O. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
In addition, the NCWRC's Nongame and Endangered Species
Program maintains databases for locations of vertebrate
wildlife species. While there is no charge for the
list, a service charge for computer time is involved.
Additional information may be obtained from:
Randy Wilson, Manager
Nongame and Endangered Species Program
N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. SalisburyStreet
Raleigh, N. C. 27604-1188
[phone].
2.t Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the
project. The need for channelizing or relocating
portions of streams crossed and the extent of such
activities.
3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted by
the project. Wetland acreages should include all
project-related areas that may undergo hydrologic
change as a result of ditching, other drainage, or
filling for project construction. Wetland
identification may be accomplished through coordination
with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). If the
COE is not consulted, the person delineating wetlands
should be identified and criteria listed.
A-13
Memo Page 3 June 23, 1993
4. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland wildlife
habitat impacted by the proposed project. Potential
borrow sites should be included.
5. The extent to which the project will result in loss,
degradation, or fragmentation of wildlife habitat
(wetlands or uplands).
6. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or compensating for
direct and indirect degradation in habitat quality as
well as quantitative losses.
7. A cumulative impact assessment section which analyzes
the environmental effects of highway construction and
quantifies the contribution of this individual project
to environmental degradation.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early-
planning stages for this project. If I can further assist your
office, please contact me at [phone].
cc Larry Warlick, District 5 Wildlife Biologist
Shari Bryant, District 5 Fisheries Biologist
Randy Wilson, Nongame/Endangered Species Program Mgr.
David Dell,-U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
s

L?

A
A-14
Xer d1vuttiv
county Co
q WILLIAM C. STAFFORD, JR.
Chairman
GORDON A. WICKER
Vice-Chairman
JACK DOSSENBACH, JR.
F. HUBERT GARNER
BERT MATTHEWS
NATHAN E. PASCHAL
ROBERT T. REIVES
NORTH CAROLINA
June 28, 1993
L.J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611=5201
Dear Mr. Ward,-
WILLIAM K. COWAN
Manager
Telephone [phone]
JOHN A. CRUMPTON
Finance Director
Telephone [phone]
KENNETH R. HOYLE
County Attorney
Telephone [phone]
FAR 7748407
?G t t VF
rJUN 2 9 * W
DIVISION OF ?3?
G' HIGHWAYS
S VtJF NME?P?. .
SUBJECT: US 421/NC-42-87 (Horner Boulevard) From NC 42-78 (Main
Street) to SR 1107 (Fields Drive), Lee County, Federal Aid
No. STP-OOOS(60); State Project No. 8.1540501; TIP No.
U-2921
Thank you for your letter of May 24, 1993 concerning the proposed
improvements to Horner Boulevard.
At present, Lee County requires no permits or approvals which would
affect this project.
Additionally, I have asked the staff to review this matter with our
Environmental Affairs Board and their discussion indicates no
known environmental concerns related to the project.
Please feel free to contact Bill Cowan, County Manager, or Bob
Joyce, Administrative Services Director if there are other
questions.
Sincerely,'
?• ? l ? /,? DAB-t!/V '? ?
1993
William C. Stafford, Jr.
Chairman, "Lee County Commissioners
WCS:aw
A-15
mom, Pa4f t-1

106 Hillcrest Drive P.O. Box 1968 Sanford, North Carolina 27331-1968
sew
On
Seu?ne
AtGiearwrnt
DONNY L. HUNTER
Superintendent
Lee County Schools . MARION S. CARVER
Assistant Superintendent
P.O. BOX 1010 ANN Y. HART
Assistant Superintendent
Sanford, North Carolina 27331-1010
919/774-6226
Fax # [phone]
June 4, 1993
Mr. Charles H. Weaver
Assistant State Superintendent
Auxiliary Services
N. C. Department of Public Instruction
301 N. Wilmington Street, Education Building
Raleigh, NC 27601-2825
SUSAN L. HAWKS
Finance Officer
DR. LINDA S. MARSAL
Director of Student Services
J.L. SEAMAN
Administrative Assistant
LINDA A. SMITH
?Director of Personnel Services
,, - 8 1993
i' l
Re: US 4211NC 442-87 (Horner Boulevard) from NC 42-78 (Main Street)
to SR 1107 (Fields Drive), Lee County; Federal Aid No. STP-OOOS(60; .
State Project No. 8.1540501; TIP No. U-2921)
Dear Mr. Weaver:
I am in receipt of your letter of May 28, 1993 concerning the above project. I
am in total support of this project.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
l a. r ?'r
Donn L. Hunter
Superintendent

