All Versions_Complete File_20100727

R-3825 Avoidance & Minimization
Subject: R-3825 Avoidance & Minimization
From: Jay McInnis <[e-mail]. nc.us>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 07:23:45 -0400
To: Bill Biddlecome <[e-mail]>, Travis Wilson
<[e-mail]>, Gary Jordan <[e-mail]>, Chris Militscher
<[e-mail]>, Rob. Ridings@ncmai].net, [e-mail], Sarah
McBride <[e-mail]>, Ron Lucas <[e-mail]>
CC: Olivia Farr <[e-mail]>, "Glenn W. Mumford PE" <[e-mail]>,
"Susan Cauley Lancaster, PE" <scl ancaster@dot. state. nc. us>
In March 2005, a merger team meeting was held to discuss whether
or not TIP Project R-3825 (Corps Action ID 200510676) should be
put in the merger process. At the meeting, the merger team
agreed to put the project in at Concurrence Point 4A. The
minutes of that meeting are attached to this e-mail.
Team members had questions about minimization at two wetland
sites (WB and WC) and at one stream (N8) along the project. The
team agreed that NCDOT should examine these areas and then follow
up with the team to obtain concurrence without holding another
meeting.
A couple of weeks ago, I talked with many of you by phone
regarding this project. In looking through the files, it does
not appear we ever followed up with team members regarding these
two sites. Since we spoke, Roadway Design has reexamined these
areas. Based on this review, we do not believe any further
minimization is practicable at these locations. NC 42 is on
fill, with 2:1 slopes at all of these sites. At the meeting, I
had suggested expressway gutter, but that would not reduce the
footprint because the roadway is on fill. I've attached the
sheets from the merger meeting showing these wetlands and stream.
Please review this information and let me know if you have any
further questions or need additional information. These two
areas in question are located along the unfunded portion of this
project (R-3825B). If everyone is agreeable, we will prepare a
concurrence form for 4A and circulate for signatures.
Thanks,
Jay McInnis
NCDOT-PDEA
Content-Type: application/pdf
R3825CP4AMeetminutes.pdf Content-Encoding: base64
Content-Type: application/pdf
R3825CP4Afigs.pdf Content-Encoding: base64
6/27/2007 9:36 AM
Iof I
Meeting Summary
Streams and wetlands will be verified by the Army Corps of Engineers. Use of
expressway gutter will be investigated where the project is impacting wetlands WB and
WC. DOT will look at minimizing impacts to stream N8 by bringing the fill slope line
closer to the road.
A memorandum outlining updated surveys and findings for federally listed species
within the study area has been mailed to FWS. FWS concurred in a letter dated April 6,
2005 that TIP Project R-3825 will have "no effect" on Tar spinymussel, Micheaux's
sumac and red-cockaded woodpecker. In this letter, FWS recommended updated surveys
for Dwarf wedgemussel be conducted before concurring on a biological conclusion.
Most recently, surveys were conducted in November 2005 for Tar spinymussel and Dwarf
wedgemussel. Habitat was found for Dwarf wedgemussel, but no species were found
during the survey. Concurrence will be requested from FWS.
Concurrence Point 4A will be signed through letters/email instead of holding a
formal merger meeting.

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
June 29, 2006
RD Phil S. Harris, III, P.E. RJL 2 4 X006
North Carolina Department of Transportation 0!:N11 lv'VAJL-., iJOAWY
Project Development and Environmental Analysis VVETLANDSANDSTORMWATERBRMOH
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1598
Dear Mr. Harris:
This letter is in response to your letter of JLInc 19, 2006 which provided the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) with the biological determination of the North Carolina Department o1'
Transportation (NCDOT) that the proposed widening of NC 42 from US 70 to SR 1003 (Buffalo
Road), the replacement of Bridge No. 75 over the NeLISe River and the extension of the existing
NC 42 culvert on Mill Creel: in Johnston County (TIP No. R-3825) may affect, but is not likely
to adversely affect the federally threatened bald eagle (Haliaectus leucocephalus) and federally
endangered dwarf wedgenu?ssc) (Alasmidonta hetcro(lon). These comments are provided in
accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531-1543).
According to information provided, an eagle survey was conducted within one mile of the
project area on April 14, 2006. No eagles or eagle nests were observed. Based on the survey
results, the Service concurs with your determination that the proposed project may affect, but is
not likely to adversely affect the bald eagle.
According to information provided, mussel surveys were conducted at the project site on
November 19 and 30, 2001; December 7, 2001; August 14, 2002; and November 4, 2005. The
2005 survey extended 100 meters upstream and 400 meters downstream of the Neuse River and
Mill Crcek crossings. No dwarf wedgennrsscls were observed in any of the surveys, although
several specimens of six other species were observed. Through informal section 7 consultation,
NCDOT and the Service have agreed to several conservation measures. These measures are
listed in your.lune 19, 2006 letter. Based on the survey results and NCDOT's commitment to
implement these conservation mcasures, the Service concurs with your determination that the
project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the dwarf wedgennrssel.
As stated in your letter, the Service has previously concurred with your determination that the
proposed project will have no effect on the federally endangered Tar River spinymussel (Elliptio
s1cinstarrsctn(l), red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoi(lcs borealis) and M1chaLrx's sumac (Rhus
michanxii). We believe that the requirements of section 7(a)(2) ofthe ESA have been satisfied.
We remind you that obligations under section 7 consultation must be reconsidered if: (1) new
information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or critical
habitat in a manner not previously considered in this review; (2) this action is subsequently
modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; or (3) a new species is listed or
critical habitat determined that may be affected by this identified action.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions
regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at [phone] (Ext. 32).
Sincerely,
Pete Benjamin
Field Supervisor
cc: William Wescott, USACE, Washington, NC
Rob Riding, NCUWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Crcecimoor, NC:
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
John SUlliVan, FI-IwA, lUcigh, NC
imap://rob.ridings%40dwq. [e-mail]:143/fet...
Subject: Fw: Delivery Status Notification
From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 12:41:58 -0400
To: rob.ridings@ncmai].net
-----Forwarded by Chris Militscher/R4/USEPA/US on 08/07/2006 12:41PM -----
To: Chris Militscher/R4/USEPA/US@EPA
From: Mail Delivery Service <[e-mail]>
Date: 08/07/2006 12: 37PM
Subject: Delivery Status Notification
- These recipients of your message have been processed by the mail server:
[e-mail]; Failed; 5.1.1 (bad destination mailbox address)
Remote MTA 127.0.0.1: SMTP diagnostic: 550 RCPT TO:<[e-mail]>
User unknown
----- Message from [e-mail] on Mon, 07 Aug 2006 12:37:14
-0400 -----
To: [e-mail]
[e-mail],
cc: [e-mail],
[e-mail]
Subject: R-3825, NC 42 Widening, Johnston Co.
Jay: EPA has completed its review of the FONSI for the non-Merger 5.7 mile widening
project. Most of EPA's comments from the August 2003 EA have been addressed. There
will be no control of access for the new 4-lane facility. The proposed project has not been
identified as being a Strategic Highway Corridor.
The FONSI Summary table of impacts, Table 4 and others, do not include noise receptor or
terrestrial forest impacts. I am assuming they are the same for Alternative 2 (preferred)
as identified in the EA.
Stream impacts are estimated at 996 linear feet and wetland impacts at 0.71 acres. There
is a question of avoidance and minimization measures involving the bridge length over the
Neuse River. EPA requests that the avoidance and minimization measures proposed in the
Green sheets be addressed & formerly documented at the CP 4B/4C meetings.
The summary of impacts for this project are estimated by EPA to be:
Relocations: 2R/2B
Wetlands: 0.71 acres
Stream: 996 linear feet
Buffer impacts: ?
Noise receptors: 4
Terrestrial forests: 26.4 acres
1 of 2 8/7/2006 12:55 PM
imap://rob.ridings%40dwq.denr.ncmail.net(a),cros.ncmail.net:143/fet...
Prime farmlands: 0
Hazardous material sites: 4
Churches/schools: 0/0
Section 4f/106: 0/0
ESA: 2(?) MA-NLAA
Air Quality: 0
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this non-Merger project. Thank you.
Christopher A. Militscher, REM, CHMM
USEPA Raleigh Office
919-856-4206
2 of 2 8/7/2006 12:55 PM
Michael F. Easley, Governor
?F W a TF9 William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
\OCA QG North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
C? tp Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
? Y
August 4, 2006
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator, Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
From: Rob Ridings, NC DWQ Transportation Permitting Unit
Through: John Hennessy, NC DWQ Transportation Permitting Uni
Subject: Scoping comments on proposed widening to NC 42 in Johnston County, Federal Aid Project No.
STP-42(4), State Project No. 8.1312301, TIP R-3825, DENR Clearinghouse No. 07-0024.
Reference your correspondence dated July 19, 2006 in which you requested comments for the referenced
project. Preliminary analysis of the project reveals the potential for multiple impacts to perennial streams
and jurisdictional wetlands in the project area. More specifically, impacts to:
Stream Name River Basin Stream Stream Index
and Subbasin Classifications Number
Neuse River NEU 04 WS-1V NSW 27-(49.5)
& unnamed tributaries
Mill Creek NEU 04 WS-IV NSW 27-52-(8.5)
& unnamed tributaries
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. Mill Creek and the Neuse River are class WS-IV; 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
NOn` hCaro
A(.ha
?
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

General Project Comments:
1. The environmental documents and permit applications 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 21-1.0506(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 (I 5A 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 an 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.
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.
directly into the stream. Storm sale should p eb o?edted
h site-appropriate means (grassed
10. Bridge deck drains should not discharge
cross the bridge and pre-treated throug entering the stream. Please refer to the most current
a d buffers, etc.)
scour holes, vegetate ement practices.
version of NC DWQ Stormwater Best Manug prevent direct
construction, a dry work area should be maintained ontacts uncured
11. If concrete is used during ers due to the potential for elevated pH and
contact between curing concrete and stream wvVaa?r• Water that inadvertently
and fish killd.to surface
concrete should not
possible aquatic
are constructed, the site shall be graded to its preconstruction
12. If p Disturbed areas should be seeded or mulched tto stabilize the soil an
t .m orary access roads or detours toary structures the area
or
contours and elevations. should be planted. When using
grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, allows the bush-areahogsto, re-
appropriate native woody species
should be cleared but not and leaving the stumps and root mat intact
other mechanized equipment
vegetate naturally and minimizes soil disturbance. seams, and wetlands shall be below the
eater than 48 inches,
13 and
ambed by one fofor culverts ot for all having nd p culverts with a diameter gr . Placement of culverts and other structures in wa ers, to allow low
elevation of the stye a diameter less than 48 inches,
and placement of culverts and other structures result
20 percent of the culvert a diameter
life. Design conducted in a manner that may
flow passage of water stream and down stream
s oontrol measures shall knot adjacent to or up uilibrium is being
including otemporaryf wetlanerosiondc es or banks,
,l antmb
to be met due to bedrock
in dis-equilibrium required to provi de evidence
of the above structures. The app b DWQ. If this condition
ease contact the NC DWQ for
maintained if requested in writing by
permit modification will be
or other limiting features encountered during construction, pl
idance on how to proceed and to determin e whether or not a p
ed to mimic natural stream cross
required.
should be designed elevation and/or sills where
14. If multiple pipes or barrels are required, the or barrels at flood p at the Stream section as closely as possible including p p sediment deposition
causing anriel widening
the stream channel should be avoided.
appropriate. Widening typically decreases water assage•
inlet or outlet end of structures ance and disrupts aquatic life p al work
that requires increased maintenan ; it should be noted in the do Pe?GNoe Of r Survey
15. If foundation test borings are necessarY
roved under General 401 Certification Number 3494/Nationwi
is app
i
Activities. lemented imp ol measures sufficient to protect
of North Carolina Sedbment and
sion recent version of NCS00025 .
16. Sediment and erosion contr nd Design Manual and the 'no
and maintained in accordance with the most recent ver st
Erosion Control Planning work area unless otherwise condu k in or adjacent to stream waters shoal uses from the most cu ent verses cofferdams and
17. All r or NC DWQ• Approved BMP
approved by water.
prevent ech as xcavationansflo??' ngerm
construction and Maintenance Activities manual su
other diversion structures should be use to p
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: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., NCDOT PDEA
Eric Alsmeyer, US Army Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Field Office
John F. Sullivan, III, Federal Highway Administration
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: 07-0024 County: Johnston
Due Date: 08/14/2006
Date Received: 07/19/2006
Project Description: Proposal to widen NC 42 to a 4-lane shoulder facility 17.5ft. raised median from US 70 to SR
1003 (Buffalo Road). TIP R-3825
This Project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office Regional Office Area In-House Review
Asheville Air Soil & Water Marine Fisheries
Fayetteville Water Coastal Management Water Resources
Mooresville Groundwater Wildlife Environmental Health
Raleigh
Land Quality Engineer Solid Waste Mgmt
? Wildlife -DOT
Washington Radiation Protection
Forest Resources
Wilmington Other
Winston-Salem Land Resources
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]
D?
cam,,
`'?HOANO ???t ? ADO
ST?k?U 6'
ti
NC 42
From US 70 to SR 1003 (Buffalo Road)
Johnston County
Federal Aid Project STP-42(4)
State Project 8.1312301
WBS Element 34552. 1.1
TIP Project R-3825
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
APPROVED:
C D (
P DQ f?
G`re'gory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Date ?Ljohn F. Sullivan, III, P.E.
Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
NC 42
From US 70 to SR 1003 (Buffalo Road)
Johnston County
Federal Aid Project STP-42(4)
State Project 8.1312301
WBS Element 34552.
TIP Project R-3825
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Documentation prepared in the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
by:
CAROt/
. ?4`y? ?EESSIQ?? q
Ja s A. McInnis, Jr., P. ?? Al
Project Engineer 2070
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
.,tee 4•••• ? N,••
es ?
?/F9`06
TABLE OF CONTENTS

PROJECT' COMMITMENTS
1. TYPE OF ACTION ..........................................................................:..........
II. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION ...................................................................
III. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ...................................
IV. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION..' ................................................
A. DISTRIBUTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT .........................
B. COMMENTS ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT .............................
C. PUBLIC HEARING .......................................................................'............
V. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ..................
A. PROTECTED AND RARE SPECIES ..............'..............................................
1. Federally-Protected Species ............................................................
2. Federal Species of Concern .............................................................
B. SOILS .....................................................................................................
C. HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS ....................................................
D. CORRECTIONS TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ................................
VI. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ......................
FIGURES
......... ..............................
......................................1
......................................1
......................................2 r
.........................................2
.........................................2
.........................................2
......................................... 8
...........:.............................9
.........................................9
.........................................9
.......................................10
.......................................11
......................................13
....................................... 14
..............................:........16
APPENDIX - Agency Comments on the Environmental Assessment
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 - Federally-Protected Species in Johnston County ................................... 9
Table 2 - Federal Species of Concern in Johnston County ................................... I 1
Table 3 - Soil Series and Characteristics of the Project Area ................................ 12
Table 4 - Correction to Table 3 of the Environmental Assessment .......................... 14
Table 5 - Correction to Table 5 of the Environmental Assessment .......................... 15
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 - Project Location Map
Figure 2 - Water Supply Watersheds and Water Supply Critical Areas Near TIP Project
R-3825
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
NC 42
From US 70 to SR 1003 (Buffalo Road)
Johnston County
Federal Aid Project STP-42(4)
State Project 8.1312301
WBS Element 34552.1.1
TIP Project R-3825
Division Four Construction
Notification will be sent to the NCDOT Natural Environment Unit one month
prior to the start of construction, in order that mussels at the Neuse River and Mill Creek
crossings can be relocated. The notification should be sent to the following address:
Natural Environment Biological Surveys Group Supervisor
NCDOT Natural Environment Unit
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
Timber work pads will be used for heavy equipment within fifty feet of streams or
in other areas where sediment could enter the stream.
NCDOT's Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage will appjy
to the Neuse River and all stream crossings within the project area.
No in-water work will be performed in the Neuse River between February 15th
and June 15th, due to the likely presence of anadromous fish.
NCDOT will implement Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition ana
Removal. The asphalt-wearing surface of Bridge Number 75 and bridge rails will be i
removed without dropping into the water prior to bridge demolition.
During construction of the project, the driveway to Clayton Fire Station will be
kept open at all times. No equipment or materials will be parked or placed in the fire
station driveway at any time.
Finding of No Significant Impact - R-3825
June 2006
i
Page 1 of 2
i
Roadside Environmental Unit/Division Four Construction
Due to the existence of habitat for federally protected mussels in the Neuse River
and Mill, Creek, the following project- commitments will be implemented:
If practical,. turbidity curtains will be used during in-stream work in the Neuse
River.
Sediment and erosion control measures shall adhere to the Design Standards in
Sensitive Watersheds during construction of the project.
Special Sediment Control Fence will be used at the toe of slope parallel to the
Neuse River and Mill Creek.
During active grading, all unstabilized areas of the project within fifty feet of
streams will be temporarily stabilized prior to any rain event. This will be done
utilizing erosion control blankets, fabric, plastic or other material(s) approved by
the Roadside Environmental Unit and as directed by the engineer on site. The
temporary stabilization should be adequately anchored-and utilized to prevent the
loss of sediment into the water course unless runoff from these areas can be,
diverted to an adequately designed sediment basin or until the area is stabilized
with vegetation.
Structure Design Unit/Hydraulic Unit
Deck drains for the proposed bridge carrying NC 42 over the Neuse River will be
designed so that runoff is not discharged directly into the Neuse River.
Where possible, proposed bridge bents will be no closer than 10 feet from the
edge of the stream bank.
Roadway Design Unit/Geotechnical Unit
The proposed widening will require property from four sites potentially containing
hazardous materials. A preliminary site assessment will be performed for all of the
properties prior to right of way acquisition in order to determine the extent of any
contamination. Right of way acquisition from the former Jimmy Flowers Store and the
Percy Flowers Store will be by permanent easement rather than fee simple right of way
due to the possibility of contamination on the properties. Permanent easements will be
obtained from the former Peele Pesticide site and the Caterpillar site, as well, if the
preliminary site assessment determines there is a possibility of contamination in areas
needed for right of way.
Finding of No Significant Impact - R-3825
June 2006
Page 2 of 2
ii
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
PREPARED BY THE
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
IN CONSULTATION WITH THE
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
1. TYPE OF ACTION
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI).
The FHWA has determined this project will have no significant impact on the
human environment. This Finding of No Significant Impact is based on the August 11,
2003 Environmental Assessment (EA) which has been independently evaluated by the
FHWA and determined to adequately and accurately discuss the need, environmental
issues and impacts of the proposed project and appropriate mitigation measures. The
following documentation provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that
an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required. The FHWA takes full
responsibility for the accuracy, scope and content of the Environmental Assessment.
II. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION
The project involves widening NC 42 to a four-lane shoulder facility with a
17.5-foot raised median from US 70 to SR 1003 (Buffalo Road). The proposed project is
approximately 5.7 miles long (see Figure 1). No control of access is proposed. The
project is included in the 2006-2012 North Carolina Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP). Right of way acquisition and construction are scheduled in the
2006-2012 TIP for federal fiscal years 2007 and 2008, respectively.
The purpose of the project is to improve the safety and traffic carrying capacity of
NC 42 within the project limits.
The 2006-2012 TIP includes an estimated right of way acquisition cost of
$4,650,000 and construction cost of $23,700,000. Total project cost included in the TIP
is $28,350,000.
The latest estimated costs for project R-3825 are shown below:
Right of Way Acquisition $ 4,650,000
Construction $24,700,000
Total Cost $29,350,000
III. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Two homes and two businesses will be relocated as a result of this project. Ten
residential receptors are predicted to experience noise impacts. A total of 0.71 acre of
wetlands and 996 feet of streams will be impacted by 'the project.
Habitat exists in the project area for four federally-listed endangered species. It is
anticipated the proposed project will have "no effect" on Michaux's sumac and
red-cockaded woodpecker and the project "may affect, but is not likely to adversely
affect" dwarf wedgemussel and Tar River spinymussel. The US Fish and Wildlife
Service has concurred on these biological conclusions for these species (see Section
V-A-1 of this document).
It is anticipated a US Army Corps of Engineers Individual Permit will likely be
required for the project. A Section 401 Water Quality General Certification from the
North Carolina Division of Water Quality will be required prior to issuance of the Section
404 Individual Permit from the Corps of Engineers.
IV. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Distribution of the Environmental Assessment
Copies of the environmental assessment were made available to the public and to
the following federal, state and local agencies:
US Department of the Army - Corps of Engineers (Wilmington District)
*US Environmental Protection Agency
*US Fish and Wildlife Service - Raleigh
NC Department of Cultural Resources
*NC Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Asterisks (*) indicate agencies from which comments on the environmental
assessment were received. Copies of letters received are included in the Appendix of this
document.
B. Comments on the Environmental Assessment
Substantive comments on the environmental assessment are discussed below:
US Environmental Protection Agency
COMMENT: "This project is a non-Merger Team project. However, based upon current
Merger process improvement guidance and screening criteria, this project would
2
be a candidate for inclusion in the Merger process. There is no discussion in the
EA concerning the coordination and determination of this issue between the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and NCDOT. The EA addresses the fact that this
project will most likely require an Individual Permit JP) under Section 404
requirements due to potential wetland and stream impacts."
NCDOT RESPONSE: Following receipt of this comment, NCDOT consulted with the
Corps of Engineers, who agreed this project should be included in the
multi-agency NEPA/404 merger process. At a meeting held on March 15, 2005,
the merger team agreed this project should, be brought into the merger process at
Concurrence Point 4A (avoidance and minimization).
COMMENT: "The EA addresses the No-build, Alternative Modes of Transportation
and the 2 construction alternatives on pages 8 and 9. However, the EA does not
include an analysis of other potential alternatives, including intersection traffic
improvements or other typical roadway sections (e.g. 3-lane with center turning
lane)." ,
NCDOT RESPONSE: Other roadway typical sections, such as a three-lane section or
intersection improvements, were not considered as alternatives for this project due
to the high traffic volumes. As discussed in Section Il-C-1 of the EA, even with
widening to four lanes, portions of NC 42 within the project limits will operate at
level of service D and two signalized intersections along the project will operate
at level of service E in the year 2026. A three-lane section or intersection
improvements would not have provided acceptable levels of service for the
project.
COMMENT: "Furthermore, the EA identifies a problem involving a railroad crossing
along NC 42 just east of US 70. The EA states that a needed grade separation
would warrant a major reconstruction of NC 42 and the NC 42/US 70 intersection
but that this issue is beyond the scope of the project. Because this intersection is
utilized in the LOS analysis and is a termini for the proposed project, EPA does
not concur with the finding without further information."
NCDOT RESPONSE: The EA does not identify the existing railroad crossing as being
problematic, the EA merely states the exposure index at this crossing exceeds the
warrant for a grade separation. No accidents involving a train at this crossing
were reported during the accident study period. This railroad crossing is less than
100 feet from the intersection of NC 42 with US 70. Providing a grade separation
at this location would be very expensive and disruptive to the area. Gates and
signals exist at this crossing. These protective devices will be upgraded to current
standards as part of this project.
COMMENT: "The recommended alternative for the proposed project will impact
approximately 0.71 acres of jurisdictional wetlands. There are approximately 1 l
3
wetland systems which will be impacted from the project. However,
compensatory mitigation is not proposed to be addressed until final design for the
project: EPA recommends that NCDOT begin consultation with USACE and
North, Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) as soon as possible for
mitigation 'requirements. According to a recent Environmental Enhancement
Program (EEP) summary of wetland and steam mitigation needs, the Central
Piedmont area is in significant need of mitigation sties for non-riparian wetlands
and streams."
NCDOT RESPONSE: The EA states , "Final decisions concerning compensatory
mitigation for project impacts on wetlands will be made during the design phase
of the project." This statement is not intended to imply work on mitigation plans
will not begin until the final design phase. Discussions with the permitting
agencies regarding mitigation requirements will be held at the appropriate time.
COMMENT: "EPA concurs fully with the September 29, 2003, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service letter to the NCDOT concerning threatened and endangered species.
NCDOT needs to adequately address federally protected species including further
documentation of biological assessments and survey methodologies."
NCDOT RESPONSE: See response to US Fish and Wildlife Service comments below.
COMMENT: "EPA believes that an Indirect and Cumulative Impact (ICI) analysis
[should] be performed with regard to increased capacity of the proposed roadway
and its relationship to sprawl and future water quality impacts within this
watershed sub-basin."
NCDOT RESPONSE: An indirect and cumulative impact analysis will be conducted
and submitted to the NC Division of Water Quality as part of the Section 401
Water Quality Certification application.
COMMENT: "The Merger process improvement guidance addresses the need for
NCDOT to identify potential impacts resulting from the relocation of utilities
prior to final design and as early in the planning process as possible. The EA
identifies numerous jurisdictional wetland systems along the NC 42 corridor.
NCDOT needs to identify what potential impacts to the human and natural
environment will occur as a result of relocating all or some of these utilities (i.e.
Fiber optics, sewer, gas, water, cable, electric, and telephone) and any additional
compensatory mitigation requirements."
NCDOT RESPONSE Anticipated impacts due to utility relocations are included in the
impacts listed for the project in the EA.
4
COMMENT: "The EA does not discuss soils information within the'project area. It
would be helpful to EPA to identify what percentage of each soil (type) series is
located within the proposed right of way."
NCDOT RESPONSE: See Section V-B of this document.
COMMENT: "EPA does not recommend burning of vegetative matter generated during
clearing and grubbing operations., Burning is EPA's least preferred option,
especially considering the close proximity to urban and suburban populations.
NCDOT'should consider more environmentally-friendly options, such as
shredding and mulching and making these recycled materials available to the
public."
NCDOT RESPONSE: Trees and other debris to be cleared from the proposed right of
way will become the property of the contractor. The contractor is responsible for
disposing of such material properly and obtaining any necessary permits for the
burning or disposal of the material.
US Fish and Wildlife Service
COMMENT: "There are four federally-protected species listed for Johnston County.
The EA renders a biological conclusion of "no effect" for the red-cockaded
woodpecker (Picoides borealis), dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon),
Tar spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana) and Michaux's sumac. (Rhus michauxii).
The Service does not concur with any of the "no effect" conclusions for the
following reasons:"
"The EA states on page 21 that "potential habitat for the RCW is located within
the project study area." A "no effect" conclusion should not be rendered if
potential habitat exists. The EA does not give an adequate description of the
potential habitat, nor does it differentiate between nesting and foraging habitat.
There is insufficient information on the March 8, 2001 survey."
"The EA states on page 22 that "habitat for Michaux's sumac is present within the
project study area." Therefore, the "no effect" conclusion is inappropriate. No
details of the survey methodology are provided in the EA."
"Since the dwarf wedgemussel is known to occur within the Neuse River Basin
and potential habitat exists in the Neuse River and possibly in Mill Creek, the "no
effect" conclusion is inappropriate. The EA lacks any details on the mussel
survey methodologies. Mussel surveys should extend a minimum of 100 meters
upstream and 400 meters downstream of road crossings."
"Based on a tentative identification, the Tar spinymussel was recently collected
within the Neuse River Basin in White Oak Creek. Therefore, its presence near
5
the project area cannot be ruled out, and thus the "no effect" conclusion is
inappropriate."
"The service does 'not believe that this EA adequately addresses the federally
protected species within the project area. Future documentation should reassess
the biological conclusions and provide additional details, especially regarding
survey methodologies. The Service may be able to concur with a "may affect, not
likely to adversely affect" conclusion on some or all of the four listed species in
Johnston County, provided that adequate justification and documentation is
provided."
NCDOT RESPONSE: At the time threatened and endangered species surveys were
originally conducted for this project, the accepted protocol was to render a
conclusion of "No Effect" for a species if no specimens were found, even if
habitat existed in the area. Between the time of the survey and the publication of
the EA, the protocol had changed to rendering a conclusion of "May Affect, Not
Likely to Adversely Affect" if no specimens were found and habitat existed.
Concurrence from the Fish and Wildlife Service is required on a biological
conclusion of "May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect." The original
biological conclusion was included in the EA and the Fish and Wildlife Service
was not contacted regarding the survey results and the appropriate biological
conclusion. However, at the present time, a biological conclusion of "No Effect"
is once again appropriate in certain cases, even if habitat is present.
Since publication of the EA, new surveys have been conducted for all of
the threatened and endangered species listed for Johnston County. The results of
these surveys are discussed in Section V-A-1 of this document.
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
COMMENT: "Table 3, on Page 9 does not present any anticipated impacts to Neuse
Riparian Buffers. Future documentation for a 401 Water Quality Certification, or
any application for a Neuse River Riparian Buffer Authorization will need to
include proposed impacts to these resources."
NCDOT RESPONSE: This information will be provided as part of the application for a
Neuse River Riparian Buffer Authorization.
COMMENT: "Review of Table 3 on page 9 indicates that Alternative 1 has anticipated
impacts to 0.82 acres of wetlands and 1,096 linear feet of streams. It also
indicates anticipated impacts to 0.71 acres of wetlands and 1,079 linear feet of
streams for Alternative 2. Table three identifies Alternative 2 as preferred.
However, review of Table 5 indicates 1,096 linear feet of anticipated stream
impacts, which would be consistent with Alternative 1. Where as, Table 6
6
indicates anticipated impacts to 0.71 acres of wetlands, which would be consistent
with Alternative 2. Therefore, in reviewing Tables 3, 5, and 6, there appears to be
a discrepancy with,the presented data. Please clarify information in the FONSI,
and environmental permit applications."
NCDOT RESPONSE: See Section V-D of this document for corrected versions of
Tables 3 and 5 from the EA.
COMMENT: "The section of the Neuse River that [the] project impacts is an
anadromous fish spawning area. As such the 401 Water Quality Certification will
[include] conditions that require an in-water work moratorium from February 15`h
through June 15`h."
NCDOT RESPONSE: The list of project commitments in the EA included a
commitment that no in-water work would be performed in the Neuse River
between February 15`h and June 15`h (see the list of project commitments in this
document).
COMMENT: "The document proposes impacts to waters classified as Water Supply IV.
Given the presence of Water Supply Waters in the project area, the DWQ requests
that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled "Design Standards
in Sensitive Watersheds" throughout design and construction of the project. This
would apply for any area that drains to streams having WS (Water Supply)
classifications."
NCDOT RESPONSE: "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" apply to water
supply watersheds classified as WS-1 or WS-II. These design standards do not
apply to waters classified as WS-N. However, these standards are proposed for
the project due to the existence of habitat for federally-protected mussels in the
Neuse River and Mill Creek (see list of project commitments).
COMMENT: "Where are the nearest water supply intake(s) to the project located?
Please provide information that displays all the municipal water supply intakes in
the project area. Given the uncertainty associated with the location of water
supply intakes in the area, DWQ cannot support the selection of a preferred
alternative until the information is supplied. In addition, issuance of the 401
Water Quality Certification can only occur when the DWQ can make the
determination that the project will not adversely impact drinking water supplies."
NCDOT RESPONSE: The nearest water supply intake to the project is on the Neuse
River, over six miles downstream of the NC 42 crossing of the Neuse. See Figure
2 of this document.
COMMENT: "The document does not discuss the need for a Neuse River Riparian
Buffer Authorization. DOT is advised that final project approvals cannot occur
7
without a submittal for, and a receipt of, a Neuse River Riparian Buffer
Authorization.
NCDOT' RESPONSE: NCDOT will request a Neuse River Riparian Buffer
Authorization prior to construction.
COMMENT: "There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable
impacts. If mitigation is required, it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not
finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental documentation. While the
NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be practical, it should be noted that for
projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required in
conjunction with the issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification."
NCDOT RESPONSE: On-site mitigation will be provided, where possible. The
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) will provide required mitigation beyond
what can be provided on-site.
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Wildlife Resources Commission
Comment: "The project will cross Mill Creek and the Neuse River. We request
NCDOT follow the Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage at
both of these sites, with a standard anadromous fish moratorium, February 15 to
June 15, at the Mill Creek crossing and the Neuse River crossing. NCDOT
should also conduct a mussel survey at all stream crossings prior to construction."
NCDOT Response: A moratorium on anadromous fish will be enacted from February
15 to June 15 (see list of project commitments in this document). Mussel surveys
have been conducted at all stream crossings. A biological conclusion of "May
Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect" has been requested for the dwarf
wedgemussel, and the Tar River spinymussel.
C. Public Hearing
In accordance with 23 U.S.C. 128, the North Carolina Department of
Transportation certifies that a public hearing for the subject project has been held and the
social, economic, and environmental impacts, consistency with local community planning
goals and objectives, and comments from individuals have been considered in the
selection of the preferred alternative for the project
A formal public hearing was held for the project on September 30, 2004 at East
Clayton Elementary School.
Residents living in the subdivisions of Bennett Place, Neuse Colony and Neuse
Colony Estates requested the widening of NC 42 take place on the north side of the road.
8
This shift would keep the road from coming in closer proximity to their homes, which are
on the south side of NC 42.
Concerns were also expressed by residents regarding traffic noise. A second
traffic noise analysis was conducted for the project following completion of the
environmental assessment. Traffic noise is expected to impact ten homes with
construction of the project. Noise abatement measures were not recommended in the
traffic noise study conducted for the environmental assessment. Noise abatement
measures were reexamined during the new study and no noise abatement measures are
recommended or proposed as a result of the latest, traffic noise study (see Section V-C of
this document).
V. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. Protected and Rare Species
1. Federally-Protected Species
As of March 8, 2006, one additional species has been added to the list of
federally-protected species for Johnston County since completion of the environmental
assessment. Table 1 below presents the list of federally-protected species in Johnston
County.
Table 1
Federally-Protected Species in Johnston County
Biological
Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat? Conclusion
May Affect, Not
Bald eagle Haliaeetus T Yes Likely to
leucocephalus Adverse] Affect
Red-cockaded Picoides borealis E Yes No Effect
woodpecker
May Affect, Not
Dwarf wedgemussel Alasmidonta E Yes Likely to
heterodon Adverse] Affect
Tars in mussel Elli do steinstansana E Yes No Effect
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii E Yes No Effect
Habitat exists in the project area for all of the federally-protected species listed for
Johnston County. Surveys for all of these species, except the Bald eagle, were conducted
prior to completion of the environmental assessment. The Bald eagle was added to the
list of federally protected species in Johnston County following completion of the
environmental assessment. No specimens of any of these species were observed during
the surveys. The environmental assessment presented a biological conclusion of "No
Effect" for all of these species.
9
As discussed in Section N-A of this document, in a letter dated September 29,
2003, the US Fish and Wildlife Service did not concur with any of the biological
conclusi'o'ns presented in the EA. At the time threatened and endangered species surveys
were originally conducted for this project, the accepted protocol was to render a
conclusion of "No Effect" for a species if no specimens were found, even if habitat
existed in the area. Between the time of the survey and the publication of the EA, the
protocol had changed to rendering a conclusion of "May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely
Affect" if no specimens were found and habitat existed. Concurrence from the Fish and
Wildlife Service is required on a biological conclusion of "May Affect, Not Likely to
Adversely Affect." However, at the present time, a biological conclusion of "No Effect"
is once again appropriate in certain cases, even if habitat is present.
Since publication of the EA, new surveys have been conducted for all of the
threatened and endangered species listed for Johnston County. New surveys for
Michaux's, sumac were conducted in July 2003 and new surveys for red-cockaded
woodpecker were conducted in December 2004. Based on the results of these surveys, it
is expected the project will have no effect on these species. In a letter dated April 6,
2005, the US Fish and Wildlife Service concurred on a finding of "No Effect" for
Michaux's sumac and red-cockaded woodpecker (see Appendix).
New mussel surveys in the Neuse River and Mill Creek were conducted for the
project in November 2005. No dwarf wedgemussels or Tar River spinymussels were
found, but potential habitat exists in the project area. The proposed project may affect,
but is not likely to adversely effect these species. In a letter dated June 29, 2006, the US
Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with a biological conclusion of "May Affect, Not
Likely to Adversely Affect" for the dwarf wedgemussel and the Tar River spinymussel
(see Appendix).
Surveys for Bald eagle were conducted for the project in the spring of 2006. No
Bald eagles were found, but potential habitat exists in the project area. The proposed
project may affect, but is not likely to adversely effect this species. In a letter dated June
29, 2006, the US Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with a biological conclusion of
"May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect" for the Bald eagle (see Appendix).
2. Federal Species of Concern
As of March 8, 2006, changes have occurred to the list of Federal Species of
Concerns (FSC) for Johnston County since completion of the environmental assessment.
The Tar River crayfish, Carolina asphodel, Sandhills bog filly and Long Beach seedbox
are no longer included on the list of Federal Species of Concern for Johnston County.
The bog spicebush, Cerulean warbler, Roanoke bass and American eel have all been
added to the list of Federal Species of Concern since completion of the environmental
assessment.
10
Table 2 below presents the list of Federal Species of Concern in Johnston County.
Table 2
Federal Species of Concern in Johnston Countv
Common Name Scientific Name
Atlantic i toe Fusconaia masoni
Bo s icebush Lindera subcoriacea
Carolina bo mint Macbridea caroliniana
Carolina madtom Noturus uriosus
Carolina trillium Trillium usillum var. usillum
Cerulean warbler Dendroica cerulea
Green floater Lasmi onasubviridi.s
Pinewoods shiner L thrurus matutinus
Roanoke bass Amblo lites cavi ions
Spring-flowering goldenrod Solida o verna
Yellow lam mussel Lam sills cariosa
Yellow lance Elli do lanceolata
American eel Anguilla rostrata
Surveys for Federal species of concern have not been conducted. A review of the
NHP database of Rare Species and unique habitats did not reveal the presence of these
species or unique habitats in or near the project study area.
B. Soils
Table 3 below describes soil characteristics of the 14 series that are located in the
project area and separates out the 17 soil map units into the appropriate series. The soil
map units are defined following the table.
Table 3
Soil Series and Characteristics of the Pro'ect Area
Soil Map
Soil Unit in Hydric/Non
Series Seriest Topographic Location Drainage Permeability Hydric
uplands
between
Coastal
Appling AmB Plain
Piedmont
and sell moderate non-hydric
flood plains along streams
Bibb Bb
in the Coastal Plain poor moderate hydric
Cecil CeB, CeC hillslopes in Piedmont well moderate non-hydric
hydric
Chewacla Ch level flood plains poor moderate inclusions:
Wehadkee
Cowarts CoB uplands well moderate- non-hydric
slow
Gilead GeB uplands in Coastal Plain moderate- moderate- non-hydric
well slow
MaB, interstream divides in
Marlboro
AmB
uplands of Coastal Plains well moderate non-hydric
NoB, broad interstream divides
Norfolk
NoA
in Coastal Plains well moderate non-hydric
Pacolet PaD, PaE hillslopes of Piedmont well moderate non-hydric
Rains Ra interstream divides poor moderate hydric
Rion RnF steep uplands in Piedmont well slow non-hydric
moderate
Toisnot Tn uplands of Coastal Plains poor moderate- hydric
slow
Varina VrA broad upland areas of well moderate non-hydric
Coastal Plain
Wehadkee Wt floodplains poor moderate hydric
1 AmB: Appling-Marlboro Complex, 1-6% slopes
Bb: Bibb sandy loam, frequently flooded
CeB: Cecil loam 2-6% slopes; CeC: Cecil loam 6-10% slopes
Ch: Chewacla clay loam, frequently flooded
CoB: Cowarts loamy sand, 6-10% slopes
GeB: Gilead sandy loam, 2-8% slopes
MaB: Marlboro sandy loam, 2-8% slopes
NoA: Norfolk loamy sand 0-2% slopes; NoB: Norfolk loamy sand 2-6% slopes
Pal): Pacolet loam, 10-15% slopes; PaE: Pacolet loam, 15-25% slopes
Ra: Rains sandy loam
RnF: Rion sandy loam, 15-40% slopes
Tn: Toisnot loam
VrA: Varina loamy sand, 0-2% slopes
Wt: Wehadkee loam, frequently flooded
12
C. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis
The NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy has been revised since completion
of the environmental assessment. The 2004 Noise Abatement Policy has changed the
criteria for determining a "substantial increase" in noise levels. Under the new noise
abatement policy, noise abatement must be considered when a land use is exposed to
noise levels approaching or exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria and/or the
predicted design year noise levels substantially exceed existing noise levels as defined
below:
Substantial Increase if Receptor
Existing Leq(h) Experiences Increase of:
50 or less dBA 15 or more dBA
51 dBA 14 or more dBA
52 dBA 13 or more dBA
53 dBA 12 or more dBA
54 dBA 11 or more dBA
55 or more dBA 10 or more dBA
Additional residential development has also occurred along the project since the
original traffic noise analysis was conducted. Because of the revision to the noise policy
and this new development, a new traffic noise analysis was conducted for the project.
This new analysis found that ten homes would be impacted by traffic noise with
construction of the proposed project. If NC 42 was not widened, three homes would be
impacted by traffic noise.
Noise abatement measures were not recommended in the traffic noise study
conducted for the environmental assessment. Noise abatement measures were
reexamined during the new study and no noise abatement measures are recommended or
proposed as a result of the latest traffic noise study.
In accordance with the NCDOT 2004 Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, the
Federal/State governments are not responsible for providing noise abatement measures
for new development which building permits are issued within the noise impact area of a
proposed highway after the Date of Public Knowledge. The Date of Public Knowledge of
the location of a proposed highway project will be the approval date of CEs, FONSIs,
RODs, or the Design Public Hearing, whichever comes later. In the case of this project,
the Date of Public Knowledge is the approval date of this document. For development
occurring after this public knowledge date, local governing bodies are responsible to
insure that noise compatible designs are utilized along the proposed facility.
13
D. Corrections to Environmental Assessment
Table 3-Alternative Comparison
Table 3 of the EA stated Alternative 1 would impact 335 meters (1,096 feet) of
streams and Alternative 2 would impact 329 meters (1,079 feet) of streams. These
numbers are incorrect. The correct stream impacts are presented on Table 3 below.
Table 4
Correction to Table 3 of the Environmental Assessment
DESCRIPTION ALTERNATIVE I ALTERNATIVE 2
"Recommended"
Residential Relocatees 2 2
Business Relocatees 2 2
Wetland Impacts 0.331 ha (0.82 ac) 0.288 ha (0.71 ac)
Surface Waters 298 meters (979 feet) 304 meters (996 feet)
Construction Cost $23,000,000 $22,500,000
Right of Way Cost $ 5,047,400 $ 4,624,500
Total Cost $28,047,400 $27,124,500
Table 5-Stream Impacts Within the Project Study Area
Table 5 of the EA stated the project would impact 100 linear feet (30.5 meters) of
the Neuse River. This is incorrect. The Neuse River will be bridged by the project. The
correct stream impacts are shown on Table 5 below.
14
Table 5
Correction to Table 5 of the Environmental Assessment
Stream Tributary of: Class Impacts m / ftt
Neuse R - perennial Om/Oft
UT #NI Neuse River intermittent 8.5 m / 28 ft
UT #N2 Neuse River intermittent 9.8 m / 32 ft
UT #N3 Neuse River intermittent 4.3 m / 14 ft
UT #N3 Neuse River perennial 3.7 m / 12 ft
UT #N4 Neuse River perennial 10.1m 33 ft
UT #N5 Neuse River intermittent 100 m / 327 ft
UT #N6 Neuse River perennial 12 m / 38 ft
UT #N7 Neuse River perennial 4 m / 14 ft
UT #N8 Neuse River erennial 7 m/ 23 ft
UT #N9 Neuse River intermittent 9.4 m / 31 ft
UT #N 10 Neuse River perennial Om/ Oft
Mill Cr Neuse River perennial 8.8 m / 29 ft
UT #M 1 Mill Creek perennial 127 m / 415 ft
UT #M2 Mill Creek intermittent 0 m/ Oft
UT #M3 Mill Creek perennial 0 m/ Oft
Total 304 m /996 ft
15
VI. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based upon environmental studies and coordination 'with appropriate federal,
state, and local agencies, it is the finding of the Federal Highway Administration and the
North Carolina Department of Transportation that the proposed action will have no
significant impact upon the quality of the human environment. Therefore, an
environmental impact statement will not be required.
The following persons can be contacted for additional information concerning this
proposal and statement:
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph..D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NC Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
[phone]
John F. Sullivan, III, P.E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1442
JAM
16
APPENDIX
Agency Comments on the Environmental Assessment

i
.
LN
I
BEGIN
PROJECT

I
p I
J ?
V1
Flow
spa. ysR>> 1
42
END
J- PROJECT

SCALE
0 ? 2
MILES

?I ?? d p o Ord 96
1 `\
......... ...... .......?.\
.......... ........ ......r.......... ....:..... r ...... ... TIP PROJECT R-3825 ......
7o Cr? . ............ ........ ...... ...
CLAYTON ... I ... ..... ..... I . .. ........ ... 42. /p tr--?
42` G e G / ?.I. ........... .....1. ....... .....
es
?.....?..Z?G ti..
......... ............:4 ........ ... ......
fJ
o .. I .. ..1 . ............
... ..
y ..................... ...... ..
\ '\ I I y ................ .. ....
J \ ® ?. ./ ) ?........... ......
.......... ... WILSON'S MILLS .- - . i .... .. r r .. ............... .
\ ?. ..... IFG. '.....r" ..... .. ...... ..........
`
BUS ` . 1 IP.
l 1 ........... % . .
70
.
?`............ ... ............ .. ; ....
J ` , \ \Jrr. rr?. ;. ..........r.. \ ••
\ •*• ....................... ..... \. .....J . i.
WATERSUPPLY WATERSHED (WSIV) f d •?1
i? WATERSUPPLY WATERSHED CRITICAL AREA ........ ....... ...... MILES
/ I O I
/ 70
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
J y c?
TRANSPORTATION
\ J _ ?? e \ e _ _ ` PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
SMITHFIELD WATER SUPPLY WATERSHEDS
AND WATER SUPPLY CRITICAL AREAS
r `
301 96 NEAR TIP PROJECT R-3825
95 FIGURE 2
?? i 0 n o e
J??SfO ST,,T
Fs UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL P!PO-^':
REGION 4

33
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
r
?
T
F o
61 FORSY
H STREET
?Tq< PROA?-C1 ATLANTA
GEORGIA 30303
8960
,
-

m? G .

