20190593_Scoping Comments_20070323

? o?OF W A T?9OG
co Y
>
5
March 23, 2007
MEMORANDUM
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
To: Melba McGee, DENR Office of Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
From: Rob Ridings, NC DWQ Transportation Permitting Unit??
Subject: Scoping comments on proposed improvements to I-40 Interchange with NC 42 in Johnston
County, Federal Aid Project No. IMF-40-4(122)313, State Project No. 36595.1.1,
TIP No. 1-4739, DENR Clearinghouse # 07-0304.
Reference your correspondence dated received March 22, 2007 in which you requested comments for the
referenced project. Preliminary analysis of the project reveals the potential for impacts to streams and
wetlands in the project area. More specifically, possible impacts to:
Stream Name River Basin &
Subbasin Stream Classifications Stream Index
Number
UTs of Swift Creek NEU 02 C, NSW 27-43-(8)
Mill Branch NEU 03 C, NSW 27-43-15-12
UT Buffalo Creek NEU 03 C, NSW 27-43-15-11
Further investigations at a higher resolution should be undertaken to verify the presence of other streams
and/or jurisdictional wetlands in the area. In the event that any jurisdictional areas are identified, the
Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT (or the consultant(s) that requested the comments)
consider the following environmental issues for the proposed project:
Project Specific Comments:
1. Swift Creek, Mill Branch, and Buffalo Creek are class C; NSW waters of the State. DWQ is
very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project. DWQ
recommends that highly protective sediment and erosion control BMPs be implemented to reduce
the risk of nutrient runoff to these waters. DWQ requests that road design plans provide treatment
of the storm water runoff through best management practices as detailed in the most recent version
of NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices.
2. This project is within the Neuse River Basin. Riparian buffer impacts should be avoided and
minimized to the greatest extent possible pursuant to 15A NCAC 2B.0233.
Transportation Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] Internet: http://h2o.enr.state,nc.us/ncwetlands
Np
One
r hCaro in
Naturally
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
I

General Project Comments:
1. The environmental document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed
impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping. If mitigation is necessary as
required by 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h), it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized)
mitigation plan with the environmental documentation. Appropriate mitigation plans will be
required prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
2. Environmental assessment alternatives should consider design criteria that reduce the impacts to
streams and wetlands from storm water runoff. These alternatives should include road designs
that allow for treatment of the storm water runoff through best management practices as detailed
in the most recent version of NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices, such as grassed
swales, buffer areas, preformed scour holes, retention basins, etc.
3. After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality
Certification, the NCDOT is respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the
avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetlands (and streams) to the maximum extent
practical. In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules 115A NCAC
2H.0506(h)), mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 1 acre to wetlands. In the
event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate
lost functions and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as
wetland mitigation.
4. In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules (15A NCAC
2H.0506(h)), mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single
perennial stream. In the event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed
to replace appropriate lost functions and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may
be available for use as stream mitigation.
5. DWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project.
NC DOT should address these concerns by describing the potential impacts that may occur to the
aquatic environments and any mitigating factors that would reduce the impacts.
6. If a bridge is being replaced with a hydraulic conveyance other than another bridge, DWQ
believes the use of a Nationwide Permit may be required. Please contact the US Army Corp of
Engineers to determine the required permit(s).
7. If the old bridge is removed, no discharge of bridge material into surface waters is allowed unless
otherwise authorized by the US ACOE. Strict adherence to the Corps of Engineers guidelines for
bridge demolition will be a condition of the 401 Water Quality Certification.
8. Bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream when possible.
f
4
9. Whenever possible, the DWQ prefers spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not
require work within the stream or grubbing of the streambanks and do not require stream channel
realignment. The horizontal and vertical clearances provided by bridges allow for human and
wildlife passage beneath the structure, do not block fish passage and do not block navigation by
canoeists and boaters.
10. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream. Stormwater should be directed
across the bridge and pre-treated through site-appropriate means (grassed swales, pre-formed
scour holes, vegetated buffers, etc.) before entering the stream. Please refer to the most current
version of NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices.
11. If concrete is used during construction, a dry work area should be maintained to prevent direct
contact between curing concrete and stream water. Water that inadvertently contacts uncured
concrete should not be discharged to surface waters due to the potential for elevated pH and
possible aquatic life and fish kills.
12. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, the site shall be graded to its preconstruction
contours and elevations. Disturbed areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and
appropriate native woody species should be planted. When using temporary structures the area
should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or
other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact allows the area to re-
vegetate naturally and minimizes soil disturbance.
13. Placement of culverts and other structures in waters, streams, and wetlands shall be below the
elevation of the streambed by one foot for all culverts with a diameter greater than 48 inches, and
20 percent of the culvert diameter for culverts having a diameter less than 48 inches, to allow low
flow passage of water and aquatic life. Design and placement of culverts and other structures
including temporary erosion control measures shall not be conducted in a manner that may result
in dis-equilibrium of wetlands or streambeds or banks, adjacent to or upstream and down stream
of the above structures. The applicant is required to provide evidence that the equilibrium is being
maintained if requested in writing by DWQ. If this condition is unable to be met due to bedrock
or other limiting features encountered during construction, please contact the NC DWQ for
guidance on how to proceed and to determine whether or riot a permit modification will be
required.
14. If multiple pipes or barrels are required, they should be designed to mimic natural stream cross
section as closely as possible including pipes or barrels at flood plain elevation and/or sills where
appropriate. Widening the stream channel should be avoided. Stream channel widening at the
inlet or outlet end of structures typically decreases water velocity causing sediment deposition
that requires increased maintenance and disrupts aquatic life passage.
15. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work
is approved under General 401 Certification Number 3494/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey
Activities.
16. Sediment and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water resources must be implemented
and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of North Carolina Sediment and
Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual and the most recent version of NCS000250.
17. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area unless otherwise
approved by NC DWQ. Approved BMP measures from the most current version of NCDOT
Construction and Maintenance Activities manual such as sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams and
other diversion structures should be used to prevent excavation in flowing water.
18. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands and streams.
19. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practical. Impacts to wetlands
in borrow/waste areas could precipitate compensatory mitigation.
20. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, NC Coastal Region Evaluation of
Wetland Significance (NC-CREWS) maps and soil survey maps are useful tools, their inherent
inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior to permit
approval.
21. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in order to
minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into streams.
This equipment should be inspected daily and maintained to prevent contamination of surface
waters from leaking fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
22. In most cases, the DWQ prefers the replacement of the existing structure at the same location
with road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be designed and
located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to avoid destabilizing
stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old structure should be removed
and the approach fills removed from the 100-year floodplain. Approach fills should be removed
and restored to the natural ground elevation. The area should be stabilized with grass and planted
with native tree species. Tall fescue should not be used in riparian areas.
23. Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed in a manner
that precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures should be properly
designed, sized and installed.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water
Quality Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality
standards are met and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require
additional information, please contact Rob Ridings at [phone].
cc: William Wescott, US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Field Office
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., NCDOT PDEA
Jamie Guerrero, Division 4 Environmental Officer
Chris Militscher, Environmental Protection Agency
Travis Wilson, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Gary Jordan, US Fish and Wildlife Service
File Copy
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
Project Number: 07-0304 County: Johnston
Due Date: 04/16/2007
Date Received: 03/22/2007
Project Description: Proposal involves improvements to existing interchange at I-40 & NC 42 south of Raleigh and
proposed addition of a new interchange at Cornwallis Road. TIP No. I-4739
Thic PrniPrt is heinv reviewed as indicated below:
,.,...J--.....,_...a._.__
Regional Office ..____ --
Regional Office Area
In-House Review
Asheville T-T Air Soil & Water Marine Fisheries
Fayetteville 11 Water Coastal Management Water Resources
Mooresville Wildlife Environmental Health
T1 Groundwater
Raleigh
T Solid Waste Mgmt
_ ? Land Quality Engineer ? Wildlife -DOT
Washington Radiation Protection
TJ Forest Resources
Wilmington Other
Winston-Salem Land Resources
-T Parks & Recreation
Water Quality
F Water Quality - DOT
Air Quality
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
No objection to project as proposed. No Comment
Insufficient information to complete review Other (specify or attach comments)
Regional Office Only:
Please log into the IBEAM system and update your comments in the DSS (Decision Support System) application,
SEPA module. If you have any questions, please contact:
Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator at [e-mail]
?xPG ?U

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
March 16, 2007
LYNDO TiPPETT
SECRETARY
fr:,
?lk
MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Chn-s Baggett, Director zc'
R 10007
State Clearinghouse
Department of Adis o
G m 0) A 'WI
FROM: Gregory J. Thorpe
Project Developme t n nment " alysis Branch
SUBJECT: Start of Study for TIP Proj ct No. I-4 39, Improvements to I-40
Interchange with NC 42 and a new interchange with SR 1525
(Cornwallis Road), Johnston County, Federal-Aid Project
IMF-40-1(122)313, WBS 36595.1.1
The Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch is re-sending this start of study
letter for TIP Project No I-4739. A prior letter was sent on November 8, 2006; however, the project scope
has expanded significantly. Please see attached figures. Note that the new study area includes the
existing I-40 interchange with NC 42 and extends 2.3 miles south to include a potential interchange at
SR 1525 (Cornwallis Road). It is envisioned that the two interchanges may be linked with service roads
to serve as a favorable solution to long-term traffic demands.
Numerous agencies already responded to our first request; however given the significant change in
scope, updated comments are requested. Attached for your review and comments are the scoping
information sheets for the proposed project. 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 that may be required by your agency. A scoping meeting will be scheduled with
NCDOT staff to discuss the proposed project in more detail. In order to include your comments in our
materials for this meeting, we would appreciate your response by May 15, 2007. If you would like to attend
the scoping meeting, please notify the project engineer.
It is anticipated that a federally funded Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant
Impact Statement will be prepared for this project. This document will be prepared in accordance with
the National Environmental Policy Act.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Ted Devens, P. E., Project
Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone], Ext. 360. Please include the TIP Project Number in
all correspondence and comments.
GJT/plr
Attachment
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.N000T.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27899-1548

Project Development and Environ ental Analysis
Scoping Informatio Sheet
TIP No.: 1-4739
WBS No.: 36595.1.1
Federal Aid No: Not funded
Division: 4
ri
yAR 200
z
tamn"
Sent ate:I 3/9/07
Revision Date:
Meetin Date:
ount : Johnston
V
Project Description:
This SB1005 project is located in Johnston Coun
n and involves improvements to the
existing interchange at 1-40 and NC 42 south of leigh, as well as the proposed addition
of a new interchange at Cornwallis Road. Stud this new interchange possibility has
shifted the document type from a Categorical EI to an Environmental Assessment,
followed by FONSI. The project team will be ev ating a new project schedule and
subsequent delivery dates for the EA and FON Even with the additional time necessary
to process an EA/FONSI, the environmental do entation would still be delivered well in
advance of anv design and R/W tasks necessa o accommodate post-year construction.
General Proiect Need:
The purpose of the project is to improve the Le el of Service (LOS), travel conditions and
safety at the 1-40/NC 42 interchange as well as evaluate the addition of a new interchange
at Cornwallis Road to further alleviate congesti n at the 1-40/NC 42 interchange.
Substantial growth in this corridor in Johnston ounty has increased traffic volumes, and
will continue to increase projected traffic volu es, increasing traffic pressure throughout
this corridor.
Metropolitan / Rural Planning Organization Capital Area MPO / Upper Coastal Plain
Area: RPO
NEPA/404 Merg er Candidate?: ? Ye ® No ? Not sure
Feasibility Stud y Completed?: ? Y s ® No Date
?e of Environmental Uocuments to be yr area i vro ect 5cneauie:
Da es: Type of Document:
Environmental Document: Mar h 08 Current) classified as a CE
TIBD EA
BD FONSI
Right of Way: Po t Year
Let: Post Year
Air Quality Status: ? Non-attainment ?
Maintenance ® Attainment
PAGE 1 OF 3

Design Criteria:
Length of Project Limits: 3.2 Miles
Type of Access Control:
(Existing / Proposed)
Structure Invento
Functional
Classification:
1-40/NC 42:
1-40/NC 42: Bridge Number 501; Cornwallis Road: Bridge
Number 499
Interstate - 1-40; NC 42 - Major collector; Cornwallis Road -
Minor collector
Strategic Highway Corridor
Infnrmnfinn-
CTP/Thoroughfare Plan
Designation (Facility Type):
Roadway Typical
Section:
(Existing / Proposed)
Existing: Controlled
Proposed: Controlled
Cornwallis Road:
Existing: None
Proposed: Controlled
Typical Section in Compliance with Conformity Determination:
® Yes ? No
Right of Way:
(Existing / Proposed)
Yes - 1-40; No - NC 42; No - Cornwallis Road
1-40 - Freeway; NC 42 - Boulevard;
Cornwallis Road - Major thoroughfare
1-40/NC 42 - Interchange/Interchange
Cornwallis Road - 2 lane undivided/Interchange
1-40/NC 42 - Interchange/Interchange
Cornwallis Road - Maintained/Interchange
Existing Posted 1-40: 65-70 Proposed 1-40: 65-70
Speed: NC 42: 45 Design Speed: NC 42: 45
Cornwallis Road: 55 Cornwallis Road: 45
Traffic (AADT):
Current Year:
Design Year:
(2005) 1-40 - 56,000;
NC 42 - 25,000
Cornwallis - 2,000
(2030) 1-40 - 113,000;
NC 42 - 51,600
Cornwallis - 4,700
% TTST
% Dual:
% DHV
Design Standards Applicable: ?X AASHTO 3R
1-40: 14%
NC 42: 2%
Cornwallis: 1 %
1-40 - 69%;
NC 42-4%
Cornwallis - 1 %
1-40 - 13%;
NC 42-12%
Cornwallis - 12%
PAGE 2OF3