DLH/pe
r

A-16

r
v ??I 0!
?. P.O. Box 338
Sanford, NC 27330 eag of 042tnvrb [phone]
REX MCLEOD
Mayor
June 1, 1993
Mr. Michael Paylor
Project Planning Engineer
Department of Transportation
P. O. Box 25201.
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Paylor:
RE: US 421/NC 42=87 (Horner Boulevard) from NC 42-78 (Main Street)
To SR 1107 (Fields Drive), Lee County, Federal Aid No. STP-
OOOS (60); State Project No. 8.1540501; TIP No. U-2921
I am in response to your letter of May 18, 1993, concerning
the above referenced project. The City of Sanford is not aware of
any environmental concerns that would impact this project. Also,
we do not know of any permits or approvals that would be required.
If you need any further information, please let me know.
RMc:bw
f
e
A-17
RELCIGAT ION REPOR-i-
x- E.I.S. _ CORRIDOR _ DESIGN
PROJECT: 8.1540501 COUNTY: Lee
I.D. NO.: 0-2921 F.A. PROJECT: STP-00OS(60) 5 LANE ALIGNMENT
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT! Horner Blvd., Sanford (from Main St. to Fields St.)
I~ ESTIMATED DISPLACEES
Iirnlacee Owners Tenants Total ifee
tnrltvir?tnls -
rnmilies 0 0 0 0
nur, inesses 1 2 3 1
t'arm.q
tInn. -Prnf it
y ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS
YES 71 NO EXPLAIN ALL 'YES` ANSWERS
1. Will special relncation
X. services be necessary
^_. Will schools or churches be
- X. affected by displacement
.3. Will business services still
X. he available after pro ect
4. 41111 any business be d?s-
x placed. If so, indicate size
type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
x 5. 41111 relocation cause a
-- - housing shortage
6. Source for available hour-
A-- i tnc_1 ( l l at )
x 7. Will additional housing
- - programs be needed
x R. Should Last Resort Housing
- -- be corns i dar ed
x 9. Are there large, disabled,
_.L elderly, ctr. fami 1 ies
t0. Wi11 public-, hauling be
- x
- needed tfnr 'orn.in?:t
N It. Is public huu^ing avall-
-• - - able
12. In it. felt there will be nd--
NA equate 1)DS housing available
- tiering relocation perind
13. Will there be a problem of
NA Imusitig within fitrancial
- means
14. Are riuitable business sites
x- -- available (list source)
1.15. Number months estimated to
complete REL-OCAfION A
A.M. Simpson V?rYL?1.
Rn I oca t 1 on Agent
rr m 15.4 Rnv i serl 5/90
INCOME LEVEL _
0-15M 15-25N .25-35N 35-50M 50 UP
VALUE OF
Owners
0-20M
20-4011
40-70M
70-100
100 Up
rO IAL .
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASS I STANI;E
Alternate - of Alternate
DWELLING
Tenants
S 0-150 .
150-250
250-400
400-600
600 Im
_bSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
For Sale For Rent
0-20M 0-150
20-40H 150-250
40-70M 250-400
70--100 400-600
100 lit)
60C) UP
REMARKS (Respond by Number)
3. Little change to business community.
4. (A) Custom Car Center - a large auto repair and tire
sales business would lose some parking and easy
access to front bays, but would probably choose
not to relocate.
(B) Cooper Oil Company - One large above-ground tank
and two storage sheds are in the proposed R/W,
but again this business would probably remain.
j- (C) Centu`ra Bank - This branch office would have to
relocate unless a line could be moved off the
corner of the building. Perhaps 10 employees.
14. Commercial brokers say there are many sites available.
NOTE: These businesses will be affected by the
proposed project, and are counted above for
this report, though it is entirely possible that
all three might remain in business at their
current locations. Several other businesses
will also be affected by loss of frontage and
parking spaces, but it does not appear that any
would have to move because of this.
10-19-94
• Date Apprnvrrl Unt??
A-18PT idinal n I C:npy: St.al:e Reloc it inn Aannl.
2 Copy' Area Rnlncatinn t-lir.-
F
t