November 4, 2003

Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Manager Director, Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
SUBJ: EPA Review of the Federal Environmental Assessment for NC 42
Improvements from US 70 to SR 1003 (Buffalo Road), Johnston County;
Federal Aid Project No. STP-42(4), State Project No. 8.1312301, T.I.P.
Project No. R-3825
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Pursuant to Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has reviewed the referenced North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Environmental Assessment (EA) for NC 42 Improvements from US 70 to SR 1003
(Buffalo Road), Johnston County. The EA addresses the No-build alternative. alternative modes
of transportation and two widening construction alternatives (Alternatives 1 and 2). The length of
the proposed widening alternatives is approximately 5.7 miles. A 4-lane, 17.5-foot raised median
with 8-foot shoulder facility is proposed. Alternative 2 is NCDOT's recommended alternative and
is different from Alternative I in that the roadway is widened to the north between SR 2022 to
Woodberry Court.
EPA offers the following comments on the EA.
This project is a non-Merger Team project. However, based upon current Merger process
improvement guidance and screening criteria, this project would be a candidate for inclusion in
the Merger process. There is no discussion in the EA concerning the coordination and
determination of this issue between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and NCDOT. The EA
addresses the fact that this project will most likely require an Individual Permit (IP) under Section
404 requirements due to potential wetland and stream impacts.
Internet Address (URL) • htip://www.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable . Pnnled with Vegetable oil Rased inks on Recycled Paper (Mlnimurn 30% Postconsurnen
EPA acknowledges that NCDOT and FHWA have streamlined some of the sections of the
EA which facilitated EPA's review.
? PURPOSE AND NEED
The EA addresses that the project purpose is to improve safety and traffic carrying
capacity of NC 42 within the project limits. Accident rates for non-fatal collisions is slightly
above the State-wide average for a similar 2-lane roadway. Fatal collision rates were slightly
below the State-wide average. Carrying capacity with the new roadway was primarily measured
using Level of Service (LOS) at 5 key signalized intersections. LOS for the year 2006 are
estimated to be functioning between LOS C, B, A, C and C for these intersections, respectively
(Table 2). For the year 2026, LOS is projected to be E, B, B, C and E. Without the project, the
LOS is expected to be E, F, F, F and E, respectively (from Table 1). However, the EA does
address other traffic improvements (e.g. Turning lanes) and,traffic system management
alternatives which would not require widening the entire 5.7 miles of existing roadway.
? ALTERNATIVES
The EA addresses the No-build, Alternative Modes of Transportation and the 2
construction alternatives on pages 8 and 9. However, the EA does not include an analysis of
other potential alternatives, including intersection traffic improvements or other typical roadway
sections (e.g. 3-lane with center turning lane). Furthermore, the EA identifies a problem involving
a railroad crossing along NC 42 just east of US 70. The EA states that a needed grade separation
would warrant a major reconstruction of NC 42 and the NC 42/US 70 intersection but that this
issue is beyond the scope of the project. Because this intersection is utilized in the LOS analysis
and is a termini for the proposed project, EPA does not concur with this finding without further
information.
? AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
* Wetlands Impacts - The recommended alternative for the proposed project will impact
approximately 0.71 acres of jurisdictional wetlands. There are approximately 1 1 wetland systems
which will be impacted from the project. However, compensatory mitigation is not proposed to
be addressed until final design for the project. EPA recommends that NCDOT begin consultation
with USACE and North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) as soon as possible for
mitigation requirements. According to a recent Environmental Enhancement Program (EEP)
summary of wetland and stream mitigation needs, the Central Piedmont area is in significant need
of mitigation sites for non-riparian wetlands and streams.
* Stream Impacts - The recommended alternative will potentially impact 1,096 linear feet of
streams, including the Neuse River (Bridge No. 75 replacement) and unnamed tributaries (UTs)
to the Neuse River, and Mill Creek and UTs to Mill Creek. Please see comment above
concerning compensatory mitigation requirements.
* Threatened and Endangered Species - EPA concurs fully with the September 29, 2003, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service letter to the NCDOT concerning threatened and'endangered species.
NCDOT needs to adequately address federally protected species including further documentation
of biological assessments and survey methodologies.
* Forest Resources EPA acknowledges that the recommended alternative will impact
approximately 26.4 acres of different forest community types, including the loss of 18.9 acres of
Mixed Hardwood forests and terrestrial wildlife habitat.
* Indirect and Cumulative Impacts - NCDOT does not propose any control of access along the
improved facility. The Town of Clayton and Johnston County propose continued development in
this area, including predominantly single-family, residential development. There are no identified
or proposed `greenways', `greenspaces', parks or conservation easements along the
transportation corridor or within the project study area. EPA believes that an Indirect and
Cumulative Impact (ICI) analysis be performed with regard'to increased capacity of the proposed
roadway and its relationship to sprawl and future water quality impacts within this watershed sub-
basin.
The Merger process improvement guidance addresses the need for NCDOT to identify
potential impacts resulting from the relocation of utilities prior to final design and as early in the
planning process as possible. The EA identifies that numerous utilities are present in the existing
right of way. The EA identifies numerous jurisdictional wetland systems along the NC 42
corridor. NCDOT needs to identify what potential impacts to the human and natural environment
will occur as a result of relocating all or some of these utilities (i.e., Fiber optics, sewer, gas,
water, cable, electric and telephone) and any additional compensatory mitigation requirements.
* Soils Information: The EA does not discuss soils information within the project area. It would
be helpful to EPA to identify what percentage of each soil (type) series is located within the
proposed right of way.
* Other impacts - EPA acknowledges the other impacts resulting from the proposed project,
including relocations (2 residences, 2 businesses), noise (4 receptors impacted), and construction
related impacts. EPA does not recommend burning of vegetative matter generated during
clearing and grubbing operations. Burning is EPA's least preferred option, especially considering
the close proximity to urban and suburban populations. NCDOT should consider more
environmentally-friendly options, such as shredding and mulching and making these recycled
materials available to the public.
? SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
EPA requests some clarification of issues for the proposed project, including consistency
with Merger process improvement guidance, soils and compensatory mitigation for wetland and
stream impacts. Furthermore, additional environmental analyses are being requested for
threatened and endangered species impacts, utility relocation impacts, and for potential indirect
and cumulative impacts to water quality. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this EA.
Should you have questions regarding these comments, please feel free to contact Christopher
Militscher of my staff at 919-856-4206.
Sincerely,
Heinz J. Mueller, Chief
NEPA Program Office
Office of Policy and Management
cc: J. Thomas, USACE Raleigh
06 29, 06 THU 14:06 FAX [phone] L sr+$s-KALLIUK , :N(
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleie.h_ North Carolina 27636-3726
June 29, 2006
Phil S. Harris, III, P.E.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1595 Mail Service Center
Raleigh. North Carolina 27699-1598
Dear Mr. Harris:
This letter is in response to your letter of .Tune. 19, 2006 which provided the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service ('Service) with the biological determination of the ?lorth Carolina Department of
Transporlation (NCDOT) that the proposed widening of NC 42 from US 70 to SR 1003 (Buffalo
Road), the replacement of Bridge No. 75 over the Meuse River and the extension of the existing
NC 42 culvert on Mill Creek in Johnston County (TIP No. R-3$25) may affect; but is not likely
to adversely affect the federally threatened bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucorehhalrts) and federally
endangered dwarf \vedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon). These comments are provided in
accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531-1543).
Accordinc to information provided, an eagle survey was gonducted within one mile of the
project area on April 14, 2006 No caeles or eagle nests were observed. Based on the survey
results; the Service concurs with your determination that the proposed project may affect, but is
not likely to adversely affect the bald eagle.
ACCOrding to information provided, mussel surveys xvere c011ducted at the project site on
November 19 and 30. 2001; December 7. 2001: August 14, 2002: and November 4, 2005. The
2005 survey extended 100 meters upstrcM and 400 meters downstream of the Neuse River and
Mill Creel: crossings. No dwarf ,?vedgemu;scls were obsen?ed in any of the surveys, although
several specimens of six other species were observed. Through informal section 7 consultation.
NCDOT and the Service have ae-reed to several conservation measures. These treasures are
listed in vour June 19, 2006 letter. Based on the survey results and NCDOT's commitment to
implement these conservation measures, the Service concurs with your detenniination that the
project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the dwarf wedgemusscl.
As stated in your letter., the Service has previously concun-ed with your determination that the
proposed project will have no effect on the federally endangered Tar River spinymussel Ohptio
creinctan.?arut), red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides boreah-0 and Nlicliaux's sumac (Rhus
michatLvii). "t bellevc that the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied.

06,'29,'(-)6 THU 14:07 Fall 1 919 856 4556 USFIVS-RALEIGH,INC
We rernind you that obligations under section 7 consultatidn must be reconsidered if: (1) new
informat ioii'reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or critical
habitat in a manner not previously considered in this review; (2) this action is subsequently
modified in a manner that was not considered in this review ;'or (3) a new species is listed or
critical habitat determined that may be affected by this identified action,
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions
regarding our response; please contact Mr. Vary Jordan at [phone] (Ext. 32).
Sincerely,
Pete. Benjamin
Field Supervisor
cc. ` 1111am Wescott, USACE, Washington. NC
Rob Riding, NCD\VQ. Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor. NC
Chris iVfilit5che,r, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
John Sullivan, FHwA, Raleigh, NC
lQ 00
United States Depart;ll,,,_. ?.. -4.1w , j „
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office O?`?i z
Post Office Box 33726 2'S r
Raleigh, Notch Carolina 27636-3726 a
Q ' O w C
7 ?JO Q?
September 29, 2003 1?
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
This letter is in response to your September 3, 2003 letter requesting comments from the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed
widening of NC 42 from US 70 to SR 1003 in Johnston County, North Carolina (TIP No. R-
3825). These comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
According to the EA, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to
widen a 5.7 mile portion of NC 42 from two lanes to four lanes with a 17.5 foot raised median.
The existing bridge over the Neuse River will be replaced and two box culverts on smaller
streams will be retained and extended. There are two build alternatives, with the preferred
alternative (Alternative 2) having the least impacts to wetlands and streams.
The EA states that 1096 linear feet of streams and 0.71 acres of wetlands will be impacted by the
preferred alternative. In addition, up to 26.4 acres of forest habitat of various types will be
impacted. This is a significant amount of forest habitat impact, but the impacts will be occurring
along the edges of already fragmented habitat. It is understood that the ability to avoid impacts
to forest wildlife habitat is limited when widening an existing road.
There are four federally-protected species listed for Johnston County. The EA renders a
biological conclusion of "no effect" for the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), dwarf
wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), Tar spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana) and Michaux's
sumac (Rhus michauxii). The Service does not concur with any of the "no effect"
conclusions for the following reasons:
The EA states on page 21 that "potential habitat for the RCW is located within the project study
area." A "no effect" conclusion should not be rendered if potential habitat exists. The EA does
not give an adequate description of the potential habitat, nor does it differentiate between nesting
and foraging habitat. There is insufficient information on the March 8, 2001 survey. If foraging
habitat exists within the project area, a survey for cavity trees should extend out for a 0.5 mile
radius from the project site, within suitable habitat.
Since the dwarfwedgemussel is known to occur within,the Neuse River Basin and potential
habitat exists in the Neuse River and possibly in Mill Creek; the "no effect" conclusion is
inappropriate. The EA lacks any details on the mussel survey methodologies. Mussel surveys
should extend a minimum of 100 meters upstream and 400 meters downstream of road crossings.
Based on a tentative identification, the Tar spinymussel was recently collected within the Neuse
River Basin in White Oak Creek. Therefore, its presence near the project area cannot be ruled
out, and thus'the "no effect" conclusion is inappropriate.
The EA states on page 22 that "habitat for Michaux's sumac is present within the project study
area." Therefore, the "no effect" conclusion is inappropriate. No details of the survey
methodology are provided in the EA.
The Service does not believe that this EA adequately addresses the federally protected species
within the project area. Future documentation should reassess the biological conclusions and
provide additional details, especially regarding survey methodologies. The Service may be able
to concur with a "may affect, not likely to adversely affect" conclusion on some or all of the four
listed species in Johnston County, provided that adequate justification and documentaiion is
provided.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If you halve any questions
regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at [phone], ext. 32.
Sincerely,
L I d
?a Garland B. Pardue, Ph.D.
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Mike Bell, USACE, Washington, NC
David Franklin, Wilmington, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmore, NC
John Hennessy, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC

1 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND Project Number
NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH County
Johnston
Inter-Agency Project Review Response
Project Name Fed. Hwv Admin. (FHW;A), NC O'L--TyRe--of: Project Widen NC 42 to a four-lane shoulder
- ------------
L facility with a 5.3 meter raised median
ilr'
` I !!t
Comments provided by: from US 70 to SR 1003 (Buffalo Rd)
? Regional Program Person -
? Regional Engineer for Public Water,Supplyc5e_, iHb l ?•?; (, ;
? Central Office program p rson
1 ?1
Name:+ Date: /I ?j
Te;erl, ne ru-rber:l 1 l ?? - ;r
Procrarn wi nin Division of Environmental Health
? Public Water Supply
L__i Other. Name of Program
tes.onse (check all applicable):
?' No objection to project as proposed
? No comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
67
Return to:
Public Water Supply Section
Environmental Review Coordinator
for the
Division of Environmental Health
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND
NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Page 2
Project Number
County
Inter-Agency Project Review Response
r
Project Name ??1 ?n S???r-C //'
Type of Project ?aci!`7y ?re•+?,
Ne- S,?drl'Q
? The applicant ould be advised' that pans and specifications for all water system d
improvements must be approved by the Division of Environmental Health prior to the
award of a contract or the initiation of construction (as required by 15A NCAC 18C
.0300et. seq.). For information, contact the Public Water Supply Section, (919)
733-2321.
? This project will be classified as a non-community public water supply and must comply
,:vith state and federal drinking water monitoring requirements. For more information the
applicant should contact the Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
If this project is constructed as proposed, we will recommend closure of _ feet of
aLja:,t waters to the harvest of shellfish. For information regarding the shellfish
sanitation program, the applicant should contact the Shellfish Sanitation Section at (252)
1;26-6827.
? The soil disposal area(s) proposed for this project may produce a mosquito breedinu
problem. For information concerning appropriate mosquito control measures, the
applicant should contact the Public Health Pest Management Section at [phone].
The applicant should be advised that prior to the removal or demolition of dilapidated
structures, a extensive rodent control proaram may be necessary in order to prevent the
migration of the rodents to adjacent areas. For information concerning rodent control,
contact the Iecal health department or the Public Health Fest Management Section at
(319) 7"13-63 401 .
? The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding their
requirements for septic tank installations (as required under 15A NCAC 18A. 1900 et.
sep.). For information concerning septic tank and other on-site waste disposal methods,
contact the On-Site Wastewater Section at [phone].
? The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding the
sanitary facilities required for this project.
If existing water lines will be relocated during the construction, plans for the water line
relocation must be submitted to the Division of Environmental Health, Public Water
Supply Section, Technical Services Branch, 1634 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27699-1634, [phone].
? For Regional and Central Office comments, see the reverse side of this form.
/ Pi'dirPS l
Revi?r ection/Branch ,Q Dat
r??n
NCUENR Department of Environment anc
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT r" ':^'y", _
After review of this project it has been determined that the DENR permit(s) and/or a
to comply with North Carolina Law. Questions reardin dtese Pprovals indicate 9 may need to be obtained in order for this prof, sed
to th
ndicated All applications, information and guidelines relative to these planes andspermits a eaavaillaable .fro the same Reg oc all Office. on the reverse of this fot
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS Normal Process Tr

0 Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment
facilities sewer system extensions & sewer systems
Application 90 days before begin construction or award of construction (Statutory Time Lir

not discharging into sole surface waters contracts: On-site inspection. Post-application technical conference usual. 30 days
(90 days)
0 NPOES-permit to discharge into surface water and/or
permit to o
r
t
d Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection
Preapp
pe
a
e an
construct wastewater Facilities
discharging into state surface waters conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to cortsatxt
wastewater nt
?'Fe
facility granted after NPOES
Reply rime 30 da
f 90 - 120days
.
ys a
ter receipt
of NPOE5 permit-whichever is later, Plans or issue (N/A)
0 water Use Permit - Preapplicatton technical conference usually necessar
- -
y
30 days
(W

Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued
i A)
pr
or to the
installation of a well.
7 days
(15 d
ays)
Dredge and Fill Permit Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property
own
er.
On-site inspenon. Preappl!cation conference usual Filing may require Easem
55 days
ent
to Fill from N.C. Department of Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Perm", ? (90 days)
Penmrt to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15 A NCAC
WA
(2Q.07= 2Q.C3C`, 2H.0600)

60 dav_ s
Any open buming associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15 A NCAC 20.1900
N ei Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with
IS A NCAC 20.1110 (a) (1) which require notification N/A
and removal prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos 6,0 days
Control Group 919-733-0920. (90 days)
C 3 Complex Source Permit required under 15 A NCAC
2 D.09M
c)` ? T'ne Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be property addressed for any land disturbing actrviry. An erosion & sedim
control
l
ill b

p
an w
entation
e reauircd if one cr more acres to be disturbed Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Q
li

I ua
ty Section) at least 30
days before beginning activity. A lee of S40 for the first acre or any part of an acre. I 20 days
(30 days)
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referenced Local Ordinance
30 d

Mining Permit
On-site inspection usual. Sure- bond filed with DENR. Bond amount v
i ays
ar
es with
type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any are mined greater tha
n
one acre must be permitted. The appropriate bond must be received before
30 days
the permit can be issued. (60 days)
North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division of Forest Resources if permit exceeds 4 d
ays 1 day
(WA)
Special Ground Clearance Bumina Permit-22 counties
i
l N On-site inspection by N.C. Division of Forest Resources required 'if more th

n coasta
.C_with organic soils an five
acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections should be r
1 day
equested
at least ten days before actual burn is planned.' (N/A)

Oil Refining Facilities
N/A 90- 120 days
(N/A)
Dam Safety Permit If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction. Applicant
must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans, inspect construction, certify
construction is according to DENR approved plans. May also require permit under
mosquito control program, and a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers.
An inspection of site is necessary to verify Hazard Classification. A minimum 30 days
fee of 5200.00 must accompany the application. An additional processing fee (60 days)
based on a percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion.
PERMITS I SPECIAL APPLICA 17ON PROCEDURES or RECUIREMENTS I Normal Proce,
(5tatutory Tim
Q Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well File surety bond of $5,000 with DENR running to State of N.C. conditional that any
well opened by drill oPetac o, shall, upon abandonment be plugged according 10 days
to DENR rules and regulations. (N/A)
'Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with DENR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit Application 10 days
by letter. No standard application form. (N/A)
State Lakes Construt'hon Permit Application fees based on structure size is charged Must include descriptions

& drawings of structute & proof of ownership of riparian property. 15 - 20 da)
0 d
(N
Cl 401 Water Quality Certification N/A 55 days
(130 days
C CAMA Permit for MA )R development 5250.00 fee must accompany application 60 days
i (130 days
Cl C. AMA Permit for MINOR development _ $50.00 fee must accompany application - -22 days
(25 days)
Q Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monument needs to be moved or destro)red, please notify:
N.C- Geodetic Survey, Box 27687 Raleigh, N.C.2761 1
i
Abandonment of any wells, if required must be in accordance with Title 15A Subchapter 200100.
Q 1 Notification of the orooer regional office is requested if'orphan" underground storage tanks,(USTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
Comp5ance with 15A NCAC 2H 1000 (Coastal Storrnwater Rules) is required 45 days
(N/A)
* Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority)
Lis

F-7?(2 SY? LJ 57-V ,
/?l? rl "? t?-c,7T;..] C !? ?"r??....
/
J
(?/ f , rl ^'/ ? ? V ?'T7?-/Lj f^'L'
I
I p
?
?
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
? Asheville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place
Asheville, N.C.28801
[phone]
? Mooresville Regional Office
919 North Main Street
Mooresville, N.C.28115
[phone]
? Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, N.C.28405
[phone]
? Fayetteville Regional Office ? A aleigh Regional Office
225 Green Street, Suite 714 800 Barrett Drive, P.O. Box 27687
Fayetteville, N.C. 28301 Raleigh, N.C.2761 1
[phone] [phone]
El Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, N.C.27889
[phone]

? Winston-Salem Regional Office
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, N.C.27107
[phone]
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
(JOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION'
1501 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEI6H, N.C. 27699-1501
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
November 3. 2003
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Ray Lofti
PDEA
Omar Sultan
Project Management/Scheduling Unit
SCH File# 04-E-4220-0064; Environmental Assessment/Finding of No
Significant Impact; proposed project is to widen NC 42 to a 4-lane
shoulder facility 17.E ft. raised median from US 70 to SR 1003 (Buffalo
Rd). TIP# R-3825.
Attached are the comments from the State Clearinghouse Intergovernmental Review Process.
These comments have been entered into our records and the attached copy is for your personal
records.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Omar Sultan at [phone]
ext. 334.
OS/sp
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]

North Carolina
Department of Administration
Michael F. Easley, Governor
October 29, 2003
Mr. Omar Sultan
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Project Dev. & Env. Analysis Branch
Transportation Bldg. - 1554 MSC
Raleigh, NC 27699-1554
Dear Mr. Sultan:
Gwvnn T. Swinson, Secretarv
Re: SCH File # 04-E-4220-0064; Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact;
Proposed project is to widen NC 42 to a 4-lane shoulder facility 17.5ft. raised median from US
70 to SR 1003 (Buffalo Road). TIP R-3825
The above referenced environmental impact information has been submitted to the State Clearinghouse
under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. According to G.S. 1 13A-10, when a
state agency is required to prepare an environmental document under the provisions of federal law, the
environmental document meets the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act. Attached to this
letter for your consideration are the comments made by agencies in the course of this review.
If any further environmental review documents are prepared for this project, they should be forwarded to
this office for intergovernmental review.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Iisnc ely,
. Chinys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
Attachments
cc: Region J
Mailing Address: Telephone: [phone] Locvrlion Address:
1301 Mail Service Center Pax [phone] 116 West Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27699-1 3 0 1 Stag COUrICr H51-01-00 Raleigh, North Carolina
e-mud Chrys lluggct/(awcmad.net
,In Equcrl U1,porntrnrv,',1/Jit+enure Ation Employer
11?A
????,
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
,°° ' OCT 2(,1p3
REC`iVED-
-
MEMOR-aINDUM Secretary's OMCe
OOA
TO:, Chrys Eaggett
State Clearinghouse ( G O C>'?
FROM: Melba McGee? `? V
Environmental Review Coordinator
RE: 04-0064 E?. for the =--oo_osed Improvements to NC 42_n
Johnston Councv
n-crcber 23, 200:
The department asks trac careful consideration be given t: t!ie
attached comments. The applicant is encouraged'to work directi'v with
our conmentin.g agencies prior to final i zing Drc]°_cc Mans.
Thank you for t'^e opnor:?unity to respond.
Attachments
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.enr.state.nc.us/ENR
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recyded ! 10% Post Consumer Paper
GO
>_ r
October 9, 2003 WETLANDS / 401 GROUP
MEMORANDUM OCT y ? 2003
To: Melba McGee
WATER QUALITY SECTION
From: John Hennessy C ?/?'/
i
v'
Subject: Comments on the EA for the widening of NC 42 from US 70 to SR 1003 (Buffalo Road) in
Johnston County, Federal Aid Project No. STP-42(4), State Project No. 8.13 12301, TIP Project
No. R-3825, DENR Project Number 04-0064.
This ofii e iias reviewed the referenced document. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is responsible for the
issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities that impact Waters of the U.S., including
wetlands- !t is (Art understanding that the preferred alternative, as presented in the EA, will result in impacts to 0.71
acres of jurisdictional wetlands and 1.079 linear feet of streams. The DWQ offers the following comments based on
review of the aforementioned document: `
A) Table 3. on Page 9 does not present any anticipated impacts to Neuse Riparian Buffers. Future
documentation any for a 401 Water Quality Certification, or any application for a Neuse River Riparian,
Buffer Authorization will need to include proposed impacts to these resources.
B) Review of Table 3 on page 9 indicates that Alternative 1 has anticipated impacts to 0.82 acres of wetiands
and 1,096 linear feet of streams. It also indicates anticipated impacts to 0.71 acres of wetlands and 1,079
linear feet of streams for Alternative 2. Table three identifies Alternative 2 as preferred. However, review
of Table 5 indicates 1,096 linear feet of anticipated stream impacts, which would be consistent with
Alternative 1. Where as, Table 6 indicates anticipated impacts to 0.71 acres of wetlands, which would be
consistent with Alternative 2. Therefore, in reviewin, Tables 3, 5, and 6, there appears to be a discrepancy
with the presented data. Please clarify information in the FONSI and environmental permit applications.
C) The section of the Neuse River that project impacts is an.anadromous fish spawning area. As such, the 401
Water Quality Certification will conditions that require an in-water work moratorium from February 15`r'
through June 151h
D) The document proposes impacts to waters classified as Water Supply IV. Given the presence of Water
Supply Waters in the project area, the DWQ requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina
regulations entitled "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" throughout design and construction of the
project. This would apply for any area that drains to streams having WS (Water Supply) classifications.
E) Where are the nearest water supply intake(s) for the to the project located? Please provide information that
displays all the municipal water supply intakes in the project area. Given the uncertainty associated with
the location of water supply intakes in the area. DWQ cannot support the selection of a preferred alternative
until the information is supplied. In addition, issuance of the 401 Water Quality Certification can only
occur when the DWQ can make the determination that the project will not adversely impact drinking water
supplies.
T?
2-*A
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 010 3- 4CDEl".
Customer Service: 1-300-623-7748 ( ) 73 1786
William u. Ross Jr., Secretary
\?G North Carolina Cepartment of Environment and Natural Resources
00 7 Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
F) Until the location of the water supply intakes are verified, the potential for hazardous spill catch basins is
present. DWQ will make a determination about the need for hazardous spill basins after the location(s) of
water supply intakes is finalized.
G) The document does not discuss the need for a Neuse River Riparian Buffer Authorization. DOT is advised
that final project approvals cannot occur without a submittal for, and a receipt of, a Neuse River Riparian
Buffer Authorization.
H) 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. Based on the impacts
described in the document, wetland mitigation may be'required for this project. Should the impacts to
jurisdictional wetlands exceed 1.0 acres, mitigation may be required in accordance with NCDWQ Wetland
Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(2)).
I) In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules ( 15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6)), mitigation will be required
for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that n-.iti?ation is
required. the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions and values. In
accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules ( 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(3)), the Wetland Restoration
Prooram may be available for usd as stream mitigation.
J) Where streams must be crossed, the DWQ prefers bridges be used in lieu of culverts. However, we realize
that economic considerations often require the use of culverts. Please be advised that culverts should be
countersunk to allow unimpeded passage by fish and other aquatic organisms. Moreover, in areas where
high quality wetlands or streams are impacted, a bridge may prove preferable. When applicable, DOT
should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent practicable.
K) Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
L) Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable. Impacts to wetlands in
borrow/waste areas could precipitate compensatory mitigation.
M) The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed methods for
stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater should not be permitted to discharge directly into
the creek. Instead, stormwater should be designed to discharge as diffuse flow at non-erosive velocities.
N) There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is required, it is
preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental documentation.
While the NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be practical, it should be noted that for projects
requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required in conjunction with the issuance of a 401
Water Quality Certification.
O) Future documentation should include an itemized listing of the proposed wetland and stream impacts with
corresponding mapping.
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 [phone]
Customer Service: 1-300-623-7748
Pl
nriiliarr -. 4css Jr., Sacral :r;
Ncnh Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Based on the information presented in the document, the magnitude of impacts to wetlands and streams will
require an Individual Permit application to the Corps of Engineers and corresponding 401 Water Qualitv
Certification. Please be advised that a -101 Water Quality Certification requires satisfactorv protection of
water quality to ensure that water quality standards are met and no wetland or stream uses are lost. Final
permit authorization will require the submittal of a formal application by the NCDOT and written
concurrence from the NCDWQ. Please be aware that any approval will be contingent on appropriate
avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream impacts to the maximum extent practical, the
development of an acceptable stormwater management plan, and the inclusion of appropriate mitigation
plans where appropriate.
The NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project. Should you have any questions or
require any additional information, please contact John Hennessy at [phone].
cc: Eric Alsmever, Corps of Engineers
Gary Jordan. USFWS
Travis Wilson, NCWRC
John Hennessy, NCDWQ
Fite Co
F:
cAncaot\TIP R-3825\comments`, R-3825 comments.doc
O ?
N. C. Division of Water Cuality 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Customer Service 1 -800-623-7748
[phone]