Railroad Involvement:
Not applicable
Cost Estimate: Construction: Right of Way: Total Cost:
Post Year
TIP Estimate:
Current Estimate:
NA - Post Year NA - Post Year
ivaiurai i rluman environmental Intormation (Include comments trom agencies
NOTE: Natural/Human Environmental Studies for the proposed Cornwallis Interchange have not yet
been initiated. Documentation presented below refers only to the area around the I-40/NC 42
Interchange.
- Draft NRTR submitted in July 2005
- USACE Jurisdictional Determination Field Meeting held June 2005
- Several small headwater streams cross through or originate within the project study area. Surface waters
in the project study area are located in the Neuse River Basin; There are four Unnamed Tributaries (UTs) to
Swift Creek, and one pond within the project study area. Three of the unnamed tributaries are perennial
streams, and one is intermittent. There are no Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped watersheds or WS-11:
predominately undeveloped watersheds), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), nor High Quality Waters
(HQW) within one mile of the project study area.
- The USFWS lists four federally protected species for Johnston County. These species are as follows:
• Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Endangered
Biological Conclusion. NO EFFECT. Ground surveys for RCW habitat within the project study area were
conducted along with the other field studies described in this report. There are no stands of old growth pines
(preferred nesting habitat) within a half-mile of the project study area. The mixed pine and hardwood forests
within the project study area are too young or contain too few pines to be preferred foraging habitat
• Dwarf-Wedge Mussel Endangered
Biological Conclusion: MAY AFFECT - NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT. None of the stream
channels within the project study area are large enough or contain sufficient habitat to support a population
of dwarf-wedge mussel. The project may add some additional impervious area to the existing interchange
but is not likeiy to significantly impact any of the tributaries. A populaticn has been identified in Swift Creek,
which lies approximately Y2 mile east of the project study area. Appropriate erosion and sediment controls
and stormwater treatment should negate potential water quality impacts to Swift Creek
• Tar Spinymussel Endangered
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT. The project is located within the Neuse River Basin, not the Tar where
the Tar spinymussel has been found. Additionally, the streams within the project study area are all low to
moderate flow streams with fine sand substrate. Habitat for the Tar spinymussel is not present within these
systems
• Michaux's Sumac Endangered
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT. As described earlier, much of the project study area has been
converted to commercial development. Scattered edge areas and open fields are present, but do not
provide optimal habitat. Most of the open habitat within the corridor is dominated by kudzu and/or
blackberry. Searches for Michaux's sumac were conducted during field investigations on February 4,
February 23, and May 4, 2005 and no plants were observed
- The NCNHP and USFWS responded with letters of concern for potential impacts to the federal and state
endangered dwarf-wedge mussel, which occurs in Swift Creek approximately Y2 mile downstream of the
project study area. Concurrence will likely be required from the USFWS.
- There are 13 FSCs listed by the USFWS for Johnston County. A review of the NCNHP database of rare
species and unique habitats revealed 2 species (Atlantic pigtoe and Yellow lance) with documented
occurrences within 1 mile of the project study area.
- No structures in immediate vicinity appear to be over 50 years old.
- Social impacts (i.e., relocations, EJ, community cohesion etc) unlikely.
PAGE 3OF3
t
End Project
g
tic ?Z
312

a2

or
Legend
' - - - • Project Limits
O ?
m K

a
0
?
o
o,

- 90
m?
T Y
Project Location m

. dnton
H
'
+??-,P=?. O
\ , S
1 T O -N
M
'
/ ? Nlil1
'? IP + OB'd' y
Ykr• ,
r ' r/
SM
, °

DA

M ?
]GI ? !?
t= 1 I
..
!l l I1 M ?? Jw V,1
rM..? 1I
i "? • ?p Or.n m ?
W A to
S
Corp 1525
?:?. 1 ° '
omwlva r
///8
Oct.
Begin Project
0
v

Johnston County
r?- 1-40 at NC 42 Interchange

Johnston County, North Carolina Project
Not Location
To Scale
TIP No. 1-4739
Exhibit 1

End Project
o
Z .? I
1
e?
152 I'
Begin Project 1J

Legend
Project Limits
1-40 at NC 42 Interchange USGS Map
Johnston County, North Carolina Not To Scale
TIP No. 1-4739 Exhibit 2
01 ,.. STATF qd
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDo TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
March 16, 2007 ?1?181910Zj???
MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Chrys Baggett, Director R C
2ppf
State Clearinghouse
Department of Ad p
FROM: Gregory J. Thorpe c? U??
?
Project Developme t n nment " alysis Branch
SUBJECT: Start of Study for TIP Proj ct No. I-4 39, Improvements to I-40
Interchange with NC 42 and a new interchange with SR 1525
(Cornwallis Road), Johnston County, Federal-Aid Project
IMF-40-4(122)313, WBS 36595.1.1
The Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch is re-sending this start of study
letter for TIP Project No I-4739. A prior letter was sent on November 8, 2006; however, the project scope
has expanded significantly. Please see attached figures. Note that the new study area includes the
existing I-40 interchange with NC 42 and extends 2.3 miles south to include a potential interchange at
SR 1525 (Cornwallis Road). It is envisioned that the two interchanges may be linked with service roads
to serve as a favorable solution to long-term traffic demands.
Numerous agencies already responded to our first request; however given the significant change in
scope, updated comments are requested. Attached for your review and comments are the scoping
information sheets for the proposed project. 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 that may be required by your agency. A scoping meeting will be scheduled with
NCDOT staff to discuss the proposed project in more detail. In order to include your comments in our
materials for this meeting, we would appreciate your response by May 15, 2007. If you would like to attend
the scoping meeting, please notify the project engineer.
It is anticipated that a federally funded Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant
Impact Statement will be prepared for this project. This document will be prepared in accordance with
the National Environmental Policy Act.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Ted Devens, P. E., Project
Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone], Ext. 360. Please include the TIP Project Number in
all correspondence and comments.
GJT/plr
Attachment
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Scoping Information Sheet
TIP No.: 1-4739
WBS No.: 36595.1.1
Federal Aid No: Not funded
Division: 4
Sent Date: 1 3/9/07
Revision Date:
Meeting Date:
County: Johnston
V
This S131 005 project is located in Johnston County and involves improvements to the
existing interchange at 1-40 and NC 42 south of Raleigh, as well as the proposed addition
of a new interchange at Cornwallis Road. Studying this new interchange possibility has
shifted the document type from a Categorical Exclusion to an Environmental Assessment,
followed by FONSI. The project team will be evaluating a new project schedule and
subsequent delivery dates for the EA and FONSI. Even with the additional time necessary
to process an EA/FONSI, the environmental documentation would still be delivered well in
advance of any design and R/W tasks necessary to accommodate post-year construction.
General Project Need:
The purpose of the project is to improve the Level of Service (LOS), travel conditions and
safety at the 1-40/NC 42 interchange as well as evaluate the addition of a new interchange
at Cornwallis Road to further alleviate congestion at the 1-40/NC 42 interchange.
Substantial growth in this corridor in Johnston County has increased traffic volumes, and
will continue to increase projected traffic volumes, increasing traffic pressure throughout
this corridor.
Metropolitan / Rural Planning Organization Capital Area MPO / Upper Coastal Plain
Area: RPO
NEPA/404 Merg er Candidate?: ? Yes ® No ? Not sure
Feasibility Stud y Completed?: ? Yes ® No Date
Type of Environmental Documents to be Prepared / Proiect Schedule:
Dates: Type of Document:
Environmental Document:
Right of Way:
Let:
Current) classified as a CE
EA
FONSI
Post Year
Post Year
Air Quality Status: ? Non-attainment ? Maintenance ® Attainment
.?1? cu rr1??
11A2007
r ?
?"o mn"
PAGE 1 OF 3
i

Design Criteria:
Length of Project Limits: 3.2 Miles
Type of Access Control:
(Existing / Proposed)
Structure Inventory:
Functional
Classification:
1-40/NC 42:
Existing: Controlled
Proposed: Controlled
Cornwallis Road:
Existing: None
Proposed: Controlled
1-40/NC 42: Bridge Number 501; Cornwallis Road: Bridge
Number 499
Strategic Highway Corridor
Infnrmnfinn-
CTP/Thoroughfare Plan
Designation (Facility Type):
Roadway Typical
Section:
(Existing / Proposed)
Interstate - 1-40; NC 42 - Major collector; Cornwallis Road -
Minor collector
Typical Section in Compliance with Conformity Determination:
® Yes ? No
Right of Way:
(Existing / Proposed)
Yes - 1-40; No - NC 42; No - Cornwallis Road
1-40 - Freeway; NC 42 - Boulevard;
Cornwallis Road - Major thoroughfare
1-40/NC 42 - Interchange/Interchange
Cornwallis Road - 2 lane undivided/Interchange
1-40/NC 42 - Interchange/Interchange
Cornwallis Road - Maintained/Interchange
Existing Posted 1-40: 65-70 Proposed 1-40: 65-70
Speed: NC 42:45 Design Speed: NC 42: 45
Cornwallis Road: 55 Cornwallis Road: 45
Traffic (AADT):
Current Year:
Design Year:
(2005) 1-40 - 56,000;
NC 42 - 25,000
Cornwallis - 2,000
(2030) 1-40 - 113,000;
NC 42 - 51,600
Cornwallis - 4,700
% TTST:
% Dual
% DHV:
Design Standards Applicable: AASHTO 3R
1-40: 14%
NC 42: 2%
Cornwallis: 1 %
1-40 - 69%;
NC 42-4%
Cornwallis -1 %
1-40 - 13%;
NC 42-12%
Cornwallis - 12%
PAGE 2OF3
i
Railroad Involvement:
Not applicable
Cost Estimate:
Post Year
TIP Estimate:
Current Estimate:
Construction: Right of Way: Total Cost:
NA - Post Year NA - Post Year
Natural / human tnvironmentai Intormatlon (include comments from agencies):
NOTE: Natural/Human Environmental Studies for the proposed Cornwallis Interchange have not yet
been initiated. Documentation presented below refers only to the area around the 1-40/NC 42
Interchange.
- Draft NRTR submitted in July 2005
- USACE Jurisdictional Determination Field Meeting held June 2005
- Several small headwater streams cross through or originate within the project study area. Surface waters
in the project study area are located in the Neuse River Basin; There are four Unnamed Tributaries (UTs) to
Swift Creek, and one pond within the project study area. Three of the unnamed tributaries are perennial
streams, and one is intermittent. There are no Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped watersheds or WS-II:
predominately undeveloped watersheds), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), nor High Quality Waters
(HQW) within one mile of the project study area.
- The USFWS lists four federally protected species for Johnston County. These species are as follows:
• Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Endangered
Biological Conclusion. NO EFFECT. Ground surveys for RCW habitat within the project study area were
conducted along with the other field studies described in this report. There are no stands of old growth pines
(preferred nesting habitat) within a half-mile of the project study area. The mixed pine and hardwood forests
within the project study area are too young or contain too few pines to be preferred foraging habitat
• Dwarf-Wedge Mussel Endangered
Biological Conclusion: MAY AFFECT - NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT. None of the stream
channels within the project study area are large enough or contain sufficient habitat to support a population
of dwarf-wedge mussel. The project may add some additional impervious area to the existing interchange
but is not likeiy to significantly impact any of the tributaries. A populaticn has been identified in Swift Creek,
which lies approximately t/2 mile east of the project study area. Appropriate erosion and sediment controls
and stormwater treatment should negate potential water quality impacts to Swift Creek
• Tar Spinymussel Endangered
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT. The project is located within the Neuse River Basin, not the Tar where
the Tar spinymussel has been found. Additionally, the streams within the project study area are all low to
moderate flow streams with fine sand substrate. Habitat for the Tar spinymussel is not present within these
systems
• Michaux's Sumac Endangered
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT. As described earlier, much of the project study area has been
converted to commercial development. Scattered edge areas and open fields are present, but do not
provide optimal habitat. Most of the open habitat within the corridor is dominated by kudzu and/or
blackberry. Searches for Michaux's sumac were conducted during field investigations on February 4,
February 23, and May 4, 2005 and no plants were observed
- The NCNHP and USFWS responded with letters of concern for potential impacts to the federal and state
endangered dwarf-wedge mussel, which occurs in Swift Creek approximately '/2 mile downstream of the
project study area. Concurrence will likely be required from the USFWS.
- There are 13 FSCs listed by the USFWS for Johnston County. A review of the NCNHP database of rare
species and unique habitats revealed 2 species (Atlantic pigtoe and Yellow lance) with documented
occurrences within 1 mile of the project study area.
- No structures in immediate vicinity appear to be over 50 years old.
- Social impacts (i.e., relocations, EJ, community cohesion etc) unlikely.
PAGE 3OF3

End Project
i
O
NG a2
X12
A2
? s9
o?
o Legend
• - Project Limits
?L
0 B
a-
s
o?
00
90
All
Project Location
Neer. ? Clik ^ .
30 1
' wn.r.v.y O H 1 \ $1 T OWN
bn.
08
1 ; MI'.I. 4k..1
/ I
01
1 Co.n ; ? u 1 rn.e.1../ shy 1
T T..
...?...... titi++ vim.
_ ? 11 Mrl.,rewN \ ? J
C
_ ` ?? I= 13 W A Ill
sq
C JS
o..e.n^. ,
za
°r?1W9///g / r II
Ra.
Begin Project
O
? P
Johnston County
;A 1-40 at NC 42 Interchange Project Location
Johnston County, North Carolina Not To Scale
TIP No. 1-4739 Exhibit 1

`. .
fi

Begin Project
S
rrOJOVX LIMIZO 1
1-40 at NC 42 Interchange USGS Map
Johnston County, North Carolina Not To Scale
TIP No. 1-4739 Exhibit 2
Yr?
auw+®?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTTNEEW OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
March 16, 2007
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
Ms. Ctm-s Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse
Department of Add
Gregory J.
Project Deg
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
4.,
r?r
?oo,
Y-
o
61 Q't

p
L
0-
is Branch s , Z
SUBJECT: Start of Study for TIP Projkt No. I-4139, Improvements to I-40
Interchange with NC 42 and a new interchange with SR 1525
(Cornwallis Road), Johnston County, Federal-Aid Project
IMF-40-4(122)313, WBS 36595.1.1
The Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch is re-sending this start of study
letter for TIP Project No I-4739. A prior letter was sent on November 8, 2006; however, the project scope
has expanded significantly. Please see attached figures. Note that the new study area includes the
existing I-40 interchange with NC 42 and extends 2.3 miles south to include a potential interchange at
SR 1525 (Cornwallis Road). It is envisioned that the two interchanges may be linked with service roads
to serve as a favorable solution to long-term traffic demands.
Numerous agencies already responded to our first request; however given the significant change in
scope, updated comments are requested. Attached for your review and comments are the scoping
information sheets for the proposed project. 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 that may be required by your agency. A scoping meeting will be scheduled with
NCDOT staff to discuss the proposed project in more detail. In order to include your comments in our
materials for this meeting, we would appreciate your response by May 15, 2007. If you would like to attend
the scoping meeting, please notify the project engineer.
It is anticipated that a federally funded Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant
Impact Statement will be prepared for this project. This document will be prepared in accordance with
the National Environmental Policy Act.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Ted Devens, P. E., Project
Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone], Ext. 360. Please include the TIP Project Number in
all correspondence and comments.
GJT/plr
Attachment
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
I
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Scoping Information Sheet
TIP No.: 1-4739
WBS No.: 3659
Federal Aid No: Not funded
Division: 4
Sent Date: 1 3/9/07
Revision Date:
Meeting Date:
County: Johnston
S_t
Pro'ect Descri tj
This SB1005 project is located in Johnston County and involves improvements to the
existing interchange at 1-40 and NC 42 south of Raleigh, as well as the proposed addition
of a new interchange at Cornwallis Road. Studying this new interchange possibility has
shifted the document type from a Categorical Exclusion to an Environmental Assessment,
followed by FONSI. The project team will be evaluating a new project schedule and
subsequent delivery dates for the EA and FONSI. Even with the additional time necessary
to process an EA/FONSI, the environmental documentation would still be delivered well in
advance of an design and R/W tasks necessary to accommodate post-year construction.
General Proiect Need,
The purpose of the project is to improve the Level of Service (LOS), travel conditions and
safety at the 1-40/NC 42 interchange as well as evaluate the addition of a new interchange
at Cornwallis Road to further alleviate congestion at the 1-40/NC 42 interchange.
Substantial growth in this corridor in Johnston County has increased traffic volumes, and
will continue to increase projected traffic volumes, increasing traffic pressure throughout
this corridor.
.Metropolitan / Rural Planning Organization Capital Area MPO / Upper Coastal Plain
Area: RPO
NEPA/404 Merg er Candidate?: ? Yes ® No ? Not sure
Feasibility Stud y Completed?: [:1 Yes ® No --? Date
Type of Environmental Documents to be Prepared / Project Schedule:
Dates: Type of Document:
Environmental Document:
Right of Way:
Let:
Post Year
Post Year
Current) classified as a CE
EA
FONSI
Air Quality Status: ? Non-attainment ? Maintenance ® Attainment
??? BAR 2
007