x '
APPENDIX
1?wl
GEOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STUDY

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
IAmFs B. HUNT. JR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GovnNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.G 27611-5201
June 21, 1993
I
JUN 2 21993
22 DIVISION OF
HIGHWAYS
STATE PROJECT: 8.1540501 (U-2921)
COUNTY: Lee
DESCRIPTION: US 421/NC 42-87 (Horner Boulevard) from NC 42-78
(Main Street) to SR 1107 (Fields Drive)
SUBJECT: Geological Environmental Impact Study
INTRODUCTION
The intention of the proposed project is to widen the
existing four-lane undivided road (US 421/NC 42-87; S. Horner
Boulevard) to a five-lane section between NC 42-78 (Main
Street) and SR 1107 (Fields Drive).
PHYSIOGRAPHY. R . .T .F. AN DRAINAGE
The project area lies within the Piedmont Province, which
is generally defined by its rolling hills and ridges and its
network of rivers and streams. This area rests relatively
close to the fall line between the''liedmont Pr.pvince and the
Inner Coastal Plain and is, thus, flattening out more than the
areas of the Piedmont that are located closer to the
Appal chians. The relief of the project area is only about
eighty feet and covers a landscape with gentle hills. The
elevation at the north end of the project (Fields Drive) is
about 360 feet, rising to about 440 feet by the southern end of
the project (Main Street). The project runs over a small part
of Little Buffalo Creek, which serves to drain some of the
area, as well as going over a very small tributary of an
unnamed tributary, which also serves as drainage for the
corridor.
G
The proposed project falls in the Piedmont Plateau
Province, specifically resting in the Sanford Basin Portion of
the Newark Triassic-Basin. The area is characterized by
fanglomerate, sandstones, red and brown claystones, mudstones,
and conglomerates, which make up the Sanford Formation, the
uppermost formation in the Chatham Group. The soils of this
B-1
Tpzj
i.
I
4
? k
t
U-2921
June 21, 1993
Page Two
area are generally classified in the Mayodan-Pinkston group,
characterized by gently sloping to steeply sloping (0-15%),
well-drained soils with a loamy surface layer and a clayey and
loamy subsoil. These are characteristically located in
uplands. The AASHTO classification of these soils ranges from
A-2 through A-4 and including also A-6.
HAZARDOUS MAT RTAr S/UNDERGROUN STORAGE TANK
A reconnaissance survey of the project corridor identified
ten sites which contain or have the potential for underground
storage tanks (USTs). In a subsequent records search of*the
DEM/Groundwater Section, the following information was
obtained: '
Site #1
Service Distributing Company, on the west side of the
proposed extension, is located at the intersection of Globe
Street and South Horner Boulevard. There are five active USTs
located on the site, all of which are registered (#0-032318).
with the DEM/Groundwater Section. The installation date of all
five tanks was 04/18/91. Four of the tanks hold 12,000
gallons, the other remaining tank holds only 10,000 gallons.
The closest pump is located approximately 58 feet from the
centerline of S. Horner, whereas the tanks themselves are
located approximately 135 feet from the centerline.
7r s
Site #2-
Lee Iron and Metal Company, Inc. is located a considerable
distan a from the proposed project, but this company should be
mentiohed for thoroughness. They have one 10, 000 gallon UST
which was installed on 02/27/76. The location of this tank is
unknown but thought to be as far back from the road as is the
facility to which it belongs. The UST is listed in
DEM/Groundwater records under #0-014582. This company is also
listed in Hazardous Waste records as being a small generator.
There have been no reports of spills or of any other type of
contamination.
Site #3-
Tru-Buy Exxon is also located on the west side of S.
Horner Boulevard, about .15 miles south of the intersection
between Bragg Street (SR 1514) and S. Horner Blvd. There are
four active USTs on this site, which are registered (#0-005160)
with the DEM/Groundwater Section. Two 10,000 gallon tanks were
installed on 04/14/71; the remaining two 4,000 gallon tanks
were installed on 04/14/70, according to the records. The
B-2
T
i
i
f
• U-2921
June-21, 1993
Page Three
closest pump is located about 48 feet from the centerline,
while two of the UST's are located about 62 feet from the
centerline of Horner Boulevard. The other pumps and USTs are
considerably farther back than these and are not anticipated to
fall within the proposed right-of-way.
Site #4-
C. Mini Mart #8 sits on the west side of Horner Boulevard,
approximately 0.2 miles south of the S. Third Street (SR 1515)
intersection with S. Horner Blvd. At this location, there are
three active USTs, registered with the DEM/Groundwater Section
under #0-031551. All three tanks hold 10,000 gallons and were
installed on 11/24/89. The pumps were located about 63 feet
from the centerline of Horner Boulevard and the UST's were
about 126 feet from the centerline. No impact to this site is
anticipated.
Site #5-
Country Cubbard #11 is on the east side of the project
area and has three USTs that are listed with the
DEM/Groundwater Section records, under #0-002686. All three
tanks were installed on 11/08/80. Two of them hold 6,000
gallons, the remaining one holds 8,000 gallons. The pumps are
forty feet from the.centerline and the USTs are about sixty
feet from the centerline. We saw evidence on the site for
about six USTs, but the records only list three and list no
removals. This would be a good area to avoid, if possible,
considering also its close 'proximity to the road. The area
across the street is wooded, has no buildings or construction
at all, and is located right next to the Lee County Courthouse.
Therefppre, it would be a good-place to locate the road
extension.
Site #6-
Lee County Courthouse is listed in the DEM/Groundwater
Section records, under #0-013870, as having one 500 gallon UST,
which was permanently removed on 01/01/71. This building is
located across the street from both Sites #5 and #7. The
previous location of the UST is unknown.
1
Site #7- '
There is an unidentified parcel of Above-ground Storage
Tanks (ASTs) approximately 120 feet from the centerline on the
east side of S. Horner Blvd, about .10 mile from site # 5.
These large ASTs, as well as a truck filling area, are located
both behind and beside a small church and a carpet store.
These tanks do not seem to be a problem.
B-3
i?
U-2921
June 21, 1993
Page 4
Site # 8-
There is a large section of ASTs on the east side of the
proposed project, which is owned by several companies,
including York Heating and Air Conditioning, Cooper Oil Co.,
Inc., Westinghouse Heating and Air Conditioning, Williamson
Heating and Cooling, BP, and J. Ray Hunter. Within this large
section are at least fourteen ASTs and one truck filling
station for gas-carrying trucks. This whole area is surrounded
by barbed wire and cyclone fencing. It lies immediately
adjacent to the existing roadway, leaving very little room for
construction.
Site #9-
The DEM/Groundwater Section files show that Macs Business
Machines, located on the east side of Horner boulevard, about
.15 miles from the end of the project corridor. This site has
one 550, gallon UST temporarily installed on 05/01/71, listed
under #0=014459. The building itself is located fairly close
to the road, approximately 55 feet from the centerline.
However, the location of the UST is unknown but is thought to
be relatively close to the proposed project as well.
Site #10-
The Pantry #366 is located on the west side of the
proposed project at the intersection of Woodland Avenue and S.
Horner Blvd. At this site are located three active USTs, all
of which are registered under #0-01063 with the
DEM/Groundwater Section. The three USTs are 12.000 gallon
tanks which were installed on 08/17/84. They are located
approximately 48 feet from the centerline of the proposed
extension. The pump location 7s approximately 85 feet from the
center of Horner Boulevard.
The files at the DEM/Groundwater Section indicated that
both Lee Iron and Metal.Co., Inc. and Holt Truck and.Tractor
Co. are small generators of hazardous wastes. There have been
no listings of any sort of contamination or spillage problems
associated with any of these sites on this report. As stated
earlier, Lee Iron and Metal Co., Inc. is located far from the
project in question. Holt Truck and Tractor Co.jis located on
the west side of the street, across from Macs Business
Machines. Although the main building for Holt Truck and
Tractor Co. is fairly close to the proposed project, any sort
of problematic activity involving the generation of hazardous
wastes is probably located farther back from the road, although
the exact location of the wastes is not known.
B-4
U-2921
June 21, 1993
Page 5
A Solid Wastes files search was also completed but
revealed nothing relevant to this particular project.
The Geotechnical Unit recommends that all effort be made
to avoid impact to both the UST sites and the AST sites
mentioned above. Although we did not find any information
which indicates any leaking from the tanks, it has been shown
in past experience that eighty percent of tanks assessed by
NCDOT or its contractors have some degree of leakage.
Respectfully Submitted,
X ;4L
Lisl Hampton
Geotechnical Assistant
Geotechnical Unit