North Carolina `wildlife Resources Commission 0
C:hnrles R Fullwood, Execurivi Durcctor
MEMORANDUM o%\
CT 003
.?
$J
s? FD
TO: Melba McGee
Offie: of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DENR C-' ,
FROM: Travis Nilson. Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Consct-Vation Program
DATE: October 6, 2003
SUBJECT: North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Environmental
Assessment (EA) for the proposed improvements to NC 42 in Johnston County.
North Carolina. TIT No. R-3825, SCH Project No. 04-0064.
Staff biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the subject
EA and are familiar with habitat values in the project area. The purpose of his review was to
assess project impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Gut comments are provided in accordance
Witlh certain provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the
Fish acid Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Scat. 401. as amended: 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
NCDOT proposes to widen NC 42 &am two lanes to a four-lane shoulder facility with a
1.7.5 foot raised median, from US 70 to SR 1003 (Buralo JZd) , The total project length is
approximately 5,7 miles. Estimated impacts consist of 0.71 acres of wetlands and 1096 liner feet
of impacts Jurisdictional streams.
We have reviewed the data in the EA. NCDOT has proposed to widen the existing facility
and utilize grass shoulders in-lieu-of curb and gutter. This alternative will minimize impacts to
wetlands, streams and water quality. The project will cross Mill Crcck and the Neusc River. We
request NCDOT follow the Stream Crossing Guidelines for Amadrornous Fish. Passage at both of
these sites, with a standard anadrotnous fish moratorium, February 15 to June 15, at the Mill
Creek crossing and the Neuse River crossing. NCDOT Should also conduct a mussel survey at
all stream crossings prior to construction.
N.lailing Address; Division of Inlanei Fishcnrs - 1721 Mail Service Ccntcr - Raleigh, NC 27099-1721
Tvlw.linna- NIQl 71-4,11-... lQi 4 C- '0101 71C ?L I:
Memo 2 October 6, 2003
At this time, we concur with the EA for this project. Thank you for the opportunity to
comment on this EA. If we can be of any further assistance please call me at (919) 528=9886.
cc: Gary Jordan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
John Hennessy, DWQ, Raleigh
Eric Alsmeyer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Raleigh
I 1
1 I
NC 42
From US 70 to SR 1003 (Buffalo Road)
Johnston County
Federal Aid Project STP-42(4)
State Project 8.1312301
WBS Element 34552. 1.1
TIP Project R-3825
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
APPROVED:
& A!/Da v 01
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Date q, ,John F. Sullivan, III, P.E.
Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
NC 42
From US 70 to SR 1003 (Buffalo Road)
Johnston County
Federal Aid Project STP-42(4)
State Project 8.1312301
WBS Element 34552. 1.1
TIP Project R-3825
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Documentation prepared in the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
by:
,%OSS111 Ih
CAROL
Koelr SIJa s A. McInnis, Jr, P.i' 00
Al
Project Engineer = i 2070' }.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
s• 0 1ppp,???tiz,. 5'
Z f t
vegl06
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROJECT COMMITMENTS .................................................................
1. TYPE OF ACTION .............................................................................
II. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION ...........................................................
III. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ...........................
IV. COMMENTS,AND COORDINATION ..........................................
A. DISTRIBUTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT .................
B. COMMENTS ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT .....................
C. PUBLIC HEARING ...........................................................................
V. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT..........
A. PROTECTED AND RARE SPECIES ....................................................
1. Federally-Protected Species ....................................................
2. Federal Species of Concern .....................................................
B. Son-s .............................................................................................
C. HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS ............................................
D. CORRECTIONS TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ........................
VI. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ..............
FIGURES
........................................... i
...........................................1
...........................................1
...........................................2
.........................................2
.................................................2
.................................................2
................................................. 8
.................................................9
.................................................9
.................................................9
....... ....................................10
...............................................11
............................................... 13
...............................................14
............................16
APPENDIX - Agency Comments on the Environmental Assessment
LIST OF TABLES
Table I - Federally-Protected Species in Johnston County ................................... 9
Table 2 - Federal Species of Concern in Johnston County ................................... 11
Table 3 - Soil Series and Characteristics of the Project Area ................................ 12
Table 4 - Correction to Table 3 of the Environmental Assessment .......................... 14
Table 5 - Correction to Table 5 of the Environmental Assessment .......................... 15
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure I - Project Location Map
Figure 2 - Water Supply Watersheds and Water Supply Critical Areas Near TIP Project
R-3825
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
NC 42
Rom US 70 to SR 1003 (Buffalo Road)
Johnston County
Federal Aid Project STP-42(4)
State Project 8.1312301
WBS Element 34552.1.1
TIP Project R-3825
Division Four Construction
Notification will be sent to the NCDOT Natural Environment Unit one month
prior to the start of construction, in order that mussels at the Neuse River and Mill Creek
crossings can be relocated. The notification should be sent to the following address:
Natural Environment Biological Surveys Group Supervisor
NCDOT Natural Environment Unit
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
Timber work pads will be used for heavy equipment within fifty feet of streams or
in other areas where sediment could enter the stream.
NCDOT's Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage will apply
to the Neuse River and all stream crossings within the project area.
No in-water work will be performed in the Neuse River between February 15th
and June 15th, due to the likely presence of anadromous fish.
NCDOT will implement Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and
Removal. The asphalt-wearing surface of Bridge Number 75 and bridge rails will be
removed without dropping into the water prior to bridge demolition.
During construction of the project, the driveway to Clayton Fire Station will be
kept open at all times. No equipment or materials will be parked or placed in the fire
station driveway at any time.
Finding of No Significant Impact - R-3825 Page 1 of 2
June 2006
i
Roadside Environmental Unit/Division Four Construction
Due to the,existence of habitat for federally protected mussels in the Neuse River
and Mill Creek, the following project, commitments'will 'be implemented:
If practical, turbidity curtains will be used during in-stream work in the Neuse
River.
'Sediment and erosion control meastires shall adhere to the Design Standards in
Sensitive Watersheds during construction of the project.
Special Sediment Control Fence will be used at the toe of slope parallel to the
Neuse River and Mill Creek.
During active grading, all unstabilized areas of the project within fifty feet of
streams will be temporarily stabilized prior to any rain event. This will be done
utilizing erosion control blankets, fabric, plastic or other material(s) approved by
the Roadside Environmental Unit and as directed by the engineer on site. The
temporary stabilization should be adequately anchored, and utilized to prevent the
loss of sediment into the water course unless runoff from these areas can be,
diverted to an adequately designed sediment basin or until the area is stabilized
with vegetation.
Structure Design Unit/Hydraulic Unit
Deck drains for the proposed bridge carrying NC 42 over the Neuse River will be
designed so that runoff is not discharged directly into the Neuse River.
Where possible, proposed bridge bents will be no closer than 10 feet from the
edge of the stream bank.
Roadway Design Unit/Geotechnical Unit
The proposed widening will require property from four sites potentially containing
hazardous materials. A preliminary site assessment will be performed for all of the
properties prior to right of way acquisition in order to determine the extent of any
contamination. Right of way acquisition from the former Jimmy Flowers Store and the
Percy Flowers Store will be by permanent easement rather than fee simple right of way
due to the possibility of contamination on the properties. Permanent easements will be
obtained from the former Peele Pesticide site and the Caterpillar site, as well, if the
preliminary site assessment determines there is a possibility of contamination in areas
needed for right of way.
Finding of No Significant Impact - R-3825
June 2006
Page 2 of 2
ii
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
PREPARED BY THE
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT'OF TRANSPORTATION
IN CONSULTATION WITH THE
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
1. TYPE OF ACTION
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI).
The FHWA has determined this project will have no significant impact on the
human environment. This Finding of No Significant Impact is based on the August 11,
2003 Environmental Assessment (EA) which has been independently evaluated by the
FHWA and determined to adequately and accurately discuss the need, environmental
issues and impacts of the proposed project and appropriate mitigation measures. The
following documentation provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that
an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required. The FHWA takes full
responsibility for the accuracy, scope and content of the Environmental Assessment.
II. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION
The project involves widening NC 42 to a four-lane shoulder facility with a
17.5-foot raised median from US 70 to SR 1003 (Buffalo Road). The proposed project is
approximately 5.7 miles long (see Figure 1). No control of access is proposed. The
project is included in the 2006-2012 North Carolina Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP). Right of way acquisition and construction are scheduled in the
2006-2012 TIP for federal fiscal years 2007 and 2008, respectively.
The purpose of the project is to improve the safety and traffic carrying capacity of
NC 42 within the project limits.
The 2006-2012 TIP includes an estimated right of way acquisition cost of
$4,650,000 and construction cost of $23,700,000. Total project cost included in the TIP
is $28,350,000.
The latest estimated costs for project R-3825 are shown below:
Right of Way Acquisition $ 4,650,000
Construction $24,700,000
Total Cost $29,350,000
III. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Two homes and two businesses will be relocated as a result of this project. Ten
residential receptors are predicted to experience noise impacts. A total of 0.71 acre of
wetlands and 996 feet of streams will be impacted by the project.
Habitat exists in the project area for four federally-listed endangered species. It is
anticipated the proposed project will have "no effect" on Michaux's sumac and
red-cockaded woodpecker and the project "may affect, but is not likely to adversely
affect" dwarf wedgemussel and Tar River spinymussel. The US Fish and Wildlife
Service has concurred on these biological conclusions for these species (see Section
V-A-1 of this document).
It is anticipated a US Army Corps of Engineers Individual Permit will likely be
required for the project. A Section 401 Water Quality General Certification from the
North Carolina Division of Water Quality will be required prior to issuance of the Section
404 Individual Permit from the Corps of Engineers.
IV. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Distribution of the Environmental Assessment
Copies of the environmental assessment were made available to the public and to
the following federal, state and local agencies:
US Department of the Army - Corps of Engineers (Wilmington District)
*US Environmental Protection Agency
*US Fish and Wildlife Service - Raleigh
NC Department of Cultural Resources
*NC Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Asterisks (*) indicate agencies from which comments on the environmental
assessment were received. Copies of letters received are included in the Appendix of this
document.
B. Comments on the Environmental Assessment
Substantive comments on the environmental assessment are discussed below:
US Environmental Protection Agency
COMMENT: "This project is a non-Merger Team project. However, based upon current
Merger process improvement guidance and screening criteria, this project would
2
be a candidate for inclusion in the Merger process. There is no discussion in the
EA concerning the coordination and determination of this issue between the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and NCDOT. The EA addresses the fact that this
project will most likely require an Individual Permit (IP) under Section 404
requirements due to potential wetland and stream impacts."
NCDOT RESPONSE: Following receipt of this comment, NCDOT consulted with the
Corps of Engineers, who agreed this project should be included in the
multi-agency NEPA/404 merger process. At a meeting held on March 15, 2005,
the merger team agreed this project should be brought into the merger process at
Concurrence Point 4A (avoidance and minimization).
COMMENT: "The EA addresses the No-build, Alternative Modes of Transportation
and the 2 construction alternatives on pages 8 and 9. However, the EA does not
include an analysis of other potential alternatives, including intersection traffic
improvements or other typical roadway sections (e.g. 3-lane with center turning
lane)."
NCDOT RESPONSE: Other roadway typical sections, such as a three-lane section or
intersection improvements, were not considered as alternatives for this project due
to the high traffic volumes. As discussed in Section II-C-1 of the EA, even with
widening to four lanes, portions of NC 42 within the project limits will operate at
level of service D and two signalized intersections along the project will operate
at level of service E in the year 2026. A three-lane section or intersection
improvements would not have provided acceptable levels of service for the
project.
COMMENT: "Furthermore, the EA identifies a problem involving a railroad crossing
along NC 42 just east of US 70. The EA states that a needed grade separation
would warrant a major reconstruction of NC 42 and the NC 42/US 70 intersection
but that this issue is beyond the scope of the project. Because this intersection is
utilized in the LOS analysis and is a termini for the proposed project, EPA does
not concur with the finding without further information."
NCDOT RESPONSE: The EA does not identify the existing railroad crossing as being
problematic, the EA merely states the exposure index at this crossing exceeds the
warrant for a grade separation. No accidents involving a train at this crossing
were reported during the accident study period. This railroad crossing is less than
100 feet from the intersection of NC 42 with US 70. Providing a grade separation
at this location would be very expensive and disruptive to the area. Gates and
signals exist at this crossing. These protective devices will be upgraded to current
standards as part of this project.
COMMENT: "The recommended alternative for the proposed project will impact
approximately 0.71 acres of jurisdictional wetlands. There are approximately 11
3
wetland systems which will be impacted from the project. However,
compensatory mitigation is not proposed to be addressed until final design for the
project. EPA recommends that NCDOT begin consultation with'USACE and
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) as soon as possible for
mitigation requirements. According to a recent Environmental Enhancement
Program (EEP) summary of wetland and steam mitigation needs, the Central
Piedmont area is in significant need of mitigation sties for non-riparian wetlands
and streams.."
NCDOT RESPONSE: The EA states, "Final decisions concerning compensatory
mitigation for project impacts on wetlands will be made during the design phase
of the project." This statement is not intended to imply work on mitigation plans
will not begin until the final design phase. Discussions with the permitting
agencies regarding mitigation requirements will be held at the appropriate time.
COMMENT: "EPA concurs fully with the September 29, 2003, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service letter to the NCDOT concerning threatened and endangered species.
NCDOT needs to adequately address federally protected species including further
documentation of biological assessments and survey methodologies."
NCDOT RESPONSE: See response to US Fish and Wildlife Service comments below.
COMMENT: "EPA believes that an Indirect and Cumulative Impact (ICI) analysis
[should] be performed with regard to increased capacity of the proposed roadway
and its relationship to sprawl and future water quality impacts within this
watershed sub-basin."
NCDOT RESPONSE: An indirect and cumulative impact analysis will be conducted
and submitted to the NC Division of Water Quality as part of the Section 401
Water Quality Certification application.
COMMENT: "The Merger process improvement guidance addresses the need for
NCDOT to identify potential impacts resulting from the relocation of utilities
prior to final design and as early in the planning process as possible. The EA
identifies numerous jurisdictional wetland systems along the NC 42 corridor.
NCDOT needs to identify what potential impacts to the human and natural
environment will occur as a result of relocating all or some of these utilities (i.e.
Fiber optics, sewer, gas, water, cable, electric, and telephone) and any additional
compensatory mitigation requirements."
NCDOT RESPONSE Anticipated impacts due to utility relocations are included in the
impacts listed for the project in the EA.
4
COMMENT: "The EA does not discuss soils information within the project area. It
would be helpful to EPA to identify what percentage of each soil (type) series is
located within the proposed right of way."
NCDOT RESPONSE: See Section V-B of this document.
COMMENT: "EPA does not recommend burning of vegetative matter generated during
clearing and grubbing operations. Burning is EPA's least preferred option,
especially considering the close proximity to urban and suburban populations.
NCDOT should consider more environmentally-friendly options, such as
shredding and mulching and making these recycled materials available to the
public."
NCDOT RESPONSE: Trees and other debris to be cleared from the proposed right of
way will become the property of the contractor. The contractor is responsible for
disposing of such material properly and obtaining any necessary permits for the
burning or disposal of the material.
US Fish and Wildlife Service
COMMENT: "There are four federally-protected species listed for Johnston County.
The EA renders a biological conclusion of "no effect" for the red-cockaded
woodpecker (Picoides borealis), dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon),
Tar spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana) and Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii).
The Service does not concur with any of the "no effect" conclusions for the
following reasons:"
"The EA states on page 21 that "potential habitat for the RCW is located within
the project study area." A "no effect" conclusion should not be rendered if
potential habitat exists. The EA does not give an adequate description of the
potential habitat, nor does it differentiate between nesting and foraging habitat.
There is insufficient information on the March 8, 2001 survey."
"The EA states on page 22 that "habitat for Michaux's sumac is present within the
project study area." Therefore, the "no effect" conclusion is inappropriate. No
details of the survey methodology are provided in the EA."
"Since the dwarf wedgemussel is known to occur within the Neuse River Basin
and potential habitat exists in the Neuse River and possibly in Mill Creek, the "no
effect" conclusion is inappropriate. The EA lacks any details on the mussel
survey methodologies. Mussel surveys should extend a minimum of 100 meters
upstream and 400 meters downstream of road crossings."
"Based on a tentative identification, the Tar spinymussel was recently collected
within the Neuse River Basin in White Oak Creek. Therefore, its presence near
5
the project area cannot be ruled out, and thus the "no effect" conclusion is
inappropriate."
"The service does ,not believe that this EA adequately addresses the federally ,
protected species within the project area. Future documentation should reassess
the biological conclusions and provide additional details, especially regarding
survey methodologies. The Service may be able to concur with a "may affect, not
likely to adversely affect" conclusion on some or all of the four listed species in
Johnston County, provided that adequate justification and documentation is
provided."
NCDOT RESPONSE: At the time threatened and endangered species surveys were
originally conducted for this project, the accepted protocol was to render a
conclusion of "No Effect" for a species if no specimens were found, even if
habitat existed in the area. Between the time of the survey and the publication of
the EA, the protocol had changed to rendering a conclusion of "May Affect, Not
Likely to Adversely Affect" if no specimens were found and habitat existed.
Concurrence from the Fish and Wildlife Service is required on a biological
conclusion of "May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect." The original
biological conclusion was included in the EA and the Fish and Wildlife Service
was not contacted regarding the survey results and the appropriate biological
conclusion. However, at the present time, a biological conclusion of "No Effect"
is once again appropriate in certain cases, even if habitat is present.
Since publication of the EA, new surveys have been conducted for all of
the threatened and endangered species listed for Johnston County. The results of
these surveys are discussed in Section V-A-1 of this document.
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
COMMENT: "Table 3, on Page 9 does not present any anticipated impacts to Neuse
Riparian Buffers. Future documentation for a 401 Water Quality Certification, or
any application for a Neuse River Riparian Buffer Authorization will need to
include proposed impacts to these resources."
NCDOT RESPONSE: This information will be provided as part of the application for a
Neuse River Riparian Buffer Authorization.
COMMENT: "Review of Table 3 on page 9 indicates that Alternative 1 has anticipated
impacts to 0.82 acres of wetlands and 1,096 linear feet of streams. It also
indicates anticipated impacts to 0.71 acres of wetlands and 1,079 linear feet of
streams for Alternative 2. Table three identifies Alternative 2 as preferred.
However, review of Table 5 indicates 1,096 linear feet of anticipated stream
impacts, which would be consistent with Alternative 1. Where as, Table 6
6
indicates anticipated impacts to 0.71 acres of wetlands, which would be consistent
with Alternative 2. Therefore, in reviewing Tables 3, 5, and 6, there appears to be
a discrepancy with the presented data. Please clarify information in the FONSI
and environmental permit applications."
NCDOT RESPONSE: See Section V-D of this document for corrected versions of
Tables 3 and 5 from the EA.
COMMENT: "The section of the Neuse River that [the] project impacts is an
anadromous fish spawning area. As such the 401 Water Quality Certification will
[include] conditions that require an in-water work moratorium from February 15th
through June 15`h."
NCDOT RESPONSE: The list of project commitments in the EA included a
commitment that no in-water work would be performed in the Neuse River
between February 15`h and June 15th (see the list of project commitments in this
document).
COMMENT: "The document proposes impacts to waters classified as Water Supply IV.
Given the presence of Water Supply Waters in the project area, the DWQ requests
that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled "Design Standards
in Sensitive Watersheds" throughout design and construction of the project. This
would apply for any area that drains to streams having WS (Water Supply)
classifications."
NCDOT RESPONSE: "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" apply to water
supply watersheds classified as WS-1 or WS-II. These design standards do not
apply to waters classified as WS-IV. However, these standards are proposed for
the project due to the existence of habitat for federally-protected mussels in the
Neuse River and Mill Creek (see list of project commitments).
COMMENT: "Where are the nearest water supply intake(s) to the project located?
Please provide information that displays all the municipal water supply intakes in
the project area. Given the uncertainty associated with the location of water
supply intakes in the area, DWQ cannot support the selection of a preferred
alternative until the information is supplied. In addition, issuance of the 401
Water Quality Certification can only occur when the DWQ can make the
determination that the project will not adversely impact drinking water supplies."
NCDOT RESPONSE: The nearest water supply intake to the project is on the Neuse
River, over six miles downstream of the NC 42 crossing of the Neuse. See Figure
2 of this document.
COMMENT: "The document does not discuss the need for a Neuse River Riparian
Buffer Authorization. DOT is advised that final project approvals cannot occur
7
without a submittal for, and a receipt of, a Neuse River Riparian Buffer
Authorization.
NCDOT RESPONSE: NCDOT will request a Neuse River Riparian Buffer
Authorization prior to construction.
COMMENT: "There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable
impacts. If, mitigation is required, it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not
finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental documentation. While the
NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be practical, it should be noted that for
projects, requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required in
conjunction with the issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification."
NCDOT RESPONSE: On-site mitigation will be provided, where possible. The
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) will provide required mitigation beyond
what can be provided on-site.
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Wildlife Resources Commission
Comment: "The project will cross Mill Creek and the Neuse River. We request
NCDOT follow the Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage at
both of these sites, with a standard anadromous fish moratorium, February 15 to
June 15, at the Mill Creek crossing and the Neuse River crossing. NCDOT
should also conduct a mussel survey at all stream crossings prior to construction."
NCDOT Response: A moratorium on anadromous fish will be enacted from February
15 to June 15 (see list of project commitments in this document). Mussel surveys
have been conducted at all stream crossings. A biological conclusion of "May
Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect" has been requested for the dwarf
wedgemussel, and the Tar River spinymussel.
C. Public Hearing
In accordance with 23 U.S.C. 128, the North Carolina Department of
Transportation certifies that a public hearing for the subject project has been held and the
social, economic, and environmental impacts, consistency with local community planning
goals and objectives, and comments from individuals have been considered in the
selection of the preferred alternative for the project
A formal public hearing was held for the project on September 30, 2004 at East
Clayton Elementary School.
Residents living in the subdivisions of Bennett Place, Neuse Colony and Neuse
Colony Estates requested the widening of NC 42 take place on the north side of the road.
8
This shift would keep the road from coming in closer proximity to their homes, which are
on the south side of NC 42.
Concerns were also expressed by residents regarding traffic noise. A'second
traffic noise analysis was conducted for the project following completion of the
environmental assessment. Traffic noise is expected to impact ten homes with
construction of the project. Noise abatement measures were not recommended in the
traffic noise study conducted for the environmental assessment. Noise abatement
measures were reexamined during the new study and no noise abatement measures are
recommended or proposed as a result of the' latest traffic noise study (see Section V-C of
this document).
V. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. Protected and Rare Species
1. Federally-Protected Species
As of March 8, 2006, one additional species has been added to the list of
federally-protected species for Johnston County since completion of the environmental
assessment. Table l below presents the list of federally-protected species in Johnston
County.
Table 1
Federally-Protected Species in Johnston County
Biological
Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat? Conclusion
May Affect, Not
Bald eagle Haliaeetus T Yes Likely to
leucocephalus Adversely Affect
Red-cockaded picoides borealis E Yes No Effect
woodpecker
May Affect, Not
Dwarf wedgemussel Alasmidonta E Yes Likely to
heterodon Adversely Affect
Tars in mussel Elli do stein.stan.sana E Yes No Effect
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii E Yes No Effect
Habitat exists in the project area for all of the federally-protected species listed for
Johnston County. Surveys for all of these species, except the Bald eagle, were conducted
prior to completion of the environmental assessment. The Bald eagle was added to the
list of federally protected species in Johnston County following completion of the
environmental assessment. No specimens of any of these species were observed during
the surveys. The environmental assessment presented a biological conclusion of "No
Effect" for all of these species.
9
As discussed in Section N-A of this document, in a letter dated September 29,
2003, the US Fish and Wildlife Service did not concur with any of the biological
conclusions presented in'the EA. At the time threatened and endangered species surveys
were originally conducted for this project, the accepted protocol was to render a
conclusion of "No Effect" for a species if no specimens were found, even if habitat
existed in the area. Between the time of the survey and the publication of the EA, the
protocol had changed to rendering a conclusion of "May Affect, Not, Likely to Adversely
Affect" if no specimens were found and habitat existed. Concurrence from the Fish and
Wildlife Service is required on a biological conclusion of "May Affect, Not Likely to
Adversely Affect." However, at the present'time, a biological conclusion of "No Effect"
is once again appropriate in certain cases, even if habitat is present.
Since publication of the EA, new surveys have been conducted for all of the
threatened and endangered species listed for Johnston County. New surveys for
Michaux's sumac were conducted in July 2003 and new surveys for red-cockaded
woodpecker were conducted in December 2004. Based on the results of these surveys, it
is expected the project will have no effect on these species. In a letter dated April 6,
2005, the US Fish and Wildlife Service concurred on a finding of "No Effect" for
Michaux's sumac and red-cockaded woodpecker (see Appendix).
New mussel surveys in the Neuse River and Mill Creek were conducted for the
project in November 2005. No dwarf wedgemussels or Tar River spinymussels were
found, but potential habitat exists in the project area. The proposed project may affect,
but is not likely to adversely effect these species. In a letter dated June 29, 2006, the US
Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with a biological conclusion of "May Affect, Not
Likely to Adversely Affect" for the dwarf wedgemussel and the Tar River spinymussel
(see Appendix).
Surveys for Bald eagle were conducted for the project in the spring of 2006. No
Bald eagles were found, but potential habitat exists in the project area. The proposed
project may affect, but is not likely to adversely effect this species. In a letter dated June
29, 2006, the US Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with a biological conclusion of
"May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect" for the Bald eagle (see Appendix).
2. Federal Species of Concern
As of March 8, 2006, changes have occurred to the list of Federal Species of
Concerns (FSC) for Johnston County since completion of the environmental assessment.
The Tar River crayfish, Carolina asphodel, Sandhills bog lilly and Long Beach seedbox
are no longer included on the list of Federal Species of Concern for Johnston County.
The bog spicebush, Cerulean warbler, Roanoke bass and American eel have all been
added to the list of Federal Species of Concern since completion of the environmental
assessment.
10
Table 2 below presents the list of Federal Species of Concern in Johnston County.
Table 2
Federal Species of Concern in Johnston County
Common Name Scientific Name
Atlantic i toe Fusconaia masoni
Bo s icebush Lindera subcoriacea
Carolina bo mint Macbridea caroliniana
Carolina madtom Noturus uriosus
Carolina trillium Trillium usillum var. usillum
Cerulean warbler Dendroica cerulea
Green floater Lasmi ona subviridis
Pinewoods shiner L thrurus matutinus
Roanoke bass Amblo lites cavi ions
Spring-flowering goldenrod Solida o verna
Yellow lam mussel Lam silis cariosa
Yellow lance Elli do lanceolata
American eel Anguilla rostrata
Surveys for Federal species of concern have not been conducted. A review of the
NHP database of Rare Species and unique habitats did not reveal the presence of these
species or unique habitats in or near the project study area.
B. Soils
Table 3 below describes soil characteristics of the 14 series that are located in the
project area and separates out the 17 soil map units into, the appropriate series. The soil
map units are defined following the table.
11
Table 3
Soil Series and Characteristics of the Proiect Area'
Soil Map
Soil Unit in Hydric/Non
Series Seriest Topographic Location Drainage Permeability H dric
uplands between Coastal
Appling AmB
Plain and Piedmont well moderate non-hydric
Bibb Bb flood plains along streams poor moderate hydric
in the Coastal Plain ,
Cecil CeB, CeC hillslopes in Piedmont well moderate non-hydric
hydric
Chewacla Ch level flood plains poor moderate inclusions:
Wehadkee
Cowarts CoB uplands well moderate- non-hydric
slow
Gilead GeB uplands in Coastal Plain moderate- moderate- non-hydric
well slow
MaB, interstream divides in
Marlboro
AmB
uplands of Coastal Plains well moderate non-hydric
Norfolk NoB, broad interstream divides well moderate non-hydric
NoA in Coastal Plains
Pacolet PaD, PaE hillslopes of Piedmont well moderate non-hydric
Rains Ra interstream divides poor moderate hydric
Rion RnF steep uplands in Piedmont well slow non-hydric
moderate
Toisnot Tn uplands of Coastal Plains poor moderate- hydric
slow
broad upland areas of
Varina VrA
Coastal Plain well moderate non-hydric
Wehadkee Wt floodplains poor moderate hydric
' AmB: Appling-Marlboro Complex, 1-6% slopes
Bb: Bibb sandy loam, frequently flooded
CeB: Cecil loam 2-6% slopes; CeC: Cecil loam 6-10% slopes
Ch: Chewacla clay loam, frequently flooded
CoB: Cowarts loamy sand, 6-10% slopes
GeB: Gilead sandy loam, 2-8% slopes
Mali: Marlboro sandy loam, 2-8% slopes
NoA: Norfolk loamy sand 0-2% slopes; NoB: Norfolk loamy sand 2-6%n slopes
Pal): Pacolet loam, 10-15% slopes; PaE: Pacolet loam, 15-25% slopes
Ra: Rains sandy loam
RnF: Rion sandy loam, 15-40% slopes
Tn: Toisnot loam
VrA: Varina loamy sand, 0-2% slopes
Wt: Wehadkee loam, frequently flooded
12
C. Hiabway Traffic Noise Analysis
The NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy has been revised since completion
of the environmental assessment. The 2004 Noise Abatement Policy has changed the
criteria for determining a "substantial increase" in noise levels. Under the new noise
abatement policy, noise abatement must be considered when a land use is exposed to
noise levels approaching or exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria and/or the
predicted design year noise levels substantially exceed existing noise levels as defined
below:
Substantial Increase if Receptor
Existing Leq(h) Experiences Increase of:
50 or less dBA 15 or more dBA
51 dBA 14 or more dBA
52 dBA 13 or more dBA
53 dBA 12 or more dBA
54 dBA 11 or more dBA
55 or more dBA 10 or more dBA
Additional residential development has also occurred along the project since the
original traffic noise analysis was conducted. Because of the revision to the noise policy
and this new development, a new traffic noise analysis was conducted for the project.
This new analysis found that ten homes would be impacted by traffic ,noise with
construction of the proposed project. If NC 42 was not widened, three homes would be
impacted by traffic noise.
Noise abatement measures were not recommended in the traffic noise study
conducted for the environmental assessment. Noise abatement measures were
reexamined during the new study and no noise abatement measures are recommended or
proposed as a result of the latest traffic noise study.
In accordance with the NCDOT 2004 Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, the
Federal/State governments are not responsible for providing noise abatement measures
for new development which building permits are issued within the noise impact area of a
proposed highway after the Date of Public Knowledge. The Date of Public Knowledge of
the location of a proposed highway project will be the approval date of CEs, FONSIs,
RODs, or the Design Public Hearing, whichever comes later. In the case of this project,
the Date of Public Knowledge is the approval date of this document. For development
occurring after this public knowledge date, local governing bodies are responsible to
insure that noise compatible designs are utilized along the proposed facility.
13
D. Corrections to Environmental Assessment
Table 3-Alternative Comparison
Table 3 of the EA stated Alternative 1 would impact 335 meters (1,096 feet) of
streams and Alternative 2 would impact 329 meters (1,079 feet) of streams. These
numbers are incorrect. The correct stream impacts are presented on Table 3 below.
Table 4
Correction to Table 3 of the Environmental Assessment
DESCRIPTION ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2
"Recommended"
Residential Relocatees 2 2
Business Relocatees 2 2
Wetland Impacts 0.331 ha (0.82 ac) 0.288 ha (0.71 ac)
Surface Waters 298 meters (979 feet) 304 meters (996 feet)
Construction Cost $23,000,000 $22,500,000
Right of Way Cost $ 5,047,400 $ 4,624,500
Total Cost $28,047,400 $27,124,500
Table 5-Stream Impacts Within the Project Study Area
Table 5 of the EA stated the project would impact 100 linear feet (30.5 meters) of
the Neuse River. This is incorrect. The Neuse River will be bridged by the project. The
correct stream impacts are shown on Table 5 below.
14
Table 5
Correction to Table 5 of the Environmental Assessment
Stream Tributary of: Class Impacts m / ftt
Neuse R - perennial OM/Oft
UT #N1 Neuse River intermittent , 8.5 m / 28 ft
UT #N2 Neuse River intermittent 9.8 m / 32 ft
UT #N3 Neuse River intermittent 4.3 m / 14 ft
UT #N3 Neuse River perennial 3.7 m / 12 ft
UT #N4 Neuse River perennial 10.1 m / 33 ft
UT #N5 Neuse River intermittent 100 m / 327 ft
UT #N6 Neuse River perennial 12 m / 38 ft
UT #N7 Neuse River perennial 4 m / 14 ft
UT #N8 Neuse River perennial 7 m / 23 ft
UT #N9 Neuse River intermittent 9.4 m / 31 ft
UT #N l 0 Neuse River perennial 0 m / Oft
Mill Cr Neuse River perennial 8.8 m / 29 ft
UT #M 1 Mill Creek perennial 127 m / 415 ft
UT #M2 Mill Creek intermittent 0 M/ Oft
UT #M3 Mill Creek perennial 0 M/ Oft
Total 304 m /996 ft
15
I I '
VI. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based upon environmental studies and coordination with appropriate' federal,
state, and local agencies, it is the finding of the Federal Highway Administration and the
North Carolina Department of Transportation that the proposed action will have no
significant impact upon the quality of the human environment. Therefore, an
env'ironmen'tal impact statement will not be required.
I
The following persons can be contacted for additional information concerning this
proposal and statement:
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph..D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NC Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
[phone]
John F. Sullivan, III, P.E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1442
JAM
16
APPENDIX '
Agency Comments on the Environmental Assessment

01
I I
-Fun
I /
} 001
IITHFIEN,
io
J
I
2 A i
Flo
N'? ?`>O
. 8,479
ap END
r PROJECT
?a
BEGIN
PROJECT
70
SCALE
0 2
MILES
f a l _ ?I
I f ??
96
_o I
e-s
qq .,
..... .............. .......... ...... i ...... ..
.\,...........
..::../.. ......"'. '. .TIP PROJECT R-3825. ••...
?o C ............ ........ ...... ...
CLAYTON I ' ........ 42..
`? LZ ......... ?..._ _. . ?.^.. ?..2?G ....... o .. 11 96
......... ........... ..?........ ... ... ......
.... ......... .. ............
` ............. ......... ...... D
.......... ........ . .............
\ ?. \
° ................ .?.......... ......
I i ........ ... WILSON'S MILLS' r -? .. ? .. ....... ........ .................
l \.`_......... ?. .... 1?. r"' i !.... .. ...... ..........
I BUS .......\ ........... ... ,. ......
< o \ 70 1?.......r /. , ... ........... ... ......
\ ?` I {.......?. ??.... ....... ... ............ .. ;....®
1 ` \ \ ....... ............. .. .... .............. \ ..
J \ \ :m .......................... .. ?J..
WATERSUPPLY WATERSHED (WSIV) .. • • • • • \ r \ +? i
WATERSUPPLY WATERSHED CRITICAL AREA "" '?1. MILES
I 0 I I
\ NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
\ J _ J e \ J'e _ _ ` PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
SMITHFIELD WATER SUPPLY WATERSHEDS
_ AND WATER SUPPLY CRITICAL AREAS
r '? ?• 96 NEAR TIP PROJECT R-3825
\`?, _ 1 q _ 9a FIGURE 2
J',0EO Stq),,
2? A rJ
p 7
o <
4?
Ile
of ?
,< PROSE
0
November 4, 2003
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PPO-^
REGION 4
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 FORSYTH STREET
ATLANTA
GEORGIA 30303-8960
,

L ;
r

Dr.? Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Manager Director, Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
SUBJ: EPA Review of the Federal Environmental Assessment for NC 42
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Improvements from US 70 to SR 1003 (Buffalo Road), .Johnston County;
Federal Aid Project No. STP-42(4), State Project No. 8.1312301, T.I.P.
Project No. R-3825
Pursuant to Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has reviewed the referenced North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Environmental Assessment (EA) for NC 42 Improvements from US 70 to SR 1003
(Buffalo Road), Johnston County. The EA addresses the No-build alternative, alternative modes
of transportation and two widening construction alternatives (Alternatives 1 and 2). The length of
the proposed widening alternatives is approximately 5.7 miles. A 4-lane, 17.5-foot raised median
with 8-foot shoulder facility is proposed. Alternative 2 is NICDOT's recommended alternative and
is different from Alternative 1 in that the roadway is widened to the north between SR 2022 to
Woodberry Court.
EPA offers the following comments on the EA.
This project is a non-Merger Team project. However, based upon current Merger process
improvement guidance and screening criteria, this project would be a candidate for inclusion in
the Merger process. There is no discussion in the EA concerning the coordination and
determination of this issue between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and NCDOT. The EA
addresses the fact that this project will most likely require an Individual Permit (IP) under Section
404 requirements due to potential wetland and stream impacts.
Intemet Address (URL) - http://www.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable - Pnnled with Vegetable 00 Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Poslconsumen
EPA acknowledges that NCDOT and FHWA have streamlined some of the sections of the
EA which facilitated EPA's review.
PURPOSE AND NEED,
The EA addresses that the project purpose is to improve safety and traffic carrying
capacity of NC 42 within the project limits. Accident rotes for non-fatal collisions is slightly
above the State-wide average for a similar 2-lane roadway. Fatal collision rates were slightly
below the State-wide average. Carrying capacity with the new roadway was primarily measured'
using Level of Service (LOS) at 5 key signalized intersections. LOS for the year 2006 are
estimated to be functioning between LOS C, B, A, C and C for these intersections, respectively
(Table 2). For the year 2026, LOS is projected to be E, B, B, C and E. Without the project, the
LOS is expected to be E, F, F, F and E, respectively (from Table 1). However, the EA does
address other traffic improvements (e.g. Turning lanes) and traffic system management
alternatives which would not require widening the entire 5.7 miles of existing roadway.
? ALTERNATIVES
The EA addresses the No-build, Alternative Modes of Transportation and the 2
construction alternatives on pages 8 and 9. However, the EA does not include an analysis of
other potential alternatives, including intersection traffic improvements or other typical roadway
sections (e.g. 3-lane with center turning lane). Furthermore, the EA identifies a problem involving
a railroad crossing along NC 42 just east of US 70. The EA states that a needed grade separation
would warrant a major reconstruction of NC 42 and the NC 42/US 70 intersection but that this
issue is beyond the scope of the project. Because this intersection is utilized in the LOS analysis
and is a termini for the proposed project, EPA does not concur with this finding without further
information.
? AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
* Wetlands Impacts - The recommended alternative for the proposed project will impact
approximately 0.71 acres of jurisdictional wetlands. There are approximately 11 wetland systems
which will be impacted from the project. However, compensatory mitigation is not proposed to
be addressed until final design for the project. EPA recommends that NCDOT begin consultation
with USACE and North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) as soon as possible for
mitigation requirements. According to a recent Environmental Enhancement Program (EEP)
summary of wetland and stream mitigation needs, the Central Piedmont area is in significant need
of mitigation sites for non-riparian wetlands and streams.
* Stream Impacts - The recommended alternative will potentially impact 1,096 linear feet of
streams, including the Neuse River (Bridge No. 75 replacement) and unnamed tributaries (UTs)
to the Neuse River, and Mill Creek and UTs to Mill Creek. Please see comment above
concerning compensatory mitigation requirements.
* Threatened and Endan e? r, ed Species - EPA concurs fully with the September 29, 2003, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service letter to the NCDOT concerning threatened and endangered species.
NCDOT needs to adequately address federally protected species including further documentation
of biological assessments'and survey methodologies. '
* Forest Resources - EPA acknowledges that the recommended alternative will impact
approximately 26.4 acres of different forest community types, including the loss of 18.9 acres of
Mixed Hardwood forests and terrestrial wildlife habitat.
* Indirect and Cumulative Impacts - NCDOT does not propose any control of access along the
improved facility. The Town of Clayton and Johnston County propose continued development in
this area, including predominantly single-family, residential development. There are no identified
or proposed `greenways', `greenspaces', parks or conservation easements along the
transportation corridor or within the project study area. EPA believes that an Indirect and
Cumulative Impact (ICI) analysis be performed with regard to increased capacity of the proposed
roadway and its relationship to sprawl and future water quality impacts within this watershed sub-
basin.
The Merger process improvement guidance addresses the need for NCDOT to identify
potential impacts resulting from the relocation of utilities prior to final design and as early in the
planning process as possible. The EA identifies that numerous utilities are present in the existing
right of way. The EA identifies numerous jurisdictional wetland systems along the NC 42
corridor. NCDOT needs to identify what potential impacts to the human and natural environment
will occur as a result of relocating all or some of these utilities (i.e., Fiber optics, sewer, gas,
water, cable, electric and telephone) and any additional compensatory mitigation requirements.
* Soils Information: The EA does not discuss soils information within the project area. It would
be helpful to EPA to identify what percentage of each soil (type) series is located within the
proposed right of way.
* Other impacts - EPA acknowledges the other impacts resulting from the proposed project,
including relocations (2 residences, 2 businesses), noise (4 receptors impacted), and construction
related impacts. EPA does not recommend burning of vegetative matter generated during
clearing and grubbing operations. Burning is EPA's least preferred option, especially considering
the close proximity to urban and suburban populations. NCDOT should consider more
environmentally-friendly options, such as shredding and mulching and making these recycled
materials available to the public.
? SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
EPA requests some clarification of issues for the proposed project, including consistency
with Merger process improvement guidance, soils and compensatory mitigation for wetland and
stream impacts. Furthermore, additional environmental analyses are being requested for
threatened and endangered species impacts; utility relocation impacts, and for potential indirect
and cumulative impacts to water quality. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this EA.
Should you have questions regarding these comments, please feel free to contact Christopher
Militscher of my staff at 919-856-4206.
Sincerely,
n
Heinz J. Mueller, Chief
NEPA Program Office
Office of Policy and Management
cc: J. Thomas, USACE Raleigh
06,'29,'06 THU 14:06 F." 1 919 856 4556 15Y??J-K.?L1 1VH.NL'
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Rale.ieh,'North Carolina 27636-3726
June 29, 2006
Phil' S. Harris, III, P.E.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh: Noah Carolina 27699-1598
Dear Mr. Han-is:
This letter is in response to your letter of Jane 19, 2006 which provided the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service ('Service) with the biological determination of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) that the proposed widening of NC 42 from US 70 to SR 1003 (Buffalo
Road), the replacement of Bridge No. 75 over the Meuse River and the extension of the existing
NC 42 culvert on Mill Creek in Johnston County (TIP No. R-31325) may affect; but is not likely
to adversely affect the federally threatened bald eagle (Haliaeetu.c leucucephalus) and federally
endangered dwarf wedgemussel (11lasmidonta heterodon). These cotnments are provided in
accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531-1543).
According to information provided, an eagle survey was conducted within one mile of the
project area on April 14, 2006. No eagles or eagle nests were observed. Based on the survey
results; the Service concurs with your determination that the proposed project may affect, but is
not likely to adversely affect the bald eagle.
According to information provided, mussel surveys were eondLteted at the project site on
November 19 and 30. 2001: December 7. 2001, August 14, 2002: and November 4, 2005. The
2005 survey extended 100 meters upstream and 400 meters downstream of the Ncusc River and
Mill Creel: crossings. No dwarl'`vedgenlusSCls were observed in any of the surveys; although
several specimens of six other species were observed. Through informal section 7 consultation,
NC00T and the Service have agreed to several conservation measures. These measures are
listed in your June 19, 2006 letter. Based on the survey results and NCDOT's commitment to
implement these conservation measures, the Service concurs with your determination that the
project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the dwarf wedgemussel.
As stated in your letter, the Service has previously concurred with your detemiination that the
proposed project will have no effect on the federally endangered Tar River spinymussel (Elliptio
stein.ctansana), red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoidcs borealis) and Nlieltaux's sumac (Rhus
,nichau.Yii). Nye believe that the requiremelits of section 70)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied.
W_J VVL
06-'29.06 THL' 14:07 FAX [phone] L'SFWS-RALEIGH,,C
1Q 003
We remind you that obligations wider section 7 consultation must be reconsidered if: (1) new
information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or critical
habitat in a manner not previously considered in this review; (2) this action is subsequently
modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; or (3) a new species is listed or
critical habitat determined that may be affected by this i0entified action.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions
regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at [phone] (Ext. 32).
Sincerely,
r1
Pete. Benjamin
Field Supervisor
cc. William Wescott, USACE, Washington, NC
Rob Riding. NCDWQ. Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWP.C, Creedmoor. NC
Chris N1111tscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
John Sullivan, FHwA, Raleigh, NC
United States
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE -7
Y J,aJ??b`
Raleigh Field Office y0? %
Post Office Box 33726 (77001 Cl W R
aleigh. North Carolina 27636.3726
0 a
September 29, 2003 O ,00?
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
This letter is in response to your September 3, 2003 letter requesting comments from the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed
widening of NC 42 from US 70 to SR 1003 in Johnston County, North Carolina (TIP No. R-
3825). These comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
According to the EA, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to
widen a 5.7 mile portion of NC 42 from two lanes to four lanes with a 17.5 foot raised median.
The existing bridge over the Neuse River will be replaced and two box culverts on smaller
streams will be retained and extended. There are two build alternatives, with the preferred
alternative (Alternative 2) having the least impacts to wetlands and streams.
The EA states that 1096 linear feet of streams and 0.71 acres of wetlands will be impacted by the
preferred alternative. In addition, up to 26.4 acres of forest habitat of various types will be
impacted. This is a significant amount of forest habitat impact, but the impacts will be occurring
along the edges of already fragmented habitat. It is understood that the ability to avoid impacts
to forest wildlife habitat is limited when widening an existing road.
There are four federally-protected species listed for Johnston County. The EA renders a
biological conclusion of "no effect" for the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), dwarf
wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), Tar spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana) and Michaux's
sumac (Rhus michauxii). The Service does not concur with any of the "no effect"
conclusions for the following reasons:
The EA states on page 21 that "potential habitat for the RCW is located within the project study
area." A "no effect" conclusion should not be rendered if potential habitat exists. The EA does
not give an adequate description of the potential habitat, nor does it differentiate between nesting
and foraging habitat. There is insufficient information on the March 8, 2001 survey. If foraging
habitat exists within the project area, a survey for cavity trees should extend out for a 0.5 mile
radius from the project site, within suitable habitat.
Since the dwarf wedgemu§sel is known to occur within the Neuse River Basin and potential
habitat exists in the Neuse River and possibly in Mill Creek, the "no effect" conclusion is
inappropriate. The EA lacks any details on the mussel survey methodologies. Mussel surveys
should extend a minimum of 100 meters upstream and 400 meters downstream of road crossings.
Based on a tentative identification, the Tar spinymussel was recently collected within the Neuse
River Basin in White Oak Creek. Therefore, its presence near the project area cannot be ruled
out, and thus the "no effect" conclusion is inappropriate.
The EA states on page 22 that "habitat for Michaux's sumac is present within the project study
area." Therefore, the "no effect" conclusion is inappropriate. No details of the survey
methodology are provided in the EA.
The Service does not believe that this EA adequately addresses the federally protected species
within the project area. Future documentation should reassess the biological conclusions and
provide additional details, especially regarding survey methodologies. The Service may be able
to concur with a "may affect, not likely to adversely affect" conclusion on some or all of the four
listed species in Johnston County, provided that adequate justification and documentation is
provided.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions
regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at [phone], ext. 32.
Sincerely,
f ?
Garland B. Pardue, Ph.D.
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Mike Bell, USACE, Washington, NC
David Franklin, Wilmington, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmore, NC
John Hennessy, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND Project Number
NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION -OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH County
Johnston
Inter-Agency Project Review Response
Project Name Fed. Hwv Admin. (FH` 7°.), N - O'?'Type-of.-Ploject Widen NC 42 to a four-lane shoulder

y facility with a 5.3 meter raised median
Comments provided by: -'L~t+
!t j from US 70 to SR 1003 (Buffalo Rd)
? Regional Program Person -
? Regional Engineer for Public WaterSuppl} 5ecfion??;';
------------
' ? Central Office program p rson
Name: Date: ( ?! S
Telex"-one number: ` l 1 - 4
Procrarn within Division of Environmer ial Health:
? Public Water Supply
i_ Other. Name of Program:
Response (check all applicable):

No objection to project as proposed ( t \
l
? No comment ?
? Insufficient information to complete review
YcV7C_1
/O c Return to:

Public Water Supply Section
Environmental Review Coordinator
for the
Division of Environmental Health
Page 2
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND Project Number
NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH County
Inter-Agency Project Review Response
Project Name Type of Project
NC ,fle off' Fa?dvise/Kthat ?,,? y'? y?S7o ;?; ? The applicant ould be plans and specifications for all water system
improvements must be approved by the Division of Environmental Health prior to the
award of a contract or the initiation of construction (as required by 15A NCAC 18C
.0300et. seq.). For information, contact the Public Water Supply Section,. (919)
733-2321.
? This project will be classified as a non-community public water supply and must comply
;iith state and federal drinking water monitoring requirements, For more information the
a;.rlic3nt should contact the Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
(_! If this project is constructed as proposed, we will recommend closure of _ feet of
adia,.;tnt waters to the harvest of shellfish. For information regarding the shellfish
sanitation program, the applicant should contact the Shellfish Sanitation Section at (252)
1'26-682 7 .
? The soil disposal area(s) proposed for this project may produce a mosouito breeding
problem. For information concerning appropriate mosquito control measures, the
applicant should contact the Public Health Pest Management Section at [phone].
The applicant should be advised that prior to the removal or demolition of dilapidated
structures, a extensive rodent control program may be necessary in order to prevent the
migr adon of the rodents to adjacent areas. For information concerning rodent control,
ceniact the !ocal health department or the Public Health rest Management Section at
!319) 7"'1-6407
The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding their
requirements for septic tank installations (as required under 15A NCAC 18A. 1900 et.
sep.). For information concerning septic tank and other on-site waste disposal methods,
contact the On-Site Wastewater Section at [phone].
? The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding the
sanitary facilities required for this project.
If existing water lines will be relocated during the construction, plans for the water line
relocation must be submitted to the Division of Environmental Health, Public Water
Supply Section, Technical Services Branch, 1634 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27699-1634, [phone].
? For Regional and Central Office comments, see the reverse side of this form.
• ?? .? GUS ???ic
r? 0 / 3
Revie r ection/Branch?rG? Dat
NUJLNR Department of Environment anc,
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJEC!"
After review of this project it has been determined that the DENR permit(s) and/or approvals to comply with North Carolina Law. Questions regarding these permits should be addres ed tothe Rgonal Office indicat d on theo?der for this s for
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Regional Office. ?rverse of this for
I I
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS Normal Process Tin
(Statutory Time Urr
? Permitio construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days' before begin construction or award of construction
facilities, sewer system extensions & sewer systems contracts: Orr-she inspection. Pmt-appliotion technical conference usual. 30 days
not discharging into state surface waters
(90 days)
NPDES perrnk to discharge into surface water and/or Applicabon 180 days before begin activity. On-site irupertion
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to consLnrct PreaPI tee lon
discharging into state surface waters facility granted after NPDES. Reply time 30 days after receipt of heatlltent 90- I20 days
o/ NPDES permit_whichever is later, n ^s or issue (N/A)
-- ? Water the Permit - - Prcapplicii7- tecttni-_ conference usually necessary
• 30 days
N/

? Well Construction Parrett Complete application must be received and permit ¢sued
i A)
pr
or to the
installation of a well.
7 days
0 5 da
)
Dredge and Fill Permit Application copy must be served on each a acent
d) riparian property own ys
er.
Orr site inspe^.ien. Preappl!cation conference usual Filing may require Easem
o
55 days
ent
t
Fill from N.C. Department of Administration and Frderal Dredge and Fill Perm : I
J (90 days)
? Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15 A NCAC

n WA
(2Q.J1?,2Q.C3C',2H.06.^0)
60 davs
Any open buming associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15 A NCAC 20.1900
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with
15 A NCAC 20.1110 (a) (1) which requires notification N/A
and removal prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos b0 days
Corttrol Group 919-733-0920. (90 days)
C ] Complex Source Permit required under 15 A NCAC
213.0300
I ? The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act n( 1973 must be property addressed for any !and disturbing activity. An erosion & sedimentation
control plan will be revuh cd if cne or more acres to be disturb
d
Pl
fil
d

I .
e
an
e
with proper Regional Office (Land Q-Ii
days before beginning activity. A fee of S40 for the first acre or an ty Section) at least 30
any part of an acre.
20 days
(30 days)
? The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referenced Local Ordinance-
30 d