PAGE 1 OF 3
Design Criteria:
Length of Project Limits: 3.2 Miles
Type of Access Control:
(Existing / Proposed)
Structure Inventory:
Functional
Classification:
1-40/NC 42:
1-40/NC 42: Bridge Number 501; Cornwallis Road: Bridge
Number 499
Interstate - 1-40; NC 42 - Major collector; Cornwallis Road -
Minor collector
Strategic Highway Corridor
Infnrmatinn-
CTP/Thomughfare Plan
Designation (Facility Type):
Roadway Typical
Section:
(Existing / Proposed)
Existing: Controlled
Proposed: Controlled
Cornwallis Road:
Existing: None
Proposed: Controlled
Typical Section in Compliance with Conformity Determination:
® Yes ? No
Right of Way:
(Existing / Proposed)
Yes - 1-40; No - NC 42; No - Cornwallis Road
1-40 - Freeway; NC 42 - Boulevard;
Cornwallis Road - Major thoroughfare
1-40/NC 42 - Interchange/Interchange
Cornwallis Road - 2 lane undivided/Interchange
1-40/NC 42 - Interchange/Interchange
Cornwallis Road - Maintained/Interchange
Existing Posted 1-40: 65-70 Proposed 1-40: 65-70
Speed: NC 42:45 Design Speed: NC 42: 45
Cornwallis Road: 55 Cornwallis Road: 45
Traffic (AADT):
Current Year:
Design Year:
(2005) 1-40 - 56,000;
NC 42 - 25,000
Cornwallis - 2,000
(2030) 1-40 - 113,000;
NC 42 - 51,600
Cornwallis - 4,700
% TTST
% Dual
% DHV
Design Standards Applicable: AASHTO I__J 3R
1-40: 14%
NC 42: 2%
Cornwallis: 1 %
1-40 - 69%;
NC 42-4%
Cornwallis - 1 %
1-40 - 13%;
NC 42-12%
Cornwallis - 12%
PAGE 2OF3
Railroad Involvement:
Not applicable
Cost Estimate: Construction: Right of Way: Total Cost:
Post Year
TIP Estimate:
Current Estimate:
NA - Post Year NA - Post Year
Natural i Human environmental Intormation (include comments trom agencies
NOTE: Natural/Human Environmental Studies for the proposed Cornwallis Interchange have not yet
been initiated. Documentation presented below refers only to the area around the 1-40/NC 42
Interchange.
- Draft NRTR submitted in July 2005
- USACE Jurisdictional Determination Field Meeting held June 2005
- Several small headwater streams cross through or originate within the project study area. Surface waters
in the project study area are located in the Neuse River Basin; There are four Unnamed Tributaries (UTs) to
Swift Creek, and one pond within the project study area. Three of the unnamed tributaries are perennial
streams, and one is intermittent. There are no Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped watersheds or WS-II:
predominately undeveloped watersheds), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), nor High Quality Waters
(HQW) within one mile of the project study area.
- The USFWS lists four federally protected species for Johnston County. These species are as follows:
• Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Endangered
Biological Conclusion. NO EFFECT. Ground surveys for RCW habitat within the project study area were
conducted along with the other field studies described in this report. There are no stands of old growth pines
(preferred nesting habitat) within a half-mile of the project study area. The mixed pine and hardwood forests
within the project study area are too young or contain too few pines to be preferred foraging habitat
• Dwarf-Wedge Mussel Endangered
Biological Conclusion: MAY AFFECT - NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT. None of the stream
channels within the project study area are large enough or contain sufficient habitat to support a population
of dwarf-wedge mussel. The project may add some additional impervious area to the existing interchange
but is not likeiy to significantly impact any of the tributaries. A population has been identified in Swift Creek,
which lies approximately '/z mile east of the project study area. Appropriate erosion and sediment controls
and stormwater treatment should negate potential water quality impacts to Swift Creek
• Tar Spinymussel Endangered
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT. The project is located within the Neuse River Basin, not the Tar where
the Tar spinymussel has been found. Additionally, the streams within the project study area are all low to
moderate flow streams with fine sand substrate. Habitat for the Tar spinymussel is not present within these
systems
• Michaux's Sumac Endangered
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT. As described earlier, much of the project study area has been
converted to commercial development. Scattered edge areas and open fields are present, but do not
provide optimal habitat. Most of the open habitat within the corridor is dominated by kudzu and/or
blackberry. Searches for Michaux's sumac were conducted during field investigations on February 4,
February 23, and May 4, 2005 and no plants were observed
- The NCNHP and USFWS responded with letters of concern for potential impacts to the federal and state
endangered dwarf-wedge mussel, which occurs in Swift Creek approximately '/2 mile downstream of the
project study area. Concurrence will likely be required from the USFWS.
- There are 13 FSCs listed by the USFWS for Johnston County. A review of the NCNHP database of rare
species and unique habitats revealed 2 species (Atlantic pigtoe and Yellow lance) with documented
occurrences within 1 mile of the project study area.
- No structures in immediate vicinity appear to be over 50 years old.
- Social impacts (i.e., relocations, EJ, community cohesion etc) unlikely.
PAGE 3OF3
End Project
0
a
Begin Project
Legend
• - - - • Project Limits
0

Johnston
f? 1-40 at NC 42 Interchange
Johnston County, North Carolina Project Location
Not To Scale
TIP No. 1-4739 Exhibit 1
r
1? r O
End Project at
0
OIMV?
?o
Begin Project I
?o
o,
A
A
0
Legend
Project Limits
1-40 at NC 42 Interchange USGS Map
Johnston County, North Carolina Not To Scale
TIP No. 1-4739 Exhibit 2
r GSIA4-
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASL.EY
GOVFRNOR
March 16, 2007
MEMORANDUM TO
FROM:
Ms. Nicole Thomson
Division of Water Quality/Wetlands
Central Office
Gregory J.
Project DeN
LYND&TIPPETT
SR(REf.?RY
is Branch
SUBJECT: Start of Study for TIP Proj9Kt No. I4-t9, Improvements to I-40
Interchange with NC 42 and a new interchange with SR 1525
(Cornwallis Road), Johnston County, Federal-Aid Project
IMF-40-4(122)313, WBS 36595. 1.1
The Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch is re-sending this start of study
letter for TIP Project No I-4739. A prior letter was sent on November 8, 2006; however, the project scope
has expanded significantly. Please see attached figures. Note that the new study area includes the
existing I-40 interchange with NC 42 and extends 2.3 miles south to include a potential interchange at
SR 1525 (Cornwallis Road). It is envisioned that the two interchanges may be linked with service roads
to serve as a favorable solution to long-term traffic demands.
Numerous agencies already responded to our first request; however given the significant change in
scope, updated comments are requested. Attached for your review and comments are the scoping
information sheets for the proposed project. 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 that may be required by your agency. A scoping meeting will be scheduled with
NCDOT staff to discuss the proposed project in more detail. In order to include your comments in our
materials for this meeting, we would appreciate your response by May 15, 2007. If you would like to attend
the scoping meeting, please notify the project engineer.
It is anticipated that a federally funded Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant
Impact Statement will be prepared for this project. This document will be prepared in accordance with
the National Environmental Policy Act.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Ted Devens, P. E., Project
Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone], Ext. 360. Please include the TIP Project Number in
all correspondence and comments.
GJT/plr
Attachment
MAILING ADDRESS:. TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Scoping Information Sheet
TIP No.: 1-4739
WBS No.: 36595.1.1
Federal Aid No: Not funded
Division: 4
Sent Date: 3/9/07
Revision Date:
Meeting Date:
County: Johnston
ect
This SIB 1005 project is located in Johnston County and involves improvements to the
existing interchange at 1-40 and NC 42 south of Raleigh, as well as the proposed addition
of a new interchange at Cornwallis Road. Studying this new interchange possibility has
shifted the document type from a Categorical Exclusion to an Environmental Assessment,
followed by FONSI. The project team will be evaluating a new project schedule and
subsequent delivery dates for the EA and FONSI. Even with the additional time necessary
to process an EA/FONSI, the environmental documentation would still be delivered well in
advance of an design and R/W tasks necessary to accommodate post-year construction.
F'
The purpose of the project is to improve the Level of Service (LOS), travel conditions and
safety at the 1-40/NC 42 interchange as well as evaluate the addition of a new interchange
at Cornwallis Road to further alleviate congestion at the 1-40/NC 42 interchange.
Substantial growth in this corridor in Johnston County has increased traffic volumes, and
will continue to increase projected traffic volumes, increasing traffic pressure throughout
this corridor.
Metropolitan / Rural Planning Organization Capital Area MPO / Upper Coastal Plain
Area: RPO
NEPA/404 Merg er Candidate?: ? Yes ® No ? Not sure

Feasibility Stud y Completed?: ? Yes ® No I Date

Type of Environmental Documents to be Prepared / Project Schedule:
Dates: Type of Document:
Environmental Document:
Right of Way:
Let:
Post Year
Post Year
Current) classified as a CE
EA
FONSI
Air Qualitv Status: ? Non-attainment ? Maintenance ® Attainment
PAGE 1 OF 3

Design Criteria:
Length of Project Limits: 3.2 Miles
Type of Access Control:
(Existing / Proposed)
Structure Inventory:
Functional
Classification:
1-40/NC 42:
1-40/NC 42: Bridge Number 501; Cornwallis Road: Bridge
Number 499
Interstate - 1-40; NC 42 - Major collector; Cornwallis Road -
Minor collector
Strategic Highway Corridor
Information:
CTP/Thoroughfare Plan
Designation (Facility Type):
Roadway Typical
Section:
(Existing / Proposed)
Existing: Controlled
Proposed: Controlled
Cornwallis Road:
Existing: None
Proposed: Controlled
Typical Section in Compliance with Conformity Determination:
® Yes ? No
Right of Way:
(Existing / Proposed)
Yes - 1-40; No - NC 42; No - Cornwallis Road
1-40 - Freeway; NC 42 - Boulevard;
Cornwallis Road - Major thoroughfare
1-40/NC 42 - Interchange/Interchange
Cornwallis Road - 2 lane undivided/Interchange
1-40/NC 42 - Interchange/Interchange
Cornwallis Road - Maintained/Interchange
Existing Posted 1-40: 65-70 Proposed 1-40: 65-70
Speed: NC 42: 45 Design Speed: NC 42: 45
Cornwallis Road: 55 Cornwallis Road: 45
Traffic (AADT):
Current Year:
Design Year:
(2005) 1-40 - 56,000;
NC 42 - 25,000
Cornwallis - 2,000
(2030) 1-40 - 113,000;
NC42-51,600
Cornwallis - 4,700
% TTST:
% Dual
% DHV:
Design Standards Applicable: ?X AASHTO 3R
1-40: 14%
NC 42: 2%
Cornwallis: 1 %
1-40 - 69%;
NC 42-4%
Cornwallis - 1 %
1-40 - 13%;
NC 42 - 12%
Cornwallis - 12%
PAGE 2OF3
R
Railroad Involvement:
Not applicable
Cost Estimate: Construction: Right of Way: Total Cost:
Post Year
TIP Estimate:
Current Estimate:
NA - Post Year NA - Post Year
Natural i Human tnvironmental Information (Include comments from agencies):
NOTE: Natural/Human Environmental Studies for the proposed Cornwallis Interchange have not yet
been initiated. Documentation presented below refers only to the area around the 1-40/NC 42
Interchange.
- Draft NRTR submitted in July 2005
- USACE Jurisdictional Determination Field Meeting held June 2005
- Several small headwater streams cross through or originate within the project study area. Surface waters
in the project study area are located in the Neuse River Basin; There are four Unnamed Tributaries (UTs) to
Swift Creek, and one pond within the project study area. Three of the unnamed tributaries are perennial
streams, and one is intermittent. There are no Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped watersheds or WS-II:
predominately undeveloped watersheds), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), nor High Quality Waters
(HQW) within one mile of the project study area.
- The USFWS lists four federally protected species for Johnston County. These species are as follows:
• Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Endangered
Biological Conclusion. NO EFFECT. Ground surveys for RCW habitat within the project study area were
conducted along with the other field studies described in this report. There are no stands of old growth pines
(preferred nesting habitat) within a half-mile of the project study area. The mixed pine and hardwood forests
within the project study area are too young or contain too few pines to be preferred foraging habitat
• Dwarf-Wedge Mussel Endangered
Biological Conclusion: MAY AFFECT - NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT. None of the stream
channels within the project study area are large enough or contain sufficient habitat to support a population
of dwarf-wedge mussel. The project may add some additional impervious area to the existing interchange
but is not likely to significantly impact any of the tributaries. A population has been identified in Swift Creek,
which lies approximately '/2 mile east of the project study area. Appropriate erosion and sediment controls
and stormwater treatment should negate potential water quality impacts to Swift Creek
• Tar Spinymussel Endangered
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT. The project is located within the Neuse River Basin, not the Tar where
the Tar spinymussel has been found. Additionally, the streams within the project study area are all low to
moderate flow streams with fine sand substrate. Habitat for the Tar spinymussel is not present within these
systems
• Michaux's Sumac Endangered
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT. As described earlier, much of the project study area has been
converted to commercial development. Scattered edge areas and open fields are present, but do not
provide optimal habitat. Most of the open habitat within the corridor is dominated by kudzu and/or
blackberry. Searches for Michaux's sumac were conducted during field investigations on February 4,
February 23, and May 4, 2005 and no plants were observed
- The NCNHP and USFWS responded with letters of concern for potential impacts to the federal and state
endangered dwarf-wedge mussel, which occurs in Swift Creek approximately '/2 mile downstream of the
project study area. Concurrence will likely be required from the USFWS.
- There are 13 FSCs listed by the USFWS for Johnston County. A review of the NCNHP database of rare
species and unique habitats revealed 2 species (Atlantic pigtoe and Yellow lance) with documented
occurrences within 1 mile of the project study area.
- No structures in immediate vicinity appear to be over 50 years old.
- Social impacts (i.e., relocations, EJ, community cohesion etc) unlikely.
PAGE 3OF3
Legend
• - - - • Project Limits
IYY
Johnston County
1-40 at NC 42 Interchange Project Location
Johnston County, North Carolina Not To Scale
TIP No. 1-4739 Exhibit 1
End Project
o