11

3
B-5

I
APPENDIX
C

DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
RELOCATION PROGRAMS
3
? s
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS RELOCATION PROGRAMS
It is the policy of the'NCDOT to ensure that comparable
replacement housing will be available prior to construction
of state and federally-assisted projects. Furthermore, the
North Carolina Board of Transportation has the following
three programs to minimize the inconvenience of relocation:
* Relocation Assistance,
* Relocation Moving Payments, and
* Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent
Supplement.

With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT
staff will be available to assist displacees with information
such as availability and prices of homes, apartments, or
businesses for sale or rent and financing or other housing
programs. The Relocation Moving Payments Program, in
general, provides for payment of actual moving expenses
encountered in relocation. Where displacement will force an
owner or tenant to purchase or rent property of higher cost,
or to lose a favorable financing arrangement. (in cases of.
ownership),-the-Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or
the Rent Supplement Program will compensate up to $22,500 to
owners who are eligible and qualify, and up to $5,250 to
tenants who are eligible and qualify.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be
conducted in accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970
(Public Law 91-646), and the North Carolina Relocation
Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-18). The program is
designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in
relocating to a replacement site in which to live or do
business. At least one relocation officer is assigned to
each highway project for this purpose.
The relocation officer will determine the nee'Cls of displace
families, individuals, businesses, non-profit organizations,
and farm operations for relocation assistance advisory
servibes without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or
national origin. The NCDOT will schedule its work to allow
ample time, prior to displacement, for negotiations and
possession or replacement housing which meets decent, safe,
and sanitary standards. The displacees are given at least a
90-day written notice after the NCDOT purchases the property.
Relocation of displaced persons will be offered in areas not
generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and
commercial facilities. Rent-and sale prices of replacement
property will be within the financial means of the families
and individuals displaced and will be reasonably accessible
to their places of employment. The relocation officer will
also assist owners of displaced businesses, non-profit
organizations, and farm operations in searching for and
moving to replacement property.

C-1
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be
displaced will receive an explanation regarding all available
options, such as (1) purchase of replacement housing, (2) 9'
rental of replacement housing, either public or private, or
(3) moving existing owner-occupant housing to another site
(if possible). The relocation officer will also supply
information concerning other state or federal programs
offering assistance to displaced persons and will provide
other advisory services as needed in order to minimize
hardships to displaced persons in adjusting to a new
location.
The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate
the displacee for the costs of moving personal property from
homes, businesses, non-profit organizations and farm
operations acquired for a highway project. Under the
Replacement Program for Owners, the NCDOT will participate in
reasonable incidental purchase payments for replacement
dwellings such as attorney's fees, surveys, appraisals and
other closing costs and, if applicable, make a payment for
any increased interest expenses for replacement dwellings.
Reimbursement to owner-occupants for replacement housing
payments, increased payments, and incidental expenses may not
exceed $22,500 (combined total), except under the Last Resort
Housing provision.
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not
to exceed $5,250, to rent a replacement dwelling or to make a
down payment, including incidental expenses, on the purchase
of a replacement dwelling. The down payment is based upon
what the state determines is required when the rent
supplement exceeds $5,250.
It is the policy of the state that no person will be
displaced by the NCDOT's state or federally-assisted
construction projects unless and until comparable replacement
housing has been offered oir provideld for each displacee
within a reasonable period of time prior to displacement. No
relocation payment received will be considered as income for
the purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or for the
purposes of determining eligibility of any person for
assistance under the Social Security Act or any other federal
law.
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable
replacement housing is not available, or when it is
unavailable within the displacee's financial means, and the
replacement payment exceeds the federal/state legal
limitation. The purpose of the program is to allow broad
latitudes in methods of implementation by the state so that
decent, safe, and sanitary replacement housing can be
provided. Adequate replacement housing will be available for
all relocatees. Last Resort housing will be considered if
the financial situation of tenants or owners warrant such
action.
C-2

j
NORTH CAROLINA
1VMENT OF T)?ANSPORTATIO
)AMEs B. HUNT, IR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
5G
??E I V
MAY 2 0 1993
Q`?
22 DIVISION OF
?HIGH EC RLE
FNViRON?1C
May 18, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager LfJ
Planning and Environmental h
SUBJECT: US 421/NC 42-87 (Horner Boulevard) From NC 42-78 (Main
Street) to SR 1107 (Fields Drive), Lee County, Federal
Aid No. STP-OOOS(60); State Project No. 8.1540501; TIP
No. U-2921
The Planning and Environmental Branch of the Division of Highways has
begun studying the proposed improvements to the highway segment described
above. The project is included in the 1993-1999 North Carolina Trans-
portation Improvement Program and is scheduled for right of way in fiscal
year 1996 and construction in fiscal year 1997.
The Transportation Improvement Program calls for widening the existing
four-lane undivided section to a five-lane section.
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 document evaluating
environmental impacts of the project. It is desirable that your agency respond
by July 1, 1993 so that your comments can be used in the preparation of this
document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Michael
Paylor, Project Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone].
%Q
LJW/plr 'A
Attachment :?? G