?
Mining Permit
On-site inspection usual. Sure- bond filed with DENR Bond amount v
i ays
ar
es with
type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any are mined greater tha
n
one acre must be permitted. The appropriate bond must be received before
30 days
the permit can be issued. (60 days)
? North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division of Forest Resources if permit exceed
s 4 days 1 day
(N/A)
? Special Ground Clearance Buming Permit-22 counties
i
l On-she inspection by N.C. Division of Forest Resources required 'if more th

n coasta
N.C_with organic soils, an five
acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections should be reque
t
d
1 day
s
e
at least ten days before actual burn is planned.' (N/A)
Oil Refining Facilities
N/A 90 - 120 days
(N/A)
C] Dam Safety Permit ff permit required, application 60 days before begin construction. Applicant
must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans, inspect construction, certify
construction is according to DENR approved plans. May also require permit under
mosquito control program,and a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers.
An inspection of site is necessary to verify Hazard Classification. A minimum 30 days
fee of S200.oo must accompany the application. An additional processing fee (60 days)
based on a percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion.
i PERMITS
i SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS I Normal Prc<e:ss T-1
(Statutory Tim limit
Q Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well File surety bond of $5,000 with DENR running to State of N.C. conditional that any
well opened by drill operator shall, upon abandonrrwnt, be plugged according 10 days
to DENR rules and regulations. (N/A)
Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with OENR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit Application 10 days
by letter. No standard application form. (N/A)
State lakes Construction Permit Application fees based on structure size is charged Must include descriptiohs

& drawings of structure & proof of ownership of riparian property. 15 - 20 days
(N/A)
I] 401 Water Quality Certification N/A 55 days
(130 days)
El CAMA Permit for MAJOR development 5250.00 fee must accompany application 60 days
(130 days)
CAMA Permit for MINOR development 550.00 fee must accompany application - -22 days
(25 days)
Several geodetic monuments are located in of near the project area. If any monument needs to be moved or destroyed, please notify:
N.C- Geodetic Survey, 8ox 27687 Raleigh, N.C. 27611
11
Abandonment of any wells, if required must be in accordance with Title 15A. Subchapter X0100.
i
I
i
Notification of the proper regional office is requested if 'orphan' underground storage tanks (UST51 are discovered during any excavation operation.
Comp5ance with 15A NCAC 2H 1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required 45 days
(N/A)
Other comments (aaach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority)
W /"?N^ CnN ice- rt?+N `, l 6 /?h S?C,vho ?r"??.7?6 c
C?1,1-1 L

F-ra
c N
I

REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
? Asheville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place
Asheville, N.C.28801
[phone]
? Mooresville Regional Office
919 North Main Street
Mooresville, N.C.28115
[phone]
? Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, N.C.29405
[phone]
? Fayetteville Regional Office aleigh Regional Office
225 Green Street, Suite 714 800 Barrett Drive, P.O. Box 27687
;""3 800 Barrett Drive, P.O. Box 276'87
Fayetteville, N.C. 28301 Raleigh, N.C.27611
[phone] [phone]
[I Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, N.C.27889
[phone]

? Winston-Salem Regional Office
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, N.C.27107
[phone]
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY 1501 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, N.C. 27699-1501
GOVERNOR
November 3, 2003
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ray Lofti
PDEA
-5
FROM: Omar Sultan
Project Management/Scheduling Unit
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: SCH File# 04-E-4220-0064; Environmental Assessment/Finding of No
Significant Impact; proposed project is to widen NC 42 to a 4-lane
shoulder facility 17.5 ft. raised median from US 70 to SR 1003 (Buffalo
Rd). TIP# R-3825.
Attached are the comments from the State Clearinghouse Intergovernmental Review Process.
These comments have been entered into our records and the attached copy is for your personal
records.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Omar Sultan at [phone]
ext. 334.
OS/sp
PI-IONE 919-733-2520 FAX [phone]
W r= _ s4
North Carolina
Department of Administration
Michael F. Easley, Governor Gwynn T. Swinson, Secretary
October 29, 2003
Mr. Omar Sultan ,
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Project Dev. & Env. Analysis Braracll
Transportation Bldg. - 1554 MSC
Raleigh, NC 27699-1554
Dear Mr. Sultan:
Re: SCH File # 04-E-4220-0064; Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact;
Proposed project is to widen NC 42 to a 4-1ane shoulder facility 17.5ft. raised median from US
70 to SR 1003 (Buffalo Road). TIP R-3825
The above referenced environmental impact information has been submitted to the State Clearinghouse
under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. According to G.S. 1 13A-10, when a
state agency is required to prepare an environmental document under the provisions of federal law, the
environmental document meets the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act. Attached to this
letter for your consideration are the comments made by agencies in the course of this review.
If any further environmental review documents are prepared for this project, they should be forwarded to
this office for intergovernmental review.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
nc ely,
Nis. Chi s Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
Attachments
cc: Region J
Mailing Address: Telephone: [phone] Location Address:
1301 Mail Service Center Fax [phone] West Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27699-1301 Stare Courier N51-01.00 Raleigh, North Carolina
e-inud Chrys, /logvcUlulncutad. net
,tn L'yuol Ulpurninu s',IlitniaN e Ictvon Employer
ems,
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
OCT 2003
RECEI V
5ecreta ED
MEMOELnNDUM ry's oft e
DOA ti
f' 4.,
TO: Chrys Baggett 'a
State Clearinghouse O C>
FROM: Melba McGeeV
Environmental Review Coordinator
RE: 04-0064 Ez for the rooosed Improvements to NC 42'in
Johnston County
G4TE: October 23, 2003
The department asks that careful considerat_on be given t the
attached comments. The applicant is encouraged to work directly_ with
our commenting agencies prior to finalizing project plans.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
Attachments
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.enr.state.nc.us/ENR
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled 1 10% Post Consumer Paper
J = -
October 9, 2003 WETLANDS/ ¢pj GROUP
MEMORANDUM ®C ! 3 5 Z00 J
To: Melba McGee WATER
QUALITY SECTION
From: John Hennessy
v'
Subject: Comments on the EA for the widening of NC 42 from US 70 to SR 1003 (Buffalo Road) in
Johnston County, Federal Aid Project No. STP-42(4), State Project No. 8.1312301, TIP Project
No. R-3825, DENR Project Number 04-0064.
This ofii;;; has reviewed the referenced document. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is responsible for the
issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities that impact Waters of the U.S., including
wetlands. IL is otuY understanding that the preferred alternative, as presented in the EA, will result in impacts to 0.71
acres of jurisdictional wetlands and 1.079 linear feet of streams. The DWQ offers the following comments based'on
review of the aforementioned document:
A) Table 3, on Page 9 does not present any anticipated impacts to Neuse Riparian Buffers. Future
documentation any for a 401 Water Quality Certification, or any application for a Neuse River Riparian
Buffer Authorization will need to include proposed impacts to these resources.
B) Review of Table 3 on page 9 indicates that Alternative I has anticipated impacts to 0.82 acres of wetiands
and 1,096 linear feet of streams. It also indicates anticipated impacts to 0.71 acres of wetlands and 1,079
linear feet of streams for Alternative 2. Table three identifies Alternative 2 as preferred. However, review
or Table 5 indicates 1,096 linear feet of anticipated stream impacts, which would be consistent with
Alternative 1. Where as, Table 6 indicates anticipated impacts to 0.71 acres of wetlands, which would be
consistent with Alternative 2. Therefore, in reviewing Tables 3, 5, and 6, there appears to be a discrepancy
with the presented data. Please clarify information in the FONSI and environmental permit applications.
C) fhe section of the Neuse River that project impacts is an.anadromous fish spawning area. As such, the 401
Water Quality Certification will conditions that require an in-water work moratorium from February 15`h
through June 15'h,
D) The document proposes impacts to waters classified as Water Supply IV. Given the presence of Water
Supply Waters in the project area, the DWQ requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina
regulations entitled "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" throughout design and construction of the
project. This would apply for any area that drains to streams having WS (Water Supply) classifications.
E) Where are the nearest water supply intake(s) for the to the project located? Please provide information that
displays all the municipal water supply intakes in the project area. Given the uncertainty associated with
the location of water supply intakes in the area, DWQ cannot support the selection of a preferred alternative
until the information is supplied. In addition, issuance of the 401 Water Quality Certification can only
occur when the DWQ can make the determination that the project will not adversely impact drinking water
supplies.
9*' A
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1650 Mad Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 733-1786 fl1-GE;';a
Customer Service: 1-300-623-7748 (919)
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
\O, ?G North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
co 7 Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
F) Until the location of the water supply intakes are verified, the potential for hazardous spill catch basins is
present. DWQ will make a determination about the need for hazardous spill basins after the location(s) of
water, supply intakes is finalized.
G) The document does not discuss the need for a Neuse River Riparian Buffer Authorization. DOT is advised
that final project approvals cannot occur without a submittal for, and a receipt of, a Neuse River Riparian
Buffer Authorization.
H) 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
mirlimization,of impacts to wetlands (and streams) to the maximum extent practical. Based on the impacts
described in the document, wetland mitigation may be required for this project. Should the impacts to
jurisdictional wetlands exceed 1.0 acres, mitigation may be required in accordance with NCDWQ Wetland
Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(2)).
I) In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules ( 15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6) f , mitigation will be required
for imoacts 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. In
accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules ( 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(3)), the Wetland Restoration
Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
J) Where streams must be crossed, the DWQ prefers bridges be used in lieu of culverts. However, we realize
that economic considerations often require the use of culverts. Please be advised that culverts should be
countersunk to allow unimpeded passage by fish and other aquatic organisms. Moreover, in areas where
high quality wetlands or streams are impacted, a bridge may prove preferable. When applicable, DOT
should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent practicable.
K) Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
L) Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable. Impacts to wetlands in
borrow/waste areas could precipitate compensatory mitigation.
M) The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed methods for
stormwater rnanagement. More specifically, stormwater should not be permitted to discharge directly into
the creek. Instead, stormwater should be designed to discharge as diffuse flow at non-erosive velocities.
N) There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is required, it is
preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental documentation.
While the NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be practical, it should be noted that for projects
requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required in conjunction with the issuance of a 401
Water Quality Certification.
O) Future documentation should include an itemized listing of the proposed wetland and stream impacts with
corresponding mapping.
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1550 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 [phone]
Customer Service: 1.300-623-7748
Vvilliam G. Rcss Jr.. Secretary
\J G Ncrtn Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
4 < <
P) Basgd on the information presented in the document, the magnitude of impacts to wetlands and streams will
require an Individual Permit application to the Corps of Engineers and cor-responding 401 Water Quality
Certification. Please be advised that a 401 Water Quality'Certi'fication requires satisfactory protection of
water. quality to ensure that water quality standards are met and no wetland or stream uses are lost. Final
permit authorization will require the submittal of a formal application by the NCDOT and written
concurrence from the NCDWQ. Please be aware that any approval will be contingent on appropriate
avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream impacts to the maximum extent practical. the
development of an acceptable stormwater management plan, and the inclusion of appropriate mitigation
plans where appropriate.
The NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project. Should you have any questions or
require any additional information, please contact John Hennessy at [phone].
cc: Eric Alsmever, Corps of Engineers
Gary Jordan. USFWS
Travis Wilson, NCWRC
John Hennessy, NCDWQ
File Copy
n,
c:\ncdot\TIP R-3825\comments`, R-3825 commeuu.doc
N. C. Division of Water Duality 1650 Mad Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 [phone]
Customer Service: 1-800-623-7748
North CarolinaWzldlife Resources Commission 9
C;h-irles K Fullwood, Execuriv Director 1
,???? 22 23 Zq?S?,.
MEMORANDUM
CT X40
rota d -
TO: Melba McGee r Or-4 e.,
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DEN-11 ??-
FROM: Travis Wilson, Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: October 6, 2003
SUBJECT: North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Environmental
Assessment (EA) for the proposed improvements to NC 42 in Johnston County,
North Carolina. TIP No. R-3825, SCH Project No. 04-0064.
Staff biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the subject
EA and are familiar with habitat values in the project area. The purpose of his review was to
assess project impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Our comments are provided in accordance
with certain provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401. as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
NCDOT proposes to widen NC 42 from two lanes to a four-lane shoulder facility with a
17.5 foot raised median, from US 70 to SR 1003 (Buff=alo Rd.), The total project length is
approximately 5, miles. Estimated impacts consist of 0.71 acres of wetlands and 1096 liner feet
of impacts Jurisdictional streams.
We have reviewed the data in the EA. NCDOT has proposed to widen the existing facility
and utilize grass shouldcrs in-lieu-of. ourb and gutter. This alternative will minimize impacts to
wetlands, streams and water quality, The project will cross Mill Crcck and the Ncusc River. We
rtquest NCDOT follow the Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage at both of
these sites, with a standard anadromous fish moratorium, February 15 to June 15, at the Mill
Creek crossing and the Neuse River crossing. NCDOT should also conduct a mussel survey at
all stream crossings prior to construction.
tilailin,gAddres3: Divi?ionof [nlanel Fi?'hcnes • 1721 MO Service Ccntcr - Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
TrI o,"k^n r• NIQ) 71:-1411 -... IQ1 • t..- !0101 71 G 7[1:
Memo 2 October 6. 2003
At this time, we concur with the EA for this project. Thank you for the opportunity to
comment on this EA. If we can be of any further assistance please call me at (919) 528=9886.
cc: Gary Jordan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
John Hennessy, DWQ, Raleigh
Eric Alsmeyer, U.S. ArTny Corps of Engineers, Raleigh
`..' ?
,? ;? y
} ? t,, 1 ',
.? ,i, -. $;;} 1. I. , _ ?^?,. ? ^{., h..
? III
??1, I
? ??J/ _?' _ A? ? (1 /^r'
Q`C,Y ? IIIFn? T1 -?? ?., `, ?? ??
? \ i
I yT ? _\
` '?? ? i
dl 1, \
I, i ?, ? ?, I. .\?
I ? o 4 ?4
I
i ,y, I? i ? et:a I I
I ?.
I
II I I
I
I I ?.
?•> `I
i I
i
i
I II y? i ?. I I '*y(?a
^?.d
I
(n o"
I ?
N
r
N
? U
I ? k
c=
yTATE
MAR 2 3 2006
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
March 13, 2006
DLNR -WATER QUALITY
W?:T ? ; I , ?,yJo STORM PIT[ pRANCht
LYNDo TIPPET-F
SECRETARY
Memorandum to: File
S
From: Scott Gentry
Project Development Engineer
Project Development And Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: NEPA/404 Merger Meeting for proposed widening of NC 42 from US 70
to SR 1003 (Buffalo Road), Johnston County, TIP Project
A merger meeting was held on March 15, 2005 in the Board Room of the
Transportation Building. The following persons were in attendance:
Ron Lucas
Bill Biddlecome
Chris Militscher
Gary Jordan
Nikki Thomson
Travis Wilson
Sarah McBride
Wendi Johnson
Max Price
Lisa W. Shapiro
Glenn Mumford
Charles Hunt
Kimberly Hinton
Michael Turchy
Chris Manley
Rob Hanson
Brad Robinson
Jay McInnis
Scott Gentry
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIG
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
Federal Highway Administration
US Army Corps of Engineers
US Environmental Protection Agency - Raleigh
US Fish and Wildlife Service
NC Division of Water Quality
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
State Historic Preservation Office
NCDOT Division Four Construction
NCDOT Hydraulics Unit
NCDOT Roadway Design Unit
NCDOT Roadway Design Unit
NCDOT Structure Design Unit
NCDOT PDEA, Human Environment Unit
NCDOT PDEA, Natural Environment Unit
NCDOT PDEA, Natural Environment Unit
NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis
NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis
NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis
NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX. [phone]
WF-BSITF: WWW.DOHDOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH INC
Project Background
TIP Project R-3825 involves widening NC 42 to a four-lane shoulder facility with
a 17.5-foot raised median from US 70 to SR 1003 (Buffalo Road). The proposed project
is approximately 5.7 miles long.
The Environmental Assessment for TIP Project R-3825 was completed on
August 11, 2003. Comments received from Chris Militscher with the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) following completion of the environmental document recommended
R-3825 be included in the NEPA/Section 404 merger process. This recommendation was
made because the project will likely require an Individual Section 404 Permit. NCDOT
consulted with Bill Biddlecome of the Corps of Engineers, who agreed this project should be
brought into the merger process at Concurrence Point 3 or 4A.
General Discussion
Scott Gentry with DOT Project Development reviewed the project's history and
explained the project is well into the design process. DOT employed a best-fit approach
to the design, looking to reduce impacts at each stream and wetland crossing.
Gary Jordan with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) stated that in
comments dated September 23, 2003, he did not concur with the "no-effect" findings for
any of the federally listed species in the study area.
Michael Turchy of the Natural Environment Unit explained that surveys have
been updated for the species and a memorandum has been submitted to FWS describing
the survey and requesting concurrence on findings of "not likely to adversely affect."
Chris Militscher expressed concern about farmland impacts along the eastern
portion of the project. Jay McInnis responded most of the area has been re-zoned for
development, so the Farmland Protection Act does not apply. An impact assessment on
prime farmlands and a copy of the land use plan showing the zoning for the study area
will be included in the FONSI.
Streams and wetlands have been delineated but not verified by the Corps of
Engineers.
Travis Wilson with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC)
stated the Neuse River and Mill Creek are subject to an anadromous fish moratorium
between February 15 and June 15.
Sarah McBride with the State Historic Preservation Office (SI-IPO) asked how it
was determined there are no eligible historic properties along the project. Jay McInnis
referenced a letter dated June 7, 1999, which stated there are no structures of historical
importance within the planning area. A letter dated March 22, 2001 verified that an
archaeological site identified during a field survey was not eligible and stated no further
archaeological work is necessary for the project.
Effects on the project from a multi-use bicycle/pedestrian path proposed on the
south side of NC 42 between SR 2022 (Old NC 42) and SR 1902 (Glen Laurel Road)
were discussed. The path would require approximately 10 to 15 feet of additional right of
way. Implementation of this path was contingent upon the Toxrn of Clayton committing
to purchase the additional right of way and contribute a portion of the construction costs
of the path as required by the DOT Pedestrian Policy. Since the time of this merger
meeting, the town has stated they will not be able to contribute their portion of the
funding for the multi-use pathway. This pathway will not be constructed as a part of TIP
Project R-3825.
The bridge carrying NC 42 over the Neuse River is scheduled to be replaced as
part of this project with a 380-foot lone stricture on existing location. Nikki Thomson
with the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) requested the replacement bridge span the
entire Neuse buffer. Max Price with the Hydraulics Unit explained there are bank erosion
problems on the western side of the river. The proposed bridge length has been estimated
from rough topography and may span the entire buffer zone once better information is
used.
Chris Militscher expressed concern over the impacts at the Mill Creek culvert.
Max Price responded the existing culvert will be extended 70 feet downstream, but the
channel width would stay about the same.
Figures were provided detailing each stream and wetland crossing along the
project, and the team was given the opportunity to discuss specific crossings. There was
concern over the impacts to wetlands B and C at the crossing of stream N8. The team
discussed narrowing the 17.5-foot median to reduce impacts. Jay McInnis stated the
17.5-foot median is the minimum for DOT design standards, but he suggested the
possibility of using expressway gutter to narrow the project footprint. Water released
from the gutter must be treated before discharge to avoid impact to the buffer zone around
the adjacent pond. The Hydraulics unit will investigate this possibility.
Travis Wilson asked if there was any way to pull in the fill slope at stream N8 to
prevent relocating the stream channel. DOT will investigate the adjustment of the fill
slope at this location.
The merger team discussed whether R-3825 should be brought into the merger
process at Concurrence Point 3 or 4A. Everyone in attendance agreed to bring the project
in at Concurrence Point 4A. The group also agreed to forego another merger meeting on
Concurrence Point 4A, but to handle concurrence through e-mail and letters. Nikki
Thomson asked to see a final impact analysis of streams, wetlands, and buffers before
signing Concurrence Point 4A, and she also requested avoidance and minimization efforts
be documented before Concurrence Point 4B.
Meetine Summary
Streams and wetlands will be verified by the Army Corps of Engineers. Use of
expressway gutter will be investigated where the project is impacting wetlands WB and
WC. DOT will look at minimizing impacts to stream N8 by bringing the till slope line
closer to the road.
A memorandum outlinin(Y updated surveys and findings for federally listed species
within the study area has been mailed to FWS. FWS concurred in a letter dated April 6,
2005 that TIP Project R-3825 will have-no effect" on Tar spinymussel, Micheaux's
sumac and red-cockaded woodpecker. In this letter, FWS recommended updated surveys
for Dwarf wedgemussel be conducted before concurring on a biological conclusion.
Most recently, surveys were conducted in November 2005 for Tar spinymussel and Dwarf
wedgemussel. Habitat was found for Dwarf wedgemussel, but no species were found
during the survey. Concurrence will be requested from FWS.
Concurrence Point 4A will be signed through letters/email instead of holding a
formal merger meeting.
North Carolina Division of Water Cuality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: ProJect: K_ 1 2 Latitude:
Evaluator: Site: _ Longitude:
Total Points: Other
Stream Is at least Intermittent CouniJ
e.g. Quad Name:
IfZ 19 or perennial if;! 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = (o 1Ol i `ak,
1e. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 3
9" Natural Levees 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley and drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No
-00
Yes = 3
"Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual \\ k-) I
B. Hvdroloav (subtotal = (,A .
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- d or growing season 0 1 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or plies (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes - .5
C. Bloloav (subtotal = :S • z?_ )
20 . Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 . Rooted plants In channel 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 71) 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians _ 0.5 1 c 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0.5 1 1.5

28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fun us.
0.5
1 _
1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streamh•sd FAC ACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; ether = 0
- Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 foM99s on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch: ritx? T/1 'K L_
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) cn,
1
'r
Z

i?o l (+ct t7? r
i ?_ tl Y-I , I
North Carolina Division of Water Quality -- Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: i Project: _ 382`S- Latitude:
Evaluator: N ? O t Site: Longitude:
Total Points: Other
Stream Is at least Intermittent L Country: e.g. Quad Name:
If 2 19 or perennial if z 30 c?kk k,
A. Geomorphology Subtotal =_ is
1 e. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 1 2 3
9" Natural Levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley and drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
LISGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No
Yes = 3
"Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual \\
B_ Hvdroleov (suhtntal = 1.5- 1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water In channel -- d or growing season 0 1 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes 1.
C. BIGIOav (subtotal = `f . 1
20 . Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
_
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0.5 1 c 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton F 0.5 1 1.5
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 .Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.'; FACW = 0.75; OBL 1. SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuyas on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for addftional notes.)

ENT OF United States Department of the Interior
y o FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
? a
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
.9C H Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726
April 6, 2005
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1598
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
This letter is in response to your letter of March 23, 2005 which provided the U.S. Nish and Wildlife Service
(Service) with the biological determination of the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) that
the proposed widening of NC 42 in Johnston County (TIP' No.R-1'825nay affect, but is not likely to
adversely affect the federally endangered dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) and rcd-cockaded
woodpecker (Picoides borealis). In addition, NCDOT has determined that the project will have no effect on
the federally endangered Tar spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana) and Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii).
These comments are provided in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
According to the information provided, mussel surveys were conducted at the project site on the Ncuse River
in 2001 and 2002. Although neither of the federally endangered mussel species were found, the surveys are
now more than two years old. In addition, your submitted information does not indicate that Mill Creek was
surveyed. As a perennial tributary to the Neuse River, the presence of dwarf wedgemussel should not be ruled
out if potential habitat exists in the stream. The Service cannot concur with your determination that the project
may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the dwarf wedgemussel. The Service recommends that new
surveys be conducted at the NellSe River and Mill Creek crossings. All surveys must extend 100 meters
upstream and 400 meters downstream of the project limits where suitable habitat is present. Upon receiving
new survey results, the Service will reconsider concurrence for the dwarf wedgemussel.
The Service concurs that the project will have no effect on the Tar spinymussel and Michaux'S sumac. Also,
due to the lack of cavity trees within '/2 mile of the project limits, the Service would also concur with a "no
effect" determination for the red-cockaded woodpecker (as per revised 2003 Recovery Plan).
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions regarding our
response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at [phone] (Ext. 32).
Si cer
,,ff r r
Pee Beni' in
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Eric Alsmcycr, USACE, Raleigh, NC
Nicole Thomson, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher. 1 !SEPA, Ralcith. NC
K - 3 Y,,) t;-

Ale 4,4 GU r «! e_?c c? Ca

IV ? ?2 (d-641L
,?? .?o cad
r?
4 ? d-d Lv c d )"JiL- ?
?Llx?j ,uddlte - ??c d
x-C
-,??u? , wo-? - J?z
,0/(/Vr

C ? Cj?7'?y7i2??' PIT rYv
??? ?jy / cn ?vr7?crJ ?l? 02? ?- col b?) b
/(-r7

CSftPc??
? rx
xt
I?LO??-cam - `?2e??Q.e ? ??c?,P C'2QQ/? -
90-,uL?lJ 4 ail y ? 'Z L1

I

1.
771
elh

R-3825 JOHNSON CO
Preliminary Buffer Impacts
3/14/2005
NC 42
WATER BUFFER BUFFER TOTAL
RESOURCE ZONE1 ZONE2
NEUSE R. 0.22 0.14 0.36
UT #N1 0.18 0.12 0.30
UT #N2 0.1 0.1 0.20
UT #N3 0.18 0.12 0.30
UT #N4 0.14 0.09 0.23
UT #N5 0.14 0.09 0.23
UT #N6 0.21 0.14 0.35
UT #N7 0.29 0.26 0.55
UT #N8 0.21 0.14 0.35
UT #N9 0.18 0.12 0.30
UT #N10 0.18 0.12 0.30
MILL CR. 0.16 0.11 0.27
UT #M1 0 0 0.00
UT #M2 0.21 0.14 0.35
UT #M3 0.32 0.21 0.53
TOTALS
,Y'&-m /-?
2.72 / 1.90
4.62

COMBINATION MERGER MEETING
NC 42
FROM US 70 TO SR 1003 (BUFFALO ROAD)
JOHNSTON COUNTY
TIP PROJECT R-3825
March 2005 FEB 2 4 2005
DSRAND rEn QUALIrY
PURPOSE OF TODAY'S MEETING WF WA 0%6q L T'y
TER SRAWH
TIP Project R-3825 has not been a part of the NEPA/Section 404 merger process. The
environmental assessment for the project was completed on August 11, 2003. A comment
received following completion of the environmental assessment recommended R-3825 be
included in the NEPA/Section 404 merger process because it will likely require an Individual
Permit due to wetland and stream impacts. NCDOT and the Corps of Engineers have agreed this
project should be included in the process.
The purpose of today's meeting is to submit information to support concurrence through
avoidance and minimization (Concurrence Point 4A). Concurrence will be requested for purpose
and need, detailed study alternatives carried forward, bridge locations and lengths, LEDPA
selection and avoidance and minimization (Concurrence Points 1, 2, 2A, 3 and 4A)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
TIP Project R-3825 involves widening NC 42 to a four-lane shoulder facility with a
17.5-foot raised median from US 70 to SR 1003 (Buffalo Road). A multi-use
bicycle/pedestrian path is proposed for the south side of NC 42 between SR 2022 (Old NC
42) and SR 1902 (Glen Laurel Road). The proposed project is approximately 5.7 miles long
(see Figure 1). Right of way acquisition and construction are currently scheduled for federal
fiscal years 2005 and 2007, respectively.
It is anticipated approximately 160 to 170 feet of right of way will be required to
accommodate this facility. No control of access is proposed.
PROJECT PURPOSE
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve the safety and the traffic carrying
capacity of NC 42 within the project limits.
NEED FOR PROJECT
NC 42, within the project limits, is a two-lane undivided facility. Travel lanes are
10 feet wide with 8-foot grass shoulders.
Needs to be addressed by the project:
• Without improvements, NC 42 in the project area will operate at level of service F
in the year 2026.
• NC 42 within the project limits has a total accident rate higher than the statewide
average for similar facilities.
• Bridge No. 75, which carries NC 42 over the Neuse River, has a sufficiency rating
of 4 out of a possible 100. The bridge is considered to be structurally deficient
and functionally obsolete
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
In the year 2006, projected traffic volumes for NC 42 are expected to range between
13,500 vehicles per day to 19,200 vehicles per day. These volumes are projected to increase
to between approximately 18,200 vehicles per day to 26,300 vehicles per day for the design
year (2026). Truck traffic is projected to be 6% of the total average daily traffic (volumes are
shown on Figures 3A and 3B).
ACCIDENT RATES
A total of 172 accidents with two fatalities were reported on this portion of NC 42 in
the period between January 1, 1997 and December 31, 1999.
The accident rate along the existing facility for this time period was 245.08 accidents
per one hundred million vehicle miles (acc/100mvm). In comparison to the statewide rate of
228.87 acc/100mvm, NC 42 within the project limits has an accident rate above the statewide
rate. The fatal crash rate along the studied section of NC 42 was 2.85 accidents per 100
million vehicle miles. The fatal crash rate for similar facilities in North Carolina was 2.93
accidents per 100 million vehicle miles. Most of the accidents which occurred during the
study period were rear-end collisions (52% of the total accidents))
Additional travel lanes and left turn lanes will reduce the potential for rear-end type
accidents by allowing slowing or stopping vehicles to move out of the through lanes.
The proposed dual lanes per direction will allow vehicles to pass slow moving
vehicles without having to encroach in the opposing travel lanes.
PROJECT SCHEDULE/COST
Right of way acquisition for the project is currently scheduled to begin in federal
fiscal year 2005 and construction is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2007.
-2-
The most current cost estimates for the project are as follows:
Right of Way Acquisition $ 4,624,500
Construction $22,500,000
Total Cost $27,124,500
PROJECT STATUS
The environmental assessment for TIP Project R-3825 was completed on
August 11, 2003. A combined public hearing was held on September 30, 2004.
Approximately 81 persons attended the hearing. Most of the comments received following
the hearing came from homeowners in Bennett Place and Neuse Colony subdivisions
concerned with increases in noise levels and problems accessing NC 42. Several other
comments were received from businesses inquiring how the project would affect their
individual properties.
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Alternate Modes of Transportation
It was determined that no alternate modes of transportation would be a practical
alternative to the recommended alternative. Highway transportation is the dominant mode of
transportation in the area. Staggering work hours, car pooling, and van pooling are possible
ways to generally reduce highway congestion; however, these congestion management
measures are not controlled by the NCDOT and cannot be incorporated into this project.
"No-Build" Alternative
This alternative would avoid any environmental impacts that are anticipated as a
result of the proposed project, but would not meet the purpose and need of the project.
Build Alternatives
Two build alternatives were studied for the project. Alternatives 1 and 2 would both
widen NC 42 to a four-lane median divided facility with grassed shoulders. Two 12-foot
lanes in each direction will be separated by a 17.5-foot raised median. Outside grassed
shoulders will be 8 feet wide, 4 feet of which will be paved. The proposed typical section is
shown on Figure 4A.
The two alternatives involve widening NC 42 symmetrically between US 70 and
SR 2022 (Old NC 42). With both alternatives, the proposed new lanes will be constructed on
the south side of existing NC 42 from Fox Ridge Road to Bennett Place and symmetrically
from Bennett Place to Buffalo Road. The two alternatives differ along an approximately 1.75
mile section of NC 42, from SR 2022 (Old NC 42) to Woodberry Court. Along this portion
of NC 42, Alternative 1 involves widening to the south and Alternative 2 involves widening
to the north. In this area, Alternative 2 was developed in order to reduce impacts to a
wetland area located south of NC 42.
-3-
A comparison between Alternatives 1 and 2 is shown in Table 1 below:
Table 1
ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON
DESCRIPTION ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2
"Recommended"
Residential Relocatees 2 2
Business Relocatees 2 2
Wetland Impacts 0.82 ac 0.71 ac
Surface Waters 1,096 feet 1,079 feet
Effect Historic Properties? No * No*
Construction Cost $23,000,000 $22,500,000
Right of Way Cost $ 5,047,400 $ 4,624,500
Total Cost $28,047,400 $27,124,500
* No eligible properties were determined to be in the project study area.
Alternative 2 would reduce impacts on wetlands, streams, and has a lower project
cost.
Curb and gutter was considered for the project, but a shoulder section was chosen
because of stormwater treatment requirements for the Neuse River Basin. A shoulder section
will allow the use of grass swales to treat stormwater runoff before discharging into buffered
streams. The shoulder section will also eliminate the need for large stormwater detention
facilities.
PROPOSED STRUCTURES
Bridge No. 75 carrying NC 42 over the Neuse River will be replaced with a new
structure approximately 73.5 feet wide and 380 feet long. Bridge No.75 will be replaced on
existing location (see Figure 5 Site 1). Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge
during construction. The proposed typical section across the new bridge is shown on Figure
4B.
A double barrel 8-foot by 10-foot reinforced concrete box culvert carries Mill Creek
under NC 42 (see Figure 5 Site 2). The existing culvert will be retained and extended.
A 5-foot by 5-foot reinforced concrete box culvert carries an unnamed tributary to the
Neuse River (see Figure 5 Site 3). The existing culvert will be retained and extended with a
54-inch reinforced concrete pipe.
-4-
Table 2
Stream Impacts Within the Proiect Study Area
Stream Tributary of: Class Impacts ft
Neuse River - perennial 0
UT #N l Neuse River intermittent 28 ft
UT #N2 Neuse River intermittent 32 ft
UT #N3** Neuse River intermittent 14 ft
UT #N3** Neuse River perennial 12 ft
UT #N4 Neuse River perennial 33 ft
UT #N5 Neuse River intermittent 327 ft
UT #N6 Neuse River perennial 38 ft
UT #N7 Neuse River perennial 14 ft
UT #N8 Neuse River perennial 23 ft
UT #N9 Neuse River intermittent 31 ft
UT #N10 Neuse River perennial 0 ft
Mill Cr Neuse River perennial 29 ft
UT #M1 Mill Creek perennial 415 ft
UT #M2 Mill Creek intermittent 0 ft
UT #M3 Mill Creek perennial 0 ft
Total 996 ft
Impacts based on feet of stream within the proposed right of way that is
not already piped.
$ The pipes of these streams fall outside the right of way limit, however, symmetrical
widening will cause impacts to these streams
**Stream changes from intermittent to perennial with in the right of way
limits
-5-
Table 3
Estimated Area of Wetland Imnacts
Wetland Name Impact Area (ha/ac) t Associated Stream
Wetland A 0.02 ac UT #N10
Wetland B 0.22 ac UT #N9
Wetland C 0.14 ac UT #N9
Wetland D 0.04 ac UT #M2
Wetland E 0.03 ac UT #M2
Wetland F 0.0007 ac UT #M2
Wetland G 0.02 ac UT #N5
Wetland H 0.09 ac UT #N5
Wetland I 0.02 ac Neuse River flood lain
Wetland J 0.09 ac UT #N3
Wetland K 0.04 ac UT #N2 & UT #N1
Total 0.7107 ac
r Impacts based on feet of stream within the proposed right of way that is
Inot already piped.
-6-
? r
1 \ I ? J

- I?
i I.
BEGIN
PROJECT'

NC 4 :r ?r
-? 1en ?2I
,i
1-k
h a .c ? ,9\ I
t
FI ers- Q)
m tea. >> ,----
? ?0 Moray 4 2 ' '\ I
r UND
PROJECT
irrrr ¦rr0rrrrow"m

J

j
LtJ
MILES
0 1 2
0 1 2 3
KILOMETERS
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
NC 42
US 70 to SR 1003 (Buffalo Rd.)
Johnson County
TIP PROJECT R-3825
Figure 1

?o y
'l.
L I )? -? -
CN Z = (1'z)
V) 09F01
00 wa
M
1o
oc V
UZ
w0
O ?-
loe N _
/L Z N
I?i? V
U
CL z z
n z
- T Q
z
-? Z W o
C
Q W N ?
® ? 09F -01
4 lvd
zll
EI
r?
CV
^? cl
-? C
PAI
10 -?6o u-,
M (2,2)
?l-
N
4 ? ^r
IL-~3
-? PM
60
10-
(3.1)
`.' (3.1)
x
F`I
PI
N
i1
N
a
ro i
N
C,
ti M
PTl
9- - >55

O U
F z
z <
w s
C cc
F zv
5 < v
C v, F ,
o <wZ
3c<
ZCJ°e
OFXw
u cc
?zFz
xvauo
Fz
i z< a>
0 cc z
zFOCw

?
M

M Q F CI w

UO?Zt;
.y

..
v;zT U
A '? F^ p
7

iz
Q
W E-
a
z
Q
?C-
z?
T
W E,
? p
o
H w
O
a
vI
W
ND
o F'
C?V r

„o
:- > r
L'.1
az za
:o O4
^1 r (=
C F t

I? ?<av -FO
C] o F
z O
zzp y
< w'
ti La p z iy CF.' G ; eF, `'
C O ?cC?e'
e
c >p
> c
?a az

0 o p= z
?
c-I
?fit r, z 7
zo=oi =' C Q F-
oztz
PM o l j R l0 60 c! E? ,, °,- z 6
(2,2) o s? z Z T P. J
zt cam W O v
A., F.
c-I
09
N F-- A w
M Z lid w o
W At z a
PM 60 ? z Q
]0 3
O 0
(S,1)
wa
F-
V c( ? ?
?t
w Z ----
a?
a f ? W (n
CL F a
z W?
Q o t F
O z Z ci I c°i a
N ? s
110
Q W 09E 01 M r C
Q Wd m? 7a
O .G
J
Q
u 5
P)) a~ ._ G E F f F n
9 (J,f) 1? f I I Q O ? 'l,H? ?' eLil
^ C Mme!
1 > Q 1 ?. Q x Q (y )
H C, I Q z
u Q o o a z
V)
W
Q
E
?
3 N

LO D
0
0
E
N 0 N T M N
00 -

I

N
V)
Q
J
Q

`O
E
?
N

~
V O
~ M
Q

FL-
o
p z
a

U.J
uj w
to
E o
? LIJ

0
0 O
0 N ?o
In
=
~
V) C
CL 0

CL CL
0
to 4) E

10 F

N
w
CL LU
Z M
?
J N E
10
N

0 }
E cj v
U-
00 E
00
'IT v
N 00
(DLU
m w
o
.0
m N
?E uj
N Q
uj
w
v?
y N
Euj
N Q
a
'o
0
0
t
.3
E
of
ri
Q
v
W
C9
u
L; A ?r_
N ?
w
Z >
O E AM
LO
V
o `0
C6 N
?-
N
N w
N
00 ?. w
C'7 Q ?• Z
u Q M 4 fi

CL w

I--

?
Z
Q >
O
u LLI ui w
0
w p N
L, Ln p

0

cle
N cvi
CL Z w
W
W M w

d.. ::E w
lqt
N
N E
J V

O
%0
M

r
N J
A
LL Uj

lip
E
N
m
W
LL
• ? T
IF A
? o
7- / 0
V
QO
O a+
a
o QO
O
w
¦
¦
or

¦
¦
,
C?>
A?y "4

?a
P
¦
e
¦
- e

¦
r

n? ¦
¦
LLJ
LL
J
11)1
y o
d
l
i
00!7,.,

t # t 'i
? I k

I #
r
#
° #
#
s # I
#
k
#

? I
° #
# #

E
#
#
# #

`

?
I i

i

Ll

?_

y?

? ',
H

?i j

?'. ?

.,
1y}
iy{
i%

{ ?

i
t
(i
''

!?
'? 'i
,i? ?
i
t
t X.??

?
$ ??
? 4y?
*
/ a?
r 4?
?
?
?u? ?+

l
t t

I ??
a
t'
+
?
t 1`
a
?

? ?
{
{

,. .. ... ..4

1 ?

f,
' ' ;
c r }
a ? x
S
}
?
l
4k
I
?yj}7
I
{?{)
I
t}j?
I
?k{
I
j
I
l
6
1
ro
is
4
X
Ai
i
ykq
l
4*
s
..
--?L ,.
-?-? ~-? ,
???
? b ??
" y?
'', ..
?4
?$4p
l
y*
s ?
y??a
%
a
? S
S
a
§
t?
4
*?
t?

y?'?^....mn+
m
6
?t

--_- }
LA I
a C ? s
i ?
as

c S4

B 1 ..... .... ......
J

j?

t

f

E I

a t
.

i
E

1
1
1
1
I
I
E
1
1
1
i
IIJ
c
4
Ilu-
?tt
1
S

`mob
?.u.
t
h`` .,
?l?n
a

I
t
? x
t ?
t
5
k
l
t
1 l
I
!
1 I
1 I
1

l X
1
f
t

4
k v ,a#a
f
E
a '
i
I
t1i
1
?FF V
t
L
k(
I
I
i
j+t
x
4
((
14
F
I
E
f?
l
J
r
{
G i
I I?
k
E
I?
x
LL-
I
X11
{
I
i
x
I ,
:I

d
t :j

f
[Liu_ J

r I
t
am
s
tE

f ,l k

d i
t
ie +

y ? d{f f t

{

t
,y
E
j
i
f'
t
j
I
i

f
t
E
it
fi
f
X
x
?x.
t
F
$1
wit Pf;?
l
4??