I r" •

L- I o I. Y%NV
. Begin Project U
Project Limits
(4-
Road
01±°°

1-40 at NC 42 Interchange USGS Map
Johnston County, North Carolina Not To Scale
TIP No. 1-4739 Exhibit 2
T
O?O?WAT?RQG
D ?c 5111:? -
December 5, 2006
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee, DENR Office of Legislative & lntergovernmental Affairs
From: Rob Ridings, NC DWQ Transportation Permitting Unit ,
Through: John Hennessy, NC DWQ Transportation Permitting Uni vi
Subject: Scoping comments on proposed improvements to I-40 Interchange with NC 42 in Johnston
County, Federal Aid Project No. IMF-40-4(122)313, State Project No. 36595.1.1,
TIP No. I-4739, DENR Clearinghouse # 07-0190.
Reference your correspondence dated received November 28, 2006 in which you requested comments for
the referenced project. Preliminary analysis of the project reveals the potential for impacts to streams and
wetlands in the project area. More specifically, possible impacts to:
Stream Name River Basin &
Subbasin Stream Classifications Stream Index
Number
UTs of Swift Creek NEU 02 C, NSW 27-43-(8)
Further investigations at a higher resolution should be undertaken to verify the presence of other streams
and/or jurisdictional wetlands in the area. In the event that any jurisdictional areas are identified, the
Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT (or the consultant(s) that requested the comments)
consider the following environmental issues for the proposed project:
Project Specific Comments:
1. Swift Creek is class C; NSW waters of the State. DWQ is very concerned with sediment and
erosion impacts that could result from this project. DWQ recommends that highly protective
sediment and erosion control BMPs be implemented to reduce the risk of nutrient runoff to Swift
Creek and its tributaries. DWQ requests that road design plans provide treatment of the storm
water runoff through best management practices as detailed in the most recent version of NC DWQ
Stormwater Best Management Practices.
2. This project is within the Neuse River Basin. Riparian buffer impacts should be avoided and
minimized to the greatest extent possible pursuant to 15A NCAC 2B.0233.
Transportation Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
NonehCaro in
Naturallly
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
I
General Project Comments:
1. The environmental document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed
impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping. If mitigation is necessary as
required by 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h), it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized)
mitigation plan with the environmental documentation. Appropriate mitigation plans will be
required prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
2. Environmental assessment alternatives should consider design criteria that reduce the impacts to
streams and wetlands from storm water runoff. These alternatives should include road designs
that allow for treatment of the storm water runoff through best management practices as detailed
in the most recent version of NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices, such as grassed
swales, buffer areas, preformed scour holes, retention basins, etc.
3. After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality
Certification, the NCDOT is respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the
avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetlands (and streams) to the maximum extent
practical. In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules (I 5A NCAC
2H.0506(h)), mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 1 acre to wetlands. In the
event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate
lost functions and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as
wetland mitigation.
4. In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules { 15A NCAC
2H.0506(h)}, mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single
perennial stream. In the event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed
to replace appropriate lost functions and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may
be available for use as stream mitigation.
5. DWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project.
NC DOT should address these concerns by describing the potential impacts that may occur to the
aquatic environments and any mitigating factors that would reduce the impacts.
6. If a bridge is being replaced with a hydraulic conveyance other than another bridge, DWQ
believes the use of a Nationwide Permit may be required. Please contact the US Army Corp of
Engineers to determine the required permit(s).
7. If the old bridge is removed, no discharge of bridge material into surface waters is allowed unless
otherwise authorized by the US ALOE. Strict adherence to the Corps of Engineers guidelines for
bridge demolition will be a condition of the 401 Water Quality Certification.
8. Bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream when possible.
If
9. Whenever possible, the DWQ prefers spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not
require work within the stream or grubbing of the streambanks and do not require stream channel
realignment. The horizontal and vertical clearances provided by bridges allow for human and
wildlife passage beneath the structure, do not block fish passage and do not block navigation by
canoeists and boaters.
10. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream. Stormwater should be directed
across the bridge and pre-treated through site-appropriate means (grassed swales, pre-formed
scour holes, vegetated buffers, etc.) before entering the stream. Please refer to the most current
version of NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices.
11. If concrete is used during construction, a dry work area should be maintained to prevent direct
contact between curing concrete and stream water. Water that inadvertently contacts uncured
concrete should not be discharged to surface waters due to the potential for elevated pH and
possible aquatic life and fish kills.
12. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, the site shall be graded to its preconstruction
contours and elevations. Disturbed areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and
appropriate native woody species should be planted. When using temporary structures the area
should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or
other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact allows the area to re-
vegetate naturally and minimizes soil disturbance.
13. Placement of culverts and other structures in waters, streams, and wetlands shall be below the
elevation of the streambed by one foot for all culverts with a diameter greater than 48 inches, and
20 percent of the culvert diameter for culverts having a diameter less than 48 inches, to allow low
flow passage of water and aquatic life. Design and placement of culverts and other structures
including temporary erosion control measures shall not be conducted in a manner that may result
in dis-equilibrium of wetlands or streambeds or banks, adjacent to or upstream and down stream
of the above structures. The applicant is required to provide evidence that the equilibrium is being
maintained if requested in writing by DWQ. If this condition is unable to be met due to bedrock
or other limiting features encountered during construction, please contact the NC DWQ for
guidance on how to proceed and to determine whether or not a permit modification will be
required.
14. If multiple pipes or barrels are required, they should be designed to mimic natural stream cross
section as closely as possible including pipes or barrels at flood plain elevation and/or sills where
appropriate. Widening the stream channel should be avoided. Stream channel widening at the
inlet or outlet end of structures typically decreases water velocity causing sediment deposition
that requires increased maintenance and disrupts aquatic life passage.
15. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work
is approved under General 401 Certification Number 3494/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey
Activities.
16. Sediment and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water resources must be implemented
and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of North Carolina Sediment and
Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual and the most recent version of NCS000250.
17. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area unless otherwise
approved by NC DWQ. Approved BMP measures from the most current version of NCDOT
Constriction and Maintenance Activities manual such as sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams and
other diversion structures should be used to prevent excavation in flowing water.
18. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands and streams.
19. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practical. Impacts to wetlands
in borrow/waste areas could precipitate compensatory mitigation.
20. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, NC Coastal Region Evaluation of
Wetland Significance (NC-CREWS) maps and soil survey maps are useful tools, their inherent
inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior to permit
approval.
21. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in order to
minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into streams.
This equipment should be inspected daily and maintained to prevent contamination of surface
waters from leaking fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
22. In most cases, the DWQ prefers the replacement of the existing structure at the same location
with road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be designed and
located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to avoid destabilizing
stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old structure should be removed
and the approach fills removed from the 100-year floodplain. Approach fills should be removed
and restored to the natural ground elevation. The area should be stabilized with grass and planted
with native tree species. Tall fescue should not be used in riparian areas.
23. Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed in a manner
that precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures should be properly
designed, sized and installed.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water
Quality Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality
standards are met and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require
additional information, please contact Rob Ridings at [phone].
cc: William Wescott, US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Field Office
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., NCDOT PDEA
Jamie Guerrero, Division 4 Environmental Officer
Chris Militscher, Environmental Protection Agency
Travis Wilson, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Gary Jordan, US Fish and Wildlife Service
File Copy
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
Project Number: 07-0190 County: Johnston
Due Date: 12/18/2006
Date Received: 11/22/2006
Project Description: Improvements to existing interchange of I-40 with NC 42, approx. 10 miles south of Raleigh.
TIP No. I-4739
This Project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office Regional Office Area In-House Review
i
h
i
Asheville _FT Air Soil & Water er
es
Marine F
s
Fayetteville T Water Coastal Management Water Resources
- Wildlife Ff Environmental Health
Mooresville ri Groundwater
T- Raleigh
?
Land Quality Engineer
? Wildlife -DOT Solid Waste Mgmt
Washington - TT Forest Resources Radiation Protection
Wilmington Other
Winston-Salem Land Resources
n_ Parks & Recreation
Water Quality
r_ Water Quality - DOT
Air Quality
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
No objection to project as proposed.
Insufficient information to complete review
No Comment
other (specify or attach comments)
Regional Office Only:
Please log into the IBEAM system and update your comments in the DSS (Decision Support System) application,
SEPA module. If you have any questions, please contact:
Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator at [e-mail]
?,y
STATt
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
LYNDO TIPPETT
S ECRETA&AC:?
November 8, 2006
MEMORANDUM TO
Ms. Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse _
Department of Wi Irmfc
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Gregory J.
Project De
NOV 2006
=a RSCEIVEQ
t-
k
Analysis Branch
Start of Study for I-4739,4mprovements to I-40 Interchange with NC 42,
Johnston County, Federal-Aid Project IMF-40-4(122)313, WBS
36595.1.1
The Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch is starting the project
development, environmental and engineering studies for the proposed improvements to I-40 Interchange
with NC 42. The project is included in the 2007-2013 North Carolina Transportation Improvement
Program and is scheduled for right of way and construction in fiscal post-years.
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping information sheets for the proposed project.
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 that may be
required by your agency. A scoping meeting will be scheduled with NCDOT staff to discuss the proposed
project in more detail. In order to include your comments in our materials for this meeting, we would
appreciate your response by December 29, 2006. If you would like to attend the scoping meeting, please
notify the project engineer.
It is anticipated that a federally funded Categorical Exclusion will be prepared for this project.
This document will be prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Ted Devens, P.E., Project
Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone], Ext. 360. Please include the TIP Project Number in
all correspondence and comments.
GJT/plr
Attachment
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
N
p'DEA Scoping Procedures
Sent Date:
Revision Date:
Meeting Date: To be determined
County: Johnston
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Scoping Information Sheet
TIP No.: 1-4739
WBS No.: 36595.1.1.1
Federal Aid No: NA
Division: 4
Protect Description:
The project is located in Johnston County and involves improvements to the existing
interchange of 1-40 with NC 42, approximately 10 miles south of Raleigh.
eneral Hro
The purpose of the project is to improve the Level of Service (LOS), travel conditions and
safety at the interchange. Substantial growth at this interchange in Johnston County has
increased traffic volumes, and will continue to increase projected traffic volumes,
increasing traffic pressure at the 1-40/NC42 interchange.
Metropolitan / Rural Planning Organization Capital Area MPO / Upper Coastal Plain
Area: RPO
NEPA/404 Merg er Candidate?: ? Yes ® No ? Not sure
Feasibility Study Completed?: ? Yes ® No Date
Type of Environmental Documents to be Prepared / Proiect Schedule:
Dates: T e of Document:
Environmental Document:
Right of Way:
Let:
Air Qualitv Status:
NOV 2005
R5CE M
r go~ A
ll
r v
Unfunded
Unfunded
? Non-attainment
I-
Rev 4/10/06
CE
? Maintenance ® Attainment
PAGE 1 OF 3
PdEA Scoping Procedures
Design Criteria:
Length of Project Limits: NA
Type of Access Control:
( Existing / Proposed)
Structure Inventory:
Functional
Classification:
Rev 4/10/06
Bridge # 501 in Johnston County I
Interstate - 1-40; NC 42 - Major arterial
Strategic Highway Corridor
Information:
CTP/Thoroughfare Plan
Designation (Facility Type
Roadway Typical
Section:
(Existing / Proposed)
Existing: Controlled
Proposed: Controlled
Typical Section in Compliance with Conformity Determination:
® Yes ? No
Right of Way:
(Existing / Proposed)
Existing Posted
Speed:
Traffic (AADT):
Current Year:
Design Year:
Yes - 1-40; No - NC 42
1-40 - Freeway; NC 42 - Major thoroughfare
Interchange
Interchange - to be determined
1-40: 65-70 Proposed Design
NC 42: 45 Speed:
(2005) 1-40 - 56,000;
NC 42 - 23,000
(2030) 1-40 - 113,000;
NC 42 - 46,800
% TTST:
% Dual
% DHV
Design Standards Applicable: AASHTO 3R
Railroad Involvement:
1-40: 65-70
NC 42: 45
1-40: 14%
NC 42: 2%
1-40 - 69%;
NC 42-4%
1-40 - 13%;
NC 42 -12%
Not applicable
Cost Estimate:
TIP Estimate:
Current Estimate:
Construction: Rinht of Wav• Tntnl (rict-
E Unfunded Unfunded NA
TBD TBD TBD
PAGE 2 OF 3
PDEA Scoping Procedures Rev 4/10/06
Natural / Human Environmental Information (include
comments from agencies):
Draft NRTR submitted in July 2005
- USACE Jurisdictional Determination Field Meeting held June 2005
- Several small headwater streams cross through or originate within the project study area. Surface
waters in the project study area are located in the Neuse River Basin; There are four Unnamed
tributaries (UTs) to Swift Creek, and one pond within the project study area. Three of the unnamed
tributaries are perennial streams, and one is intermittent. There are no Water Supplies (WS-I:
undeveloped watersheds or WS-II: predominately undeveloped watersheds), Outstanding Resource
Waters (ORW), nor High Quality Waters (HQW) within one mile of the project study area.
- The USFWS lists four federally protected species for Johnston County. These species are as follows:
• Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Endangered
Biological Conclusion. NO EFFECT. Ground surveys for RCW habitat within the project study
area were conducted along with the other field studies described in this report. There are no stands of
old growth pines (preferred nesting habitat) within a half-mile of the project study area. The mixed pine
and hardwood forests within the project study area are too young or contain too few pines to be preferred
foraging habitat
• Dwarf-Wedge Mussel Endangered
Biological Conclusion: MAY AFFECT - NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT. None of the
stream channels within the project study area are large enough or contain sufficient habitat to support a
population of dwarf-wedge mussel. The project may add some additional impervious area to the existing
interchange but is not likely to significantly impact any of the tributaries. A population has been identified
in Swift Creek, which lies approximately 112 mile east of the project study area. Appropriate erosion and
sediment controls and stormwater treatment should negate potential water quality impacts to Swift Creek
• Tar Spinymussel Endangered
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT. The project is located within the Neuse River Basin, not the
Tar where the Tar spinymussel has been found. Additionally, the streams within the project study area
are all low to moderate flow streams with fine sand substrate. Habitat for the Tar spinymussel is not
present within these systems
• Michaux's Sumac Endangered
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT. As described earlier, much of the project study area has
been converted to commercial development. Scattered edge areas and open fields are present, but do
not provide optimal habitat. Most of the open habitat within the corridor is dominated by kudzu and/or
blackberry. Searches for Michaux's sumac were conducted during field investigations on February 4,
February 23, and May 4, 2005 and no plants were observed
- The NCNHP and USFWS responded with letters of concern for potential impacts to the federal and state
endangered dwarf-wedge mussel, which occurs in Swift Creek approximately 1/2 mile downstream of the
project study area. Concurrence will likely be required from the USFWS.
- There are 13 FSCs listed by the USFWS for Johnston County. A review of the NCNHP database of rare
species and unique habitats revealed 2 species (Atlantic pigtoe and Yellow lance) with documented
occurrences within 1 mile of the project study area.
No structures in immediate vicinity appear to be over 50 years old.
Social impacts (i.e., relocations, EJ, community cohesion etc) unlikelv
PAGE 3OF3
t
+

.
?
1 End Project
I 4? IC

1_ Y
a2

1cu a All rf?

n
z

-7 I If

.,t w! ?
• v'
?I

a2 ~s ,
. I

O,? r. y1`
P
4# f,
1 e?