I,'%

N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
4-07-,?-5
TO:
e, REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
,
A
1 l
_ r
E
14 ^ bE# `l !-
FROM: - REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
PAM
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS Q-FOR YOUR INFORMATION"
? PLEASE ANSWER Q FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
I
t
Cuvn Mme`
JAMES B. HUNT, JP,
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
April 26, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
Michael L. Paylor, Project Engineer
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: US 421/NC 42-87 (Horner Boulevard) from
NC 42-78 (Main Street) to SR 1107
(Fields Drive), Lee County, Federal Aid
Project No. STP-OOOS(60), State Project
No. 8.1540501, T.I.P. No. U-2921
SAM HUNT
SECRETARY
p [C?f0T
I??w
APR 2 8 1993
WETLANDS GROUP
WATER QUALITY SECTION
A scoping meeting was held on April 8, 1993 in the Planning and
Environmental Conference Room. The purpose of the meeting was to determine
the scope of the project, and to determine recommendations concerning the
project. The following people were in attendance at the meeting:
Peter Slipp
Jenifer Phillips
Paul Atlas
Roland W. Robinson, Jr.
Kathy Lassiter
Betty Yancey
Paul Worley
0. M. Clark
Jerry Snead
Jack Matthews
David Yow
David Foster
Eric Galamb
John P. Taylor
Danny Rogers
Joe Foutz
Michael L. Paylor
Statewide Planning
Traffic Control
Traffic (Signals)
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Right-of-Way
Railroads
Division (8) Engineer
Hydraulics
Photogrammetry
NCWRC Habitat Conservation
DEHNR
DEM-WQ
Roadway Design
Program Development
Planning and Environmental
Planning and Environmental
After opening the meeting with a brief description of the proposed
project, including the current TIP schedule and funds available, the
following major points were discussed:

April 26, 1993
Page 2
1. SHPO stated that no archaeological survey would be required
because the project area has been disturbed through heavy
commercial development. The Lee County Courthouse is listed
on the National Register of Historic Places. The Sanford
Milling Company is on the SHPO State Study List awaiting
eligibility determination for the National Register of
Historic Places. Transitioning from side to side was
recommended for avoidance of such properties.
2. There is no wildlife habitat located on the project.
3. Traffic Engineering (Signals) stated that the cost for the
closed loop traffic system is approximately $225,000.
4. There are two railroad crossings along the study route
(Atlantic - Western Railroad). The cost of resignalizing the
crossings will be extensive, therefore, coordination with the
railroad will need to take place.
5. The project is located in a water supply watershed, and it is
recommended that a high hazard spill catch basin will be
necessary.
6. Storm water and bridge deck runoff needs to be dispersed (no
point source discharge).
7. There are no recorded National Heritage Sites in the project
area.
8. Utilities are very close to US 421/NC 42-87 on both sides.
9. During construction, existing sidewalks will be replaced. If
the City of Sanford would like sidewalks to be added, then the
City will need to share the additional costs.
MLP/sdt

s
?<R SEW 4A
p4? mvh p
V ? L g
?h qux ??
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, IR
GOVERNOR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
March 3, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
SAM HUNT
SECRETARY
vcw o ?ec3
WATWETLANDS IY SECTION
L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
g'I
Review of Scop' g Sheet for proposed improvements to
US 421/NC 42- (Horner Boulevard) from NC 42-78 (Main
Street) to SR 1107 (Fields Drive), Lee County, Federal
Aid Project No. STP-OOOS(60); State Project No.
8.1540501; TIP No. U-2921
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting
of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed, thereby
enabling us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for April 8, 1993 at 9:30 A. M. in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 470). You may provide us with
your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process.
If there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please
call Michael L. Paylor, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
MLP/pl r LK -?A(o a.
c
Attachment
kr?k- iak -
/,",

PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Date March 1,1993
Revision Date
Project Development Stage
Programming
Planning X
Design
TIP # U-2921
Project # 8.1540501
F.A. Project # STP-OOOS(60)
Division Eight
County Lee
Route US 421/NC 42-87
Functional Classification Other Urban Principal Arterial
Length 1.8 miles
Purpose of Project: INCREASE CAPACITY AND SAFETY OF EXISTING
US 421 AND TO IMPROVE LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR CURRENT AND DESIGN
YEAR TRAFFIC
Description of project (including speci is limits) and major
elements of work: WIDEN US 421/NC 42- TO A FIVE-LANE CURB AND
GUTTER SECTION (1.8 MILES) FROM NC 42-978(MAIN STREET) TO
SR 1107 (FIELDS STREET), AND INSTALL A CLOSED LOOP TRAFFIC
SYSTEM.
Type of environmental document to be prepared: EA AND FONSI
Environmental study schedule: EA JAN 94
FONSI JUL 94
q7
Will there be special funding participation by municipality,
developers, or other? Yes No X
If yes, by whom and amount: ($) or W
How and when will this be paid?