I

r

t I?
i

t

I
mm

- - - -
--
-

G

t
t4

4
d1

r'
b
bq
i
b

I

8Y ?
a+r dk ?
Pa tt
d°
t y
i
i

1
y?
I
1
t
?y
1
t
{
? I
Rr

?t

{f,
?f

a":
r
?R
r I
Sy

?
k

a ty
d" r t
ty

? 1w 1t
M1
f
{
}{
t i
{
1
i
iI
?.I
?I
I
I
I i
I'
1
I
F?
I
t
t
1
?kq
1
Ii}
7t{
17(1
i
}
1

I- I

i ,
i
I
i
r
L

f

1 7

r

Lj_

1 ' I

f j
f
t
(
J
$
{

t
1

F f

J FF ? '
Ff F

* F
?
t f
h

j
NC 42
From US 70 to SR 1003 (Buffalo Road)
Johnston County
Federal Aid Project STP-42(4)
State Project 8.1312301
TIP Project R-3825
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
And
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)
APPROVED:
Wr 3a6-Gregory J. Thorpe, .Ph. D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
Siio3
ate J
Division Administrator, FHWA
NC 42
From US 70 to SR 1003 (Buffalo Road)
Johnston County
Federal Aid Project STP-42(4)
State Project 8.1312301
TIP Project R-3825
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Documentation Prepared in Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch By:
Ray A.
Engineer
Janfes A. McInnis Jr., P.E.
Project Development Unit Head
Robert P. Hanson, P.E., Assistant Manager,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
e?rQ1? CARO( jy,
???ESSION?
SE Alm
20701
0110C, 4
Pl'7jtq
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROJECT COMMITMENTS ..................................................................... I of 1
SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 1
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ................................................3
A. General Description ....................................................................
3
B. Project Purpose .........................................................................
3
C. Cost Estimates ......................................................................... 3
II. NEED FOR PROPOSED PROJECT .........................................................3
A. Descriptions of Existing Facility .................................................... 3
1. Functional Classification ......................................................... 3
2. Existing Typical Section .........................................................4
3. Right of Way and Access Control .............................................. 4
4. Speed Limit .........................................................................4
5. Intersections ........................................................................ 4
6. Railroad Crossings ................................................................4
7. Structures ...........................................................................
4
8. Sidewalks/Bicycle Accommodations .......................................... 5
9. Utilities .............................................................................5
10. School Bus Data .................................................................. 5
11. Traffic Volumes ...................................................................5
B. Deficiencies of Existing Facility .................................................... 5
1. Traffic Carrying Capacity ........................................................5
2. Accident Record .................................................................. 6
C. Benefits of Proposed Project ......................................................... 6
1. Capacity ............................................................................6
2. Safety ...............................................................................6
3. Other Benefits ......................................................................7
III. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................7
A. Roadway Cross-section .............................................................. 7
B. Alignment ..............................................................................7
C. Structures ...............................................................................7
D. Speed Limit ............................................................................ 8
E. Design Speed ...........................................................................8
F. Right-of-Way/Control of Access ................................................... 8
G. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control .................................... 8
H. Sidewalks/Bicycle Accommodations ............................................. 8
IV. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION .................................... 8
A. Build Alternatives ...................................................................
8
B. "No-Build" Alternative ............................................................ 9
C. Alternate Modes of Transportation .............................................. 9
V. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ................................10
A. Cultural Resources .................................................................10
1. Compliance Guidance ........................................................ 10
2. Historical Architectural Resources ..........................................10
3. Archaeological Resources ....................................................10
B. Section 4(f) Resources ............................................................ 10
C. Natural Resources .................................................................. I l
1. Biotic Resources ............................................................... I l
a. Terrestrial Communities ...........................................11
b. Aquatic Communities ..............................................13
c. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Resources ........................13
2. Water Resources .............................................................. 14
a. Neuse River and Tributaries ...................................... 14
b. Mill Creek and Tributaries ........................................ 14
c. Best Usage Classification ..........................................15
d. Water Quality ....................................................... 15
e. Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources........ 16
3. Jurisdictional Topics .......................................................... 17
a. Water of the United States .........................................17
b. Wetlands .............................................................17
c. Summary of Anticipated Impacts ................................ 17
d. Permits ...............................................................19
e. Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation ........................... 19
4. Protected and Rare Species .................................................. 20
a. Federally-protected Species ....................................... 20
b. Federal Species of Concerns ...................................... 22
D. SOCIAL EFFECTS .................................................................23
1. Land Use ........................................................................ 23
a. Existing Land Use and Zoning ....................................23
b. Status of Planning .................................................. 23
2. Environmental Justice .......................................................... 24
3. Relocation of Residences and Businesses ................................... 24
4. Public Facilities, Schools, Institutes and Services .......................... 24
5. Farmland .........................................................................
25
6. Flood Hazard Evaluation ...................................................... 25
E. HI GHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS .................................... 25
1. Introduction ........................................ ................ .
2. Noise Abatement Criteria ......................................................
25
3. Ambient Noise Levels .........................................................
26
4. Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels .............................. 26
5. Noise Analysis Results ......................................................... 26
6. Traffic Noise Abatement Measures .......................................... 26
a. Highway Alignment ................................................ 27
b. Traffic System Management Measures ........................... 27
c. Noise Barriers ........................................................ 27
d. "No Build" Alternative ............................................. 28
e. Construction Noise .................................................. 28
f. Summary .............................................................. 28
E. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS ...................................................... 28
1. CO Concentration ...............................................................
29
2. Air Quality Analysis .......................................................... 29
3. Construction Air Quality Effects ............................................. 29
F. Hazardous Material and UST Involvement ...................................... 30
VI COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ................................................. 31
A. Citizens informational Workshop ................................................ 31
B. Agency Coordination .............................................................. 31
List of Tables
PAGE
Table 1 -Signalized Intersection Level of Service without Project ..................... 6
Table 2 - Signalized Intersection Level of Service with Project ........................ 6
Table 3 -Alternative Comparison .......................................... 9
Table 4 .................
-Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities ............... 13
Table 5 .....................
-Stream Impacts Within the Project Study Area ................................ 18
Table 6 -Estimated Area of Wetland Impacts ...................... 19
Table 7 .......................
-Federally Protected Species in Johnston County ............................... 20
Table 8 -Federal Species of Concern in Johnston County ............................... 23
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 - Project Location Map
Figure 2 - Aerial Photograph of Project
Figure 3 - Streams and Wetlands in Project Area
Figure 4A, 4B - 2006/2026 Projected Traffic Volumes
Figure 5A - Proposed Roadway Typical Section
Figure 5B - Proposed Bridge Typical Section (Over Neuse River)
Figure 6 - Flood Plain in Project Area
PROJECT COhOUTMENTS
NC 42
From US 70 to SR 1003 (Buffalo Road)
Johnston County
Federal Aid Project STP-42(4)
State Project 8.1312301
TIP Project R-3825
Division Four Construction
NCDOT's Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage will apply
to the Neuse River and all stream crossings within the project area.
No in-water work will be performed in the Neuse River between February 15,'
and June 15", due to the likely presence of anadromous fish.
NCDOT will implement Best management Practices for Bridge Demolition and
removal. The asphalt wearing surface of Bridge Number 75 and bridge rails will be
removed without dropping into the water prior to bridge demolition.
During construction of the project, the driveway to Clayton Fire Station will be
kept open at all times. No equipment or materials will be parked or placed in the fire
station driveway at any time.
Roadside Environmental Unit/Division Four Construction
Turbidity curtains will be used during in-stream work in the Neuse River.
Structure Design Unit/Hydraulic Unit
Deck drains for the proposed bridge carrying NC 42 over the Neuse River will be
designed so that runoff is not directly discharged into the Neuse River.
Roadway Design Unit/Geotechnical Unit
The proposed widening will require property from four sites potentially
containing hazardous materials. A preliminary site assessment will be performed for all
of the properties prior to right of way acquisition in order to determine the extent of any
contamination. Right of way acquisition from the former Jimmy Flowers Store and the
Percy Flowers Store will be by permanent easement rather than fee simple right of way
due to the possibility of contamination on the properties. Permanent easements will be
obtained from the former Peele Pesticide site and the Caterpillar site, as well, if the
preliminary site assessment determines there is a possibility of contamination in areas
needed for right of way.
Environmental Assessment - R-3825 Page I of I
July, 2003
SUMMARY
Environmental Assessment
Prepared by the
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1. Tyne of Action
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Action, Environmental
Assessment.
2. Proiect Purpose/Description of Action
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve the safety and traffic carrying
capacity of NC 42 within the project limits.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to widen NC 42 to a four-
lane shoulder facility with a 5.3 meter (17.5-foot) raised median from US 70 to SR 1003
(Buffalo Road). The proposed project is 5.7 miles long (see Figure 1).
3. Permits Required
It is anticipated that a U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Individual Permit will likely be
required for the project. A Section 401 Water Quality General Certification from the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality will be required prior to issuance of the Section 404
Individual Permit from the Corps of Engineers.
4. Summary of Environmental Impacts
Two homes and two businesses will be relocated as a result of this project.
A relocation report is located in Appendix B.
Four residential receptors are predicted to experience noise impacts. A total of 0.288
hectares (0.71 acres) of wetlands will be impacted by the project.
5. Alternatives Considered
Two build alternatives, Alternate modes of transportation and the "no-build"
alternative were considered as alternatives to the proposed improvements (see Section IV).
Alternative 2 widening was chosen as the preferred alternative because it was the least
expensive and least environmentally damaging of the alternatives considered. Alternate
modes of transportation or the "no-build" alternative would not effectively serve the project
purpose and need.
6. Additional Information
The following persons may be contacted for additional information concerning this proposal
and statement:
John F. Sullivan III, P.E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone: [phone]
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph. D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1501
Telephone [phone]
7. Coordination
The following agencies were consulted regarding this project. An asterisk (*)
indicates a response was received. Copies of the comments are included in Appendix A.
U.S. Department of the Army - Corps of Engineers (Wilmington District)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Raleigh
*N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
*N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
-2-
NC 42
From US 70 to SR 1003 (Buffalo Road)
Johnston County
Federal Aid Project STP42(4)
State Project 8.1312301
TIP Project R-3825
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. General Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to widen NC 42 to
a four-lane shoulder facility with a 5.3 meter (17.5 foot) raised median from US 70 to
SR 1003 (Buffalo Road). The proposed project is 9.2 kilometers (5.7 miles) long (see Figure
1). No control of access is proposed. The project is included in the 2002-2008 North
Carolina Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Right of way acquisition and
construction are scheduled in the draft 2004-2010 TIP for federal fiscal years 2004 and 2006
respectively.
B. Protect Purpose
The purpose of the project is to improve safety and the traffic carrying capacity of
NC 42 within the project limits.
C. Cost Estimates
The 2002-2008 TIP includes an estimated right of way acquisition cost of $ 3,000,000
and construction cost of $ 23,900,000. Total project cost included in the TIP is $ 26,900,000.
The latest estimated costs for project R-3825 are shown below:
Right of Way Acquisition $ 4,624,500
Construction $22,500,000
Total Cost $27,124,500
II. NEED FOR PROPOSED PROJECT
A. Description of Existing Facility
1. Functional Classification
NC 42 is classified as a Rural Major Collector in the North Carolina Functional
Classification System.
-3-
2. Existing Typical Section
NC 42, within the project limits, is a two-lane undivided facility. Travel lanes are
3.0 meters (10 feet) wide with 2.4 meter (8-foot) grass shoulders.
3. Right of Way and Access Control
The existing right of way on NC 42 is approximately 30 meters (100 feet). No
control of access exists along the studied section of NC 42.
4. Speed Limit
The current posted speed limit along the length of the project varies from 45 mph to
55 mph.
5. Intersections
Currently; the following intersections are signalized:
• NC 42 and US 70
• NC 42 and Caterpillar Industrial Plant Drive
• NC 42 and SR 1902 (Glen Laurel Road)
• NC 42 and SR 1003
The remaining intersections along NC 42 in the project area are stop sign controlled.
6. Railroad Crossines
A single mainline track of the North Carolina Railroad crosses NC 42 just east of
US 70. Approximately 10 trains a day pass through this crossing including two Amtrak
passenger trains. Approximately 19,200 vehicles per day will use the crossing in 2006 and
24,600 vehicles per day are expected to use the crossing in 2026. The exposure index at this
crossing is 190,200 based on 2006 traffic and 246,000 based on 2026 traffic. The exposure
index at this crossing meets the warrant for a grade separation. However, due to the limited
distance between the rail line and the adjacent intersection of NC 42/US 70, a grade
separation would require a major reconstruction of NC 42 and the NC 42/US 70 intersection.
This is beyond the scope of this project.
7. Structures
Bridge No. 75 was built in 1939 and carries NC 42 over the Neuse River (see Figure
6, Site 1). This two-lane bridge is 106.7 meters (350 feet) in length and has a clear roadway
width of 7.3 meters (24.2 feet) wide. The current sufficiency rating is 4 out of a possible
100. The bridge is considered to be structurally deficient and functionally obsolete.
A 2.4 meters (8 feet) by 3 meters (10 feet) double barrel reinforced concrete box
culvert carries Mill Creek under NC 42. A 1.5 meters (5 feet) by 1.5 meters (5 feet)
-4-
reinforced concrete box culvert carries an unnamed tributary to the Neuse River under
NC 42. Figure 6 shows locations of these structures (Sites 1, 2, and 3).
8. Sidewalks/Bicycle Accommodations
There are no existing sidewalks or bicycle lanes along the project. NC 42 is not a
designated bicycle route.
9. Utilities
Telephone, fiber optic cable, cable television, gas, water, and sewer lines are located
along the proposed project. The degree of utility conflicts is expected to be medium.
10. School Bus Data
Approximately fifty school buses travel this section of NC 42 each school day,
making an average of two trips per day.
11. Traffic Volumes
The projected traffic volumes for NC 42 range between 13,500 vehicles per day to
19,200 vehicles per day for the construction year (2006). These volumes are projected to
increase to between approximately 18,200 vehicles per day to 26,300 vehicles per day for the
design year (2026). Truck traffic is projected to be 6% of the total average daily traffic
(volumes are shown on Figures 4A and 413).
B. Deficiencies of Existing Facility
1. Traffic Carrying Capacity
The concept of level of service (LOS) is defined as a qualitative measure describing
the operational conditions within a traffic stream and how these conditions are perceived by
motorists and/or passengers. A level of service definition generally describes conditions in
terms of such factors as speed, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, delay,
comfort, convenience, and safety. Six levels of service are defined for each type of facility
for which analysis procedures are available. They are given letter designations from A to F,
with level of service A representing the best operating conditions and level of service F
representing the worst.
Without the proposed improvements, NC 42 will operate at level of service C in
construction year 2006, and level of service F in design year 2026.
-5-
below.
Levels of service for signalized intersections along NC, 42 are presented in Table 1
Table 1
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
WITHOUT PROJECT
NC 42 intersection with Year 2006 Year 2026
US 70 C E
SR 2022 * B F
Caterpillar Plant Drive A F
SR 1902 B F
SR 1003 D E
*Future signal recommended
2. Accident Record
A total of 172 accidents with two fatalities (Ran off road and angle type of accidents)
were reported on this portion of NC 42 in the period between January 1, 1997 and December
31, 1999.
The accident rate along the existing facility for this time period was 245.08 accidents
per one hundred million vehicle miles (acc/100mvm). In comparison to the statewide rate of
228.87 acc/100mvm, NC 42 within the project limits has an accident rate above the statewide
rate. The fatal crash rate along the studied section of NC 42 was 2.85 accidents per 100
million vehicle miles. The fatal crash rate for similar facilities in North Carolina was 2.93
accidents per 100 million vehicle miles. Most of the accidents which occurred during the
study period were rear end collisions, slow or stop type of accidents (52% of the total
accidents).
C. Benefits of Proposed Project
1. Capacity
With the proposed widening, NC 42 is projected to operate at LOS B initially and
maintain a LOS D or better through design year 2026.
Level of service for signalized intersections along NC 42 with the project are
presented in Table 2 below.
Table 2
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
WITH PROJECT
NC 42 intersection with Year 2006 Year 2026
US 70 C E
SR 2022 * B B
Caterpillar Plant Drive A B
SR 1902 C C
SR 1003 C E
*Future signal recommended
-6-
2. Safe
As stated previously, the majority of accidents occurring along the subject section of
NC 42 during the studied years were rear-end collisions. The additional travel lanes and left
turn lanes will reduce the potential for these type accidents by allowing slowing or stopping
vehicles to move out of the through lanes.
The proposed dual lanes per direction will allow vehicles to pass slow moving
vehicles without having to encroach in the opposing travel lanes.
3. Other Benefits
The proposed widening of NC 42 will reduce delay for roadway users, resulting in
lower roadway user costs.
III. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. Roadway Cross-section
The recommended cross section for the proposed project is a four-lane median
divided facility. Two 3.6 meter (12-foot) lanes in each direction will be separated by a 5.3
meter (17.5-foot) raised median. Outside grassed shoulders will be 2.4 meters (8 feet) wide,
1.2 meters (4 feet) of which will be paved. The total project length is 9.2 kilometers (5.7
miles). The proposed typical section is shown on Figure 5A.
B. Alignment
NC 42 will be widened symmetrically from US 70 to SR 2022 (Old NC 42). From
Old NC 42 to SR 2008 (Fox Ridge Road), the proposed new lanes will be constructed on the
north side of existing NC 42. From Fox Ridge Road to Bennett Place, the new lanes will be
constructed on the south side of NC 42. NC 42 will be widened symmetrically from Bennett
Place to Buffalo Road. The proposed improvements are designed to minimize impacts to
streams, wetlands, and adjoining properties.
C. Structures
Bridge No. 75 carrying NC 42 over the Neuse River will be replaced with a new
structure approximately 22.4 meters (73.5 feet) wide and 115.8 meters (380 feet) long.
Bridge No. 75 will be replaced on existing location. Traffic will be maintained on the
existing bridge during construction. The proposed typical section across the new bridge is
shown on Figure 5B.
A double barrel 2.4 meters (8 feet) by 3 meters (10 feet) reinforced concrete box
culvert carries Mill Creek under NC 42. The existing culvert will be retained and extended.
A 1.5 meters (5 feet) by 1.5 meters (5 feet) reinforced concrete box culvert carries an
unnamed tributary to the Neuse River (see Figure 6 Site 3). The existing culvert will be
-7-
retained and extended with a 54-inch reinforced concrete pipe. Figure 6 shows locations-of
these structures.
D. Sneed Limit
NC 42 within the project limits will likely be signed 45 MPH following completion of
the project.
E. Design Sneed
The proposed design speed for the subject project is 80 km/h (50 mph). This is
consistent with the proposed 45 MPH speed limit.
F. Right of Way/Control of Access
Additional right of way will be required for the proposed widening of NC 42. A total
right of way width of approximately 48.8 meters (160 feet) is proposed for NC 42 within the
project limits. No control of access is proposed for this project.
G. Intersection Treatment and Tyne of Control
The intersection of SR 2022 (Old NC 42) with NC 42 is not signalized at this time.
This intersection is expected to be signalized following construction of the future Front Street
Extension, which will tie into SR 2022 north of NC 42. Front Street Extension is shown on
the Clayton Thoroughfare Plan, but is unfunded.
H. Sidewalks/Bicycle Accommodations
No sidewalks are proposed along NC 42 in the project area. The proposed bridge
over the Neuse River will be wide enough to allow pedestrians -to cross the bridge without
having to walk in the travel lane. NC 42 is not a designated bicycle route. No special
bicycle accommodations are proposed to be constructed as part of this project. The proposed
1.2 meter (four-foot) paved shoulders will accommodate bicycles.
IV. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Build Alternatives
Two build alternatives were studied for the project. Alternatives 1 and 2 would both
widen NC 42 to a four-lane median divided facility with grassed shoulders. The two
alternatives involve widening NC 42 symmetrically between US 70 and SR 2022 (Old
NC 42). With both alternatives, the proposed new lanes will be constructed on the south side
of existing NC 42 from Fox Ridge Road to Bennett Place and symmetrically from Bennett
Place to Buffalo Road. The two alternatives differ along an approximately 1.75 mile section
of NC 42, from SR 2022 (Old NC 42) to Woodberry Court. Along this portion of NC 42,
-8-
Alternative 1 involves widening to the south and Alternative 2 involves widening to the
north. In this area, Alternative 2 was developed in order to reduce impacts to a wetland area
located south of NC 42.
A comparison between Alternatives 1 and 2 is shown in table 3 below:
Table 3
ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON
DESCRIPTION ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2
"Recommended"
Residential Relocatees 2 2
Business Relocatees 2 2
Wetland Impacts 0.331 ha 0.82 ac 0.288 ha 0.71 ac
Surface Waters 335 meters 1096 feet 329 meters 1079 feet
Construction Cost $23,000,000 $22,500,000
Right of Way Cost $ 5,047,400 $ 4,624,500
Total Cost $28,047,400 $27,124,500
Alternative 2 would reduce impacts on wetlands, streams, and has a lower project cost.
Curb and gutter was considered for the project, but a shoulder section was chosen
because of stormwater treatment requirements for the Neuse River Basin. A shoulder section
will allow the use of grass swales to treat stormwater runoff before discharging into buffered
streams. The shoulder section will also eliminate the need for large stormwater detention
facilities.
B. "No Build" Alternative
This alternative would avoid any environmental impacts that are anticipated as a
result of the proposed project, but would not meet the purpose and need of the project.
C. Alternate Modes of Transportation
It vas determined that no alternate modes of transportation would be a practical
alternative to the recommended alternative. Highway transportation is the dominant mode of
transportation in the area. Staggering work hours, car pooling, and van pooling are possible
ways to generally reduce highway congestion; however, these congestion management
measures are not controlled by the NCDOT and cannot be incorporated into this project.
-9-
V. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Cultural Resources
1. Compliance Guidance
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with section 106, codified as 36
CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect
of their undertakings (federally-funded, licensed, or permitted) on properties included
in or eligible for inclusion in National Register of Historic Places and to afford the
Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings.
2. Historic Architectural Resources
The State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) stated by letter dated June 17, 1999
(see Appendix A) that they are aware of "no structures of historical or architectural
importance located within the planning area." Therefore, no historic architectural
investigation was conducted in connection with this project.
3. Archaeoloeical Resources
An archaeological survey of the project's area of potential effect was
conducted by NCDOT archaeologists to determine the project's impact on significant
archaeological or historical resources. No archaeological sites were found within the
project's area of potential effects. Therefore, no additional archaeological
investigation is recommended for this project. The State Historic Preservation Office
concurred with these findings in a letter dated March 22, 2001 (see Appendix A, page
A-5).
B. Section W) Resources
Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 specifies
that publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl
refuge, and all historic sites of national, state, and local significance may be used for
federal projects only if:
There is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land.
Such project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to 4(f) lands
resulting from such use.
This project will not impact any resources protected by Section 4(f) of the
NCDOT Act of 1966, as amended.
-10-
C. Natural Resources
1. Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Descriptions of
the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community classifications.
Dominant flora and fauna likely to occur in each community are described and
discussed. Fauna observed during field investigations are denoted with an asterisk
(*). Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by the
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP). When appropriate, community
classifications were modified to better reflect field observations.
a. Terrestrial Communities
Five terrestrial communities are identifiable in the project study area:
disturbed community, mixed hardwood forest, pine hardwood forest, piedmont
alluvial forest, and riparian fringe.
Disturbed Community
Dominant species include fescue, beadgrass, bermuda grass and foxtail grass.
The irregularly maintained roadside shoulder and powerline easement have denser
herbaceous vegetation and shrubs. Dominant herbs, grasses and vines include
common greenbrier, a sunflower, wood sorrel, ragweed, morning glory, running
cedar, blackberry, Japanese honeysuckle, and kudzu. The maintained yard is
predominantly bermuda grass and other ornamental plant species. Agriculture fields
located within the project study area were planted with cotton.
Riparian Fringe
This community is located along the banks of streams within the project study
area. The herbs and vines located in this community include smartweeds, an aster,
Japanese honeysuckle, goldenrod, false nettle, a rush, blackberry, a sedge, trumpet
creeper, and dog fennel. Shrubs and trees located within the community include red
maple, river birch, tag alder and sweetgum.
Mixed Hardwood Forest
This community is predominantly hardwoods with some scattered pines.
There are areas where the pines are denser; however, the pines are not as dense as in
the pine forest community. The forest is open with little herbaceous vegetation, and
with the understory being predominantly hardwood saplings. Dominant species
located in the canopy and subcanopy include sweetgum, red maple, tulip poplar, red
bud, winged elm, white oak, American beech, ironwood, sourwood, sycamore,
American holly and loblolly pine. Species located in the herb and vine layer include
trumpet creeper, Japanese honeysuckle, muscadine grape and greenbrier.
Pine Hardwood Forest
This community is dominated by pine trees and a few scattered hardwoods. It
is open with little herbaceous or shrubby vegetation. The dominant species are
loblolly pine and short-leaf pine. The hardwoods include red maple, sweetgum,
sourwood, and water oak. The herb and vine layer includes muscadine grape, trumpet
creeper, and Japanese honeysuckle.
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
This community is located along the floodplains of the Neuse River. It is
lower in elevation and flatter than other areas. The herbs and vines located in this
community include an aster, muscadine grape, Japanese honeysuckle, and creeping
grass. Shrubs and trees located within the community include box elder, Chinese
privet, sweetgum, red maple, tulip poplar, river birch, sycamore, and American
holly. Portions of this community are considered jurisdictional wetlands.
Faunal Component
Many species prefer open, disturbed habitat to feed and nest in. The
Southeastern shrew may be found in the tangles of vines and dominant herbaceous
vegetation in the irregularly maintained areas. The Eastern harvest mouse may be
found in the agricultural fields in the open areas. Birds such as mourning doves* and
killdeer* can be observed foraging for seeds and insects in open, disturbed areas.
Soaring over open areas searching for carrion, turkey vultures* can be observed.
American crows* and fish crows* were also heard. The Eastern fence lizard can be
seen in the open areas.
Many species are highly adaptive and may utilize the edges of forests and
clearings or prefer a mixture of habitat types. The Eastern cottontail prefers a mix of
herbaceous and woody vegetation in disturbed open areas such as brushy edges of
forests. White-tailed deer* will utilize the forested areas as well as the adjacent open
areas. The white-footed mouse is found in edge habitat between forests and grassy
fields. Both the Carolina anole and the five-lined skink enjoy the open sunny edge
habitat. The black rat snake will come out of forested habitat to forage in open areas.
The Northern mockingbird*, Eastern bluebird*, American robin*, and red-tailed
hawk * can be observed perched in edge habitat.
Many species prefer to forage and nest primarily in forested communities.
The opossum and the raccoon* prefer woodlands but can be observed in open areas as
well. In the leaf litter of the forested habitats, the Southern short-tailed shrew and the
white-footed mouse may be found. Gray squirrels* are often observed in wooded
areas but may be seen in residential yards as well. The spring peeper can be found
under forest litter and in brushy undergrowth. The Eastern box turtle is a terrestrial
turtle but will be found near streams in hot, dry weather. Burrowing underground in
moist areas, the worm snake is common in forests. Birds such as the Northern
cardinal*, Carolina chickadee*, Carolina wren, and blue jay* will forage and nest
within the forested community. In the alluvial forest within a wetland, a downy
-12-
woodpecker* and a red-bellied woodpecker* were observed. Because there are Porids
located in close proximity to the project study area, both north and south of NC 42,
species such as great blue herons *, Canada geese*, and mallards* will be crossing
the project study area.
b. Aquatic Communities
During wet times the green frog may be found along the banks and in
intermittent streams. Also, many of the terrestrial species such as the raccoon,
opossum, and the white-tailed deer will utilize intermittent streams during wet
periods.
Perennial streams sustain flow throughout the year. Perennial streams support
an assemblage of fauna that require a constant source of flowing water. The dwarf
salamander and the three-lined salamander both are found in Piedmont streams and
creeks. Green frogs, Southern cricket frogs, Fowler's toads, and Eastern box turtles
also frequent forested streams. Fish species that may be located here include the
gizzard shad, golden shiner, rosyside dace, satinfin shiner, Eastern silvery minnow,
creek chubsucker, margined madtom, Eastern mosquitofish, redbreast sunfish,
bluegill, and other sunfishes. Possible anadramous fish include American shad and
striped bass.
c. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Resources
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the biotic
resources described. Any construction related activities in or near these resources
have the potential to impact biological functions. This section quantifies and
qualifies impacts to the natural resources in terms of the ecosystems affected. All
measurements are approximate.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial communities reflect the relative abundance
of each community (Table 4). Project construction will result in the clearing and
degradation of portions of these communities.
Table 4
Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Community Area of Impact
Disturbed Community 29.8 ac / 12.1 ha
Mixed Hardwood Forest 18.9 ac / 7.7 ha
Pine Hardwood Forest 4.4 ac / 1.8 ha
Piedmont Alluvial Forest 3.0 ac / 1.2 ha
Riparian Fringe 0.1 ac / 0.04 ha
TOTAL 56.2 ac / 22.8 ha
The biotic communities found within the project area will be altered as a
- 13 -
result of project construction. Terrestrial communities serve as nesting, foraging, and
shelter habitat for fauna. During construction, species that utilize open disturbed
habitat will temporarily be displaced. Eventually, altered areas will revegetate and a
disturbed community will be re-established. Because the species that inhabit
disturbed communities are adapted to living in highly altered habitats, the area should
be repopulated by species for which suitable habitat is provided following project
completion.
The forested habitats located in the project study area are already relatively
fragmented by agricultural areas, a school, a plant, and residential property, however
there are large tracts of forest between developed areas. Following construction
completion and revegetation, edge species will still have adequate habitat and the
impacts from the loss of habitat should be minimal. The forested habitat loss will
potentially impact fauna not located in the project study area as well. Interior species
may be impacted from the reduced forested habitat available. If forested tracts
become too small in area, interior species will not repopulate. However, because the
impact will be along the already disturbed edge habitat of NC 42, impacts to fauna in
the forest communities should be minimal.
2. Water Resources
The entire project area is located in the Neuse River Basin. There are a total
of 16 streams in the project study area. There are 10 perennial streams (1 of which
begins as an intermittent stream within the project study area) and 6 intermittent
streams located within the project study area. Major streams crossed include the
Neuse River and Mill Creek. There are 10 unnamed tributaries (UT) to the Neuse
River located within the project area, each designated as UT #N. Mill Creek has 3
UTs, each designated as UT #M(see Figure 3).
a. Neuse River and Tributaries
NC 42 crosses the Neuse River approximately 3.7 kilometers (2.3 miles) east
of US 70. There are several wetlands associated with the floodplains of the Neuse
River. The Neuse River is listed as an Anadromous Fish Spawning Area.
Anadromous fish are those which spend most of their life in the ocean, but return to
their natal freshwater streams to spawn.
b. Mill Creek and Tributaries
Mill Creek originates 8.4 kilometers (5.2 miles) north of NC 42 and flows
south where it eventually converges with the Neuse River outside the project study
area. The water flows through a double box culvert under NC 42. Fish and evidence
of freshwater mussels and raccoons were observed. NC 42 crosses Mill Creek
approximately 2.4 kilometers (1.5 miles) west of SR 1003.
-14-
C. Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). According to the DWQ, the best usage
classification of the Neuse River and Mill Creek (near Clayton) is WS-IV NSW. UTs
receive the same classification as the stream into which they flow therefore, the best
usage classification of all of the UTs in the project study area is WS-IV NSW as well.
Class WS-IV (Water Supply IV) waters are used as sources of water supply for
drinking, culinary, or food processing purposes. WS-IV waters are generally in
moderately to highly developed watersheds or Protected Areas. The supplemental
classification of NSW (Nutrient Sensitive Waters) are waters which require
limitations on nutrient inputs because they are subject to growths of microscopic or
macroscopic vegetation. No water resources classified as High Quality Waters
(HQW's), Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II), or Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW's) are located within 1.6 kilometers (1.0 mile) of the project study area.
d. Water Quality
The Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) is a network of stream, lake, and
estuarine water quality monitoring stations. The program assesses water quality by
collecting physical and chemical water quality data at fixed monitoring sites every
five years. This data is used for basinwide assessment and planning. AMS station
2087500 is located on the Neuse River at the NC 42 crossing (NCDEHNR, 1992).
Based on the specific criteria measured, the Neuse River at this station was rated ST
(Support Threatened). The designated uses of these waters are currently being fully
supported, however they may not be supported in the future without management.
Likewise, the Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is
managed by the DWQ and is part of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring
program which addresses long term trends in water quality. The program assesses
water quality by sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed
monitoring sites. BMAN sampling station B-44, located on the Neuse River near
Clayton was sampled July 1995 and received a bioclassification of Good
(NCDEHNR, 1998).
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted
through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program.
Any person discharging pollutants from a point source into waters of the United
States is required to obtain a NPDES permit. River Dell Utilities/Neuse River
Facilities (Permit No. NC 0064564 Date, 10/20/92) in Johnston County, is a
permitted point source discharger to the Neuse River, located on NC 42
approximately 4 kilometers (2.5 miles) east of US 70.
There are many types of land use activities that can serve as sources of non-
point source pollution in the Neuse River Basin including land development,
construction, crop production, landfills, roads, and parking lots. Water quality may
-15-
be influenced by agricultural runoff. Land clearing can.cause soil erosion, which
leads to stream sedimentation, and animal waste can cause nutrient loading in
streams.
e. Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Roadway construction in and adjacent to water resources may result in water
quality impacts. Clearing and grubbing activities near the water will result in soil
erosion leading to increased sedimentation and turbidity. These effects may extend
downstream for a considerable distance with decreasing intensity.
Construction activities adjacent to water resources in the project area increase
the potential for toxic compounds (gas, oil, and highway spills) to be carried into
nearby water resources via precipitation, sheet flow, and subsurface drainage.
Increased amounts of toxic materials can adversely alter the water quality of any
water resource, thus impacting its biological and chemical functions. Indirect impacts
to surface waters may extend both upstream and downstream of the project study
area. Indirect impacts may include changes in flooding regime, discharge, erosion,
and sedimentation patterns.
Removal of Bridge No. 75 may cause impacts to water resources. The bridge
is constructed of reinforced concrete deck girders on concrete piers. The asphalt
wearing surface and the bridge rails will be removed prior to bridge demolition, and
will not be allowed to enter the water. There is a potential for components of the
bridge to be dropped in Waters of the United States during construction. The
maximum resulting temporary fill associated with the concrete bridge is
approximately 316 cubic meters (414 cubic yards). Conditions in the river will raise
sediment concerns and therefore a turbidity curtain is recommended as a preventative
measure.
NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the Protection of Surface
Waters will be strictly enforced during the entire life of the project to minimize
impacts to water resources in the entire impact area. Because Bridge No. 75 is being
removed, NCDOT's BMPs for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be used as well.
Erosion and sedimentation will be most pronounced as a result of disturbance
of the stream banks and substrate. Sedimentation from these activities may be high
during construction, but should diminish rapidly following project completion as
exposed soils are revegetated and streambanks stabilized.
A shoulder section was chosen over curb and gutter for this project to allow
the use of grass swales for the treatment of stormwater runoff before discharging into
buffered streams and reduce the need for stormwater detention facilities.
-16-
3. Jurisdictional Topics
a. Waters of the United States
Surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands and streams fall under the broad
category of "Waters of the United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 328.3. Any action that proposes to place fill material
into these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC.1344).
There are 10 perennial streams and 6 intermittent streams located within the
project study area. Major streams crossed include the Neuse River and Mill Creek.
The Neuse River has 10 unnamed tributaries, and Mill Creek has 3 unnamed
tributaries.
b. Wetlands
Eleven wetland areas were identified within the project study area. The
approximate impact area for each is noted in Table 6. Approximate location of each
wetland is shown in Figure 3.
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Approximately 335 meters (1,096 feet) of jurisdictional waters are located
within the proposed right of way limits of the project (Table 5). Actual impacts to the
surface water community may be less than reported because the entire right of way
width and easements are often not impacted by construction projects.
As stated previously, removal of Bridge No. 75 may cause impacts to water
resources. There is a potential for the components of the bridge to be dropped in the
Waters of the United States during construction. The maximum resulting temporary
fill associated with the concrete bridge is approximately 316 cubic meters (414 cubic
yards). Conditions in the stream will raise sediment concerns and therefore a
turbidity curtain is recommended as a preventative measure. Because the Neuse
River is listed as an anadromous fish spawning area, bridge demolition is classified as
a Case 2. The Case 2 category allows no work in the water during moratorium
periods (generally 15 February to 15 June) associated with fish migration, spawning,
and larval recruitment into nursery areas.
-17-
Table 5
Stream Imnacts Within the Prniect Ctudw Arpa
Stream Tributary of. Class Impacts m / ft
Neuse R - perennial 30.5 m / 100 ft
UT #N1 Neuse River intermittent 8.5 m / 28 ft
UT #N2 Neuse River intermittent 9.8 m / 32 ft
UT #N3** Neuse River intermittent 4.3 m / 14 ft
UT #N3** Neuse River perennial 3.7 m / 12 ft
UT #N4 Neuse River perennial 10.1m / 33 ft
UT #N5 Neuse River intermittent 100 m / 327 ft
UT #N6 Neuse River perennial 12 m / 38 ft
UT #N7 Neuse River perennial 4 m / 14 ft
UT #N8 Neuse River perennial 7 m / 23 ft
UT #N9 Neuse River intermittent 9.4m/31 ft
UT #N 10 Neuse River perennial Om/ Oft
Mill Cr Neuse River perennial 8.8 m / 29 ft
UT #M l Mill Creek perennial 127 m / 415 ft
UT #M2 Mill Creek intermittent 0 m/ Oft
UT #M3 Mill Creek perennial 0 M/ Oft
Total 335.1 m / 1096 ft
Impacts based on feet of stream within the proposed right of way that is
not already piped.
$ The pipes of these streams fall outside the right of way limit, however, symmetrical
widening will cause impacts to these streams
"Stream Stream changes from intermittent to perennial with in the right of way
limits
There are 11 wetland systems located within the project study area (Table 6).
The total estimated impact to these areas by the project is 0.288 ha (0.71 acres).
-18-
Table 6
Estimated Area of Wetland Impacts
Wetland Name Impact Area (ha/ac) Associated Stream
Wetland A 0.008 ha / 0.02ac UT #N10
Wetland B 0.09 ha / 0.22 ac UT #N9
Wetland C 0.057 ha / 0.14 ac UT #N9
Wetland D 0.017 ha / 0.04 ac UT #M2
Wetland E 0.0012 ha / 0.03 ac UT #M2
Wetland F 0.0003 ha / 0.0007 ac UT #M2
Wetland G 0.009 ha / 0.02 ac UT #N5
Wetland H 0.0364 ha / 0.09 ac UT #N5
Wetland I 0.0081 ha / 0.02 ac Neuse River flood lain
Wetland J 0.0364 ha / 0.09 ac UT #N3
Wetland K 0.0162 ha / 0.04 ac UT #N2 & UT #NI
Total 0.288 ha / 0.7107 ac
d. Permits
Impacts to surface waters are anticipated from project construction. Although
a discreet site may qualify for a Section 404 Nationwide Permit (NWP), cumulative
impacts from this project will likely be authorized under an Individual Permit (IP). A
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Section 401 Water
Quality General Certification is required prior to the Section 404 Individual Permit.
e. Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation
Total avoidance of impacts to wetlands is not feasible. Wetland areas are
located on both sides of existing NC 42 in the project area (see Figure 3). Effects on
wetlands have been minimized by widening away from wetlands as much as feasible,
taking into consideration likely impacts to homes and businesses.
In wetland areas, the steepest side slopes practicable will be used in order to
further minimize impacts. The proposed Best Management Practices will also reduce
project effects on wetlands.
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts
to waters of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum
extent possible. Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for
unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate and practicable
minimization has been required. Compensatory actions often include restoration,
creation, and enhancement of waters of the United States. Mitigation will be required
for streams with 150 ft (45.7 m) and greater impacts. Such actions should be
undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site.
-19-
Final decisions concerning compensatory mitigation for project impacts on
wetlands will be made during the design phase of the project.
Because this project is located in the Neuse River Basin, buffer mitigation will
also be required. Zone 1, the first 30 ft (9.1 m) of buffer, requires mitigation based on
a 3:1 ratio. Zone 2, the remaining 6.1 meters (20 ft) (landward) of the 15 meters (50
feet) buffer, requires mitigation based on a 1.5:1 ratio.
4. Protected and Rare Species
a. Federally-protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened,
Proposed Endangered, and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act. As of January 29, 2003,
there are four federally-protected species listed for Johnston County (Table 7). A
brief description of each species' characteristics and habitat follows.
Table 7
Federally protected species in Jnhnatnn Vnnnty
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endanered
Dwarf wed emussel Alasmidonta heterodon Endangered
Tars in ussel Elli do steinstansana Endan ered
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii Endangered*
indicates a historical record: last observed in the county more than 50 years ago
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker - Endangered
The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) uses open old growth stands of
southern pines, particularly longleaf pine, for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested
stand must contain at least 50% pine, lack a thick understory, and be contiguous with
other stands to be appropriate habitat for the RCW. These birds nest exclusively in
trees that are >60 years old and are contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of
age. The foraging range of the RCW is up to 200 hectares (500 acres). This acreage
must be contiguous with suitable nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and usually in trees
that are infected with the fungus that causes red-heart disease. Cavities are located in
colonies from 3.6-30.3 meters (12-100 feet) above the ground and average 9.1- 15.7
meters (30-50 feet) high. They can be identified by a large incrustation of running
sap that surrounds the tree.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
-20-
Potential habitat for the RCW is located within the project study area. A
known population was visited on December 13, 2000. Red-cockaded woodpeckers,
ideal habitat, and active cavities were observed. A survey for red-cockaded
woodpeckers in the potential habitat areas at the project site was conducted on March
8, 2001 by NCDOT biologists. No red-cockaded woodpeckers were observed, nor
were nesting cavities, or any other evidence that they may be using the project study
area. A review of the NHP database of Rare Species and Unique Habitats on 15
November 2000 revealed no known occurrences of the red cockaded woodpecker
within 1.0 mi (1.6 km) of the project study area. Therefore it can be concluded that
construction of this project will not impact this species.
Dwarf Wedge Mussel - Endangered
The dwarf wedge mussel is a small mussel having a distinguishable shell
noted by two lateral teeth on the right half and one on the left half. The periostracum
(outer shell) is olive green to dark brown in color and the nacre (inner shell) is bluish
to silvery white.
Known populatiAof dwarf wedge mussel in North Carolina are found in
portions of the Neuse River Basin and in the Tar River Basin. This mussel is
sensitive to agricultural, domestic, and industrial pollutants and requires a stable silt
free streambed with well oxygenated water to survive.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Surveys for mussels were conducted by NCDOT biologists on November 19,
2001, November 30, 2001, December 7, 2001 and August 14, 2002. The Dwarf
wedge mussel was not found in the in-stream survey. The Natural Heritage
Program's database of rare species and unique habitats was examined and there were
no records of this species in the project area.
Tar Spinymussel - Endangered
The Tar spinymussel, one of only three freshwater mussels in the world with
spines, is a medium-sized mussel reaching about 6.4 centimeters (2.5 inches) in
length. In young specimens, the shell's outer surface is an orange-brown color with
greenish rays; adults are darker with inconspicuous rays. The inside of the shell is
yellow or pinkish at one end and bluish-white at the other. Juveniles may have as
many as 12 spines; however, adult specimens tend to lose their spines as they mature.
Two relatively good populations are known to exist in two tributaries of the
Tar River. Although they have been found in one other tributary and the main stem of
the Tar River, individuals are becoming harder to find.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION
NO EFFECT
-21 -
No Tar spinymussel population was observed in the project study area. A
review of the Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and unique habitats
does not list a known population within twenty "r ver miles" up or downstream.
Project construction will not impact this species.
Michaux's Sumac - Endangered
Michaux's sumac is a dioecious shrub growing to a height of 0.3-0.6 meters
(1.0-2.0 feet). Plants flower in June, producing a terminal, erect, dense cluster of 4-5
parted greenish-yellow to white flowers. Fruits, produced from August through
September, are red, densely short-pubescent drupes, 5-6 mm (0.25 inch) across.
Most populations of Michaux's sumac occur in North Carolina. This species
prefers sandy, rocky, open woods and roadsides. Its survival is dependent on
disturbance (mowing, clearing, fire) to maintain an open habitat. It is often found
with other members of its genus as well as with poison ivy. There is no longer
believed to be an association between this species and specific soil types.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: A. NO EFFECT
Habitat for Michaux's sumac is present within the project study area. No
Michaux's sumac was found during surveys of the project area. Given the result of
the survey it can be concluded that the proposed project will not impact Michaux's
sumac. The Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and unique habitats
was examined and there were no records of this species in the project area.
b. Federal Species of Concern
There are thirteen Federal Species of Concerns (FSC) listed for Johnston
County as of January 29, 2003. FSC are not afforded federal protection under the
Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section
7, until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. Organisms
which are listed as Endangered, Threatened or Special Concern by the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NHP) list of Rare Plant and Animal Species are afforded
state protection or are monitored under the State Endangered Species Act and the NC
Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979. However, the level of protection
given to the state listed species does not apply to NCDOT activities. Table 8 provides
the FSC in Johnston County and indicates the species state status, and whether or not
there is adequate habitat for each species in the project study area.
-22-
Table 8
Federal Species of Concern in Johnston Countv
Common Name Scientific Name State
Status, Habitat
Pinewoods shiner Lythrurus matutinus SR Yes
Yellow lance Elli do lanceolata T(PE) Yes
Atlantic i oe Fusconaia masoni T(PE) Yes
Yellow lam mussel Lam sills cariosa T(PE) Yes
Green floater Lasmi ona subvirdis E Yes
Tar River crayfish Procambarus medialis W3 Yes
Spring-flowering
-goldenrod Solidago verna T Yes
Carolina asphodel To eldia labra C No
Carolina least trillium Trillium usillum var. usillum E No
"Neuse" madtom* Noturus furiosus "population I" FSC
Sandhills bog lily* Lilium ro hilum FSC
Carolina bo int* Macbridea caroliniana FSC
Lon beach seedbox* Ludwi is brevi es FSC*
n-Sutw-usted endangered species
C-State-listed candidate species
SC-State-listed special concern species
*Information on the habitat will be provided.
Surveys for FSC listed in Table 8 were not conducted during the site visit, nor
were these species observed during the site visit. A review of the NHP database of
Rare Species and unique habitats did not reveal the presence of these species or
unique habitats in or near the project study area.
D. Social Effects
1. Land use
a. Existing Land Use and Zoning
Land development along both sides of NC 42 is either agricultural or low-density,
single-family residential. There are a few large industries (Caterpillar and Adventis)
located at the beginning of the project near US 70. Most of the project area remains
heavily wooded.
b. Status of Planning
The Clayton Strategic Growth Plan, completed in December 2000, recommends
that land along the south side of NC 42 between US 70 and Glen Laurel Road be used for
industrial purposes, while the north side is proposed for a mix of industrial and single-
family residential. A commercial center is recommended in the southeast quadrant of the
-23-
NC 42/Glen Laurel Road intersection. Except for a tract north of this *intersection that is
recommended for office/institutional use, all of the land along the NC 42 corridor east of
Glen Laurel Road is recommended for single-family residential use.
2. Environmental Justice
In compliance with Executive Order 12898 (Federal Action to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations), a review was conducted to determine
whether minority or low-income populations will receive disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental impacts as a result of this project. It is
estimated the project will relocate two residences; none of these are considered low-
income. None of these relocatees is a minority residence. It is estimated the project
will relocate two businesses; none of these are considered a minority business.
A citizens informational workshop was held for the project on September 13,
1999. This workshop was advertised in local newspapers. Through the public
involvement program, citizens have been kept informed of the proposed project. No
issues related to environmental justice concerns have been discovered through the
public involvement process.
Based on project studies, this project is being implemented in accordance with
Executive Order 12898.
3. Relocation of Residences and Businesses
The proposed project will require the relocation of two residences and two
businesses. It is anticipated that adequate replacement properties will be available.
The relocation program for the project will be conducted in accordance with the
Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of
1970 (Public Law 91-646), and/or the NCDOT relocation Act (GS 1343-5 through
133-18). The NCDOT relocation program is designed to provide assistance to
displaced persons in relocating to a replacement site in which to live or do business.
A relocation report discussing potential relocatees and a description of NCDOT
relocation programs are presented in Appendix B.
4. Public Facilities, Schools, Institutes and Services
A Fire station for the Town of Clayton is located on NC 42 approximately one
mile east of US 70. The East Clayton Elementary School is located at the NC 42
/Castleberry Road intersection. Access from and to these public facilities in the
project area will be much easier and improved following the completion of the
project.
During the construction of the project, the driveway of the fire station will be kept
open at all times. No equipment or materials will be parked or placed in the fire station
driveway at any time.
-24-
5. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their
representatives to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction projects on
prime and important farmland soils. North Carolina Executive Order Number 96 requires
all state agencies to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction projects on
prime farmland soils, as designated by the US Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS). Land which is planned or zoned for urban development is not subject to the
same level of preservation afforded other rural, agricultural areas. The project area meets
the planned urbanization condition and is zoned for residential development. Therefore,
no further consideration of farmland impacts is required.
6. Flood Hazard Evaluation
Johnston County is a current participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular
Program. The crossings of Beaver Creek, a Beaver Creek Tributary, and Mill Creek are in
designated flood hazard zones. Figure 6 shows the established limits of the 100-year
floodplain in the vicinity of these stream crossings. Floodway revisions will be needed at
these stream crossings. NCDOT will coordinate with the Federal Emergency
management Agency (FEMA) and local authorities during the final design phase of the
project for approval of the floodways revisions and to ensure compliance with applicable
floodplain ordinances. It is anticipated the proposed project will have no significant
adverse effect on the existing floodplain, nor on the associated flood hazards.
E. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis
1. Introduction
A traffic noise analysis was performed to determine the effect of widening
NC 42 on noise levels in the immediate project area. This investigation included an
inventory of existing noise sensitive land uses and a field survey of ambient (existing)
noise levels in the study area. It also included a comparison of the predicted noise
levels and the ambient noise levels to determine if traffic noise impacts can be
expected to result from the proposed project. Traffic noise impacts are determined
from the current procedures for the abatement of highway traffic noise and
construction noise, appearing as Part 772 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. If traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination and evaluation of
alternative noise abatement measures must be considered.
2. Noise Abatement Criteria
To determine whether highway noise levels are compatible with various land uses,
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has developed noise abatement criteria
(NAC) and procedures to be used in the planning and design of highways. These
abatement criteria and procedures are set forth in Title 23 CFR Part 772. A summary of
the noise abatement criteria for various land uses is presented in Appendix C, Table N2.
The Leq, or equivalent sound level, is the level of constant sound which in a given
situation and time period has the same energy as does time varying sound. In other words,
the fluctuating sound levels of traffic noise are represented in terms of a steady noise level
with the same energy content.
-25-
3. Ambient Noise Levels
Ambient noise levels were taken in the vicinity of the project to determine the
existing noise levels. The purpose of this noise level information was to quantify the
existing acoustic environment and to provide a base for assessing the impact of noise
level increases. The existing Leq noise levels in the project area as measured at 50
feet from the edge of pavement of the nearest lane of traffic ranged from 67.8 to 68.2
dBA. Measured exterior Leq noise levels are presented in Appendix C, Table N3.
4. Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels
The procedure used to predict future noise levels in this study was the Traffic
Noise Model (TNM). TNM uses the number and type of vehicles on the planned
roadway, their speeds, the physical characteristics of the road, receptor location and
height, and, if applicable, barrier type, barrier ground elevation, and barrier top
elevation.
Only preliminary alignment was available for use in this noise analysis. Only
those existing natural or man-made barriers were included in setting up the model.
The roadway sections and proposed intersections were assumed to be flat and at-
grade. Thus, this analysis represents the "worst-case" topographical conditions. The
noise predictions made in this report are highway-related noise predictions for the
traffic conditions during the year being analyzed.
Peak hour design and level-of-service (LOS) C volumes were compared, and
the volumes resulting in the noisiest conditions were used with the proposed posted
speed limits. Hence, during all other time periods, the noise levels will be no greater
than those indicated in this report.
5. Noise Analysis Results
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise levels approach
(within 1 dBA of the Table N2 value) or exceed the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) noise abatement criteria and/or a receptor is predicted to sustain a
substantial noise increase. The traffic Noise Abatement criteria are shown on Table
N2 of Appendix C.
The Leq traffic noise exposures associated with this project are listed in Table
N4 of Appendix C. The maximum number of receptors in each activity category for
each section predicted to become impacted by traffic noise is shown in Table N5.
Under Title 23 CFR Part 772, with the construction of the project, four receptors are
predicted to be impacted by highway traffic noise in the project area. The maximum
extent of the 72 and 67 dBA noise level contours from the center of the proposed
roadway are 56.9 and 85.2 feet, respectively (see Table N5 of Appendix C).
-26-
Tables N6 indicate the exterior traffic noise level increases for the identified
receptors and roadway section. The predicted noise level increases for this project
range from +1 to +6. There are no receptors predicted to experience a substantial
increase in exterior noise levels.
6. Traffic Noise Abatement Measures
If traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination and evaluation of
alternative noise abatement measures for reducing or eliminating the noise impacts
must be considered. Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to all
impacted receptors.
a. Highway Alignment
The selection of alternative highway alignments for noise abatement
purposes must consider the balance between noise impacts and other
engineering and environmental parameters. For noise abatement, horizontal
alignment selection is primarily a matter of siting the roadway at a sufficient
distance from noise sensitive areas. Changing the highway alignment is not a
viable alternative for noise abatement.
b. Traffic System Management Measures
Traffic management measures which limit vehicle type, speed, volume
and time of operations are not considered appropriate for noise abatement due
to their effect on the capacity and level of service of the proposed roadway.
C. Noise Barriers
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels can often be
applied with a measurable degree of success by the application of solid mass,
attenuable measures to effectively diffract, absorb, and reflect highway traffic
noise emissions. Solid mass, attenuable measures may include earth berms or
artificial abatement walls.
No control of access is proposed for the project, which means that
most commercial establishments and residences will have direct driveway
connections to the proposed improvement, and all intersections will be at-
grade.
For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction it must be high
enough and long enough to shield the receptor from significant sections of the
highway. Access openings in the barrier severely reduce the noise reduction
provided by the barrier. It then becomes economically unreasonable to
construct a barrier for a small noise reduction. Safety at access openings
(driveways, crossing streets, etc.) due to restricted sight distance is also a
concern. Furthermore, to provide a sufficient reduction, a barrier's length
-27-
would normally be 8 times the distance from the barrier to the receptor. For
example, a receptor located 50 feet from the barrier would normally require a
barrier 400 feet long. An access opening of 40 feet (10 percent of the area)
would limit its noise reduction to approximately 4 dBA.
In addition, businesses, churches, and other related establishments
located along a particular highway normally require accessibility and high
visibility. Noise barriers would tend to disallow these two qualities, and thus,
would not be acceptable abatement measures in this case.
d. "No Build" Alternative
The traffic noise impacts for the "do nothing" or "no-build" alternative
were also considered. No receptors are predicted to experience traffic noise
impacts and the future traffic noise levels would only increase approximately
1-2 dBA. This small increase in noise levels would be barely be noticeable to
the people working and living in the area. A 5 dBA change in noise levels is
more readily noticed.
e. Construction Noise
The major construction elements of this project are expected to be
earth removal, hauling, grading, and paving. General construction noise
impacts, such as temporary speech interference for passers-by and those
individuals living or working near the project, can be expected. However,
considering the relatively short-term nature of construction noise and the
limitation of construction to daytime hours, these impacts are not expected to
be substantial. The transmission loss characteristics of nearby natural
elements and man-made structures are believed to be sufficient to moderate
the effects of intrusive construction noise.
f. Summary
Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is not
recommended, and no noise abatement measures are proposed. This
evaluation completes the highway traffic noise requirements of Title 23 CFR
Part 772, and unless a major project change develops, no additional noise
reports will be submitted for this project.
F. Air Quality Analysis
Introduction
Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions from industry
and internal combustion engines are the most prevalent sources. The effect on
air quality of highway construction ranges from intensifying existing air
pollution problems to improving the ambient air quality. Automobiles are
-28-
considered to be the major source of CO in the project area. For this reason,
most of the analysis presented herein is concerned with determining expected
carbon monoxide levels in the vicinity of the project due to automobile flow.
1. CO Concentration
The background concentration is defined by the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources as "the
concentration of a pollutant at a point that is the result of emissions outside the
local vicinity; that is, the concentration at the upwind edge of the local
sources."
The background CO concentration for the project area was estimated
to be 1.8 parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the Air Quality Section,
Division of Environmental Management (DEM), North Carolina Department
of Environment, Health and Natural Resources indicated that an ambient CO
concentration of 1.8 parts per million (ppm) is suitable for most suburban and
rural areas.
2. Air Quality Analysis
Johnston County is in compliance with the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards. The project is located in an attainment area. The worst-
case scenario air quality receptor was determined to be located along the
limits of the roadway's right-of-way. The predicted one-hour CO
concentrations for the evaluation build years of 2005, 2010 and 2025 for the
worst-case air quality scenario are 7.8, 7.9 and 8.2 parts per million (ppm),
respectively.
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS
(maximum permitted for 1-hour averaging period = 35 ppm; 8-hour averaging
period = 9 ppm) indicates no violation of these standards. Since the results of
the worst-case 1-hour CO analysis for the build scenario is less than 9 ppm, it
can be concluded that the 8-hour CO level does not exceed the standard. In
addition, a no build scenario was completed for all evaluation years. The
resulting CO concentrations were similar to the build scenario, thus not
exceeding the standards. The proposed project is not anticipated to create any
adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
3. Construction Air Quality Effects
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting
from clearing and grubbing, demolition or other operations will be removed
from the project, burned or otherwise disposed of by the Contractor. Any
burning will be done in accordance with applicable local laws and ordinances
and regulations of the North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air
quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure
-29-
burning will be done at the greatest distance practical from dwellings and not
when atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public.
Burning will be performed under constant surveillance. Measures will be
taken to reduce the dust generated by construction when the control of dust is
necessary for the protection and comfort of motorists or area residents.
G. Hazardous Materials and UST Involvement
Based on a field reconnaissance survey and database review of the project
area, two facilities containing underground storage tanks (UST)s and two
Superfund sites have been identified within the project limits.
The first UST site is a former service station (Jimmy Flowers Store)
located just east of SR 1704 on the north side of NC 42. The underground
storage tanks were removed in August 1994. These tanks were located
approximately 20.4 meters (67 feet) from the existing centerline of NC 42.
Soil contamination above state action levels was found during the closure, but
no groundwater was encountered. A groundwater incident number (17217)
was assigned to the site. No action has been taken, and the site is not under
any type of remediation.
The second UST site is located in the northwest quadrant NC 42 and
SR 1003. This service station (The Percy Flowers Store) is currently in
operation. The active underground storage tanks are located approximately
105 feet from NC 42. New underground storage tanks were installed in 1993,
and four older UST's were removed. No monitoring wells were observed, and
the site does not appear to be under remediation.
The first Superfund site, the Peele Company Pesitcide Disposal Site,
is located on the south side of NC 42 approximately 0.6 kilometer (0.4 mile)
west of SR 1902 (Glenn Laurel Road). The property was used for the disposal
of pesticides in the late 1950's and 1960's. The chemicals were placed in a
trench and then burned. This former trench is approximately 85 meters (280
feet) from the centerline of NC 42. Soils in the area were excavated and
properly disposed of in 1997. The groundwater at this Superfund site is
currently being monitored. The Town of Clayton plans to construct a fire
station on this property. No hazardous material issues are expected at this
site.
The second Superf ind site, the Former Data General Corporation Site
(now Caterpillar), is located on the south side of NC 42 approximately 0.3
kilometer (0.2 mile) west of SR 1902. This site is listed as a Superfund site
because fish collected from a pond on the property indicated low levels of
pesticide contamination from the Peele site, which is nearby. This pond is
located nearly 305 meters (1,000 feet) away from NC 42. Two UST's were
removed from the property, one in 1986 and the other in 1990. These tanks
were located on the side of the building away from NC 42. No hazardous
materials issues are expected at this site.
-30-
No regulated or unregulated landfills or dumpsites exist within the
project limits.
The proposed widening will require property from all of these
potential hazardous material sites. A preliminary site assessment will be
performed for all of the properties prior to right of way acquisition in order to
determine the extent of any contamination. Right of way acquisition from the
two service station sites will be by permanent easement rather than fee simple
right of way due to the possibility of contamination on the properties.
Permanent easements will be obtained from the two Superfund sites, as well,
if the preliminary site assessment determines there is a possibility of
contamination in areas needed for right of way.
VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Citizens Informational Workshop
A citizens informational workshop was held on September 13, 1999,
to obtain comments and suggestions about the project from the public.
Approximately 43 persons attended this meeting, including NCDOT representatives.
Most of the comments received related to project impacts on private properties and
access to properties. This meeting was advertised through local newspapers and
flyers were sent to property owners and citizens in the project area.
B. Agency Coordination
The following agencies were consulted regarding this project. An asterisk (*)
indicates a response was received. Copies of the comments are included in
Appendix A.
U.S. Department of the Army - Corps of Engineers (Wilmington District)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Raleigh
*N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
*N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
-31-
FIGURES