+
? t ! K y
yL?,?r, j, i
' 1
Begin Project 1? , ?. r,?rs •?
rtY . ?,,?'•
?
1
1, r iv - ? ,t ?yri ,
a
Legend
Project Study Area

• 1 IVltdtl? /INi /B ? M/M
4 "? Nom- Project Location
II/ fr L Ant- nnn
l00« ?
Johnston County 401 301
e •••
nr ww,w sv w O H , S' T
l..n, N
mill.

- ' •-t1
? Iwan1
I
• A
E
•
nt?yY
raw
lyr
It
hh Uw ? 1
• 1
F- o
301

' 1

T T, J
ab
101 o

? r annuuln 1
Au l3 ll Ntc'
.eb

? t
10N 17 c o
DIM.mNN t
II M h

1 71
1-40 at NC 42 Interchange

Johnston County) North Carolina Project Location
Not To Scale
TIP No. 1-4739 Exhibit 1

yaw 5-T 11
?T aMO?
`N
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
November 8, 2006
LYNDO TIPPETT
SecRE ,?., , ?? 23(9
23-
NOV 200FD
MEMORANDUM TO
FROM:
SUBJECT:
The Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch is starting the project
development, environmental and engineering studies for the proposed improvements to I-40 Interchange
with NC 42. The project is included in the 2007-2013 North Carolina Transportation Improvement
Program and is scheduled for right of way and construction in fiscal post-years.
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping information slieets for the proposed project.
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 that may be
required by your agency. A scoping meeting will be scheduled with NCDOT staff to discuss the proposed
project in more detail. In order to include your comments in our materials for this meeting, we would
appreciate your response by December 29, 2006. If you would like to attend the scoping meeting, please
notify the project engineer.
It is anticipated that a federally funded Categorical Exclusion will be prepared for this project.
This document will be prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Ted Devens, P.E., Project
Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone], Ext. 360. Please include the TIP Project Number in
all correspondence and comments.
GJT/plr
Ms. Cluys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse _
Department oC}Ad r*_11rs1'rMic
Gregory J.
Project De
Start of Study for I-4739,?mprovements to I-40 Interchange with NC 42,
Johnston County, Federal-Aid Project IMF-40-4(122)313, WBS
36595.1.1
RECEAD
V off'o
-
VA ?
)Kl?
?rl n
rAi
Analysis Branch
Attachment
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSIrE: WWW.NCDOrCRG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
FPDEA Scoping Procedures
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Scoping Information Sheet
TIP No.: 1-4739
WBS No.: 36595.1.1.1
Federal Aid No: NA
Division: I 4
Sent Date:
Revision Date:
Meeting Date. To be determined
County: Johnston
Project Descri tion.
The project is located in Johnston County and involves improvements to the existing
interchange of 1-40 with NC 42, approximately 10 miles south of Raleigh.
eneral Proie
The purpose of the project is to improve the Level of Service (LOS), travel conditions and
safety at the interchange. Substantial growth at this interchange in Johnston County has
increased traffic volumes, and will continue to increase projected traffic volumes,
increasing traffic pressure at the 1-40/NC42 interchange.
Metropolitan / Rural Planning Organization Capital Area MPO / Upper Coastal Plain
Area: RPO
NEPA/404 Merg er Candidate?: ? Yes ® No ? Not sure
Feasibility Stud y Completed?: ? Yes ® No I 1 Date
Type of Environmental Documents to be Prepared / Proiect Schedule:
Dates: T e of Document:
Environmental Document:
Right of Way:
Let:
Air Qualitv Status:
?y?y2122 23
NOV 2000,
RECENED
Unfunded
Unfunded
Rev 4/10/06
CE
? Non-attainment ? Maintenance ® Attainment
PAGE 1 OF 3

PDEA Scoping Procedures
Design Criteria:
Length of Proiect Limits: NA
TVpe of Access Control:
( Existing / Proposed)
Structure Inventory:
Functional
Classification:
Rev 4/10/06
Existing: Controlled
Proposed: Controlled
Brid e # 501 in Johnston County I
Strategic Highway Corridor
Information:
CTP/Thoroughfare Plan
Designation (Facility Type):
Roadway Tvpical
Section:
(Existing / Proposed)
Interstate - 1-40; NC 42 - Major arterial
Typical Section in Compliance with Conformity Determination:
® Yes ? No
Right of Way:
(Existing / Proposed)
Existing Posted
Speed:
Traff ic (AADT):
Current Year:
Design Year:
Yes - 1-40; No - NC 42
1-40 - Freeway; NC 42 - Major thoroughfare
Interchange
Interchange - to be determined
1-40: 65-70 Proposed Design
NC 42: 45 Speed:
(2005) 1-40 - 56,000;
NC 42 - 23,000
(2030) 1-40 - 113,000;
NC 42 - 46,800
% TTST:
% Dual:
% DHV:
Design Standards Applicable: AASHTO L_J 3R
Railroad Involvement:
1-40: 65-70
NC 42: 45
1-40: 14%
NC 42: 2%
1-40 - 69%;
NC 42-4%
1-40 - 13%;
NC 42 - 12%
Not applicable
Cost Estimate:
TIP Estimate:
Current Estimate:
Construction: Riaht of Wav: Tntal (nst-
Unfunded Unfunded NA
P
TBD TBD TBD
PAGE 2 OF 3
• , PDEA Scoping Procedures Rev 4/10/06
311mlatural / Human Environmental Information (include
comments from agencies):
Draft NRTR submitted in July 2005
- USACE Jurisdictional Determination Field Meeting held June 2005
- Several small headwater streams cross through or originate within the project study area. Surface
waters in the project study area are located in the Neuse River Basin; There are four Unnamed
T-ributaries (UTs) to Swift Creek, and one pond within the project study area. Three of the unnamed
tributaries are perennial streams, and one is intermittent. There are no Water Supplies (WS-I:
undeveloped watersheds or WS-II: predominately undeveloped watersheds), Outstanding Resource
Waters (ORW), nor High Quality Waters (HQW) within one mile of the project study area.
- The USFWS lists four federally protected species for Johnston County. These species are as follows:
• Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Endangered
Biological Conclusion. NO EFFECT. Ground surveys for RCW habitat within the project study
area were conducted along with the other field studies described in this report. There are no stands of
old growth pines (preferred nesting habitat) within a half-mile of the project study area. The mixed pine
and hardwood forests within the project study area are too young or contain too few pines to be preferred
foraging habitat
• Dwarf-Wedge Mussel Endangered
Biological Conclusion: MAY AFFECT - NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT. None of the
stream channels within the project study area are large enough or contain sufficient habitat to support a
population of dwarf-wedge mussel. The project may add some additional impervious area to the existing
interchange but is not likely to significantly impact any of the tributaries. A population has been identified
in Swift Creek, which lies approximately 1/2 mile east of the project study area. Appropriate erosion and
sediment controls and stormwater treatment should negate potential water quality impacts to Swift Creek
• Tar Spinymussel Endangered
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT. The project is located within the Neuse River Basin, not the
Tar where the Tar spinymussel has been found. Additionally, the streams within the project study area
are all low to moderate flow streams with fine sand substrate. Habitat for the Tar spinymussel is not
present within these systems
• Michaux's Sumac Endangered
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT. As described earlier, much of the project study area has
been converted to commercial development. Scattered edge areas and open fields are present, but do
not provide optimal habitat. Most of the open habitat within the corridor is dominated by kudzu and/or
blackberry. Searches for Michaux's sumac were conducted during field investigations on February 4,
February 23, and May 4, 2005 and no plants were observed
- The NCNHP and USFWS responded with letters of concern for potential impacts to the federal and state
endangered dwarf-wedge mussel, which occurs in Swift Creek approximately 112 mile downstream of the
project study area. Concurrence will likely be required from the USFWS.
- There are 13 FSCs listed by the USFWS for Johnston County. A review of the NCNHP database of rare
species and unique habitats revealed 2 species (Atlantic pigtoe and Yellow lance) with documented
occurrences within 1 mile of the project study area.
- No structures in immediate vicinity appear to be over 50 years old.
- Social impacts (i.e., relocations, EJ, community cohesion etc) unlikely
PAGE 3 OF 3

1

I 'A End Project
O

a l G

b' *!

' ? f1 3 ? Y

G
F
e! P
'? k5
rr
V• '`

r. ? ?? "i ?

Begin Project
4

f
?y?i?j• 1 {? °`_ v R.i9?i v
r .ay 4 yk? ? ,?'' - C r V. ? 1+' .:'? ??f:
'
*
g
' ?
r???5 ,?^; 9TthMz ay;4
. Legend
t
q
?' r
`TJLHP?MII 1 ";f1, 7.r Project Study Area

'?•r.i 4e N./IM
* 1 I dais

jy? '?' Project Location
Aululn 1
A.W
Johnston County 401
.?,
Jul
1
°
'•' a/
w .uw
..,
s=
s
loa, 0 H , NS
1 T, O-N
? OB I?o?, 1
nnant
AVU
? Il RN LM I R-'? 1
% .w O«an«..

.?
1 cw.1 1 301

.
?4 T 1 sb
T
.In11 j
701 ` o
I
~
' 11 •?M.w?j..J
+ 1
Ibwr
r
' 0 I1 cMhM
1 Dwwmlw 1 rR. rr...
1 11 H M.

-- 1-40 at NC 42 Inter change

Johnston County, North C
arolina Project Location
Not To Scale
TIP No. 1-4739 Exhibit 1

17 .

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
November 8, 2006
MEMORANDUM TO
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Ms. Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse
Department of 4dm3nislratic
Gregory J. Thorp
Project Develops
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRET
AGr'^n

'1. NOV 2006
RECEIVE-0

Analysis Branch
Start of Study for I-4739,01mprovements to I-40 Interchange with NC 42,
Johnston County, Federal-Aid Project E1 IF-40-4(122)313, WBS
36595.1.1
The Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch is starting the project
development, environmental and engineering studies for the proposed improvements to 1-40 Interchange
with NC 42. The project is included in the 2007-2013 North Carolina Transportation Improvement
Program and is scheduled for right of way and construction in fiscal post-years.
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping information sheets for the proposed project.
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 that may be
required by your agency. A scoping meeting will be scheduled with NCDOT staff to discuss the proposed
project in more detail. In order to include your continents in our materials for this meeting, we would
appreciate your response by December 29, 2006. If you would like to attend the scoping meeting, please
notify the project engineer.
It is anticipated that a federally funded Categorical Exclusion will be prepared for this project.
This document will be prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Ted Devens, P.E., Project
Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone], Ext. 360. Please include the TIP Project Number in
all correspondence and comments.
GJT/plr
Attacltinent
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET _
RALEIGH NC
.. 7 PDEA Scoping Procedures
Sent Date:
Revision Date:
Meeting Date: To be determined
County: Johnston
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Scoping Information Sheet
TIP No.: 1-4739
WBS No.: 36595.1.1.1
Federal Aid No: NA
Division: 4
Project Description-
The project is located in Johnston County and involves improvements to the existing
interchange of 1-40 with NC 42, approximately 10 miles south of Raleigh.
General Project Need,
The purpose of the project is to improve the Level of Service (LOS), travel conditions and
safety at the interchange. Substantial growth at this interchange in Johnston County has
increased traffic volumes, and will continue to increase projected traffic volumes,
increasing traffic pressure at the 1-40/NC42 interchange.
Metropolitan / Rural Planning Organization Capital Area MPO / Upper Coastal Plain
Area: RPO
NEPA/404 Merg er Candidate?: ? Yes ® No ? Not sure
Feasibility Study Completed?: ? Yes ® No Date
Type of Environmental Documents to be Prepared / Proiect Schedule:
Dates: T e of Document:
Environmental Document:
Right of Way:
Let:
Air Qualitv Status:
s
T2Z 23
NOV 2006
,n
Q RSCE(VED
n0A
?l
Unfunded
Unfunded
? Non-attainment

r]2-

Rev 4/10/06
CE
? Maintenance ® Attainment
PAGE 1 OF 3
Q PDEA Scoping Procedures
Design Criteria:
Length of Project Limits: NA
Type of Access Control:
(Existing / Proposed)
Structure Inventory:
Functional
Classification:
Rev 4/10/06
Brid e # 501 in Johnston Count
Interstate - 1-40; NC 42 - Major arterial
Strategic Highway Corridor
Information:
CTP/Thoroughfare Plan
Designation (Facility Type):
Roadway Typical
Section:
(Existing / Proposed)
Existing: Controlled
Proposed: Controlled
Typical Section in Compliance with Conformity Determination:
® Yes ? No
Right of Way:
(Existing / Proposed)
Existing Posted
Speed:
Traffic (AADT):
Current Year:
Design Year:
Yes - 1-40; No - NC 42
1-40 - Freeway; NC 42 - Major thoroughfare
Interchange
Interchange -to be determined
E-40: 65-70 Proposed Design
NC 42: 45 Speed:
(2005) 1-40 - 56,000;
NC 42 - 23,000
(2030) 1-40 - 113,000;
NC 42 - 46,800
% TTST:
% Dual:
% DHV:
Design Standards Applicable: AASHTO C] 3R
Railroad Involvement:
1-40: 65-70
NC 42: 45
1-40: 14%
NC 42:2%
1-40 - 69%;
NC42-4%
1-40 - 13%;
NC42-12%
Not applicable
Cost Estimate:
TIP Estimate:
Current Estimate:
Construction: Riaht of Wav- Total C`nct-
E Unfunded Unfunded NA
TBD TBD TBD
PAGE 2 OF 3
. F:DEA Scoping Procedures
Rev 4/10/06
Natural / Human Environmental Information (include
comments from agencies):
- Draft NRTR submitted in July 2005
- USACE Jurisdictional Determination Field Meeting held June 2005
- Several small headwater streams cross through or originate within the project study area. Surface
waters in the project study area are located in the Neuse River Basin; There are four Unnamed
T-ributaries (UTs) to Swift Creek, and one pond within the project study area. Three of the unnamed
tributaries are perennial streams, and one is intermittent. There are no Water Supplies (WS-I:
undeveloped watersheds or WS-II: predominately undeveloped watersheds), Outstanding Resource
Waters (ORW), nor High Quality Waters (HQW) within one mile of the project study area.
- The USFWS lists four federally protected species for Johnston County. These species are as follows:
• Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Endangered
Biological Conclusion. NO EFFECT. Ground surveys for RCW habitat within the project study
area were conducted along with the other field studies described in this report. There are no stands of
old growth pines (preferred nesting habitat) within a half-mile of the project study area. The mixed pine
and hardwood forests within the project study area are too young or contain too few pines to be preferred
foraging habitat
• Dwarf-Wedge Mussel Endangered
Biological Conclusion: MAY AFFECT - NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT. None of the
stream channels within the project study area are large enough or contain sufficient habitat to support a
population of dwarf-wedge mussel. The project may add some additional impervious area to the existing
interchange but is not likely to significantly impact any of the tributaries. A population has been identified
in Swift Creek, which lies approximately 1/z mile east of the project study area. Appropriate erosion and
sediment controls and stormwater treatment should negate potential water quality impacts to Swift Creek
• Tar Spinymussel Endangered
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT. The project is located within the Neuse River Basin, not the
Tar where the Tar spinymussel has been found. Additionally, the streams within the project study area
are all low to moderate flow streams with fine sand substrate. Habitat for the Tar spinymussel is not
present within these systems
• Michaux's Sumac Endangered
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT. As described earlier, much of the project study area has
been converted to commercial development. Scattered edge areas and open fields are present, but do
not provide optimal habitat. Most of the open habitat within the corridor is dominated by kudzu and/or
blackberry. Searches for Michaux's sumac were conducted during field investigations on February 4,
February 23, and May 4, 2005 and no plants were observed
- The NCNHP and USFWS responded with letters of concern for potential impacts to the federal and state
endangered dwarf-wedge mussel, which occurs in Swift Creek approximately Y2 mile downstream of the
project study area. Concurrence will likely be required from the USFWS.
- There are 13 FSCs listed by the USFWS for Johnston County. A review of the NCNHP database of rare
species and unique habitats revealed 2 species (Atlantic pigtoe and Yellow lance) with documented
occurrences within 1 mile of the project study area.
- No structures in immediate vicinity appear to be over 50 years old.
- Social impacts (i.e., relocations, EJ, community cohesion etc) unlik
PAGE 3OF3
10

Begin Project

x
?