Page 2
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Features of Proposed Facility
Type of Facility: MULTI-LANE
Type of Access Control: Full Partial None X
Type of Roadway:
Interchanges 0 Grade Separations 0 Stream Crossings 1
Typical Section of Roadway:
5-LANE CURB AND GUTTER
Traffic: Current 10,350 vpd Design Year 18,630 vpd#
Design Standards Applicable: AASHTO 36 000 15
Design Speed: 50 MPH ???CcG IrDO??V Q?rds
F
Preliminary Resurfacing Design: 3324vca3`Oi.?'0%G
Preliminary Pavement Design:
Current Cost Estimate:
Construction Cost (including engineering
and contingencies). . . . . . . . . . . $
Right of Way Cost (including rel., util.,
and acquisition). . . . . . . . . . . . $
Force Account Items. . . . . . . . . . . . $
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . . . . . $
Total Cost
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
TIP Cost Estimate:
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,150,000
Right of Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 250 , 000
Total Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,400,000
List any special features, such as railroad involvement, which
could affect cost or schedule of project:
* ESTIMATE MADE BY PROJECT PLANNING ENGINEER
Page 3
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
ITEMS REQUIRED ( }
COMMENTS
COST
Estimated Costs of Improvements:
Pavement
Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Milling & Recycling . . . . . . . . . .
Turnouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Shoulders: Paved. . . . . . . . . . . .
Earth. . . . . . . . . . . .
Earthwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Subsurface Items: . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Subgrade and Stabilization. . . . . . . . .
Drainage (List any special items) . . . . .
Sub-Drainage. . . . . . . . .
Structures: Width x Length
Bridge Rehabilitation X
New Bridge X
- Widen Bridge x _
- Remove Bridge X
New Culverts: Size Length _
Fill Ht. _
_ Culvert Extension
Retaining Walls: Type Ave. Ht. _
Skew
_ Noise Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Any Other Misc. Structures. . . . . .
Concrete Curb & Gutter. . . . . . . . . .
Concrete Sidewalk . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Guardrail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Fencing: W.W. and/or C.L.
Erosion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Traffic Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Signing: New . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Upgrading . . . . . . . . . . .
Traffic Signals: New . . . . . . . . .
Revised . . . . . . .
RR Signals: New . . . . . . . . . . . .
Revised . . . . . . . .
With or Without Arms. . . .
If 3R: Drainage Safety Enhancement. . .
Roadside Safety Enhancement. . .
Realignment for Safety Upgrade
Pavement Markings: Paint Thermo
Markers
Delineators . .
Other . .

CONTRACT COST (Subtotal):
Page 4
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Contingencies & Engineering .
PE Costs. . . . . . . . . .
Force Account . . . . . . . .
$
$
$
Subtotal: $
Right of Way:
Will Contain within Exist Right of Way: Yes
Existing Right of Way Width: 60'-120'
New Right of Way Needed: Width 100' Est. Cost $
Easements: Type Width Est. Cost $
Utilities: $
No X
Right of Way Subtotal: $
Total Estimated Cost (Includes R/W): $
Prepared By: MICHAEL L. PAYLOR Date: 3-2-93
The above scoping has been reviewed and approved* by:
Highway Design
Roadway
Structure
Design Services
Geotechnical
Hydraulics
Loc. & Surveys
Photogrammetry
Prel. Est. Engr.
Planning & Environ.
Right of Way
R/W Utilities
Traffic Engineering
Project Management
County Manager
City/Municipality
Others
INIT. DATE INIT. DATE
Board of Tran. Member
Mgr. Program & Policy
Chief Engineer-Precons
Chief Engineer-Oper
Secondary Roads Off.
Construction Branch
Roadside Environmental
Maintenance Branch
Bridge Maintenance
Statewide Planning
Division Engineer
Bicycle Coordinator
Program Development
FHWA
Dept. of Cult. Res.
Dept. of EH & NR
Scope Sheet for local officials will be sent to Division
Engineer for handling.
Comments or Remarks:
*If you are not in agreement with proposed project or scoping,
note your proposed revisions in Comments or Remarks Section and
initial and date after comments.
.............................. o
Bnc ave
Northview 42 -t
4z 421 anford; J<
\ Tramway r?Br
\L E 876
L on 6
•'?•. sp gs
LEE COUNTY -•i 61
•yneron

n
g! I'' 7 ii
G< p
LITY S!-'";-j in;,y
June 17, 1993
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
FROM: Monica Swihart, Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #93-0937; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Proposed Improvements to US 421/NC 42-87 (Horner Blvd.)
From NC 42-78 (Main Street) To SR 1107 (Fields Drive)
TIP #U-2921
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The
stream classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated, it
is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be
revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to
be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.

r Melba McGee
June 17, 1993
Page 2
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from
DEM.
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. Please provide a detailed discussion for mass-transit as an
option.
K. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
L. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same watershed
is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be
required for this project. Applications requesting coverage under
our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will require
written concurrence. Please be aware that 401 Certification may be
denied if wetland impacts have not been avoided and minimized to
the maximum extent practicable.
9432er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb

5c/

April 25, 2003
Subject: Draft Minutes Interagency Permit Drawing Review Meeting on April 24,
2003, for U2921, Cumberland County.
Team Members:
Dave Timpy - USACE (Present)
John Hennessy - NCDWQ (Present)
Travis Wilson - NCWRC (Present)
Gary Jordan - USFWS (Absent)
Christopher Militscher - USEPA-Raleigh (Absent)
Heather Montague - NCDOT PDEA (Present)
Jimmy Goodnight - NCDOT Roadway Design (Absent)*
Participants:
David Chang - NCDOT Hydraulics
Elizabeth Lusk - NCDOT PDEA
Marshall Clawson - NCDOT Hydraulics
Anne Gamber - NCDOT Hydraulics
*The time of the meeting had been changed and Jimmy Good night was not informed of the
informed of the new meeting time.
The meeting began with a discussion of the history of the project. Each site was reviewed. The
only comment pertained to Site 1. There seemed to be an existing dry detention basin in this area.
John Hennessy questioned whether it would be used in conjunction with the drainage design. Since
this was a permit review, the design engineer was not in attendance. Marshall Clawson agreed to
verify this with the design engineer.
Draft Minutes for Permit Drawing Review
(interagency 4C Review)
U-3101 C&D
State Project 8.1403101
US 1/64 From US64/SR1009 (Tryon Rd.) to South of the I-40 Interchange
A Permit Review Meeting was held on Thursday, April 24, 2003 in the Location and
Surveys conference room at the NCDOT Century Center Complex, Raleigh.
Team members: Eric Alsmeyer-USACE (Present)
John Hennessy-NCDWQ (Present)
Travis Wilson-NCWRC (Present)
Gary Jordan-USFWS (Absent)
Chris Militscher-EPA (Absent)
Matt Haney-PDEA (Absent)
Jimmy Goodnight-NCDOT Roadway Design (Present)
Andrew Nottingham-NCDOT Hydraulics Unit (Present-Facilitator)
Participants: David Chang-NCDOT Hydraulics
Dean Noland-NCDOT Roadway Design
Betsy Cox-NCDOT Structures Unit
David Harris-NCDOT Roadside Environmental Unit
Stephen Morgan-NCDOT Hydraulics
The meeting began with Mr. Nottingham describing the project and presenting a project
overview. He then described the permit packet team members would be referencing
noting the stream and wetland impacts were shown followed by buffer impacts. The
permit drawings were then reviewed site by site. The discussion and comments for each
site are as follows:
Site 1a Buffer Drawings)
NCDOT advised that an alternative design has been explored whereas the outlet left of
station 13+70 -L- may be moved further from the stream. An existing ditch could be
used as the outlet, eliminating any impact to the buffer. DWQ requested that discharge
analysis and swale length be shown on the buffer drawings.
Page 1 of 3
U-3101c&D Permit Drawing Review Draft Minutes
4/25/03
Site 1
The USACE representative noted the absence of wetland delineation on the plans.
NCDOT will assure this file is attached to the final plans. The USACE and DWQ
representatives noted the stream relocation would be an improvement over the existing
stream. NCDOT will proceed with natural stream design. DWQ requested a
morphological table as well as sediment transport analysis (including pebble count) for
the stream relocation. It was noted that it would cost approximately $250,000 to. move
the sewer pump station located left of station 17+70 -L-. NCDOT will realign the stream
to avoid the pump station. A portion of the stream will have to be piped or armored with
rip rap immediately adjacent to the pump station. There were no further comments.
Site 2
USACE noted the impacts to the stream should include the length to where the relocated
channel ties back into the existing channel. NCWRC noted in general, all culverts should
be buried and no stream should be excavated or widened. USACE requested the issue of
any perched culverts be addressed. After some discussion by the team members, it was
agreed that where any culverts were perched upstream, the stream bed would be armored
with appropriate-sized rip rap. DWQ requested that details of the flow splitter boxes
used in the level spreader designs be included in the buffer drawings.
Site 3
No comment
Site 4
USACE advised stream impacts upstream should include the length to where the
relocated channel ties back into the existing channel. DWQ requested a statement be
included in the buffer drawings justifying the grass swale through the buffer instead of a
level spreader (station 38+00 to 39+20 Lt.).
Site 5
No comment from team members. NCDOT Roadside Environmental expressed concerns
over stability below level spreaders in general, noting reconcentration of flow below the
devices was a particular concern. The team members agreed this is a concern, and would
cooperatively strive to find a solution.
Page 2 of 3
U-3101c&D Permit Drawing Review Draft Minutes
4/25/03
Site 6 (and Site 6 Buffer Drawings)
DWQ requested grass swale information for the 600 cross pipe at station 50+80-L-.
DWQ requested the noise wall (station 50 +80 Lt. and 50 +40 Rt.) be integrated into the
roadway by moving the wall closer to the road to eliminate a variance. NCDOT will
investigate. DWQ and USACE suggested the stream (station 50+80 -L-) could be
"marginal and not jurisdictional" and may have been confused with the stream at station
52+34 -L-. A determination could not be made as to which stream was shown on the
soils map. Team members agreed a site visit would be appropriate for verification.
NCDOT will schedule a site visit for verification.
Site 7
NCWRC requested alignment of thel050mm pipe extension be altered if possible to
eliminate any upstream impacts. DWQ requested grass swale criteria (station 11+60 to
12+60 RPBWS Lt.). NCDOT Hydraulics noted the criteria were shown on the Buffer
permit drawings except for length.
Site 8
DWQ requested a preformed scour hole at the end of the grass swale (station 11+00
LPBWS Rt.) in the loop.
Other Comments
NCDOT noted that three wetland sites and one intermittent stream noted in the
Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project were not shown and they would
coordinate to verify the sites. The sites were located in the vicinity of the new ramp and
loop for the Walnut Street interchange. The sites were referred to as wetland sites 2, 3
and 4 and stream site 10 in the EA.
These minutes are the interpretation of the author, please respond with any omissions or