r?
4
BEGIlY
PROJECT

• I I I
/ I
o?cn
FI erS-.
4foto 42
?????r•r•i?IR?• i END
%
rte'.
t
\ 2
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
1 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
C ?
NC 4 •• sa
\ \ m j?
r
??rel'90
MILES
0 1 2
0 1 2 3
KILOMETERS
NC 42
US 70 to SR 1003 (Buffalo Rd.)
Johnson County
TIP PROJECT R-3825
Figure 1

mom'
.

" r .""

R
J
. _
x ., ? ? x'
. . . . . . . ..
a

""..

AP 1"
i g y'

f

rv
m
"....." x .
.
„
"
x w.. s "

a x...
is O m
r ?.

! i7z
Q
MIT
.n

eff Y, y
F .

N
As
s?
::
s

? a

.. w
Y. iv-

lumplovir FIRM 111 OQM? '
-
y

' .
,
•E
E 5

"

. ... ...
. t
.. ., ... . ... .. ..

E
rv ..

ST APT

'.
7 v..
.C. ..
.

..
.„

.
..
;.:.:

„,.
ass
7n.
? mms

.
.. r
10

5

m

..„:. ...
y.
A

m
m T A
...
. .:
k
.y.

.'"?.....m "
.:: y
.
K' .

. .
yy Y.

m
e? y
' "
3 f
. ;".
....:::....

L

Y ft
•..
y
.

.:
„...
, .,

.:,:...
n
Y '7-
y y
Y•
Y
Y.
Von-
7
.„.
. . .
"

.
.
.
..
.
..

:...

rv.

.
lie,
?
'
I
?.r
?

.:
?
'
'

"
:.
n "
e,
,..
. v
L Y
k M.

?„y.„.
.m .. ..
..
' :ok'
i

YYYYYY
%
%
I
ry . 11
"
.. R

?, x r
' At "
I
%'.
i "
" L
" rv .
_
.. ..- ""y. '
:' '
v' :...'fir' Jm..
"
.
:
•
"r .

Y
.
.
. .
.
. . . m.. ..F. :
? -'
rv
. ?
..
. 11.
.'
C
.. Y... s7
.'."m.m
5 Y p ::. [ y
n
7
'
:..
"R. .. .rv.. ....i"
'R _
.
"
m

.'
my, :.
?
??
Y
,
m.
Y..
,
.
?
_
.. . . . .
-
.
.
Y
.
.
...
? .... ..
I - ?
I - Y
. . . , . . Y ...
, y
rv ..
F
.. .....
"
Ell .
m"..
'
:?G
m
'
Y..
;

.
S
r
A
i
,.
m
I _Y '..

"
mm m.

...?.......- '. .m ....m
.
., ,..

" AWK
.... .. ..G .,

n ..
. .. :. n " . m .." jll
m
C
f ..
:.
' X'
.C '.
:.
'' ,. .."...
S ...

..
.. y
'' .. .. ..m ..
..
"
....
....: .....: r....;
"., ... -. m .. .
:: ..
.e
" .-• ri'
... .: ?.
" ." .
..
.. ".'

rv.
"
T
._
m
:
.,. . ..
'. Y
:
.
... ,, -
, Y
..Y. .
, „,"
... ? :`AN
'' ...
,. "
.. .:
.
..

I
?. " ..,
..
. .
'
" '
. ..
. ..?. .... ..
fylw, ......

. ..
m
1...:
°
.

& .

,.
'
I? Y ,? ?- - . fly
a
xs
". V
n

x
' " .
m ? ? ,,.
T
-'
.
rv
". , ::. .:
"m x:
m
"
"
m "
'
.
.
.:
m". m
. "
.. m
a
" ,...
.
. ,,
.

;:. ;
y. kdi
IT
, ?.. .
. .. .m 4 .
. X ,. .?::
m .

.. . .....
x. r
.
m ...
"" ..
rv
.. ,, .
m

.. a ..
;
.. . .

r
=
;' .

„"
r
.
7
x
" .. l?
x
' a
.
. "
r
111
.
s
s
:1

iiiiiii 01 .. .
, ,

Y..k
" .
??'
ax
t
?
"
.
s ?n& 1? -, ...

??
? ? ???:
m

.. r ;
%
m
?

m'
r.:: :.
"
a
Y 7
?
?::?
? I
`-

? J
? ?? , ??
..

: '. ? ..
".
?
:
4 ?,- : . ..
"..m" .,
m :.
:.:...
¢
: A
As

.
" .... . . ?
?.
..
. .
.
... ...x., m AT i
.i"?'?.

ry, ....
„ :'
`
.
....
' •w ..
w Y
I
,
'
vi ra.
m

..
.
m .
:.
"
a" y
:.
s..:
;
...
s:.... ....." m ?.
".:. m
„ a
„
,
:.:x:.. .... r

C .
m
..:.m
"n. . . .... [
Y
r ...
.."
• "
m •h"
r
"•
m
""
7
i .. .'k'G
"'k Y'
a
b
d

?
rv
...
?.
:." .".""'... .
?" ...."x..
? .."
? """1
"
..
.
Y .y
..
...
?'
""
R "
"
"
r
:::
....:" :CL'
r... ..?„rv "'m• ' ... I A
i `,. 5"". ..
..
..
.
.. i ?,..:r
l
. .. '.
'
" r
., z
.:
m? :

x

:
'
? I
..r. x i.jz?
b
?????
?
???????
i
,
Y
?
??????:??:???
?
??
??????
?????? c me

%e , 1'.....
lsl? ?' 7!z
" m „
? nwUNWO '..
:
.
?,.
??
?
?
?
:
, : ?i?
"
a :.. x
.
.
Y
x w.
,..
.: ^ ..
m
.
?'. x't' :c., xV ..
..: rv.m :gym"'
? ?
? ??

?
"
'
?
??? ? ':.

.
.k
. " a
.1
: ?
?
?
i?
??
?
?
'Y
: rv
..:
... ,
?
? ????
r
??
??
[
?? ? :? ???? I Y, ?, " Y
? ?? ????
?
, ?
I-
?
:??????
1 0
Y
. Y.......Y.,
5
f 31
? 'IF "b"s
,
YY
1
..... „ . v ..m ....:..
.. , .;Y win q a
k
x
W

. ,. x.

.... m m x.
:.',
m
, i

.
.
.. ?, ..? "
:' .
7?
?
? t
. . .
, ..,_

" ???:??:::: : ? ..
;:
may
?
"
"

.:, m ^
m
c

Y
? ?
?? no 1
I

.
v
" ?
c x q
'. ? ,
:
??????
.
... ... . -

?
?
.
?.
m
. .;
. ..
. "'
... ..y
.. ,
?: .
,:
..
:. . . :....: m
., .
a ? " : G
,

...
m .
.,
..: ,
.
. . .

. .
.
.
.
.. .. .. ..
. .. .: . .. •,
• :. .
.m.
:
m

x G
.. , ,
..
„,.
1 T
9sh ?.
-
.
?
.
:?7 la fq i
.- n :: 5i n Y.Y.Y.- Y FY ..!
?
.:. r'
. .. . . ? -
i. " ..: x
....
... .:: ::. ...
...: ..... :.:..:::. ..:
,..,
?
.... ..
..

?? .
??
..? . ?' __
,:?
,,
xr?
i
's s
s ?
's
...x.:
r E ;..
3 „3
s
x ?
$:?
rr .
f; p. fk:
s ?.
,
^
z
E..
c, ?' 1, ^ ? .. 3 saa
,
s t ? s". f
a .. .
I:
y
I s: c
„
I ^
,
s
i
e
s
r s
f
! . „ .„
s s
s
s
5"
0
M
O ?
N
Yt,
O
-ti
LO
N Z (i'S)
to 09- 01
00 Wd
M
1 O
°C V
F-
UZ
uJ 0
mn
O F-
CL Z
CL= z
- O F Q
0
F O
® W 09 F--- --- OI
W
WV
C4
V
U < \
z \
PM
p, 10-?60 ?
(2,2)
E-I
`Wllr

Yn ?

10 60 ?
N
n
F
0. ?
GV
GV Y 1
1lJ N
Y^ rl
9 - -- 55 ?
(5,4) WWW
,e

i
a
w ? z
? Q a
U Z 0.
O (? I R
F z
z
w
m ago

zh
VJ
W
a
a < yh z ?. Yn C7
CL V3 .
a ?w<
? Z CL
s E" O
? ? ? U
o(-x
F
aoa v
?
gya
P.
? n H
0. a
a<
O>
ZFOa u zi w o a V)i
O

'
'
9 F
•, Ul z
M
A
W F
U
z?
v .?
w E"
o ?
a
H W
?a
w ?
F"
44 a
W

110
<

a .a
Wa

z
a A ?O,
N
,? F ax
O F?
W m E. ?
a0
h
2 C n O
W o 0xOW
W n w < E-
Z
gtaa

F
W $
a °
o u??a?a o

>
0waa.a >
?
Qz?
?
c

o
q w
O
A c
C4 ry
O U
z
U z c W
Z w A m v? c>~
app F z y W .?
,-ni a c ? z y, .n U'
Vo LL
W azc o ?zM
° awa
zp0o` ?, rz E
°o eo c C o o .< > z W U
'? ap ?-i ; 9 F U. W W U 0 ,e z W
as ZF 00
-- -@ 10 PM X60 to Fgywa o 0 N ?' W
C4 ;1 " "? q ?, F O
•n hY ?l ,..?? 0
lit
x - --- - -
CN (1'L) I
Wd " 'y ca w
co Z w 0
C V) ?' z a
c a
O ?w
PM z H
N 10 ? 60
wv?
V 0a
Z >?
ci
'lie
W
x °
0
O
z
z ?a
p F
CL O F cn v ce or ?r
/I C4
p - - -C4
x ? °
CI n w
S.
Wz)
? lYd c d
..1 W
x a Wa 0.
ql?
.A CW, W 00 0
CV ?j F o?v U?
x ?vFi?A^ as
wa.0-
' ? c? F OZ? vF AE??
r PM - cr O w xO?F N0.
9- -10 Cl7oUG? l.,v
(5,-0) 0. O
^? Q r W°ae. :J U?
J .? A?.GA0.A SAW
? 0. ' Aza
V w
C
Q
LO

W
Q Q E
Go
J ? r

LO
0 LL
N Z =
N F-_ 'AR
(") N
Oo O

U Z °C _
H Q Q E
`0
ri
N
~ J
V Z O
~ -I F
Q
V o o
W W

N
0

E
0
?ui

L

0
,0,
= CL
O N
" o
r:
?
?-
fie
W
V I Q
02
CL

O ?j ?^

CL
O
c/1 0 E
p
N moo.

P:
CL W
Z
O cn

g
I vs E
`0 ?
N

O
E M v

co E
ao
N co
=W
W
m N
m 0
N Q
o.
UJ
W
40
_
y N
t
dLu
E
N Q
a
v
3
E
M
ri
W
LL
co
LO
I-- Azr_
Z W
O >
L `0 N
V p "' W
N w N
w D
LLJ
M
-' Q E Z
Q 3 N
V o ch
CL O W
z >
O
Q Q
W
" t D
O to oCie
0
M
t/1 E ?,-
LL' 04 ? Z
CL Z ui w
W
::E W
Nt V
?- D N E
N %0 N
O C-i - MOO.
CL
LL Ir w
E
ry
W
D
LILM
`,
;?
{
;.
it
,? s
i,,:??
APPENDIX A
r1
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
May 24, 1999
A7lkf
NCDENFt-
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E.. Manager. NCDOT, Proj ?D/evelopment & Environmental Analysis
From: John E. Hennessy, NC Division of Water Quali[y C,
Subject: Scoping comments on proposed widening of NC42 from US 70 to SR 1003 (Buffalo Road),
Johnston County, Federal Aid Project No. STP-42(4). State Project No. 8.1312301, TIP R-3825.
Reference your correspondence dated May 5, 1999 in which you requested comments for widening project
TIP R-3825. Preliminary analysis of the project reveals the potential for multiple impacts to perennial
streams and jurisdictional wetlands in the project area. Furthermore, the impacts include a crossing of the
Neuse River with a classification of WS-IV NSW. The DOT is respectfully reminded that they will need to
comply with all the Neuse River Rules prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification. Further
investigations at a higher resolution should be undertaken to verify the presence of other streams and/or
jurisdictional wetlands in the area. The Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT consider the
following environmental issues for the proposed project:
O
A. We would like to see a discussion in the document that presents a sufficient purpose and need to
justify the project's existence. Since the project is a widening project, we assume that the Level-of-
Service (LOS) is one of the primary reasons for the project. Therefore, the document should
delineate a detailed discussion on the existing Level-of-Service as well as the proposed future Level-
of-Service. The discussion for the future Level-of-Service should consider the Level-of-Service with
and without the project.
B. The document should provide a detAed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts to
wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping.
C. There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is required,
it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental
documentation. While the NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be practical, it should be noted
that for projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance
of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
D. Review of the project reveals that WS-IV waters are located in the project area. The DWQ requests
that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled "Design Standards in Sensitive
Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout design and construction of the project. This would
apply for any area that drains to streams having WS (Water Supply), ORW (Outstanding Resource
Water), HQW (Hityh Quality Water). B (Bodv Contact), SA (Shellfish Water) or Tr (Trout Water)
classifications.
A-1
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Athimative Action employer 509o recycled/ 10°/O post-consumer paper
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
05/24/99
Page 2
E. The DOT is reminded that road crossings are permitted through Neuse Riparian Buffers. However,
pursuant to 15A NCAC 2B.0233, the impacts to buffers less than 150 linear feet or 1/3 of an acre
will be allowed so long as no practical alternative for the impact exists. Impacts in excess of 150
linear feet or 1/3 of an acre will be allowed with no practical alternative and will require mitigation.
F. Pursuant to 15A NCAC 2B.0233, sediment and erosion control devices will not be permitted in Zone
I (edge of the stream to a perpendicular distance of 30 feet) of the riparian buffer. Sediment and
erosion control devices will be permitted in Zone 2 (30-50 feet from the edge of the stream)
provided they promote diffuse flow (dispersed overland flow) through the buffer and do not
compromise the integrity of Zone 1.
G. When practical, the DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on the existing location with road
closure. If a detour proves necessary, remediation measures in accordance with the NCDWQ
requirements for General 401 Certification 2726/Nationwide Permit No. 33 (Temporary
Construction. Access and Dewatering) must be followed.
H. Due to the presence of Water Supply Waters, the DWQ requests that hazardous spill catch basins be
installed at any bridge crossing a stream classified as HQW or WS (Water Supply). The number of
catch basins installed should be determined by the design of the bridge, so that runoff would enter
said basin(s) rather than flowing directly into the stream.
1. If applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent
practicable.
J. Wetland and stream impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures) to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternatives that
minimize wetland impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be required by
DWQ for impacts to wetlands in excess of one acre and/or to streams in excess of 150 linear feet.
K. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation will
be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
G. DWQ prefers replacement of bridges with bridges. However, if the new structure is to be a culvert, it
should be countersunk to allow unimpeded fish and other aquatic organisms passage through the
crossing.
H. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is
approved under General 401 Certification Number 3027/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey
Activities.
1. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6) }, mitigation will be
required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that
mitigation becomes required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost
functions and values. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules { 15A NCAC 2H.0506
(h)(3) }, the Wetland Restoration Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
J. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
K. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater should not be permitted to
discharge directly into the creek. Instead, stormwater should be designed to drain to a properly
designed stormwater detention facility/apparatus.
A-2
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
05/24/99
Page 3
While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and soil surveys is a useful office tool, their
inherent inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior to permit
approval. Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401
Water Quality Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality
standards are met and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require
additional information, please contact John Hennessy at [phone] or
[e-mail].
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, Corps of Engineers
Tom McCartney, USFWS
David Cox, NCWRC
C.\ncdot\TIP R-3825\comments\R-3825 scoping comments.doc
A-3
?A
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Usberh C. Evans, Secretary
March ?2, 2001
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P,E., Manager
Project Development and Envuonmental Analysis Branch
From: David Brook U 1SOL
DeP ury Srace Hisroiic servadon Ofuccr
Division a(Arcnlves and History
Jaffrey J. Crow, Director
Rc: Archaeological Surve,i [report and Evaluation of NC 42, Johnston County, FR 99-391 r,
Thank you for vout letter ot]anuarv 24, 2001, trnnsrrirling copies of riie above referenced report.
We have reviewed the report by Coastal Carolina Research and offer our cernments. We agree that
rl-e Single sire located during the survey, 317342s'. is not eligible for inclusion of the National
Rt ister of Historic Places and that no f iri:her archaeological work win be necessarv for the project
as planned.
7-le above comments are made ptusuanr :o Secdoa 106 of the Nation--l I1_isroac ?reser,raaon Act
and the Advisory Council on Historic ?reservations Regulations for Compliance With Section JUG
codified ac 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and considercdon. If you have questions concerning the above
comment, conczct Renee Gledhill-L-arlev, Environmental Rcvicw Coord:oator, ac 919/733-4763.
DB:lcgc
cc: John Wadawortb, FHwA
Loretta Laumcnihe'ser
Tom Padgett, NCDOT
be County
Reading
Claggett/Clauger
A-5
Loeatlon Melling Addrai Telephone/Fax
-dminiiantian 507 N 01ount St, Raleigh, yC aril 7 Mail Service Centcr, Rale,gn 27699--W [phone] •733-8653
ftastoraUnn 515 N. Mount Sl Raleigh , NC 4613 tail Service Center, Rale:gh 2 7699-16 1 3 [phone] .7154901
Survey & Plonninp, 515 N. Blount St. R,1logn, NC aw 3 `Jail Scri cc Centcr, Rale gn :7699-1613 [phone] •7134801
uv_.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
MAILING ADDRESS
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4617
June 7, 1999
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook G/G?/ ?-CJ 41cLer
DePuty State stonc Preservation SUBJECT: Widening of NC 42 to multilanes from US
70 to SR 1003 (Buffalo Road), Johnston
County, State Project 8.13 Federal
Aid Project STP-42(4), TIP R-3825, ER 99-
8910
Thank you for your letter of May 5, 1999, concerning the above project.
LOCATION
507 North Blount Street
Raleigh, NC
State Courier 53-31-31
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of historical or
architectural importance located within the planning area.
There is one archaeological site in close proximity to the project (31JT52**) and there
are a number of high probability areas which should be considered. We recommend
an archaeological survey be conducted of the project area.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning
the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review
coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: Nicholas Graf
Barbara Church
Thomas Padgett
A-4
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director

APPENDIX B
NCDOT RELOCATION REPORT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS RELOCATION PROGRAMS
It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement
housing will be available prior to construction of state and
federally-assisted projects. Furthermore, the North Carolina Board of
Transportation has the following three programs to minimize the
inconvenience of relocation:
* Relocation Assistance,
* Relocation Moving Payments, and
* Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement.
With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff will be
available to assist displacees with information such as availability and
prices of homes, apartments, or businesses for sale or rent and financing
or other housing programs. The Relocation Moving Payments Program, in
general, provides for payment of actual moving expenses encountered in
relocation. Where displacement will force an owner or tenant to purchase
or rent property of higher cost or to lose a favorable financing arrange-
ment (in cases of ownership), the Relocation Replacement Housing Payments
or Rent Supplement Program will compensate up to $22,500 to owners who are
eligible and qualify and up to S5,250 to tenants who are eligible and
qualify.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in
accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and/or the
North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-18). The
program is designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in reloca-
ting to a replacement site in which to live or do business. At least one
relocation officer is assigned to each highway project for this purpose.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced families,
individuals, businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations for
relocation assistance advisory services without regard to race, color,
religion, sex, or national origin. The NCDOT will schedule its work to
allow ample time, prior to displacement, for negotiations and possession
of replacement housing which meets decent, safe, and sanitary standards.
The displacees are given at least a 90-day written notice after NCDOT pur-
chases the property. Relocation of displaced persons will be offered in
areas not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and
commercial facilities. Rent and sale prices of replacement property will
be within the financial means of the families and individuals displaced
and will be reasonably accessible to their places of employment. The
relocation officer will also assist owners of displaced businesses,
non-profit organizations, and farm operations in searching for and moving
to replacement property.
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will
eceive an explanation regarding all available options, such as (1)
purchase of replacement housing, (2) rental of replacement housing, either
private or public, or (3) moving existing owner-occupant housing to
another site (if possible). The relocation officer will also supply
information concerning other state or federal programs offering assistance
to displaced persons and will provide other advisory services as needed in
order to minimize hardships to displaced persons in adjusting to a new
location.
The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate the dis-
placee for the costs of moving personal property from homes, businesses,
non-profit organizations, and farm operations acquired for a highway
project. Under the Replacement Program for Owners, NCDOT will participate
in reasonable incidental purchase payments for replacement dwellings such
as attorney's fees, surveys, appraisals, and other closing costs and, if
applicable, make a payment for any increased interest expenses for
replacement dwellings. Reimbursement to owner-occupants for replacement
housing payments, increased interest payments, and incidental purchase
expenses may not exceed 522,500 (combined total), except under the Last
Resort Housing provision.
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not to exceed
$5,250, to rent a replacement dwelling or to make a down payment, includ-
ing incidental expenses, on the purchase of a replacement dwelling. The
down payment is based upon what the state determines is required when the
rent supplement exceeds 55250.
It is a policy of the state that no person will be displaced by the
NCDOT's state or federally-assisted construction projects unless and until
comparable replacement housing has been offered or provided for each
displacee within a reasonable period of time prior to displacement. No
relocation payment received will be considered as income for the purposes
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or for the purposes of determining
eligibility or the extent of eligibility of any person for assistance
under the Social Security Act or any other federal law.
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement housing
is not available, or when it is unavailable within the displacee's finan-
cial means, and the replacement payment exceeds the federal/state legal
limitation. The purpose of the program is to allow broad latitudes in
methods of implementation by the state so that decent, safe, and sanitary
replacement housing can be provided. It is not felt that this program
will be necessary on the project, since there appear to be adequate
opportunities for relocation within the area.
RELOCATION REPORT
a E.I.S. E] CORRIDOR [:] DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
PROJECT: 8.1312301 COUNTY Johnston Alternative 1 Sheet 1 of 2

1. D. NO.:
R-3825
F.A. PROJECT -
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Proposed NC 42 wide ning to a four lane facility from US 70 to SR 1003

ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential 1 1 1 1
Businesses VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms Owners Tenants For S ale For R ent
Non-Profit 0-20M $ 0-150 0-20M $ 0-150
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 150-250 20-40M 150-250
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70M 250-400 40-70M 250-400
x 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 400-600 70-100M 400-600
2.
X Will schools or churches be affect by 100 up 600 up 1 100 up 600 up
_ displacement? TOTAL 1
x 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond by Number)
project?
x 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 3. Similar services are close to affected area.
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
x 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? 12. adequate housing is available
6. Source for available housing (list).
x 7. Will additional housing programs be needed? 14. Smithfield Herald & News and Observer
x 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
x 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
x 10. Will public housing be needed for project?
x 11, Is public housing available?
x 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
x 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
x 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION?
c1 `-?- - 3 ? 2? 03
Righ? of Way Agent Date Relo tion C ordinator Date
Form 15.4 Revised 09-02 Original & Copy 1: Relocation Coordinator
Copy 2: Division Relocation File
RELOCATION REPORT
?X E.I.S. [::] CORRIDOR [:] DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
PROJECT: 8.1312301 COUNTY Johnston Alternative 1 Sheet 2 of 2
1. D. NO.: R-3825 F.A. PROJECT
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Proposed NC 42 wide ning to a four lane facility from US 70 to SR 1003

ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential 1 1 1
Businesses 1 1 2 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms Owners Tenants For Sale For R ent
Non-Profit 0-20M $0-150 0-20M $ 0-150
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 150-250 20-40M 150-250
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70M 250-400 1 40-70M 250-400
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 400-600 70-100M 400-600
X 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 up 600 up 100 up 600 up
displacement? TOTAL 1
X 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond by Number)
project?
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 3. Similar services are close to affected area.
indicate size, type, estimated number of 4. Rebecca Flowers Finch- appros. 8 employees
employees, minorities, etc. Repair Shop- approx. 5 employees
x 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? 12. adequate housing is available
6. Source for available housing (list).
X 7. Will additional housing programs be needed? 14. Smithfield Herald & News and Observer
x 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
x 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
x 10. Will public housing be needed for project?
x 11. Is public housing available?
X 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
x 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
x 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION?

I
i h of Way Agent Date R I cation Coordinator Date
Form 15.4 Rewsea u8-u2 /. Original & Copy 1: Relocation Coordinator
Copy 2: Division Relocation File
RELOCATION REPORT
?X E.I.S. 0 CORRIDOR [:] DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
. RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
PROJECT: 8.1312301 COUNTY Johnston Alternative 2 Sheet 1 of 2
I.D. NO.: R-3825 F.A. PROJECT
DESCRIPTIO N OF PROJECT: Proposed NC 42 widening to a four lane facility from US 70 to SR 1003

ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential 1 1 1
Businesses VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0-20M so-150 0-20M $ 0-150
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 150-250 20-40M 150-250
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70M 250-400 40-70m 250-400
x 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M a00-600 70-100M 400-600
x 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 up 600 up 1 100 up soo ua
displacement? TOTAL 1
x 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond by Number)
project?
x 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 3. Similar services are close to affected area.
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
x 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? 12. adequate housing is available
6. Source fo7vailable housing (list).
x 7. Will additiVal housing programs be needed? 14. Smithfield Herald & News and Observer
x 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
x 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
x 10. Will public housing be needed for project?
x 11. Is public housing available?
x 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
x 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
x 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION?