-
r x
•

lets
i* 'E
,..
t5" Jb
?
f _
1'd

y

PDEA Scoping Procedures Rev 4/10/06
Natural / Human Environmental Information (include
comments from agencies):
Draft NRTR submitted in July 2005
USACE Jurisdictional Determination Field Meeting held June 2005
Several small headwater streams cross through or originate within the project study area. Surface
wafers in the project study area are located in the Neuse River Basin; There are four Unnamed
1-ributaries (UTs) to Swift Creek, and one pond within the project study area. Three of the unnamed
tributaries are perennial streams, and one is intermittent. There are no Water Supplies (WS-I:
undeveloped watersheds or WS-11: predominately undeveloped watersheds), Outstanding Resource
Waters (ORW), nor High Quality Waters (HQW) within one mile of the project study area.
- The USFWS lists four federally protected species for Johnston County. These species are as follows:
• Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Endangered
Biological Conclusion. NO EFFECT. Ground surveys for RCW habitat within the project study
area were conducted along with the other field studies described in this report. There are no stands of
old growth pines (preferred nesting habitat) within a half-mile of the project study area. The mixed pine
and hardwood forests within the project study area are too young or contain too few pines to be preferred
foraging habitat
• Dwarf-Wedge Mussel Endangered
Biological Conclusion: MAY AFFECT - NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT. None of the
stream channels within the project study area are large enough or contain sufficient habitat to support a
population of dwarf-wedge mussel. The project may add some additional impervious area to the existing
interchange but is not likely to significantly impact any of the tributaries. A population has been identified
in Swift Creek, which lies approximately 112 mile east of the project study area. Appropriate erosion and
sediment controls and stormwater treatment should negate potential water quality impacts to Swift Creek
• Tar Spinymussel Endangered
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT. The project is located within the Neuse River Basin, not the
Tar where the Tar spinymussel has been found. Additionally, the streams within the project study area
are all low to moderate flow streams with fine sand substrate. Habitat for the Tar spinymussel is not
present within these systems
• Michaux's Sumac Endangered
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT. As described earlier, much of the project study area has
been converted to commercial development. Scattered edge areas and open fields are present, but do
not provide optimal habitat. Most of the open habitat within the corridor is dominated by kudzu and/or
blackberry. Searches for Michaux's sumac were conducted during field investigations on February 4,
February 23, and May 4, 2005 and no plants were observed
- The NCNHP and USFWS responded with letters of concern for potential impacts to the federal and state
endangered dwarf-wedge mussel, which occurs in Swift Creek approximately 1/2 mile downstream of the
project study area. Concurrence will likely be required from the USFWS.
- There are 13 FSCs listed by the USFWS for Johnston County. A review of the NCNHP database of rare
species and unique habitats revealed 2 species (Atlantic pigtoe and Yellow lance) with documented
occurrences within 1 mile of the project study area.
No structures in immediate vicinity appear to be over 50 years old.
Social impacts (i.e., relocations, EJ, community cohesion etc) unlikelv
PAGE 3OF3

<r°
End Project
I 17Y
000
t 1
11 -.. -?- 1. r f ? A { ,r 1 , I t ? Dt
t- a
v ? M ? ?. {?a` T r •? -may F?
t t .rt ,?,1 , '?\ t e'
f ? ?r F
a2 y y fDl,
Begin Project t=
rr Legend
Project Stud Area
O

1-40 at NC 42 Interchange Project Location
Johnston County, North Carolina Not To Scale
TIP No. 1-4739 Exhibit 1
-- r
QPP?NE,NT op Ty?' United States Department of the Interior
o? yT
a FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
ACH 3 Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726
March 17, 2005
Susan S. Shelingoski
Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.
801 Jones Franklin Road Suite 300
Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
Dear Ms. Shelingoski:
This letter is in response to your request for comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on
the potential environmental effects of the proposed improvements to the existing 1-40 and NC 42 interchange
in Johnston County, North Carolina (TIRNaA 91 These comments provide scoping information in
accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and section 7 of
the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
Although most of the project study area is previously disturbed with commercial development, there are two
headwater streams that are tributaries to Swift Creek. The federally endangered dwarf wedgemussel
(Alasmiclonta heterodon) exists in Swift Creek. Survey trend data imply that the dwarf wedgemussel is
declining in Swift Creek. This apparent decline coincides with the recent and rapid development of the
watershed. The Service would be concerned with any project which impacts tributaries to Swift Creek and/or
which would lead to increased secondary development in the watershed. Our concern would include direct
impacts to tributary streams and increased impervious surfaces with the accompanying increase in storm water
flow to streams in the watershed.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act requires that all federal action agencies (or their designated
non-federal representatives), in consultation with the Service, insure that any action federally authorized,
funded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any federally-
listed threatened or endangered species. A biological assessment/evaluation may be prepared to fulfill the
section 7(a)(2) requirement and will expedite the consultation process. To assist you, a county-by-county list
of federally protected species known to occur in North Carolina and information on their life histories and
habitats can be found on our web page at http://nc-CS.fws.gov/es/countyfr.Iltml .
If you determine that the proposed action may affect (i.e., likely to adversely affect or not likely to adversely
affect) a listed species, you should notify this office with your determination, the results of your surveys,
survey methodologies, and an analysis of the effects of the action on listed species, including consideration of
direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, before conducting any activities that might affect the species. If you
determine that the proposed action will have no effect (i.e., no beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect effect)
on listed species, then you are not required to contact our office for concurrence.
We reserve the right to review any federal permits that may be required for this project, at the public notice
stage. Therefore, it is important that resource agency coordination occur early in the planning process in order
to resolve any conflicts that may arise and minimize delays in project implementation. In addition to the above
guidance, we recommend that the environmental dociunentation for this project include the following in
sufficient detail to facilitate a thorough review of the action:
I . A clearly defined and detailed purpose and need for the proposed project, supported by
tabular data, if available, and including a discussion of the project's independent utility;
2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered, including
the upgrading of existing roads and a "no action" alternative;
3. A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project impact area that
may be directly or indirectly affected;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted by filling,
dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should be differentiated by
habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI).
Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
5. The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be likely to occur
as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also include the extent to which the
proposed project would result in secondary impacts to natural resources, and how this and similar
projects contribute to cumulative adverse effects;
6. Design leatUrCS and construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or minimize impacts
to fish and wildlife resources, both direct and indirect, and including fi-agmentation and direct loss of
habitat;
7. Design features, construction techniques, or any other mitigation measures which would be employed
at wetland crossings and stream channel relocations to avoid or minimize impacts to waters of the US;
and,
8. If unavoidable wetland or stream impacts are proposed, project planning should include a
compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting the unavoidable impacts.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please continue to advise us during the
progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the impacts of this project. If you
have any questions regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at [phone], ext. 32.
rnce y
Pete Ber???-
Ecological) Services Supervisor
cc: Bill Biddlecomc, USACE, Washington, NC
Nicole Thomson, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Crcedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
801 Jones Franklin Road Suite 300
Raleigh NC 27606
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]
stantec.com
qw, ? ---- --
Stantec
April 19, 2005
North Carolina Department of Water Quality
Transportation Permitting Unit
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Ste 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
Dear Ms. Christina Breen:
Reference: -1 atuual Resources Technical Report, 1-40 Interchange Improvements
Enclosed you will find the Executive Summary from the Natural Resources Technical Report for
this project, a table containing GPS points and coordinates for the wetland identified within the
project study area, a figure containing the location of these GPS points, a table showing the
amount of jurisdictional waters within the project study area, and the stream and wetland data
forms for the features presented. Please note that the impact amounts listed are based on the
entire project study area. The actual impacts to the features present cannot be determined until
alternatives are developed.
This package has also been sent to Mr. Bill Biddlecome of USACE. Please review this
information and provide us with any comments you may have on the proposed project.
Sincerely,
STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC.
05
?'!?l APR ?? ? 20
?u - 9A
ORMwt11:RBW? H
Susan Shelingoski ENR-IN TNTEF'
Scientist, Environmental Management
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1-4739
1-40 AT NC 42 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
JOHNSTON COUNTY
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the project is to improve the Level of Service (LOS), travel conditions
and safety at the interchange of 1-40 and NC 42 in Johnston County, North Carolina. It
is expected that substantial growth in this portion of Johnston County will increase
projected traffic volumes, further increasing traffic pressure at the 1-40/NC 42
interchange.
NCDOT will be investigating various options to improve traffic flow through the
interchange. Information provided in this NRTR will be used to assist in that
investigation. A single point urban interchange is one of the options that is being
considered. The project study area includes approximately 6,000 feet of NC 42, 4,000
feet of 1-40 and an area of approximately 190 acres (Figure 1).
This project lies on the border of the Rolling Coastal Plain and Northern Outer Piedmont
Physiographic Provinces. Elevations within Johnston County range from 75 feet above
sea level to approximately 370 feet above sea level at the Wake County line, where the
project study area is located. The project study area is characterized by gently
undulating topography located within broad interstream divides with slopes between 0
and 6 percent.
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Water Resources
Surface waters in the project study area are located in the Neuse River Basin, USGS
Hydrologic Unit 03020201. There are four Unnamed Tributaries (UTs) to Swift Creek,
and one pond within the project study area. Three of the unnamed tributaries are
perennial streams, and one is intermittent. A total of 2,630 linear feet of streams are
present within the project study area.
All streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the NCDWQ. Streams
located within the project study area are Unnamed Tributaries (UTs) to Swift Creek and
thereby take the stream index number and use classification of Swift Creek (27-43-11, C
NSW). Class C designates these waters for aquatic life propagation and maintenance of
biological integrity (including fishing and fish). Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) are
waters that experience or are subject to excessive growths of macroscopic or
microscopic vegetation growth. Excessive growths are those that the Commission
determines impair the water for its best usage as determined by the classification
applied to such waters. There are no Water Supplies (WS-1: undeveloped watersheds or
WS-11: predominately undeveloped watersheds), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW),
nor High Quality Waters (HQW) within one mile of the project study area.
Biotic Resources
Extensive growth and development in recent years has impacted many of the natural
communities that originally occurred within the project vicinity. Consequently, the
majority of the terrestrial areas within the project study area can best be described as
Maintained/Disturbed. Additional terrestrial communities occurring within the project
study area include Mesic/Mixed Hardwood Forest (Piedmont Subtype) and
Piedmont/Mountain Semipermanent Impoundment. Potential impacts to each
community are presented within the document (Figure 2).
JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
Surface Waters and Wetlands
Jurisdictional surface waters identified within the project study area include UT-A, UT-B,
UT-C, UT-D, Wetland A, and a small pond (Figure 3). Approximately 0.13 acres of non-
riverine wetlands are present within the project study area.
Neuse River Buffer Rules
The jurisdictional streams within the project study area fall within the Neuse River Basin
and are therefore subject to the rules for the "Protection and Maintenance of Existing
Riparian Buffers" (T15A NCAC 02B .0233). A minimum 50-foot vegetative Riparian
Protection Area is required along all perennial and intermittent streams, lakes and
ponds. The Neuse Riparian Buffer Rules will apply to the unnamed tributaries within the
project boundary. Therefore, any potential impacts to the forested riparian buffers along
these streams should be minimized and may require mitigation if the permanent impacts
exceed one-third of an acre.
Permits
In accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit is
required from the USACE for projects of this type for the discharge of dredged or fill
material into "Waters of the United States". A Nationwide Permit from the USACE and
corresponding General Water Quality Certification from the NCDWQ are likely to be
applicable for all impacts to Waters of the United States resulting from the proposed
project.
Compensation
Wetlands
In accordance with 40 CFR 1508.20, compensatory mitigation for wetland losses may be
required if avoidance and minimization of an impact is not possible. The potential
wetland impacts for the project are small, and most likely avoidable. Mitigation needs
will be determined once the final design has been developed.
Surface Waters
In accordance with 15 A NCAC 2H.0506(h) and 40 CFR 1508.20, NCDWQ may require
mitigation for stream impacts to jurisdictional surface waters when these impacts are
equal or greater than 150 linear feet. The USACE can also require compensatory
mitigation for impacts to streams with significant habitat and aquatic life. It is likely that
compensatory mitigation for surface waters will not be needed for this project.
Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under the provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of
April 6, 2005, the USFWS lists four federally protected species for Johnston County.
These species are as follows:
(1) Red-Cockaded Woodpecker
Biological Conclusion. NO EFFECT
Endangered
(2) Dwarf-Wedge Mussel Endangered
Biological Conclusion: MAY AFFECT - NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT
(3) Tar Spinymussel Endangered
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT
(4) Michaux's Sumac Endangered
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT
Biological conclusions of 'May Affect - Not Likely to Adversely Affect' have been
reached for one of the four federally protected species. Biological conclusions of 'No
Effect' have been reached for the other three species. The conclusions were based on
habitat analysis, physical searches, and guidance from the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program (NCNHP) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. A population of
dwarf-wedge mussel has been identified in Swift Creek approximately '/2 mile
downstream of the project study area. Although the stream channels within the study
area drain into Swift Creek, none of them are large enough or contain sufficient habitat
to support a population of dwarf-wedge mussel. The project may add some additional
impervious area to the existing interchange but is not likely to significantly impact any of
the tributaries. Appropriate erosion and sediment controls and stormwater treatment
should negate potential water quality impacts to Swift Creek.
There are 13 federal species of concern listed for Johnston County. Of these 13, none
have been documented by the NCNHP as occurring within the project study area, but
two have been documented within a mile of the project study area. Populations of
Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni) and Yellow lance (Elliptio lanceolata) are present
within one mile of the project study area. It is not expected that the construction of this
project will have any effect on those populations.
RECOMMENDATIONS
To minimize impacts to jurisdictional areas, forested habitat, and water quality, NCDOT
should strive to make interchange improvements within the existing rights-of-way.
Stringent erosion and sediment control measures should be utilized during construction
to minimize water quality impacts to stream channels within the project study area.
Because of the presence of the dwarf-wedge mussel in nearby Swift Creek, NCDOT
may wish to consider stormwater management BMP's between the ramps and the
roadways of the interchange to treat runoff before it enters the tributaries.
?I

er
O
prings . "an"on I 't
y-Varina "S Willow Spring J O H
2 6 7
4
can 5 50
, N +
Sm i

@
p 00
9
~'
11M
rings Angler
0 1 12
W^
2 - Ava Gardner
Klpling 210 7 Holrs I
401 R
Four Oak,

•
¦ ¦ \ \ /I¦ \ Y1
S95 T 9
Mlc
•I
Not to Scale ¦
N
Legend
Q Project Study Area
- Johnston County
North Carolina Department of Transport
Office of Human Environment
1-40 at NC 42 Interchange
Improvements
TIP No. 1-4739. Johnston County, North Carolina
Project Location
Figure 1

r '
{
4
'I
I
t I
i ? i

3 ? I
f

j{
i
y1
y
d a
14
e
t
a I

i
1 G
.