discrepancies by Thursday, May 8, 2003, after which time this document will be recorded
as the official meeting minutes.
Prepared By: Stephen Morgan
April 25, 2003
Page 3 of 3
B-682
Subject: B-682
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 10:53:08 -0500
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Cathy and John,
Attached note to file is my interpretation of how that meeting ended up. Below is the pertinent text of my note:
"Mr. Max Price opened the meeting with a discussion of the stormwater options being considered by
NCDOT. Two potential stormwater options for drainage to the east include the concrete pad area located
on the southeast side of the existing causeway to the beach and a site located on the island. A third option
discussed pertained to drainage west of the ICW and is located north of SR 1172. Mr. Price thoroughly
discussed each option with a wide range of estimates for wetland impacts. Mr. Price also discussed the
detours and workbridges that will be proposed for the project.
Based on the information provided the resource agencies suggested the need for another meeting that
would provide clarification of the project impacts and design considerations. Specifically, the agencies
have requested information on the wetland impacts, detour design, workbridge design, stormwater details
for each option being considered, and construction methods. The USEPA and Corps requested that this
information be compared to the EA/FONSI for the project. The DCM requested that this information be
provided at least two weeks in advance.
The NCDOT concurred and will consider holding this meeting on May 22, 2003. The NCDOT indicated
this early date is optimistic and may need to be changed."
Did I miss something?
dave
1 of 1 5/8/03 6:42 PM
CESAW-RG-L
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
April 28, 2003
Subject: Action ID: 199503519, TIP Project R-2514A, US 17 Widening from
Jacksonville to Belgrade, New Hanover County, North Carolina.
A meeting was held on April 24, 2003 to discuss the hydraulic design and permit
drawings for the subject project. Attendees included:
Jay Twisdale, NCDOT
Travis Wilson, NCWRC
John Hennessy, NCDWQ
Cathy Brittingham, CAMA
Linda Lewis, NC Stormwater
Dr. David Chang, NCDOT Hydraulics
Elizabeth Lusk, NCDOT PDEA
Rachele Beauregard, NCDOT PDEA
Chris Militcher, EPA.
The purpose, of the meeting was to discuss the hydraulic design and permit drawings
submitted to the resources prior the meeting. Meeting discussion items are summarized
as follows:
1. Project Segmentation. The USEPA expressed concern that this project has been
segmented into two projects R-2514A and R-2514B. The corps agreed with the
segmentation issue, in general, but advised the USEPA that the FHWA has
decided that logical termini exists at the Belgrade point. The corps also re-
iterated that the EA and FONSI for this project is complete and that re-visiting the
segmentation issue on this project will not be done at this time. The NCDOT
subsequently confirmed that FHWA made the logical termini determination on
this project.
2. Avoidance and Minimization. The proposed widening of US 17 requires all
widening to be located east of the existing US 17. The Corps expressed concern
that the NCDOT had not taken the appropriate avoidance measures associated
with this alignment. The Corps also stated that use of the existing soil road west
of US 17 should be considered for part of this widening. The NCDOT stated that
the proposed alignment has not changed since completion of the draft EA and the
resource agencies have concurred with this alignment. After a discussion, it was
learned that this concurrence was obtained at a previous meeting on TIP Project
No. R-2514B. The NCDOT provided a copy of a signed concurrence form dated
December 9, 1999 of which the USEPA and NCDOT had signed the form. In
addition, the NCDOT produced a copy of meeting minutes for a meeting on R-
2514B that indicated approval of the proposed alignment. Based on this
information, the Corps stated that the NCDOT has satisfied its requirement for
avoidance and minimization associated with proposed alignment. Thus, the
project team approved the proposed widening of US 17 where all the widening is
located east of US 17.
3. Ditching Wetland Impacts. The NCDWQ stated that all impacts due to
constructed drainage on adjacent wetlands must be considered in the total
estimate of wetland impacts. The corps and epa concurred with this request. The
NCDOT stated these impacts have been included but will double check all
potential impact areas to ensure all impacts from ditching are addressed.
4. Bottoms of Culverts (referred to as "culverts"). The NCDWQ stated that all
culverts must be buried to allow for passage of aquatic life. The NCDOT stated
that all culvert will be buried. The corps agreed and added that this information
should be clear from the drawings. The DWQ also stated that outlets should only
discharge non-erosive velocities.
5. Mitigation.. The Corps stated that onsite mitigation must be strongly considered
prior to searching for offsite mitigation. The corps also stated that this request has
been made several times prior to this meeting and has, on more than one occasion,
specifically asked the NCDOT to evaluate the existing abandoned railroad located
east of US 17. After review of the permit drawings and half-size drawings, the
NCDOT agreed that onsite mitigation potential exists and that it would further
evaluate this. The DCM recommended that NCDOT submit its mitigation
proposal asap.
6. Goldenrod. The DCM re-stated an earlier DCM comment made during
preparation of the environmental document that the NCDOT must take all
measures necessary to avoid and minimize impacts to Goldenrod. The NCDOT
concurred with this request.
7. Alignment STA 107+50 to 109+00. The DWQ requested the NCDOT to evaluate
the alignment in this segment to avoid impacts to the adjacent wetlands. The
NCDOT concurred.
8. Wetland Site 14. The DWQ questioned the need for the proposed excavation and
whether or not these impacts were included. After a discussion, it was agreed that
the proposed impact cannot be avoided or further minimized.
Dave Timpy
Regulatory Project Manager