I ?
Right of Way Aqent Date R c on Coordinator Date
Original & (:opy 1 Relocation Coordinator
Cony 2 Division Relocation F ,le
II RELOCATION REPORT 11
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
? E.I.S. [:] CORRIDOR [::] DESIGN
PROJECT: 8.1312301 COUNTY Johnston Alternative 2 Sheet 2 of 2
1. D. NO.: R-3825 F.A. PROJECT
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Proposed NC 42 wide ning to a four lane facility from US 70 to SR 1003
yy.K,,yY MChC"1yt??.h .
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential 1 1 1
Businesses 1 1 2 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0-20M SO-150 0-20M 5 0-150
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 150-250 20-40M 150-250
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70M 250-400 1 40-70M 250-400
x 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 400-600 70-100M 400-600
x 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 up 600 up 100 up
L soo ua
displacement? TOTAL
1 7
X 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond by Number)
project?
x 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 3. Similar services are close to affected area.
indicate size, type, estimated number of 4. Rebecca Flowers Finch- appros. 8 employees
employees, minorities, etc. Repair Shop- approx. 5 employees
x 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? 12. adequate housing is available
6. Source forAvailable housing (list).
x 7. Will additional housing programs be needed? 14. Smithfield Herald & News and Observer
x 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
x 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
x 10. Will public housing be needed for project?
x 11. Is public housing available?
X 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
x 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
x 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source),
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION?

Pi h of Wav Aaent U 41' Date R21 cation Coordinator Date
r nrm 15 4 Revised 09-02 Onglnai 3 '..ooy I Relocation Coordinator
/ :oov _, Division Relocanon File
APPENDIX C
TABLE N1
HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY
140 Shotgun blast, jet 30m away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chamber HUMAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD
130-

Firecrackers
120 Severe thunder, pneumatic jackhammer
Hockey crowd
Amplified rock music UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD
110-

Textile loom
100 Subway train, elevated train, farm tractor
Power lawn mower, newspaper press
Heavy city traffic, noisy factory LOUD
90-

D Diesel truck 65 kmph at 15m away
E 80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
I Passenger car 80 kmph at 15m away MODERATELY LOUD
B 70 -

E Quiet typewriter
L 60 Singing birds, window air-conditioner
S Quiet automobile
Normal conversation, average office QUIET
50-

Household refrigerator
Quiet office VERY QUIET
40-

Average home
30 Dripping faucet
Whisper at 1.5m away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVERAGE PERSON' S THRESHOLD OF HEARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE
10 --

0 THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
Sources: World Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body, Encyclopedia
America, "Industrial Noise and Hearing Conversation" by J. B. Olishifski
and E. R. Harford (Researched by N. Jane Hunt and published in the
Chicago Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz.)
TABLE N2
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
CRITERIA FOR EACH FHWA ACTIVITY CATEGORY
HOURLY A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL - DECIBELS (dBA)
Activity
Cat o Leq h) Description of Activity Category
A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance
(Exterior) and serve an important public need and where the preservation of
those qualities are essential if the area is to continue to serve its
intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas,
(Exterior) parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and
hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories
(Exterior) A or B above.
D - Undeveloped lands.
E 0 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools,
(Interior) churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration.
CRITERIA FOR SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
HOURLY A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL - DECIBELS (dBA)
Existing Noise Level Increase in dBA from Existing Noise
in Leq(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
< 50 >= 15
>= 50 >= 10
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Policy.
? N
v" 00
M
w _a
M
zap
0.1 ? U
? °z o
c
W o ?
Q ?
W a
Es Lrl ¢ N o0
>
? 90
zw
.,

O
? y •Q
_
Yi L >
U V a-
w
LTJ
O

R
O
0
w
w
m
M
C)

z ca
O ^
x

<
U cc
c
O 4
V
o
rn ?

oa a?
v
Cl)
v
O ry
r C\

E E

GL ? U
N
N N 'p
u U
z z O
Lt1
E- ^ N
CA
_U
4-.
O
a)
G
RS
N
V
lCS
a?
c
a?
w
O
c
a?
E
a?
ca
a
w
0
a?
E
O
w
w
0
cc
u
E
aj
3
a
C,
a?
a?
y
.O
C
C
4]
.O
E
a)
L
Lu
O
z
u
00

O
z W
W W
a
O
U
H
N
00
M
Iw?l
G
U
c
0
c
L
0
op
C
N
3
U
z
w

?a ? -• o o ? o o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 »
w + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
a
0
?O N M v ?p N (M N O N W) "D .. C %0

f/J V1
a

W
a
W
i-r
Z ?.
A

U
D
a
a
?- E a x rx ..a r? rx c? cz a rx rx x a rx x rx rx
Q O C O C C O C O C C O O O O C C C
3 a o o W) kn a o W) W) W), a o
•O N CD 1- N W) N U1 M 00 O, 1- M V1 00

O U o
W

W W
G7
R

CL, z

o
V1

?c
O N M N
C

N
C I
N
?--?
?fl
e}
\„^,
Z
Ca '. ?c '. `.
c
.:
s
G
We
o 2 ?n i

y

3
-- r4 eq

x
a N a

O

O
Z
v
°
aI
?G
A
W
WG
O
W
a7c
Q
?
o0
w
m
mc
n
m
xl
m
F" C T
U
c x

U r. = a `

c w
c
c
c
c ^ . to
N ^
c
c C
c u
c
c u
c u
c
°•? N N 0" 5 u u 0 U N N N N N
QT r b b o ' O ' C ' II ' Q .• b ' e7 b L7 C " O II II
0
z v7 in in w w (A V1 N y VI V/ H V y
c ? a au ) W W. W C 4 a ar z a a a a
U N M ' -?' V '1 1 0 h lo o ^ C N M - t Vt r

e
00
T ?
'Ct y
ti c
2 6.
00
^ i.n
O
h
c ?
o
y ^
c N
U y
cn O y?
0
b
° u
v r
a? a
_E N
rn
ai
a
'o
o m
o .?
O s
a.
O O
00
00.1 kf)
N
00
M
? a
W >;
H
A
z
W yH a
l L
///"h+??111^111\111 W? .c
• i1
zN
3 U
((x? z
W O W o I o 0
U

aZ
?o? o o , o 0

O
a
U
u
U
Q u o 0 0
cn

O N
I
X?- W m - M

WF
0
U
Q?? a O o 0

a
N v'i
00 r
00 r-

n

?0Z
?- ?
¢
ao?
a

0 0
¢
?-
U O
v v

tt.' M 00
00 ?O
?
L
i] 00 vl v1
` N
LLI

^
-1
Li] W
O
O
O
-

O "

O'

^
? .O
7
^ N
r, L n+
fC Q
Q. ? C C

CIO
w L/)
p N
O °
CA CX
c
E
Q 0
W- LL M
f?l
N ^
O
V
^

c
`0
Z ce Z U V)
i
- f4
fQ
.Q
? O
C -0
cC y
rn
y O
cd O
E d
Q
C ?
O U
0
? O
? y
C ?
U O
a? w
L 'II
O =
y
(ate.. ?
N
V ?
= V
fC ?
Q? H
V
C
lC N
Q ?
U t...
? O
N C
=p O
O m
N 'p
R
C
O cQ
O ¢
O N
1`
^ f`I
N
00
M
x
cry w
w H
z u
W ,-i c
?W o
Hw o
w
z?
U
w ?
?z
w
o
H _
N
O
U 0 E- O O
< C) 9
U
I
i

Qw

a W j
y, o 0 0
C.0) U

z

W
N
O O
O
w

U
Z
N
N
LU
W
w
w
CIO

- O o °
o

p

w

o 0 0
0

W ?
U
w ° 0 0

O
a?
L 0

z co o
N ?
°
O O
N C C
W
0. ?
CG
U o N c
o CCN a
cn
w
0 o
0
ZD 4
:
E
m
O
2 L-
LL Li. M
N 4 O
_
U
z zce

N
z
w
w
w
O
E
O
0
N N
?z
N W
?m
cC ?-
= C
c
N L
.n ?
R7 U

G O
O ?
.D ?
C C
N
•
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
?J?v A ?A=4
NCDENR
May 24, 1999
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager, NCDOT, Prc ' • Development & Environmental Analysis
From: John E. Hennessy, NC Division of Water Quality L
Subject: Scoping comments on proposed widening of NC42 from US 70 to SR 1003 (Buffalo Road),
Johnston County, Federal Aid Project No. STP-42(4), State Project No. 8.1312301, TIP R-3825.
Reference your correspondence dated May 5, 1999 in which you requested comments for widening project
TIP R-3825. Preliminary analysis of the project reveals the potential for multiple impacts to perennial
streams and jurisdictional wetlands in the project area. Furthermore, the impacts include a crossing of the
Neuse River with a classification of WS-IV NSW. The DOT is respectfully reminded that they will need to
comply with all the Neuse River Rules prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification. Further
investigations at a higher resolution should be undertaken to verify the presence of other streams and/or
jurisdictional wetlands in the area. The Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT consider the
following environmental issues for the proposed project:
A. We would like to see a discussion in the document that presents a sufficient purpose and need to
justify the project's existence. Since the project is a widening project, we assume that the Level-of-
Service (LOS) is one of the primary reasons for the project. Therefore, the document should
delineate a detailed discussion on the existing Level-of-Service as well as the proposed future Level-
of-Service. The discussion for the future Level-of-Service should consider the Level-of-Service with
and without the project.
B. The document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts to
wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping.
C. There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is required,
it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental
documentation. While the NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be practical, it should be noted
that for projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance
of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
D. Review of the project reveals that WS-IV waters are located in the project area. The DWQ requests
that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled "Design Standards in Sensitive
Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout design and construction of the project. This would
apply for any area that drains to streams having WS (Water Supply), ORW (Outstanding Resource
Water), HQW (High Quality Water), B (Bodv Contact), SA (Shellfish Water) or Tr (Trout Water)
classifications.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

Mr. William 1). Gilmore memo
05/24/99
Page 2
E. The DOT is reminded that road crossings are permitted through Neuse Riparian Buffers. However,
pursuant to 15A NCAC 2B.0233, the impacts to buffers less than 150 linear feet or 1/3 of an acre
will be allowed so long as no practical alternative for the impact exists. Impacts in excess of 150
linear feet or 1/3 of an acre will be allowed with no practical alternative and will require mitigation.
F. Pursuant to 15A NCAC 2B.0233, sediment and erosion control devices will not be permitted in Zone
1 (edge of the stream to a perpendicular distance of 30 feet) of the riparian buffer. Sediment and
erosion control devices will be permitted in Zone 2 (30-50 feet from the edge of the stream)
provided they promote diffuse flow (dispersed overland flow) through the buffer and do not
compromise the integrity of Zone 1.
G. When practical, the DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on the existing location with road
closure. If a detour proves necessary, remediation measures in accordance with the NCDWQ
requirements for General 401 Certification 2726/Nationwide Permit No. 33 (Temporary
Construction, Access and Dewatering) must be followed.
H. Due to the presence of Water Supply Waters, the DWQ requests that hazardous spill catch basins be
installed at any bridge crossing a stream classified as HQW or WS (Water Supply). The number of
catch basins installed should be determined by the design of the bridge, so that runoff would enter
said basin(s) rather than flowing directly into the stream.
1. If applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent
practicable.
J. Wetland and stream impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures) to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternatives that
minimize wetland impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be required by
DWQ for impacts to wetlands in excess of one acre and/or to streams in excess of 150 linear feet.
K. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation will
be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
G. DWQ prefers replacement of bridges with bridges. However, if the new structure is to be a culvert, it
should be countersunk to allow unimpeded fish and other aquatic organisms passage through the
crossing.
H. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is
approved under General 401 Certification Number 3027/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey
Activities.
1. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules 115A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6) }, mitigation will be
required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that
mitigation becomes required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost
functions and values. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules { 15A NCAC 2H.0506
(h)(3)), the Wetland Restoration Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
J. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
K. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater should not be permitted to
discharge directly into the creek. Instead, stormwater should be designed to drain to a properly
designed stormwater detention facility/apparatus.
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
05/24/99
Page 3
While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and soil surveys is a useful office tool, their
inherent inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior to permit
approval. Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401
Water Quality Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality
standards are met and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require
additional information, please contact John Hennessy at [phone] or
John-Hennessy @h2o.enr.state.nc.us.
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, Corps of Engineers
Tom McCartney, USFWS
David Cox, NCWRC
C:\ncdot\TIP R-3825\comments\R-3825 scoping comments.doc
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director I •AA GYt
MEMORANDUM co - 0? 3
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DENR
FROM: Travis Wilson, Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: October 6, 2003
SUBJECT: North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Environmental
Assessment (EA) for the proposed improvements to NC 42 in Johnston County,
North Carolina. TIP No. R-3825, SCH Project No. 04-0064.
Staff biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the subject
EA and are familiar with habitat values in the project area. The purpose of this review was to
assess project impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Our comments are provided in accordance
with certain provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
NCDOT proposes to widen NC 42 from two lanes to a four-lane shoulder facility with a
17.5 foot raised median, from US 70 to SR 1003 (Buffalo Rd.). The total project length is
approximately 5.7 miles. Estimated impacts consist of 0.71 acres of wetlands and 1096 liner feet
of impacts Jurisdictional streams.
We have reviewed the data in the EA. NCDOT has proposed to widen the existing facility
and utilize grass shoulders in-lieu-of curb and gutter. This alternative will minimize impacts to
wetlands, streams and water quality. The project will cross Mill Creek and the Neuse River. We
request NCDOT follow the Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage at both of
these sites, with a standard anadromous fish moratorium, February 15 to June 15, at the Mill
Creek crossing and the Neuse River crossing. NCDOT should also conduct a mussel survey at
all stream crossings prior to construction.
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries - 1721 Mail Service Center - Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] ext. 281 - Fax: [phone]
Memo
2
October 6, 2003
At this time, we concur with the EA for this project. Thank you for the opportunity to
comment on this EA. If we can be of any further assistance please call me at [phone].
cc: Gary Jordan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh '
John Hennessy, DWQ, Raleigh
Eric Alsmeyer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Raleigh

O?O? WA
??qpG
o ?
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
From: John Hennessy C /
October 9, 2003
Subject: Comments on the EA for the widening of NC 42 from US 70 to SR 1003 (Buffalo Road) in
Johnston County, Federal Aid Project No. STP-42(4), State Project No. 8.1312301, TIP Project
No. R-3825, DENR Project Number 04-0064.
This office has reviewed the referenced document. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is responsible for the
issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities that impact Waters of the U.S., including
wetlands. It is our understanding that the preferred alternative, as presented in the EA, will result in impacts to 0.71
acres of jurisdictional wetlands and 1,079 linear feet of streams. The DWQ offers the following comments based on
review of the aforementioned document:
A) Table 3, on Page 9 does not present any anticipated impacts to Neuse Riparian Buffers. Future
documentation any for a 401 Water Quality Certification, or any application for a Neuse River Riparian
Buffer Authorization will need to include proposed impacts to these resources.
B) Review of Table 3 on page 9 indicates that Alternative 1 has anticipated impacts to 0.82 acres of wetlands
and 1,096 linear feet of streams. It also indicates anticipated impacts to 0.71 acres of wetlands and 1,079
linear feet of streams for Alternative 2. Table three identifies Alternative 2 as preferred. However, review
of Table 5 indicates 1,096 linear feet of anticipated stream impacts, which would be consistent with
Alternative 1. Where as, Table 6 indicates anticipated impacts to 0.71 acres of wetlands, which would be
consistent with Alternative 2. Therefore, in reviewing Tables 3, 5, and 6, there appears to be a discrepancy
with the presented data. Please clarify information in the FONSI and environmental permit applications.
C) The section of the Neuse River that project impacts is an anadromous fish spawning area. As such, the 401
Water Quality Certification will conditions that require an in-water work moratorium from February 15`h
through June 15`h'
D) The document proposes impacts to waters classified as Water Supply IV. Given the presence of Water
Supply Waters in the project area, the DWQ requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina
regulations entitled "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" throughout design and construction of the
project. This would apply for any area that drains to streams having WS (Water Supply) classifications.
E) Where are the nearest water supply intake(s) for the to the project located? Please provide information that
displays all the municipal water supply intakes in the project area. Given the uncertainty associated with
the location of water supply intakes in the area, DWQ cannot support the selection of a preferred alternative
until the information is supplied. In addition, issuance of the 401 Water Quality Certification can only
occur when the DWQ can make the determination that the project will not adversely impact drinking water
supplies.

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
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 [phone]
0140? War?9pc
r
7
F) Until the location of the water supply intakes are verified, the potential for hazardous spill catch basins is
present. DWQ will make a determination about the need for hazardous spill basins after the location(s) of
water supply intakes is finalized.
G) The document does not discuss the need for a Neuse River Riparian Buffer Authorization. DOT is advised
that final project approvals cannot occur without a submittal for, and a receipt of, a Neuse River Riparian
Buffer Authorization.
H) 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. Based on the impacts
described in the document, wetland mitigation may be required for this project. Should the impacts to
jurisdictional wetlands exceed 1.0 acres, mitigation may be required in accordance with NCDWQ Wetland
Rules { 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(2) ).
I) In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules { 15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6) ), mitigation will be required
for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that mitigation is
required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions and values. In
accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules 115A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(3) ), the Wetland Restoration
Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
J) Where streams must be crossed, the DWQ prefers bridges be used in lieu of culverts. However, we realize
that economic considerations often require the use of culverts. Please be advised that culverts should be
countersunk to allow unimpeded passage by fish and other aquatic organisms. Moreover, in areas where
high quality wetlands or streams are impacted, a bridge may prove preferable. When applicable, DOT
should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent practicable.
K) Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
L) Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable. Impacts to wetlands in
borrow/waste areas could precipitate compensatory mitigation.
M) The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed methods for
stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater should not be permitted to discharge directly into
the creek. Instead, stormwater should be designed to discharge as diffuse flow at non-erosive velocities.
N) There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is required, it is
preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental documentation.
While the NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be practical, it should be noted that for projects
requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required in conjunction with the issuance of a 401
Water Quality Certification.
O) Future documentation should include an itemized listing of the proposed wetland and stream impacts with
corresponding mapping.
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 [phone]
O,O? WA T ?RQG
o ?
P) Based on the information presented in the document, the magnitude of impacts to wetlands and streams will
require an Individual Permit application to the Corps of Engineers and corresponding 401 Water Quality
Certification. Please be advised that a 401 Water Quality Certification requires satisfactory protection of
water quality to ensure that water quality standards are met and no wetland or stream uses are lost. Final
permit authorization will require the submittal of a formal application by the NCDOT and written
concurrence from the NCDWQ. Please be aware that any approval will be contingent on appropriate
avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream impacts to the maximum extent practical, the
development of an acceptable stormwater management plan, and the inclusion of appropriate mitigation
plans where appropriate.
The NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project. Should you have any questions or
require any additional information, please contact John Hennessy at [phone].
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, Corps of Engineers
Gary Jordan, USFWS
Travis Wilson, NCWRC
John Hennessy, NCDWQ
File Copy
c:\ncdot\TIP R-3825\comments\ R-3825 comments.doc
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 [phone]
J o hvk rycnNrss)
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
September 29, 2003
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
wET4 4 N0s/QO
Q?T 1 GRoUP
z
wgrF ? 203
RQ?gII?SFC
r/oN
This letter is in response to your September 3, 2003 letter requesting comments from the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed
widening of NC 42 from US 70 to SR 1003 in Johnston County, North Carolina (TIP No. R-
3825). These comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
According to the EA, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to
widen a 5.7 mile portion of NC 42 from two lanes to four lanes with a 17.5 foot raised median.
The existing bridge over the Neuse River will be replaced and two box culverts on smaller
streams will be retained and extended. There are two build alternatives, with the preferred
alternative (Alternative 2) having the least impacts to wetlands and streams.
The EA states that 1096 linear feet of streams and 0.71 acres of wetlands will be impacted by the
preferred alternative. In addition, up to 26.4 acres of forest habitat of various types will be
impacted. This is a significant amount of forest habitat impact, but the impacts will be occurring
along the edges of already fragmented habitat. It is understood that the ability to avoid impacts
to forest wildlife habitat is limited when widening an existing road.
There are four federally-protected species listed for Johnston County. The EA renders a
biological conclusion of "no effect" for the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), dwarf
wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), Tar spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana) and Michaux's
sumac (Rhus michauxii). The Service does not concur with any of the "no effect"
conclusions for the following reasons:
The EA states on page 21 that "potential habitat for the RCW is located within the project study
area." A "no effect" conclusion should not be rendered if potential habitat exists. The EA does
not give an adequate description of the potential habitat, nor does it differentiate between nesting
and foraging habitat. There is insufficient information on the March 8, 2001 survey. If foraging
habitat exists within the project area, a survey for cavity trees should extend out for a 0.5 mile
radius from the project site, within suitable habitat.
Since the dwarf wedgemussel is known to occur within the Neuse River Basin and potential
habitat exists in the Neuse River and possibly in Mill Creek, the "no effect" conclusion is
inappropriate. The EA lacks any details on the mussel survey methodologies. Mussel surveys
should extend a minimum of 100 meters upstream and 400 meters downstream of road crossings.
Based on a tentative identification, the Tar spinymussel was recently collected within the Neuse
River Basin in White Oak Creek. Therefore, its presence near the project area cannot be ruled
out, and thus the "no effect" conclusion is inappropriate.
The EA states on page 22 that "habitat for Michaux's sumac is present within the project study
area." Therefore, the "no effect" conclusion is inappropriate. No details of the survey
methodology are provided in-the EA - -lF
The Service does not believe that this EA adequately addresses the federally protected species
within the project area. Future documentation should reassess the biological conclusions and
provide additional details, especially regarding survey methodologies. The Service may be able
to concur with a "may affect, not likely to adversely affect" conclusion on some or all of the four
listed species in Johnston County, provided that adequate justification and documentation is
provided.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions
regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at [phone], ext. 32.
Sincerely, rr
e J1- I LGuw
Garland B. Pardue, Ph.D.
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Mike Bell, USACE, Washington, NC
David Franklin, Wilmington, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmore, NC
John Hennessy, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
}
Michael F. Easley, Governor
()F WAT?9 William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
\O? pG North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
co W r Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
j Division of Water Quality
O `C
October 9, 2003
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
r
From: John Hennessy ?/
Subject: Comments on the EA for the widening of NC 42 from US 70 to SR 1003 (Buffalo Road) in
Johnston County, Federal Aid Project No. STP-42(4), State Project No. 8.1312301, TIP Project
No. R-3825, DENR Project Number 04-0064.
This office has reviewed the referenced document. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is responsible for the
issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities that impact Waters of the U.S., including
wetlands. It is our understanding that the preferred alternative, as presented in the EA, will result in impacts to 0.71
acres of jurisdictional wetlands and 1,079 linear feet of streams. The DWQ offers the following comments based on
review of the aforementioned document:
A) Table 3, on Page 9 does not present any anticipated impacts to Neuse Riparian Buffers. Future
documentation any for a 401 Water Quality Certification, or any application for a Neuse River Riparian
Buffer Authorization will need to include proposed impacts to these resources.
B) Review of Table 3 on page 9 indicates that Alternative 1 has anticipated impacts to 0.82 acres of wetlands
and 1,096 linear feet of streams. It also indicates anticipated impacts to 0.71 acres of wetlands and 1,079
linear feet of streams for Alternative 2. Table three identifies Alternative 2 as preferred. However, review
of Table 5 indicates 1,096 linear feet of anticipated stream impacts, which would be consistent with
Alternative 1. Where as, Table 6 indicates anticipated impacts to 0.71 acres of wetlands, which would be
consistent with Alternative 2. Therefore, in reviewing Tables 3, 5, and 6, there appears to be a discrepancy
with the presented data. Please clarify information in the FONSI and environmental permit applications.
C) The section of the Neuse River that project impacts is an anadromous fish spawning area. As such, the 401
Water Quality Certification will conditions that require an in-water work moratorium from February 15ch
through June 15`h'
D) The document proposes impacts to waters classified as Water Supply IV. Given the presence of Water
Supply Waters in the project area, the DWQ requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina
regulations entitled "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" throughout design and construction of the
project. This would apply for any area that drains to streams having WS (Water Supply) classifications.
E) Where are the nearest water supply intake(s) for the to the project located? Please provide information that
displays all the municipal water supply intakes in the project area. Given the uncertainty associated with
the location of water supply intakes in the area, DWQ cannot support the selection of a preferred alternative
until the information is supplied. In addition, issuance of the 401 Water Quality Certification can only
occur when the DWQ can make the determination that the project will not adversely impact drinking water
supplies.

N. C. Division of Water Quality 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 [phone]
0?O? W AT FRQG
r
3L
F) Until the location of the water supply intakes are verified, the potential for hazardous spill catch basins is
present. DWQ will make a determination about the need for hazardous spill basins after the location(s) of
water supply intakes is finalized.
G) The document does not discuss the need for a Neuse River Riparian Buffer Authorization. DOT is advised
that final project approvals cannot occur without a submittal for, and a receipt of, a Neuse River Riparian
Buffer Authorization.
H) 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. Based on the impacts
described in the document, wetland mitigation may be required for this project. Should the impacts to
jurisdictional wetlands exceed 1.0 acres, mitigation may be required in accordance with NCDWQ Wetland
Rules { 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(2) }.
I) In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules (15A NCAC 211.0506(b)(6)), mitigation will be required
for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that mitigation is
required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions and values. In
accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules { 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(3) ), the Wetland Restoration
Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
J) Where streams must be crossed, the DWQ prefers bridges be used in lieu of culverts. However, we realize
that economic considerations often require the use of culverts. Please be advised that culverts should be
countersunk to allow unimpeded passage by fish and other aquatic organisms. Moreover, in areas where
high quality wetlands or streams are impacted, a bridge may prove preferable. When applicable, DOT
should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent practicable.
K) Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
L) Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable. Impacts to wetlands in
borrow/waste areas could precipitate compensatory mitigation.
M) The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed methods for
stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater should not be permitted to discharge directly into
the creek. Instead, stormwater should be designed to discharge as diffuse flow at non-erosive velocities.
N) There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is required, it is
preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental documentation.
While the NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be practical, it should be noted that for projects
requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required in conjunction with the issuance of a 401
Water Quality Certification.
O) Future documentation should include an itemized listing of the proposed wetland and stream impacts with
corresponding mapping.
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director

N. C. Division of Water Quality 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 [phone]
f
O?O? WAT ?9pG
P) Based on the information presented in the document, the magnitude of impacts to wetlands and streams will
require an Individual Permit application to the Corps of Engineers and corresponding 401 Water Quality
Certification. Please be advised that a 401 Water Quality Certification requires satisfactory protection of
water quality to ensure that water quality standards are met and no wetland or stream uses are lost. Final
permit authorization will require the submittal of a formal application by the NCDOT and written
concurrence from the NCDWQ. Please be aware that any approval will be contingent on appropriate
avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream impacts to the maximum extent practical, the
development of an acceptable stormwater management plan, and the inclusion of appropriate mitigation
plans where appropriate.
The NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project. Should you have any questions or
require any additional information, please contact John Hennessy at [phone].
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, Corps of Engineers
Gary Jordan, USFWS
Travis Wilson, NCWRC
John Hennessy, NCDWQ
File Copy
c:\ncdot\TIP R-3825\comments\ R-3825 comments.doc
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 [phone]
Ty MSfAiE
M d y' o
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASI.EY I?Jp??????TTa?////t???YNDO TiPPETT
GOVERNOR
September 3, 2003 ??NNCC??
Mr. John Hennessy S q4 ! O 2003
NCDENR - Division of Water Quality OTERQUALI YSM
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Dear Mr. Hennessy:
SUBJECT: Federal Environmental Assessment for NC 42, From US 70 to SR 1003 (Buffalo Road),
Johnston County, Federal Aid Project STP-42(4), State Project 8.1312301, TIP Project
R-3825
Attached is a copy of the Environmental Assessment and Natural Resources Technical Report for
the subject proposed highway improvement. It is anticipated this project will be processed with a
"Finding of No Significant Impact"; however, should comments received on the Environmental
Assessment or at the public hearing demonstrate a need for preparing a Draft Environmental Impact
Statement you will be contacted as part of our scoping process.
Copies of this Assessment are being submitted to the State Clearinghouse, areawide planning
agencies, and the counties, towns, and cities involved.
Permit review agencies should note it is anticipated Federal Permits will be required as discussed
in the report.
Any comment you have concerning the Environmental Assessment should be forwarded to:
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Your comments should be received by October 17, 2003. If you desire a copy of the "Finding of
No Significant Impact," please so indicate.
Sincerely,
?Ir?
ViOi Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
GJT/plr
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
A
W
NC 42
From US 70 to SR 1003 (Buffalo Road)
Johnston County
Federal Aid Project STP-42(4)
State Project 8.1312301
TIP Project R-3825
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
And
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)
APPROVED:
WETLANDS1401 efo
!-) t 1,1 2013
'WERQUALIT%ft
g °3
to ?d(?-Crregoiy J. Thorpe, ,Ph. D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
S?0'
ate /1
Division Administrator, FHWA
NC 42
From US 70 to SR 1003 (Buffalo Road)
Johnston County
Federal Aid Project STP-42(4)
State Project 8.1312301
TIP Project R-3825

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Documentation Prepared in Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch By:
Ray A.
Project
lopment Engineer
a?r?1o CAROL jZ
?`? ,sESS10h. f
Janfes A. McInnis Jr., P.E.
Project Development Unit Head
Robert P. Hanson, P.E., Assistant Manager,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1" SEAL
20701
X tft? NEB
?.. A. M
P/-7/ tq
TABLE OF CONTENTS

PROJECT COMMITMENTS ............................................ . .......................1 of 1
SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 1
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ................................................
3
II
A. General Description 3
....................................................................
B. Project Purpose 3
.........................................................................
C Cost Estimates
. .........................................................................
3
NEED FOR PROPOSED PROJECT .........................................................3
A. Descriptions of Existing Facility .................................................... 3
1. Functional Classification ......................................................... 3
2. Existing Typical Section .........................................................4
3. Right of Way and Access Control .............................................. 4
4. Speed Limit ........................................................................ .4
5. Intersections ............................................................. 4
6. ...........
Railroad Crossings ............................................................... .4
7. Structures ........................................................................... 4
8. Sidewalks/Bicycle Accommodations .......................................... 5
9. Utilities ............................................................................. 5
10 . School Bus Data .................................................................. 5
11. Traffic Volumes .................................................................. . 5
B. Deficiencies of Existing Facility .................................................... 5
1. Traffic Carrying Capacity ........................................................5
2. Accident Record .................................................................. 6
C. Benefits of Proposed Project ......................................................... 6
1. Capacity ............................................................................6
2. Safety ...............................................................................6
3. Other Benefits ......................................................................7
III.
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................7
A. Roadway Cross-section .............................................................. 7
B. Alignment ..............................................................................7
C. Structures ...............................................................................7
D. Speed Limit ............................................................................ 8
E. Design Speed ...........................................................................8
F. Right-of-Way/Control of Access ................................................... 8
G. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control .................................... 8
H. Sidewalks/Bicycle Accommodations ............................................. 8
IV. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ....................................8
A. Build Alternatives ...................................................................
8
B. "No-Build" Alternative ............................................................ 9
C. Alternate Modes of Transportation .............................................. 9
V. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ................................10
A. Cultural Resources .................................................................10
1. Compliance Guidance ........................................................ 10
2. Historical Architectural Resources ..........................................10
3. Archaeological Resources ....................................................10
B. Section 4(f) Resources ............................................................ 10
C. Natural Resources .................................................................. I l
1. Biotic Resources ............................................................... 11
a. Terrestrial Communities ...........................................11
b. Aquatic Communities ..............................................13
c. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Resources ........................13
2. Water Resources .............................................................. 14
a. Neuse River and Tributaries ...................................... 14
b. Mill Creek and Tributaries ........................................ 14
c. Best Usage Classification ..........................................15
d. Water Quality ....................................................... 15
e. Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources........ 16
3. Jurisdictional Topics .......................................................... 17
a. Water of the United States ........................................ 17
b. Wetlands .............................................................17
c. Summary of Anticipated Impacts ................................ 17
d. Permits ...............................................................19
e. Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation ........................... 19
4. Protected and Rare Species .................................................. 20
a. Federally-protected Species ....................................... 20
b. Federal Species of Concerns ...................................... 22
D. SOCIAL EFFECTS .................................................................23
1. Land Use ........................................................................ 23
a. Existing Land Use and Zoning ....................................23
b. Status of Planning .................................................. 23
2. Environmental Justice ..........................................................
24
3. Relocation of Residences and Businesses ................................... 24
4. Public Facilities, Schools, Institutes and Services .......................... 24
5. Farmland ........................................ .................
6. Flood Hazard Evaluation ...................................................... 25
E. HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS .................................... 25
1. Introduction ..................................................................... .
25
2. Noise Abatement Criteria ......................................................
25
3. Ambient Noise Levels .........................................................
26
4. Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels .............................. 26
5. Noise Analysis Results ......................................................... 26
6. Traffic Noise Abatement Measures .......................................... 26
a_ Highway Alignment ................................................ 27
b. Traffic System Management Measures ........................... 27
c. Noise Barriers ........................................................ 27
d. "No Build" Alternative ............................................. 28
e. Construction Noise .................................................. 28
f. Summary ..............................................................28
E. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS ...................................................... 28
1. CO Concentration ............................................................... 29
2. Air Quality Analysis .......................................................... 29
3. Construction Air Quality Effects ............................................. 29
F. Hazardous Material and UST Involvement ...................................... 30
VI COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ................................................. 31
A. Citizens informational Workshop ................................................ 31
B. Agency Coordination .............................................................. 31
List of Tables
PAGE
Table 1 -Signalized Intersection Level of Service without Project ..................... 6
Table 2 - Signalized Intersection Level of Service with Project ........................ 6
Table 3 -Alternative Comparison ............................................. 9
Table 4 ..............
-Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities ................. 13
Table 5 ...................
-Stream Impacts Within the Project Study Area .................. 18
Table 6 ..............
-Estimated Area of Wetland Impacts ................... 19
Table 7 ..........................
-Federally Protected Species in Johnston County .............................. 20
Table 8 -Federal Species of Concern in Johnston County ............................... 23
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 - Project Location Map
Figure 2 - Aerial Photograph of Project
Figure 3 - Streams and Wetlands in Project Area
Figure 4A, 4B - 2006/2026 Projected Traffic Volumes
Figure 5A - Proposed Roadway Typical Section
Figure 5B - Proposed Bridge Typical Section (Over Neuse River)
Figure 6 - Flood Plain in Project Area
PROJECT CORD UTNWMS
NC 42
From US 70 to SR 1003 (Buffalo Road)
Johnston County
Federal Aid Project STP-42(4)
State Project 8.1312301
TIP Project R-3825
Division Four Construction
•r
NCDOT's Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage will apply
to the Neuse River and all stream crossings within the project area.
No in-water work will be performed in the Neuse River between February 15I'
and June 15'', due to the likely presence of anadromous fish.
NCDOT will implement Best management Practices for Bridge Demolition and
removal. The asphalt wearing surface of Bridge Number 75 and bridge rails will be
removed without dropping into the water prior to bridge demolition.
During construction of the project, the driveway to Clayton Fire Station will be
kept open at all times. No equipment or materials will be parked or placed in the fire
station driveway at any time.
Roadside Environmental Unit/Division Four Construction
Turbidity curtains will be used during in-stream work in the Neuse River.
Structure Design Unit/Hydraulic Unit
Deck drains for the proposed bridge carrying NC 42 over the Neuse River will be
designed so that runoff is not directly discharged into the Neuse River.
Roadway Design Unit/Geotechnical Unit
The proposed widening will require property from four sites potentially
containing hazardous materials. A preliminary site assessment will be performed for all
of the properties prior to right of way acquisition in order to determine the extent of any
contamination. Right of way acquisition from the former Jimmy Flowers Store and the
Percy Flowers Store will be by permanent easement rather than fee simple right of way
due to the possibility of contamination on the properties. Permanent easements will be
obtained from the former Peele Pesticide site and the Caterpillar site, as well, if the
preliminary site assessment determines there is a possibility of contamination in areas
needed for right of way.
Environmental Assessment - R-3825 Page I of I
July, 2003
SUMMARY
Environmental Assessment
Prepared by the
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1. Type of Action
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Action, Environmental
Assessment.
2. Proiect Purpose/Description of Action
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve the safety and traffic carrying
capacity of NC 42 within the project limits.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to widen NC 42 to a four-
lane shoulder facility with a 5.3 meter (17.5-foot) raised median from US 70 to SR 1003
(Buffalo Road). The proposed project is 5.7 miles long (see Figure 1).
3. Permits Required
It is anticipated that a U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Individual Permit will likely be
required for the project. A Section 401 Water Quality General Certification from the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality will be required prior to issuance of the Section 404
Individual Permit from the Corps of Engineers.
4. Summary of Environmental Impacts
Two homes and two businesses will be relocated as a result of this project.
A relocation report is located in Appendix B.
Four residential receptors are predicted to experience noise impacts. A total of 0.288
hectares (0.71 acres) of wetlands will be impacted by the project.
5. Alternatives Considered
Two build alternatives, Alternate modes of transportation and the "no-build"
alternative were considered as alternatives to the proposed improvements (see Section IV).
Alternative 2 widening was chosen as the preferred alternative because it was the least
expensive and least environmentally damaging of the alternatives considered. Alternate
modes of transportation or the "no-build" alternative would not effectively serve the project
purpose and need.
6. Additional Information
The following persons may be contacted for additional information concerning this proposal
and statement:
John F. Sullivan III, P.E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone: [phone]
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph. D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1501
Telephone [phone]
7. Coordination
The following agencies were consulted regarding this project. An asterisk (*)
indicates a response was received. Copies of the comments are included in Appendix A.
U.S. Department of the Army - Corps of Engineers (Wilmington District)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Raleigh
*N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
*N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
-2-
NC 42
From US 70 to SR 1003 (Buffalo Road)
Johnston County
Federal Aid Project STP-42(4)
State Project 8.1312301
TIP Project R-3825
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. General Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to widen NC 42 to
a four-lane shoulder facility with a 5.3 meter (17.5 foot) raised median from US 70 to
SR 1003 (Buffalo Road). The proposed project is 9.2 kilometers (5.7 miles) long (see Figure
1). No control of access is proposed. The project is included in the 2002-2008 North
Carolina Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Right of way acquisition and
construction are scheduled in the draft 2004-2010 TIP for federal fiscal years 2004 and 2006
respectively.
B. Proiect Purpose
The purpose of the project is to improve safety and the traffic carrying capacity of
NC 42 within the project limits.
C. Cost Estimates
The 2002-2008 TIP includes an estimated right of way acquisition cost of $ 3,000,000
and construction cost of $ 23,900,000. Total project cost included in the TIP is $ 26,900,000.
The latest estimated costs for project R-3825 are shown below:
Right of Way Acquisition $ 4,624,500
Construction $22,500,000
Total Cost $27,124,500
H. NEED FOR PROPOSED PROJECT
A. Description of Existing Facility
1. Functional Classification
NC 42 is classified as a Rural Major Collector in the North Carolina Functional
Classification System.
-3-
2. Existina Typical Section
NC 42, within the project limits, is a two-lane undivided facility. Travel lanes are
3.0 meters (10 feet) wide with 2.4 meter (8-foot) grass shoulders.
3. Right of Way and Access Control
The existing right of way on NC 42 is approximately 30 meters (100 feet). No
control of access exists along the studied section of NC 42.
4. Speed Limit
The current posted speed limit along the length of the project varies from 45 mph to
55 mph.
5. Intersections
Currently, the following intersections are signalized:
• NC 42 and US 70
• NC 42 and Caterpillar Industrial Plant Drive
• NC 42 and SR 1902 (Glen Laurel Road)
• NC 42 and SR 1003
The remaining intersections along NC 42 in the project area are stop sign controlled.
6. Railroad Crossings
A single mainline track of the North Carolina Railroad crosses NC 42 just east of
US 70. Approximately 10 trains a day pass through this crossing including two Amtrak
passenger trains. Approximately 19,200 vehicles per day will use the crossing in 2006 and
24,600 vehicles per day are expected to use the crossing in 2026. The exposure index at this
crossing is 190,200 based on 2006 traffic and 246,000 based on 2026 traffic. The exposure
index at this crossing meets the warrant for a grade separation. However, due to the limited
distance between the rail line and the adjacent intersection of NC 42/US 70, a grade
separation would require a major reconstruction of NC 42 and the NC 42/US 70 intersection.
This is beyond the scope of this project.
7. Structures
Bridge No. 75 was built in 1939 and carries NC 42 over the Neuse River (see Figure
6, Site 1). This two-lane bridge is 106.7 meters (350 feet) in length and has a clear roadway
width of 7.3 meters (24.2 feet) wide. The current sufficiency rating is 4 out of a possible
100. The bridge is considered to be structurally deficient and functionally obsolete.
A 2.4 meters (8 feet) by 3 meters (10 feet) double barrel reinforced concrete box
culvert carries Mill Creek under NC 42. A 1.5 meters (5 feet) by 1.5 meters (5 feet)
-4-
reinforced concrete box culvert carries an unnamed tributary to the Neuse River under
NC 42. Figure 6 shows locations of these structures (Sites 1, 2, and 3).
8. Sidewalks/Bicycle Accommodations
There are no existing sidewalks or bicycle lanes along the project. NC 42 is not a
designated bicycle route.
9. Utilities
Telephone, fiber optic cable, cable television, gas, water, and sewer lines are located
along the proposed project. The degree of utility conflicts is expected to be medium.
10. School Bus Data
Approximately fifty school buses travel this section of NC 42 each school day,
making an average of two trips per day.
11. Traffic Volumes
The projected traffic volumes for NC 42 range between 13,500 vehicles per day to
19,200 vehicles per day for the construction year (2006). These volumes are projected to
increase to between approximately 18,200 vehicles per day to 26,300 vehicles per day for the
design year (2026). Truck traffic is projected to be 6% of the total average daily traffic
(volumes are shown on Figures 4A and 413).
B. Deficiencies of Existing Facility
1. Traffic Carrying Capacity
The concept of level of service (LOS) is defined as a qualitative measure describing
the operational conditions within a traffic stream and how these conditions are perceived by
motorists and/or passengers. A level of service definition generally describes conditions in
terms of such factors as speed, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, delay,
comfort, convenience, and safety. Six levels of service are defined for each type of facility
for which analysis procedures are available. They are given letter designations from A to F,
with level of service A representing the best operating conditions and level of service F
representing the worst.
Without the proposed improvements, NC 42 will operate at level of service C in
construction year 2006, and level of service F in design year 2026.
-5-
Levels of service for signalized intersections along NC, 42 are presented in Table 1
below.
Table 1
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
WITHOUT PROJECT
NC 42 intersection with Year 2006 Year 2026
US 70 C E
SR 2022 * B F
Caterpillar Plant Drive A F
SR 1902 B F
SR 1003 D E
*Future signal recommended
2. Accident Record
A total of 172 accidents with two fatalities (Ran off road and angle type of accidents)
were reported on this portion of NC 42 in the period between January 1, 1997 and December
31, 1999.
The accident rate along the existing facility for this time period was 245.08 accidents
per one hundred million vehicle miles (acc/100mvm). In comparison to the statewide rate of
228.87 acc/100mvm, NC 42 within the project limits has an accident rate above the statewide
rate. The fatal crash rate along the studied section of NC 42 was 2.85 accidents per 100
million vehicle miles. The fatal crash rate for similar facilities in North Carolina was 2.93
accidents per 100 million vehicle miles. Most of the accidents which occurred during the
study period were rear end collisions, slow or stop type of accidents (52% of the total
accidents).
C. Benefits of Proposed Project
1. Ca aci
With the proposed widening, NC 42 is projected to operate at LOS B initially and
maintain a LOS D or better through design year 2026.
Level of service for signalized intersections along NC 42 with the project are
presented in Table 2 below.
Table 2
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
WITH PROJECT
NC 42 intersection with Year 2006 Year 2026
US 70 C E
SR 2022 * B B
Caterpillar Plant Drive A B
SR 1902 C C
SR 1003 C E
*Future signal recommended
-6-
2. Safe
As stated previously, the majority of accidents occurring along the subject section of
NC 42 during the studied years were rear-end collisions. The additional travel lanes and left
turn lanes will reduce the potential for these type accidents by allowing slowing or stopping
vehicles to move out of the through lanes.
The proposed dual lanes per direction will allow vehicles to pass slow moving
vehicles without having to encroach in the opposing travel lanes.
3. Other Benefits
The proposed widening of NC 42 will reduce delay for roadway users, resulting in
lower roadway user costs.
III. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. Roadwav Cross-section
The recommended cross section for the proposed project is a four-lane median
divided facility. Two 3.6 meter (12-foot) lanes in each direction will be separated by a 5.3
meter (17.5-foot) raised median. Outside grassed shoulders will be 2.4 meters (8 feet) wide,
1.2 meters (4 feet) of which will be paved. The total project length is 9.2 kilometers (5.7
miles). The proposed typical section is shown on Figure 5A.
B. Alignment
NC 42 will be widened symmetrically from US 70 to SR 2022 (Old NC 42). From
Old NC 42 to SR 2008 (Fox Ridge Road), the proposed new lanes will be constructed on the
north side of existing NC 42. From Fox Ridge Road to Bennett Place, the new lanes will be
constructed on the south side of NC 42. NC 42 will be widened symmetrically from Bennett
Place to Buffalo Road. The proposed improvements are designed to minimize impacts to
streams, wetlands, and adjoining properties.
C. Structures
Bridge No. 75 carrying NC 42 over the Neuse River will be replaced with a new
structure approximately 22.4 meters (73.5 feet) wide and 115.8 meters (380 feet) long.
Bridge No. 75 will be replaced on existing location. Traffic will be maintained on the
existing bridge during construction. The proposed typical section across the new bridge is
shown on Figure 5B.
A double barrel 2.4 meters (8 feet) by 3 meters (10 feet) reinforced concrete box
culvert carries Mill Creek under NC 42. The existing culvert will be retained and extended.
A 1.5 meters (5 feet) by 1.5 meters (5 feet) reinforced concrete box culvert carries an
unnamed tributary to the Neuse River (see Figure 6 Site 3). The existing culvert will be