Point Name Northing Eastin
w1-1 674943.664 2129577.063
w1-2 674949.494 2129611.679
w1-3 674917.816 2129623.537
w1-4 674926.381 2129597.795
w1-5 674921.681 2129584.173
w1-6 674923.792 2129555.202
w1-7 674915.23 2129529.155
w1-8 674909.192 2129503.694
w1-9 674910.925 2129482.531
w1-10 674923.417 2129445.565
w1-11 674949.399 2129439.119
w1-12 674958.491 2129454.158
w1-13 674953.498 2129516.766

f
t ; ? I' I ? I? i 1

i .? If I

I {
l
1 ,
f a
1

Jurisdictional Waters Within the Project Study Area

NAME INTERMITTENT (if) PERENNIAL (if)
UT-A 0 865
UT-13 0 440
UT-C 0 810
UT-D 515 0
TOTAL 515 2,630
f WE7CAMS
NAME RIVERINE (ac) NON-RIVERINE'(ac)
A 0 0.13
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: 1-4739 Date: 2/23/05
Applicant / Owner: NCDOT Count : Johnston
Investigator: Lia M ott, Nancy Dal State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? YES NO Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? YES NO Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? (If needed, explain on reverse) YES NO Plot ID: Upland A
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Quercus alba Canopy FACU 9
2. Quercus montana Canopy UPL 10
3. Quercus ni ra Canopy FAC 11
4. Smilax spp. Vine FACW 12
5. Vitis s pp. Vine FAC 13
6. Lonicera japonica Vine FAC- 14
7. Pueraria montana var. lobata Vine UPL 15
8 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC- : 43%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
[ ] Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
[ ] Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
[ ] Aerial Photographs
[ J Other
[ ] No Recorded Data Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS
Depth of Surface Water
Depth of Free Water in Pit
Depth to Saturated Soil
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS
Primary Indicators:
[ ] Inundated
[ ] Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
[ ] Water Marks
[ ] Drift Lines
[ ] Sediment Deposits
[ ] Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
N/A (in) Secondary Indicators (2 or more Required)
[ ] Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
N/A (in) [ ] Water-stained Leaves
[ ] Local Soil Survey Data
N/A (in) [ ] FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks
SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Rion sandy loam Drainage Class: Well drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Hapludults Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? YES NO

Depth Horizon Matrix Color
inches Munsell Moist PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Munsell Moist Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-4 A 10YR4/2 Sand loam
4-8 B1 10YR5/4 Sand loam
8-12 B2 10YR5/4 Loam sand
12+ 10YR3/1 Loam sand

HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS:
[ J Histosol
(] Histic Epipedon
[ ] Sulfidic Odor
[ ] Aquic Moisture Regime
[ ] Reducing Conditions
X Gle ed or Low-Chroma Colors [ ] Concretions
[ ] High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
[ ] Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
[ J Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
[ ] Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
H dro h tic Vegetation Present? YES NO
Wetland Hydrology Present? YES NO Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? YES NO
H dric Soil Present? YES NO
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: 1-4739 Date: 2/23/05
Applicant/ Owner: NCDOT Count : Johnston
Investigator: Lia M ott, Nancy Dal State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? YES NO Communit ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? YES NO Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? (If needed, explain on reverse) YES NO Plot ID: Wetland A
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Quercus ni ra Canopy FAC 9
2. Acer rubrum Canopy FAC 10
3. Salix ni ra Understor OBL 11
4. Ilex o aca Understor FAC- 12
5. Sambucus canadensis Shrub FACW- 13
6. Smilax s pp. Vine FACW 14
7. Arundinaria i antea Grass FACW 15
8 16
_
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC- : 86%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
[ ] Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
[ ] Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
[ ] Aerial Photographs
[ ] Other
[ ] No Recorded Data Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS
Depth of Surface Water
Depth of Free Water in Pit
Depth to Saturated Soil
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS
Primary Indicators:
[X] Inundated
[X] Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
[ ] Water Marks
[ ] Drift Lines
[ ] Sediment Deposits
[X] Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
(in) Secondary Indicators (2 or more Required)
[ ] Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
6 (in) [ ] Water-stained Leaves
[ ] Local Soil Survey Data
(in) [ ] FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks
SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Rion sandy loam Drainage Class: Well drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Hapludults Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? YES NO

Depth Horizon Matrix Color
inches Munsell Moist PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Munsell Moist Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-4 A 10YR3/1 Sand loam
4-8 131 10YR4/1 Sand loam
8-12 B2 10YR5/1 10YR5/6 Faint/Common Sand loam
12+ B2 10YR5/1 10YR5/6 Faint/Common Sand loam w/ ravel

HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS:
[ ] Histosol
[ J Histic Epipedon
[X] Sulfidic Odor
[ ] Aquic Moisture Regime
[ ] Reducing Conditions
X Gle ed or Low-Chroma Colors [ ] Concretions
[ ] High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
[ ] Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
[ ] Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
(] Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
H dro h is Vegetation Present? YES NO
Wetland Hydrology Present? YES NO
H dric Soil Present? YES NO
Remarks:
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? YES NO
Wetland consists of small ponded area and drainage flowing from pond. Most likely the result of stormwater runoff.
USAGE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: NCDOT 2. Evaluator's name: N. Daly, S. Shchngoski
3. Date of evaluation: February 5, 2005 4. Time of evaluation: 10 AM
5. Name of stream: UT-A to Swift Creek 6. River basin: Neuse
7. Approximate drainage area: 50 acres 8. Stream order: First
9. Length of reach evaluated: 1,100 feet 10. County: Johnston
11 Site coordinates (if known): Prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): Longitude (ex. - 77.556611 ):
Method location determined (circle): ® ® Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
tion of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): UT-A flows east from the
southwest quadrant of the NC 42/140 interchange, beneath the interchange, and continues to flow east towards
Swift Creek.
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: Cold, wet
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Cold, wet
17. Identify any special waterway classification known: _ Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters X N utrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation po int'? YES ® If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map'? ® NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? ® NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential 95 % Commercial Industrial Agricultural
5 % Forested Cleared / Logged Other ( )
22. Bankfull width. 4 feet 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 2 feet
24. Channel slope down center of stream: x % Flat (Oto 2%) % Gentle (2 to 4%) __% Moderate (4 to 10%) _% Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: -Straight x Occasional bends Frequent meander % Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on location, terrain,
vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each characteristic within the
range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should
reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions enter 0 in
the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comments section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review
(e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form
used to evaluated each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of
the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse)
51
Comments:
Evaluator's Signature: Date:
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in gathering the
data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream quality. The total score resulting
from the completion of this form is subject to USAGE approval and does not imply a particular mitigation ration or requirement. Form
subject to change - version 06/113. To Comment, please call 919-8776-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET-UT-A
# CH
R
TE ECOR EGION POINT RANGE SCORE
A
AC
RISTICS Coastal Piedmont Mountain
I Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 2
no flow or saturation=0; strong flow=max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 1
extensive alteration=0; no alteration=max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 3
(no buffer-0; contiguous, wide buffer=max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical dischargers 0-5 0-4 0-4 1
(extensive discharges=O; no discharges=max oints
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 2
(no discharge=O; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc.=max points)
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0 - 4
0 - 4
0 - 2 2
?., no flood lain=0; extensive flood lain=max points)
w 7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 3
(deeply entrenched=0; frequent flooding=max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2 1
(no wetlands=0; large ad
acent wetlands=max points
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 3
(extensive channelization=0; natural meander-max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 0
extensive deposition=O; little or no sediment=max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 1
(fine, homogeneous=O; large, diverse sizes=max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 4
(deeply incised=0; stable bed & banks=max points)
H 13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5 3
severe erosion=0; no erosion, sable banks=max points)
14 Root depth and density on banks
0 3
0-4
0-5 3
no visible roots=0; dense roots throughout--max boints
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5 4
(substantial impact--O; no evidence=max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 4
(no riffles/ripples or pools=O; well-developed=max points)
Q 17 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6 3
little or no habitat=0; frequent, varied habitats=max points)
18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5 2
x no shading vegetation=O; continuous canopy=max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4 3
(deeply embedded=0; loose structure=max points)
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5 2
(no evidence=0; common, numerous types=max points)
V 21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4
1
p no evidence=0; common, numerous types=max oints
04
0

O
22
Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4

0
P4 no evidence=0; common, numerous types=max oints)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 3
(no evidence=0; abundant evidence=max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 51
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
Project Name: I-4739 River Basin: Neuse County: Johnston
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream: Swift Creek Latitude
Date: 2/5/05 USGS QUAD: Edmondson Longitude:
Evaluator: S. Shelingoski
N. Daly
Signature:
Location/Directions: UT-A flows east from the southwest quadrant of the NC 42/1 40 interchange, beneath the
interchange, and continues to flow east towards Swift Creek.
*PLEASE NOTE: if evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not
necessary. Also, if in the best professional judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified
natural stream-this rating system should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
I. Geomorphology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1_) is There A Riffle-Pool Sequence? 0 1 2 3
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
Different From Surrounding Terrain? 0 1 2 3
3) Are Natural Levees Present? 0 1 2 3
4) Is The Channel Sinuous? 0 1 2 3
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
Floodplain Present? 0 1 2 3
6) Is The Channel Braided? 0 1 2 3
7) Are Recent Alluvial Deposits Present? 0 1 2 3
8) Is There A Bankfull Bench Present? 0 l 2 3
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 2 3
MOTE.- llBed & Bank Unused By Ditching And WIMOUT Sinu osity Then Scare=0'I

10) Is A 2" d Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated ____
On Topo Map AndlOr In Field) Present'? Yes=3 No=O
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS: 17
11. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
l) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/Discharge Present'? 0 1 2 3
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: 1
III. Biology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Are Fibrous Roots Present In Streambed? 3 2 1 0
2) Are Rooted Plants Present In Streambed? 3 2 1 0
3) Is Periphyton Present? 0 1 2 3
4) Are Bivalves Present? 0 1 2 3
PRIMA R Y BIOL OG Y INDICATOR POINTS: 5
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
1. Geomorphology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Head Cut Present In Channel? 0 .5 1 1.5
2) Is There A Grade Control Point In Channel? 0 .5 1 1.5
3) Does Topography Indicate A
Natural Drainage Way? 0 .5 1 1.5 _
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: 4.5
11. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaf litter
_Present In Streambed? 1.5 1 .5 0
2) Is Sediment On Plants (Or Debris) Present'? 0 .5 1 1.5
3) Are Wrack Lines Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 1 1.5
Last Known Rain? (*NOTE: If Ditch Indicated In #9 Above Skiv This Stw And #5 Below*)
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1 1.5
Conditions Or In Growing Season)?
6) Are Hvdric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel (Or In Headcut)'? Yes=1.5 No=0
SECONDARY HYDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: 4.5
III. Biology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Are Fish Present'? 0 .5 1 1.5
2) Are Amphibians Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
3) Are AquaticTurtles Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
4) Are Crayfish Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
5) Are Macrobenthos Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
6) Are Iron Oxidizing Bacteria/Fungus Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
7) Is Filamentous Algae Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? N/A SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
(* NOTE: if Total Absence OjAll Plants In Streambed 2 1 .75 .5 0 0
As Noted Above .Skiv nits Step UNLESS SAV Present*).
SECONDARY BIOL OGY INDICA TOR POINTS: 1.5
TOTAL POINTS (Primary + Secondary= 33.5 (If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is At
Least Intermittent)
USACE AID#
DWQ #
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name:
NCDOT
3. Date of evaluation: February 5, 2005
5. Name of stream: UT-13 to Swift Creek
7. Approximate drainage area
9. Length of reach evaluated:
2. Evaluator's name:
4. Time of evaluation
6. River basin:
8. Stream order:
10. County:
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
19 acres
900 feet
11 Site coordinates (if known): Prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
Method location determined (circle):
Site # (indicate on attached map)
-AQ0
N. Daly, S. Shelingoski
10 AM
Neuse
First
Johnston
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Longitude (ex. - 77.556611):
Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIs Other
tion of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): UT-13 is located within the
southeast quadrant of the NC 42 and 140 interchange.
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: Cold, wet
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Cold, wet
17. Identify any special waterway classification known: _ Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
't'rout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters X -Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES n If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential 95 % Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
5 % Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 4 -5 feet 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 5 feet
24. Channel slope down center of stream: x % Flat (Oto 2%) % Gentle (2 to 4%) _% Moderate (4 to 10%) % Steep (>10%
25. Channel sinuosity: -Straight x Occasional bends Frequent meander _% Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on location, terrain,
vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each characteristic within the
range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should
reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions enter 0 in
the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comments section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review
(e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form
used to evaluated each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of
the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse):
53
Comments:
Evaluator's Signature: Date:
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in gathering the
data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream quality. The total score resulting
from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a particular mitigation ration or requirement. Form
subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-8776-8441 x 26
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET ---UT-B
# CH
RA
TE ECOR EGION POINT RANGE SCORE
A
RISTICS
C Coastal Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 4
no flow or saturation=0; strong flow=max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 3
extensive alteration=0; no alteration=max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 3
no buffer-0; contiguous, wide buffer=max oints
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical dischargers 0-5 0-4 0-4 1
extensive discharges=O; no discharges=max oints
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 3
no discharge=O; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc.=max points)
U" 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0 - 4
0 - 4
0 - 2 1
>+ no flood lain=O; extensive flood lain=max oints)
a 7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 1
(deeply entrenched=0; frequent flooding=max oints)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2 0
no wetlands=0; large ad
acent wetlands=max oints
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 3
extensive channelization=0; natural meander=max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 2
extensive deposition=O; little or no sediment=max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 4
fine, homogeneous=O; large, diverse sizes=max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 0
(deeply incised=0; stable bed & banks=max oints)
F
0-4 13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5 2
severe erosion=0; no erosion, sable banks=max points)
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 1
no visible roots=0; dense roots throughout--max points)
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5 1
substantial impact--O; no evidence=max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 4
no riffles/ripples or pools=O; well-developed=max points)
17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 5
F little or no habitat=0; frequent, varied habitats=max points)
18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5 4
x no shading vegetation=O; continuous canopy=max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4 2
(deeply embedded=0; loose structure=max points)
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5 3
no evidence=0; common, numerous types=max points)
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4
2
p no evidence=0; common, numerous types=max points)
04 22 Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 0-4
1
pq (no evidence=0; common, numerous types=max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 3
no evidence=0; abundant evidence=max oints)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 53
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
Project Name: 1-4739 River Basin: Neuse County: Johnston Evaluator: S. Shelingoski
N. Daly
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream: Swift Creek Latitude: Signature:
Date: 2/5/04 USGS QUAD: Edmondson Longitude:
Location/Directions: UT-13 is located within the southeast quadrant of the NC 42 and 140 interchange.
*PLEASE NOTE: if evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not
necessary. Also, if in the best professional judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified
natural stream-this rating system should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: WircleOne Number Per Line)
1. Geomorphology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
10 Is There A Riffle-Pool Sequence? 0 1 2 3
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
Different From Surrounding Terrain?
0 1
2
3
3) Are Natural Levees Present'? 0 1 2 3
4) Is The Channel Sinuous? 0 1 2 3
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
Floodplain Present?
0 1
2
3
_
6) Is The Channel Braided? 0 1 2 3
7) Are Recent Alluvial Deposits Present'? 0 1 2 3
8) Is There A Bankfull Bench Present? 0 1 2 3
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 l
MOTE: if Bed & Bank Caused_RVilrhine And WITHOUT Sinuosity Then Score=0'1
10) Is A 2,d Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated 2 3
On Topo Map AndlOr In Field) Present? Yes=3 No=0
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS: 12
II. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/Discharee Present'? 0 1 2 3
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: 2
III. Biology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Are Fibrous Roots Present In Streambed? 3 2 1 0
2) Are Rooted Plants Present In Streambed? 3 2 1 0
3) Is Periphyton Present'? 0 1 2 3
4) Are Bivalves Present? 0 1 2 3
PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: 4
SecOndgy Field Indicators: (Orcle One Number Per Line)
I. Geomorphology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Head Cut Present In Channel? 0 .5 1 1.5
2) Is There A Grade Control Point In Channel'? 0 .5 1 1.5
3) Does Topography Indicate A
Natural Drainaee Wav? 0 .5 1 1.5
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: 2.5
II. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaf litter
Present In Streambed'? 1.5 1 5 0
2) Is Sediment On Plants (Or Debris) Present'? 0 .5 1 1.5
3) Are Wrack Lines Present'? 0 .5 1 1.5
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 1 1.5
Last Known Rain? ('NOTE. UDitch Indicated In #9 Above .Skin This Step And #5 Below'
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1 1.5
Conditions Or In Growing Season)?
6) Are Hydric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel (Or In Headcut)? Yes=1.5 No=0
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICA TOR POINTS: 4
III. Biology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Are Fish Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
2) Are Amphibians Present? 0 5 1 1.5
3) Are AquaticTurtles Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
4) Are Crayfish Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
5) Are Macrobenthos Present? 0 5 1 1.5
6) Are Iron Oxidizing Bacteria/Fungus Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
7) Is Filamentous Algae Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? N/A SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPI,
(" NOTE: If Total Absence Of All Plants In Streambed 2 1 .75 .5 0 0
As Noted Above Skin This Sten UNLESS SAV Present').
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: 4.5
TOTAL POINTS (Primary + Secondary= 29 (1f Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is At Least
Intermittent)
IJSAC.'E AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: NCDOT 2. Evaluator's name: N. Daly, S. Shelingoski
3. Date of evaluation: February 5, 2005 4. 'rime of evaluation: I I AM
5. Name of stream: UT-C to Swift Creek 6. River basin: Neuse
7. Approximate drainage area: 43 acres 8. Stream order: First
9. Length of reach evaluated: 1,100 feet 10. County: Johnston
11 Site coordinates (if known): Prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): Longitude (ex. - 77.556611 ):
Method location determined (circle): ® ® Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
tion of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): South of NC 42, flows
north from Lowes stormwater ponds.
14. Proposed channel work (if any):

15. Recent weather conditions: Cold, wet
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Cold, wet
17. Identify any special waterway classification known: _ S ection 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters X_Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation poin t? YES ® If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey?. YES
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential 95 % Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
5 % Forested _% Cleared / Logged % Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 2 -3 feet 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): I -2 feet
24. Channel slope down center of stream: x % Flat (Oto 2%) % Gentle (2 to 4%) % Moderate (4 to 10%) % Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: -Straight x Occasional bends Frequent meander % Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on location, terrain,
vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each characteristic within the
range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should
reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions enter 0 in
the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comments section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review
(e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form
used to evaluated each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of
the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 37
Comments:
Evaluator's Signature: Date:
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals In gathering the
data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream quality. The total score resulting
from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a particular mitigation ration or requirement. Form
subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-8776-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET---UT-C
# CHARACTERI ECOR EGION POINT RANGE
STICS SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
I Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 2
(no flow or saturation=0; strop flow=max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 4
(extensive alteration=0; no alteration=max oints)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 2
(no buffer=0; contiguous, wide buffer=max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical dischargers 0-5 0-4 0-4 2
extensive discharges=O; no discharges=max oints
a 5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 1
d no discharge=O; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc.=max points)
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2 2
(no flood lain=0; extensive flood lain=max points)
a 7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 2
(deeply entrenched=0; frequent flooding=max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2 0
(no wetlands=0; large ad
acent wetlands=max oints
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 3
(extensive channelization=0; natural meander=max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 0
(extensive deposition=O; little or no sediment=max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 1
(fine, homogeneous=0; large, diverse sizes=max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 2
(deeply incised=0; stable bed & banks=max points)
1-4 13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5 2
(severe erosion=0; no erosion, sable banks=max points)
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 1
(no visible roots=0; dense roots throughout--max points)
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5
0
substantial im act=0; no evidence=max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 2
no riffles/ripples or pools=O; well-developed=max points)
E 17 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6 2
little or no habitat=0; frequent, varied habitats=max points)
18 Canopy coverage over streambed 2
(no shadin vegetation=O; continuous canopy=max points) 0-5 0-5 0-5
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4 4
(deeply embedded=0; loose structure=max oints
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0
(no evidence=0; common, numerous types=max points) 0-4 0-5 0-5

V 21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4
1
O (no evidence=0; common, numerous types=max points)
G 22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4 0
pq no evidence=0; common, numerous types=max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 2
(no evidence=0; abundant evidence=max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 37
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
Project Name: 1-4739 River Basin: Neuse County: Johnston Evaluator. S. Shelingoski
N. Daly
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream: Swift Creek Latitude: Signature:
Date: 2/5/05 USGS QUAD: Edmondson Longitude:
Location/Directions: South of NC 42, flows north from Lowes stormwater ponds.
"PLEASE NOTE: if evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not
necessary. Also, il'in the best professional judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified
natural stream-this rating system should not be used"
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
1. Geomorphology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Riffle-Pool Sequence'? 0 1 2 3
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
Different From Surrounding Terrain? 0 1 2 3
3) Are Natural Levees Present? 0 l 2 3
4) Is The Channel Sinuous? 0 1 2 3
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
Floodplain Present'? 0 1 2 3
6) Is The Channel Braided? 0 1 2 3
7) Are Recent Alluvial Deposits Present? 0 I 2 3
8) Is There A Bankfull Bench Present? 0 1 2 3
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 2 3
('NOTE.: If Bed & Bank Caused By Ditchine And WITHOUT Sinu osity Then Score=0•)
10) Is A 2"a Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Topo Map And/Or In Field) Present? Yes=3 No=O
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: 12
II. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/Discharge Present'? 0 1 _ 2 3
PRIMAR Y HYDROLOGY INDICA TOR POINTS: 1
III. Biology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Are Fibrous Roots Present In Streambed? 3 2 1 0
2) Are Rooted Plants Present In Streambed? 3 2 1 0
3) Is Periphyton Present? 0 1 2 3
4) Are Bivalves Present'? 0 l 2 3
PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: 4
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle Otte Number Per Line)
1. Geomorphology Absent Weak Moderate Strong _
1) Is There A Head Cut Present In Channel'? 0 .5 1 1.5
2) Is There A Grade Control Point In Channel? 0 .5 1 1.5
3) Does Topography Indicate A
Natural Drainaee Wav? 0 .5 1 1.5
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: 3
H. Hydrology Absent Weak Noderate Strong
l) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaf litter
Present In Streambed? _ 1.5 1 .5 _ 0
2) Is Sediment On Plants (Or Debris) Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
3) Are Wrack Lines Present'? 0 .5 1 1.5
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 1 1.5
Last Known Rain'? *NOTE._ff Dirch Indicated In #9 Above Skip, This Step And #5 Below*)
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1 1.5
Conditions Or In Growing Season)?
6) Are Hvdric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel (Or In Headcut)? Yes=1.5 No=O
SECONDARY HYDROLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS: 3
III. Biology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Are Fish Present'? 0 .5 l 1.5
2) Are Amphibians Present'? 0 .5 l 1.5
3) Are AguaticTurtles Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
4) Are Crayfish Present'? 0 .5 1 1.5
5) Are Macrobenthos Present'? 0 .5 1 1.5
6) Are Iron Oxidizing Bacteria/Fungus Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
7) Is Filamentous Algae Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? N/A SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
(* NOTE. If Total Absence O/'All Plants In Streambed 2 1 .75 .5 0 0
As Noted Above Skip This Step UNLESS SAV Present*).
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: 1.5
TOTAL POINTS (primary + Secondary= 24.5 (If'Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is At
Least Intermittent)
USACE AID// DWQ # Site kt (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT _A%0
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: NCDOT 2. Evaluator's name: N. Daly, S. Shelingoski
3. Date of evaluation: February 5, 2005 4. Time of evaluation: 12 PM
5. Name of stream: UT-D to Swift Creek 6. River basin: Neuse
7. Approximate drainage area: 34 acres 8. Stream order: First
9. Length of reach evaluated: 600 feet 10. County: Johnston
11 Site coordinates (if known): Prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): Longitude (ex. - 77.556611 ):
Method location determined (circle): S ® Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
tion of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): UT D is located north of
the interchange of 1 40 with NC 42.
14. Proposed channel work (if any):

15. Recent weather conditions: Cold, wet
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Cold, wet
17. Identify any special waterway classification known: _ Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters X_N utrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation po int? YES ® If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map'? ® NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? ® NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential 95 % Commercial % Industrial _ % Agricultural
5 % Forested _% Cleared / Logged % Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 2 -3 feet 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 1 -2 feet
24. Channel slope down center of stream: x % Flat (Oto 2%) % Gentle (2 to 4%) % Moderate (4 to 10%) _ % Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: --Straight x Occasional bends Frequent meander % Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on location, terrain,
vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each characteristic within the
range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should
reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions enter 0 in
the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comments section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review
(e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form
used to evaluated each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of
the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 31
Comments:
Evaluator's Signature: Date:
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in gathering the
data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream quality. The total score resulting
from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a particular mitigation ration or requirement. Form
subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-8776-8441 x 26.
STREAK[ QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
# CHARACTERI
I
S ECOR EGION POINT RANGE SCORE
ST
C Coastal Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 2
no flow or saturation=0; strong flow=max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 1
extensive alteration=0; no alteration=max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 2
no buffer-0; contiguous, wide buffer-max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical dischargers 0-5 0-4 0-4 2
extensive discharges=O; no discharges=max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 2
no discharge=O; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc.=max points)
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0-4 0-4 0-2 0
(no flood lain=0; extensive flood lain=max oints
w 7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 1
(deeply entrenched=0; frequent flooding=max oints
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2 0
(no wetlands=0; large ad
acent wetlands=max points
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 3
extensive channelization=0; natural meander=max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 1
extensive deposition=O; little or no sediment=max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 1
fine, homogeneous=0; large, diverse sizes=max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 1
(deeply incised=0; stable bed & banks=max points)
F 13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0
5
0-5 2
(severe erosion=0; no erosion, sable banks=max points) -
14 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5 2
(no visible roots=0; dense roots throw hout=max points)
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5 1
substantial impact--0; no evidence=max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 3
no riffles/ripples or pools=O; well-developed=max points)
17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 2
(little or no habitat=0; frequent, varied habitats=max points)
18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5 2
(no shading vegetation=O; continuous canopy=max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4 0
(deeply embedded=0; loose structure=max oints
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5 0
(no evidence=0; common, numerous types=max points)
G7 21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4
I
p no evidence=0; common, numerous types=max points)
04

?
22
Presence of fish

0 - 4

0 - 4

0 - 4
0
p
"q (no evidence=0; common, numerous types=max points
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 2
no evidence=0; abundant evidence=max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 31
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
Project Name: I-4739 River Basin: NeUSI' County: Johnston Evaluator: P. Colwell
N. Daly
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream: Swift Creek Latitude: Signature:
Date: 3/1/05 USGS QUAD: Edmondson Longitude:
Location/Directions: UT D is located north of the interchange of 140 with NC 42.
*PLEASE NOTE: if evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a mat-made ditch, then use of this form is not
necessary. Also, if in the best professional judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified
natural stream-this rating system should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Nrmdber Per Line)
I. Geomorphology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Riffle-Pool Sequence? 0 1 2 3
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
Different From Surrounding Terrain'?
0 1
2
3
3) Are Natural Levees Present? 0 1 2 3
4) Is The Channel Sinuous? 0 1 2 3
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
Floodplain Present?
0 1
2
3
6) Is The Channel Braided'? 0 1 2 3
7) Are Recent Alluvial Deposits Present'? 0 1 2 3
8) Is There A Bankfull Bench Present? 0 1 2 3
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1
('NOTE: ILBed & Bank Ctntsed By Ditching And WITHOUT Sinuos_itLMen Scour=o_! 2 3
10) Is A 2nd Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Tooo Man And/Or In Field) Present'?
Yes=3
No=O
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: 10
H. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/Discharge Present'? 0 1 2 3
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: 1
III. Biology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Are Fibrous Roots Present In Streambed? 3 2 1 0
2) Are Rooted Plants Present In Streambed? 3 2 1 0
3) Is Periphyton Present? 0 1 2 3
4) Are Bivalves Present? 0 1 2 3
PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICA TOR POINTS: 4
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One M nther Per Line)
I. Geomorphology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Head Cut Present In Channel? 0 .5 1 1.5
2) Is There A Grade Control Point In Channel? 0 .5 1 1.5
3) Does Topography Indicate A
Natural Drainage Wav? 0 .5 1 1.5
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICA TOR POINTS: 4
11. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaf litter
Present In Streambed? 1.5 1 .5 0
2) Is Sediment On Plants (Or Debris) Present? _
0 .5 1 1.5
3) Are Wrack Lines Present'? 0 .5 1 1.5
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 S 1 1.5
Last Known Rain? (*NOTE: If Ditch Indicated In #9 Above Skip This Step And #5 Below*) _
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 S 1 1.5
Conditions Or In Growing Season)?
6) Are Hvdric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel (Or In Headcut)? Yes=1.5 No=O
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: 4.5
III. Biology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Are Fish Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
2) Are Amphibians Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
3) Are AquaticTurtles Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
4) Are Crayfish Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
5) Are Macrobenthos Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
6) Are Iron Oxidizing Bacteria/Fungus Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
7) Is Filamentous Algae Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? N/A SAV Mostly OBL
(* NOTE: !f Total Absence Of All Plants In Streambed 2 1
As Noted Above Skin This Step UNLESS SAV Present*). Mostly FACW Mostly FAC
.75 .5 Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
0 0
SECONDA R Y BIOL OG Y INDICA TOR POINTS: 2
TOTAL POINTS (Primary + Secondary= 25.5 (If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is At Least
Intermittent)