retained and extended with a 54-inch reinforced concrete pipe. Figure 6 shows locations of
these structures.
D. Speed Limit
NC 42 within the project limits will likely be signed 45 MPH following completion of
the project.
E. Design Speed
The proposed design speed for the subject project is 80 km/h (50 mph). This is
consistent with the proposed 45 MPH speed limit.
F. Right of Way/Control of Access
Additional right of way will be required for the proposed widening of NC 42. A total
right of way width of approximately 48.8 meters (160 feet) is proposed for NC 42 within the
project limits. No control of access is proposed for this project.
G. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control
The intersection of SR 2022 (Old NC 42) with NC 42 is not signalized at this time.
This intersection is expected to be signalized following construction of the future Front Street
Extension, which will tie into SR 2022 north of NC 42. Front Street Extension is shown on
the Clayton Thoroughfare Plan, but is unfunded.
H. Sidewalks/Bicycle Accommodations
No sidewalks are proposed along NC 42 in the project area. The proposed bridge
over the Neuse River will be wide enough to allow pedestrians -to cross the bridge without
having to walk in the travel lane. NC 42 is not a designated bicycle route. No special
bicycle accommodations are proposed to be constructed as part of this project. The proposed
1.2 meter (four-foot) paved shoulders will accommodate bicycles.
IV. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Build Alternatives
Two build alternatives were studied for the project. Alternatives 1 and 2 would both
widen NC 42 to a four-lane median divided facility with grassed shoulders. The two
alternatives involve widening NC 42 symmetrically between US 70 and SR 2022 (Old
NC 42). With both alternatives, the proposed new lanes will be constructed on the south side
of existing NC 42 from Fox Ridge Road to Bennett Place and symmetrically from Bennett
Place to Buffalo Road. The two alternatives differ along an approximately 1.75 mile section
of NC 42, from SR 2022 (Old NC 42) to Woodberry Court. Along this portion of NC 42,
-8-
Alternative 1 involves widening to the south and Alternative 2 involves widening to the
north. In this area, Alternative 2 was developed in order to reduce impacts to a wetland area
located south of NC 42.
A comparison between Alternatives I and 2 is shown in table 3 below:
Table 3
ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON
DESCRIPTION ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2
"Recommended"
Residential Relocatees 2 2
Business Relocatees 2 2
Wetland Impacts 0.331 ha 0.82 ac 0.288 ha 0.71 ac
Surface Waters 335 meters 1096 feet 329 meters 1079 feet
Construction Cost $23,000,000 $22,500,000
Right of Way Cost $ 5,047,400 $ 4,624,500
Total Cost $28,047,400 $27,124,500
Alternative 2. would reduce impacts on wetlands, streams, and has a lower project cost.
Curb and gutter was considered for the project, but a shoulder section was chosen
because of stormwater treatment requirements for the Neuse River Basin. A shoulder section
will allow the use of grass swales to treat stormwater runoff before discharging into buffered
streams. The shoulder section will also eliminate the need for large stormwater detention
facilities.
B. "No Build" Alternative
This alternative would avoid any environmental impacts that are anticipated as a
result of the proposed project, but would not meet the purpose and need of the project.
C. Alternate Modes of Transportation
It was determined that no alternate modes of transportation would be a practical
alternative to the recommended alternative. Highway transportation is the dominant mode of
transportation in the area. Staggering work hours, car pooling, and van pooling are possible
ways to generally reduce highway congestion; however, these congestion management
measures are not controlled by the NCDOT and cannot be incorporated into this project.
-9-
V. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Cultural Resources
1. Compliance Guidance
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with section 106, codified as 36
CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect
of their undertakings (federally-funded, licensed, or permitted) on properties included
in or eligible for inclusion in National Register of Historic Places and to afford the
Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings.
2. Historic Architectural Resources
The State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) stated by letter dated June 17, 1999
(see Appendix A) that they are aware of "no structures of historical or architectural
importance located within the planning area." Therefore, no historic architectural
investigation was conducted in connection with this project.
3. Archaeoloeical Resources
An archaeological survey of the project's area of potential effect was
conducted by NCDOT archaeologists to determine the project's impact on significant
archaeological or historical resources. No archaeological sites were found within the
project's area of potential effects. Therefore, no additional archaeological
investigation is recommended for this project. The State Historic Preservation Office
concurred with these findings in a letter dated March 22, 2001 (see Appendix A, page
A-5).
B. Section 4(t) Resources
Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 specifies
that publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl
refuge, and all historic sites of national, state, and local significance may be used for
federal projects only if
There is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land.
Such project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to 4(f) lands
resulting from such use.
This project will not impact any resources protected by Section 4(f) of the
NCDOT Act of 1966, as amended.
- io-
C. Natural Resources
1. Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Descriptions of
the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community classifications.
Dominant flora and fauna likely to occur in each community are described and
discussed. Fauna observed during field investigations are denoted with an asterisk
(*). Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by the
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP). When appropriate, community
classifications were modified to better reflect field observations.
a. Terrestrial Communities
Five terrestrial communities are identifiable in the project study area:
disturbed community, mixed hardwood forest, pine hardwood forest, piedmont
alluvial forest, and riparian fringe.
Disturbed Community
Dominant species include fescue, beadgrass, bermuda grass and foxtail grass.
The irregularly maintained roadside shoulder and powerline easement have denser
herbaceous vegetation and shrubs. Dominant herbs, grasses and vines include
common greenbrier, a sunflower, wood sorrel, ragweed, morning glory, running
cedar, blackberry, Japanese honeysuckle, and kudzu. The maintained yard is
predominantly bermuda grass and other ornamental plant species. Agriculture fields
located within the project study area were planted with cotton.
Riparian Fringe
This community is located along the banks of streams within the project study
area. The herbs and vines located in this community include smartweeds, an aster,
Japanese honeysuckle, goldenrod, false nettle, a rush, blackberry, a sedge, trumpet
creeper, and dog fennel. Shrubs and trees located within the community include red
maple, river birch, tag alder and sweetgum.
Mixed Hardwood Forest
This community is predominantly hardwoods with some scattered pines.
There are areas where the pines are denser; however, the pines are not as dense as in
the pine forest community. The forest is open with little herbaceous vegetation, and
with the understory being predominantly hardwood saplings. Dominant species
located in the canopy and subcanopy include sweetgum, red maple, tulip poplar, red
bud, winged elm, white oak, American beech, ironwood, sourwood, sycamore,
American holly and loblolly pine. Species located in the herb and vine layer include
trumpet creeper, Japanese honeysuckle, muscadine grape and greenbrier.
Pine Hardwood Forest
This community is dominated by pine trees and a few scattered hardwoods. It
is open with little herbaceous or shrubby vegetation. The dominant species are
loblolly pine and short-leaf pine. The hardwoods include red maple, sweetgum,
sourwood, and water oak. The herb and vine layer includes muscadine grape, trumpet
creeper, and Japanese honeysuckle.
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
This community is located along the floodplains of the Neuse River. It is
lower in elevation and flatter than other areas. The herbs and vines located in this
community include an aster, muscadine grape, Japanese honeysuckle, and creeping
grass. Shrubs and trees located within the community include box elder, Chinese
privet, sweetgum, red maple, tulip poplar, river birch, sycamore, and American
holly. Portions of this community are considered jurisdictional wetlands.
Faunal Component
Many species prefer open, disturbed habitat to feed and nest in. The
Southeastern shrew may be found in the tangles of vines and dominant herbaceous
vegetation in the irregularly maintained areas. The Eastern harvest mouse may be
found in the agricultural fields in the open areas. Birds such as mourning doves* and
killdeer* can be observed foraging for seeds and insects in open, disturbed areas.
Soaring over open areas searching for carrion, turkey vultures* can be observed.
American crows* and fish crows* were also heard. The Eastern fence lizard can be
seen in the open areas.
Many species are highly adaptive and may utilize the edges of forests and
clearings or prefer a mixture of habitat types. The Eastern cottontail prefers a mix of
herbaceous and woody vegetation in disturbed open areas such as brushy edges of
forests. White-tailed deer* will utilize the forested areas as well as the adjacent open
areas. The white-footed mouse is found in edge habitat between forests and grassy
fields. Both the Carolina anole and the five-lined skink enjoy the open sunny edge
habitat. The black rat snake will come out of forested habitat to forage in open areas.
The Northern mockingbird*, Eastern bluebird*, American robin*, and red-tailed
hawk * can be observed perched in edge habitat.
Many species prefer to forage and nest primarily in forested communities.
The opossum and the raccoon* prefer woodlands but can be observed in open areas as
well. In the leaf litter of the forested habitats, the Southern short-tailed shrew and the
white-footed mouse may be found. Gray squirrels* are often observed in wooded
areas but may be seen in residential yards as well. The spring peeper can be found
under forest litter and in brushy undergrowth. The Eastern box turtle is a terrestrial
turtle but will be found near streams in hot, dry weather. Burrowing underground in
moist areas, the worm snake is common in forests. Birds such as the Northern
cardinal*, Carolina chickadee*, Carolina wren, and blue jay* will forage and nest
within the forested community. In the alluvial forest within a wetland, a downy
-12-
woodpecker* and a red-bellied woodpecker* were observed. Because there are ponds
located in close proximity to the project study area, both north and south of NC 42,
species such as great blue herons *, Canada geese*, and mallards* will be crossing
the project study area.
b. Aquatic Communities
During wet times the green frog may be found along the banks and in
intermittent streams. Also, many of the terrestrial species such as the raccoon,
opossum, and the white-tailed deer will utilize intermittent streams during wet
periods.
Perennial streams sustain flow throughout the year. Perennial streams support
an assemblage of fauna that require a constant source of flowing water. The dwarf
salamander and the three-lined salamander both are found in Piedmont streams and
creeks. Green frogs, Southern cricket frogs, Fowler's toads, and Eastern box turtles
also frequent forested streams. Fish species that may be located here include the
gizzard shad, golden shiner, rosyside dace, satinfin shiner, Eastern silvery minnow,
creek chubsucker, margined madtom, Eastern mosquitofish, redbreast sunfish,
bluegill, and other sunfishes. Possible anadramous fish include American shad and
striped bass.
c. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Resources
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the biotic
resources described. Any construction related activities in or near these resources
have the potential to impact biological functions. This section quantifies and
qualifies impacts to the natural resources in terms of the ecosystems affected. All
measurements are approximate.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial communities reflect the relative abundance
of each community (Table 4). Project construction will result in the clearing and
degradation of portions of these communities.
Table 4
Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Community Area of Impact
Disturbed Community 29.8 ac / 12.1 ha
Mixed Hardwood Forest 18.9 ac / 7.7 ha
Pine Hardwood Forest 4.4 ac / 1.8 ha
Piedmont Alluvial Forest 3.0 ac / 1.2 ha
Riparian Fringe 0.1 ac / 0.04 ha
TOTAL 56.2 ac / 22.8 ha
The biotic communities found within the project area will be altered as a
-13-
result of project construction. Terrestrial communities serve as nesting, foraging, and
shelter habitat for fauna. During construction, species that utilize open disturbed
habitat will temporarily be displaced. Eventually, altered areas will revegetate and a
disturbed community will be re-established. Because the species that inhabit
disturbed communities are adapted to living in highly altered habitats, the area should
be repopulated by species for which suitable habitat is provided following project
completion.
The forested habitats located in the project study area are already relatively
fragmented by agricultural areas, a school, a plant, and residential property, however
there are large tracts of forest between developed areas. Following construction
completion and revegetation, edge species will still have adequate habitat and the
impacts from the loss of habitat should be minimal. The forested habitat loss will
potentially impact fauna not located in the project study area as well. Interior species
may be impacted from the reduced forested habitat available. If forested tracts
become too small in area, interior species will not repopulate. However, because the
impact will be along the already disturbed edge habitat of NC 42, impacts to fauna in
the forest communities should be minimal.
2. Water Resources
The entire project area is located in the Neuse River Basin. There are a total
of 16 streams in the project study area. There are 10 perennial streams (1 of which
begins as an intermittent stream within the project study area) and 6 intermittent
streams located within the project study area. Major streams crossed include the
Neuse River and Mill Creek. There are 10 unnamed tributaries (UT) to the Neuse
River located within the project area, each designated as UT #N. Mill Creek has 3
UTs, each designated as UT #M(see Figure 3).
a. Neuse River and Tributaries
NC 42 crosses the Neuse River approximately 3.7 kilometers (2.3 miles) east
of US 70. There are several wetlands associated with the floodplains of the Neuse
River. The Neuse River is listed as an Anadromous Fish Spawning Area.
Anadromous fish are those which spend most of their life in the ocean, but return to
their natal freshwater streams to spawn.
b. Mill Creek and Tributaries
Mill Creek originates 8.4 kilometers (5.2 miles) north of NC 42 and flows
south where it eventually converges with the Neuse River outside the project study
area. The water flows through a double box culvert under NC 42. Fish and evidence
of freshwater mussels and raccoons were observed. NC 42 crosses Mill Creek
approximately 2.4 kilometers (1.5 miles) west of SR 1003.
-14-
C. Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). According to the DWQ, the best usage
classification of the Neuse River and Mill Creek (near Clayton) is WS-IV NSW. UTs
receive the same classification as the stream into which they flow therefore, the best
usage classification of all of the UTs in the project study area is WS-IV NSW as well.
Class WS-IV (Water Supply IV) waters are used as sources of water supply for
drinking, culinary, or food processing purposes. WS-IV waters are generally in
moderately to highly developed watersheds or Protected Areas. The supplemental
classification of NSW (Nutrient Sensitive Waters) are waters which require
limitations on nutrient inputs because they are subject to growths of microscopic or
macroscopic vegetation. No water resources classified as High Quality Waters
(HQW's), Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-Il), or Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW's) are located within 1.6 kilometers (1.0 mile) of the project study area.
d. Water Quality
The Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) is a network of stream, lake, and
estuarine water quality monitoring stations. The program assesses water quality by
collecting physical and chemical water quality data at fixed monitoring sites every
five years. This data is used for basinwide assessment and planning. AMS station
2087500 is located on the Neuse River at the NC 42 crossing (NCDEHNR, 1992).
Based on the specific criteria measured, the Neuse River at this station was rated ST
(Support Threatened). The designated uses of these waters are currently being fully
supported, however they may not be supported in the future without management.
Likewise, the Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is
managed by the DWQ and is part of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring
program which addresses long term trends in water quality. The program assesses
water quality by sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed
monitoring sites. BMAN sampling station B-44, located on the Neuse River near
Clayton was sampled July 1995 and received a bioclassification of Good
(NCDEHNR, 1998).
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted
through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program.
Any person discharging pollutants from a point source into waters of the United
States is required to obtain a NPDES permit. River Dell Utilities/Neuse River
Facilities (Permit No. NC 0064564 Date, 10/20/92) in Johnston County, is a
permitted point source discharger to the Neuse River, located on NC 42
approximately 4 kilometers (2.5 miles) east of US 70.
There are many types of land use activities that can serve as sources of non-
point source pollution in the Neuse River Basin including land development,
construction, crop production, landfills, roads, and parking lots. Water quality may
-15-
be influenced by agricultural runoff. Land clearing can cause soil erosion, which'
leads to stream sedimentation, and animal waste can cause nutrient loading in
streams.
e. Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Roadway construction in and adjacent to water resources may result in water
quality impacts. Clearing and grubbing activities near the water will result in soil
erosion leading to increased sedimentation and turbidity. These effects may extend
downstream for a considerable distance with decreasing intensity.
Construction activities adjacent to water resources in the project area increase
the potential for toxic compounds (gas, oil, and highway spills) to be carried into
nearby water resources via precipitation, sheet flow, and subsurface drainage.
Increased amounts of toxic materials can adversely alter the water quality of any
water resource, thus impacting its biological and chemical functions. Indirect impacts
to surface waters may extend both upstream and downstream of the project study
area. Indirect impacts may include changes in flooding regime, discharge, erosion,
and sedimentation patterns.
Removal of Bridge No. 75 may cause impacts to water resources. The bridge
is constructed of reinforced concrete deck girders on concrete piers. The asphalt
wearing surface and the bridge rails will be removed prior to bridge demolition, and
will not be allowed to enter the water. There is a potential for components of the
bridge to be dropped in Waters of the United States during construction. The
maximum resulting temporary fill associated with the concrete bridge is
approximately 316 cubic meters (414 cubic yards). Conditions in the river will raise
sediment concerns and therefore a turbidity curtain is recommended as a preventative
measure.
NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the Protection of Surface
Waters will be strictly enforced during the entire life of the project to minimize
impacts to water resources in the entire impact area. Because Bridge No. 75 is being
removed, NCDOT's BMPs for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be used as well.
Erosion and sedimentation will be most pronounced as a result of disturbance
of the stream banks and substrate. Sedimentation from these activities may be high
during construction, but should diminish rapidly following project completion as
exposed soils are revegetated and streambanks stabilized.
A shoulder section was chosen over curb and gutter for this project to allow
the use of grass swales for the treatment of stormwater runoff before discharging into
buffered streams and reduce the need for stormwater detention facilities.
-16-
3. Jurisdictional Topics
a. Waters of the United States
Surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands and streams fall under the broad
category of "Waters of the United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 328.3. Any action that proposes to place fill material
into these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC.1344).
There are 10 perennial streams and 6 intermittent streams located within the
project study area. Major streams crossed include the Neuse River and Mill Creek.
The Neuse River has 10 unnamed tributaries, and Mill Creek has 3 unnamed
tributaries.
b. Wetlands
Eleven wetland areas were identified within the project study area. The
approximate impact area for each is noted in Table 6. Approximate location of each
wetland is shown in Figure 3.
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Approximately 335 meters (1,096 feet) of jurisdictional waters are located
within the proposed right of way limits of the project (Table 5). Actual impacts to the
surface water community may be less than reported because the entire right of way
width and easements are often not impacted by construction projects.
As stated previously, removal of Bridge No. 75 may cause impacts to water
resources. There is a potential for the components of the bridge to be dropped in the
Waters of the United States during construction. The maximum resulting temporary
fill associated with the concrete bridge is approximately 316 cubic meters (414 cubic
yards). Conditions in the stream will raise sediment concerns and therefore a
turbidity curtain is recommended as a preventative measure. Because the Neuse
River is listed as an anadromous fish spawning area, bridge demolition is classified as
a Case 2. The Case 2 category allows no work in the water during moratorium
periods (generally 15 February to 15 June) associated with fish migration, spawning,
and larval recruitment into nursery areas.
-17-
Table 5
Stream Imnacts Within the Prniert QftAw evoa
Stream Tributary of: Class Impacts m / ft
Neuse R - perennial 30.5 in / 100 ft
UT #N 1 Neuse River intermittent 8.5 m / 28 ft
UT #N2 Neuse River intermittent 9.8 in / 32 ft
UT #N3** Neuse River intermittent 4.3 m / 14 ft
UT #N3** Neuse River perennial 3.7 m / 12 ft
UT #N4 Neuse River perennial 10.1m / 33 ft
UT #N5 Neuse River intermittent 100 in / 327 ft
UT #N6 Neuse River perennial 12 in / 38 ft
UT #N7 Neuse River perennial 4m/ 14 ft
UT #N8 Neuse River ere mial 7 m / 23 ft
UT #N9 Neuse River intermittent 9.4m/31 ft
UT #N 10 Neuse River perennial Om/ Oft
Mill Cr Neuse River perennial 8.8 in / 29 ft
UT #M1 Mill Creek perennial 127 in / 415 ft
UT #M2 Mill Creek intermittent 0 m/ Oft
UT #M3 Mill Creek perennial 0 in/ Oft
Total 335.1 in / 1096 ft
Impacts based on feet of stream within the proposed right of way that is
not already piped.
# The pipes of these streams fall outside the right of way limit, however, symmetrical
widening will cause impacts to these streams
**Stream changes from intermittent to perennial with in the right of way
limits
There are 11 wetland systems located within the project study area (Table 6).
The total estimated impact to these areas by the project is 0.288 ha (0.71 acres).
-18-
Table 6
Estimated Area of Wetland Imuacts
Wetland Name Impact Area (ha/ac) Associated Stream
Wetland A 0.008 ha / 0.02ac UT #N 10
Wetland B 0.09 ha / 0.22 ac UT #N9
Wetland C 0.057 ha / 0.14 ac UT #N9
Wetland D 0.017 ha / 0.04 ac UT #M2
Wetland E 0.0012 ha / 0.03 ac UT #M2
Wetland F 0.0003 ha / 0.0007 ac UT #M2
Wetland G 0.009 ha / 0.02 ac UT #N5
Wetland H 0.0364 ha / 0.09 ac UT #N5
Wetland I 0.0081 ha / 0.02 ac Neuse River flood lain
Wetland J 0.0364 ha / 0.09 ac UT #N3
Wetland K 0.0162 ha / 0.04 ac UT #N2 & UT #Nl
Total 0.288 ha / 0.7107 ac
d. Permits
Impacts to surface waters are anticipated from project construction. Although
a discreet site may qualify for a Section 404 Nationwide Permit (NWP), cumulative
impacts from this project will likely be authorized under an Individual Permit (IP). A
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Section 401 Water
Quality General Certification is required prior to the Section 404 Individual Permit.
e. Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation
Total avoidance of impacts to wetlands is not feasible. Wetland areas are
located on both sides of existing NC 42 in the project area (see Figure 3). Effects on
wetlands have been minimized by widening away from wetlands as much as feasible,
taking into consideration likely impacts to homes and businesses.
In wetland areas, the steepest side slopes practicable will be used in order to
further minimize impacts. The proposed Best Management Practices will also reduce
project effects on wetlands.
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts
to waters of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum
extent possible. Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for
unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate and practicable
minimization has been required. Compensatory actions often include restoration,
creation, and enhancement of waters of the United States. Mitigation will be required
for streams with 150 ft (45.7 m) and greater impacts. Such actions should be
undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site.
-19-
Final decisions concerning compensatory mitigation for project impacts on
wetlands will be made during the design phase of the project.
Because this project is located in the Neuse River Basin, buffer mitigation will
also be required. Zone 1, the first 30 ft (9.1 m) of buffer, requires mitigation based on
a 3:1 ratio. Zone 2, the remaining 6.1 meters (20 ft) (landward) of the 15 meters (50
feet) buffer, requires mitigation based on a 1.5:1 ratio.
4. Protected and Rare Species
a. Federally-protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened,
Proposed Endangered, and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act. As of January 29, 2003,
there are four federally-protected species listed for Johnston County (Table 7). A
brief description of each species' characteristics and habitat follows.
Table 7
Federally rotected species in Johnston ount-v
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
Dwarf wed emussel 41asmidonta heterodon Endangered
Tars in ussel Elli do steinstansana Endangered
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii Endanered*
indicates a tustoncal record: last observed in the county more than 50 years ago
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker - Endangered
The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) uses open old growth stands of
southern pines, particularly longleaf pine, for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested
stand must contain at least 50% pine, lack a thick understory, and be contiguous with
other stands to be appropriate habitat for the RCW. These birds nest exclusively in
trees that are >60 years old and are contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of
age. The foraging range of the RCW is up to 200 hectares (500 acres). This acreage
must be contiguous with suitable nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and usually in trees
that are infected with the fungus that causes red-heart disease. Cavities are located in
colonies from 3.6-30.3 meters (12-100 feet) above the ground and average 9.1- 15.7
meters (30-50 feet) high. They can be identified by a large incrustation of running
sap that surrounds the tree.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
-20-
Potential habitat for the RCW is located within the project study area. A
known population was visited on December 13, 2000. Red-cockaded woodpeckers,
ideal habitat, and active cavities were observed. A survey for red-cockaded
woodpeckers in the potential habitat areas at the project site was conducted on March
8, 2001 by NCDOT biologists. No red-cockaded woodpeckers were observed, nor
were nesting cavities, or any other evidence that they may be using the project study
area. A review of the NHP database of Rare Species and Unique Habitats on 15
November 2000 revealed no known occurrences of the red cockaded woodpecker
within 1.0 mi (1.6 km) of the project study area. Therefore it can be concluded that
construction of this project will not impact this species.
Dwarf Wedge Mussel - Endangered
The dwarf wedge mussel is a small mussel having a distinguishable shell
noted by two lateral teeth on the right half and one on the left half. The periostracum
(outer shell) is olive green to dark brown in color and the nacre (inner shell) is bluish
to silvery white.
Known populations of dwarf wedge mussel in North Carolina are found in
portions of the Neuse River Basin and in the Tar River Basin. This mussel is
sensitive to agricultural, domestic, and industrial pollutants and requires a stable silt
free streambed with well oxygenated water to survive.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Surveys for mussels were conducted by NCDOT biologists on November 19,
2001, November 30, 2001, December 7, 2001 and August 14, 2002. The Dwarf
wedge mussel was not found in the in-stream survey. The Natural Heritage
Program's database of rare species and unique habitats was examined and there were
no records of this species in the project area.
Tar Spinymussel - Endangered
The Tar spinymussel, one of only three freshwater mussels in the world with
spines, is a medium-sized mussel reaching about 6.4 centimeters (2.5 inches) in
length. In young specimens, the shell's outer surface is an orange-brown color with
greenish rays; adults are darker with inconspicuous rays. The inside of the shell is
yellow or pinkish at one end and bluish-white at the other. Juveniles may have as
many as 12 spines; however, adult specimens tend to lose their spines as they mature.
Two relatively good populations are known to exist in two tributaries of the
Tar River. Although they have been found in one other tributary and the main stem of
the Tar River, individuals are becoming harder to find.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION
NO EFFECT
-21 -
No Tar spinymussel population was observed in the project study area. A
review of the Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and unique habitats
does not list a known population within twenty "river miles" up or downstream.
Project construction will not impact this species.
Michaux's Sumac - Endangered
Michaux's sumac is a dioecious shrub growing to a height of 0.3-0.6 meters
(1.0-2.0 feet). Plants flower in June, producing a terminal, erect, dense cluster of 4-5
parted greenish-yellow to white flowers. Fruits, produced from August through
September, are red, densely short-pubescent drupes, 5-6 mm (0.25 inch) across.
Most populations of Michaux's sumac occur in North Carolina. This species
prefers sandy, rocky, open woods and roadsides. Its survival is dependent on
disturbance (mowing, clearing, fire) to maintain an open habitat. It is often found
with other members of its genus as well as with poison ivy. There is no longer
believed to be an association between this species and specific soil types.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Habitat for Michaux's sumac is present within the project study area. No
Michaux's sumac was found during surveys of the project area. Given the result of
the survey it can be concluded that the proposed project will not impact Michaux's
sumac. The Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and unique habitats
was examined and there were no records of this species in the project area.
b. Federal Species of Concern
There are thirteen Federal Species of Concerns (FSC) listed for Johnston
County as of January 29, 2003. FSC are not afforded federal protection under the
Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section
7, until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. Organisms
which are listed as Endangered, Threatened or Special Concern by the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NHP) list of Rare Plant and Animal Species are afforded
state protection or are monitored under the State Endangered Species Act and the NC
Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979. However, the level of protection
given to the state listed species does not apply to NCDOT activities. Table 8 provides
the FSC in Johnston County and indicates the species state status, and whether or not
there is adequate habitat for each species in the project study area.
-22-
Table 8
Federal Species of Concern in Johnston Coun
Common Name Scientific Name State
Statusl Habitat
Pinewoods shiner L s matutinus SR Yes
Yellow lance Elli do lanceolata T(PE) Yes
Atlantic i oe Fusconaia masoni T(PE) Yes
Yellow lam mussel Lam sills cariosa T(PE) Yes
Green floater Lasmi ona subvirdis E Yes
Tar River crayfish Procambarus medialis W3 Yes
Spring-flowering
-goldenrod Solidago verna T Yes
Carolina asphodel To eldia labra C No
Carolina least trillium Trillium usillum var. usillum E No
"Neuse" madtom* Noturus furiosus "population 1" FSC
Sandhills bog lily* Lilium ro hilum FSC
Carolina bo int* Macbridea caroliniana FSC
Lon beach seedbox* Ludwi is brevi es FSC*
- tate- iste endangered species
C-State-listed candidate species
SC-State-listed special concern species
*Information on the habitat will be provided.
Surveys for FSC listed in Table 8 were not conducted during the site visit, nor
were these species observed during the site visit. A review of the NHP database of
Rare Species and unique habitats did not reveal the presence of these species or
unique habitats in or near the project study area.
D. Social Effects
1. Land use
a. Existing Land Use and Zoning
Land development along both sides of NC 42 is either agricultural or low-density,
single-family residential. There are a few large industries (Caterpillar and Adventis)
located at the beginning of the project near US 70. Most of the project area remains
heavily wooded.
b. Status of Planning
The Clayton Strategic Growth Plan, completed in December 2000, recommends
that land along the south side of NC 42 between US 70 and Glen Laurel Road be used for
industrial purposes, while the north side is proposed for a mix of industrial and single-
family residential. A commercial center is recommended in the southeast quadrant of the
-23-
NC 42/Glen Laurel Road intersection. Except for a tract north of this 'intersection that is
recommended for office/institutional use, all of the land'along the NC 42 corridor east of
Glen Laurel Road is recommended for single-family residential use.
2. Environmental Justice
In compliance with Executive Order 12898 (Federal Action to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations), a review was conducted to determine
whether minority or low-income populations will receive disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental impacts as a result of this project. It is
estimated the project will relocate two residences; none of these are considered low-
income. None of these relocatees is a minority residence. It is estimated the project
will relocate two businesses; none of these are considered a minority business.
A citizens informational workshop was held for the project on September 13,
1999. This workshop was advertised in local newspapers. Through the public
involvement program, citizens have been kept informed of the proposed project. No
issues related to environmental justice concerns have been discovered through the
public involvement process.
Based on project studies, this project is being implemented in accordance with
Executive Order 12898.
3. Relocation of Residences and Businesses
The proposed project will require the relocation of two residences and two
businesses. It is anticipated that adequate replacement properties will be available.
The relocation program for the project will be conducted in accordance with the
Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of
1970 (Public Law 91-646), and/or the NCDOT relocation Act (GS 1343-5 through
133-18). The NCDOT relocation program is designed to provide assistance to
displaced persons in relocating to a replacement site in which to live or do business.
A relocation report discussing potential relocatees and a description of NCDOT
relocation programs are presented in Appendix B.
4. Public Facilities, Schools, Institutes and Services
A Fire station for the Town of Clayton is located on NC 42 approximately one
mile east of US 70. The East Clayton Elementary School is located at the NC 42
/Castleberry Road intersection. Access from and to these public facilities in the
project area will be much easier and improved following the completion of the
project.
During the construction of the project, the driveway of the fire station will be kept
open at all times. No equipment or materials will be parked or placed in the fire station
driveway at any time.
-24-
5. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their
representatives to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction projects on
prime and important farmland soils. North Carolina Executive Order Number 96 requires
all state agencies to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction projects on
prime farmland soils, as designated by the US Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS). Land which is planned or zoned for urban development is not subject to the
same level of preservation afforded other rural, agricultural areas. The project area meets
the planned urbanization condition and is zoned for residential development. Therefore,
no further consideration of farmland impacts is required.
6. Flood Hazard Evaluation
Johnston County is a current participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular
Program. The crossings of Beaver Creek, a Beaver Creek Tributary, and Mill Creek are in
designated flood hazard zones. Figure 6 shows the established limits of the 100-year
floodplain in the vicinity of these stream crossings. Floodway revisions will be needed at
these stream crossings. NCDOT will coordinate with the Federal Emergency
management Agency (FEMA) and local authorities during the final design phase of the
project for approval of the floodways revisions and to ensure compliance with applicable
floodplain ordinances. It is anticipated the proposed project will have no significant
adverse effect on the existing floodplain, nor on the associated flood hazards.
E. Hiahway Traffic Noise Analysis
1. Introduction
A traffic noise analysis was performed to determine the effect of widening
NC 42 on noise levels in the immediate project area. This investigation included an
inventory of existing noise sensitive land uses and a field survey of ambient (existing)
noise levels in the study area. It also included a comparison of the predicted noise
levels and the ambient noise levels to determine if traffic noise impacts can be
expected to result from the proposed project. Traffic noise impacts are determined
from the current procedures for the abatement of highway traffic noise and
construction noise, appearing as Part 772 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. If traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination and evaluation of
alternative noise abatement measures must be considered.
2. Noise Abatement Criteria
To determine whether highway noise levels are compatible with various land uses,
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has developed noise abatement criteria
(NAC) and procedures to be used in the planning and design of highways. These
abatement criteria and procedures are set forth in Title 23 CFR Part 772. A summary of
the noise abatement criteria for various land uses is presented in Appendix C, Table N2.
The Leq, or equivalent sound level, is the level of constant sound which in a given
situation and time period has the same energy as does time varying sound. In other words,
the fluctuating sound levels of traffic noise are represented in terms of a steady noise level
with the same energy content.
-25-
3. Ambient Noise Levels
Ambient noise levels were taken in the vicinity of the project to determine the
existing noise levels. The purpose of this noise level information was to quantify the
existing acoustic environment and to provide a base for assessing the impact of noise
level increases. The existing Leq noise levels in the project area as measured at 50
feet from the edge of pavement of the nearest lane of traffic ranged from 67.8 to 68.2
dBA. Measured exterior Leq noise levels are presented in Appendix C, Table N3.
4. Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels
The procedure used to predict future noise levels in this study was the Traffic
Noise Model (TNM). TNM uses the number and type of vehicles on the planned
roadway, their speeds, the physical characteristics of the road, receptor location and
height, and, if applicable, barrier type, barrier ground elevation, and barrier top
elevation.
Only preliminary alignment was available for use in this noise analysis. Only
those existing natural or man-made barriers were included in setting up the model.
The roadway sections and proposed intersections were assumed to be flat and at-
grade. Thus, this analysis represents the "worst-case" topographical conditions. The
noise predictions made in this report are highway-related noise predictions for the
traffic conditions during the year being analyzed.
Peak hour design and level-of-service (LOS) C volumes were compared, and
the volumes resulting in the noisiest conditions were used with the proposed posted
speed limits. Hence, during all other time periods, the noise levels will be no greater
than those indicated in this report.
5. Noise Analysis Results
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise levels approach
(within 1 dBA of the Table N2 value) or exceed the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) noise abatement criteria and/or a receptor is predicted to sustain a
substantial noise increase. The traffic Noise Abatement criteria are shown on Table
N2 of Appendix C.
The Leq traffic noise exposures associated with this project are listed in Table
N4 of Appendix C. The maximum number of receptors in each activity category for
each section predicted to become impacted by traffic noise is shown in Table N5.
Under Title 23 CFR Part 772, with the construction of the project, four receptors are
predicted to be impacted by highway traffic noise in the project area. The maximum
extent of the 72 and 67 dBA noise level contours from the center of the proposed
roadway are 56.9 and 85.2 feet, respectively (see Table N5 of Appendix C).
-26-
Tables N6 indicate the exterior traffic noise level increases for the identified
receptors and roadway section. The predicted noise level increases for this project
range from +1 to +6. There are no receptors predicted to experience a substantial
increase in exterior noise levels.
6. Traffic Noise Abatement Measures
If traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination and evaluation of
alternative noise abatement measures for reducing or eliminating the noise impacts
must be considered. Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to all
impacted receptors.
a. Highway Alignment
The selection of alternative highway alignments for noise abatement
purposes must consider the balance between noise impacts and other
engineering and environmental parameters. For noise abatement, horizontal
alignment selection is primarily a matter of siting the roadway at a sufficient
distance from noise sensitive areas. Changing the highway alignment is not a
viable alternative for noise abatement.
b. Traffic System Management Measures
Traffic management measures which limit vehicle type, speed, volume
and time of operations are not considered appropriate for noise abatement due
to their effect on the capacity and level of service of the proposed roadway.
C. Noise Barriers
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels can often be
applied with a measurable degree of success by the application of solid mass,
attenuable measures to effectively diffract, absorb, and reflect highway traffic
noise emissions. Solid mass, attenuable measures may include earth berms or
artificial abatement walls.
No control of access is proposed for the project, which means that
most commercial establishments and residences will have direct driveway
connections to the proposed improvement, and all intersections will be at-
grade.
For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction it must be high
enough and long enough to shield the receptor from significant sections of the
highway. Access openings in the barrier severely reduce the noise reduction
provided by the barrier. It then becomes economically unreasonable to
construct a barrier for a small noise reduction. Safety at access openings
(driveways, crossing streets, etc.) due to restricted sight distance is also a
concern. Furthermore, to provide a sufficient reduction, a barrier's length
-27-
would normally be 8 times the distance from the barrier to the receptor. For
example, a receptor located 50 feet from the barrier would normally require a
barrier 400 feet long. An access opening of 40 feet (10 percent of the area)
would limit its noise reduction to approximately 4 dBA.
In addition, businesses, churches, and other related establishments
located along a particular highway normally require accessibility and high
visibility. Noise barriers would tend to disallow these two qualities, and thus,
would not be acceptable abatement measures in this case.
d. "No Build" Alternative
The traffic noise impacts for the "do nothing" or "no-build" alternative
were also considered. No receptors are predicted to experience traffic noise
impacts and the future traffic noise levels would only increase approximately
1-2 dBA. This small increase in noise levels would be barely be noticeable to
the people working and living in the area. A 5 dBA change in noise levels is
more readily noticed.
e. Construction Noise
The major construction elements of this project are expected to be
earth removal, hauling, grading, and paving. General construction noise
impacts, such as temporary speech interference for passers-by and those
individuals living or working near the project, can be expected. However,
considering the relatively short-term nature of construction noise and the
limitation of construction to daytime hours, these impacts are not expected to
be substantial. The transmission loss characteristics of nearby natural
elements and man-made structures are believed to be sufficient to moderate
the effects of intrusive construction noise.
L Summary
Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is not
recommended, and no noise abatement measures are proposed. This
evaluation completes the highway traffic noise requirements of Title 23 CFR
Part 772, and unless a major project change develops, no additional noise
reports will be submitted for this project.
F. Air Quality Analysis
Introduction
Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions from industry
and internal combustion engines are the most prevalent sources. The effect on
air quality of highway construction ranges from intensifying existing air
pollution problems to improving the ambient air quality. Automobiles are
-28-
considered to be the major source of CO in the project area. For this reason,
most of the analysis presented herein is concerned with determining expected
carbon monoxide levels in the vicinity of the project due to automobile flow.
1. CO Concentration
The background concentration is defined by the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources as "the
concentration of a pollutant at a point that is the result of emissions outside the
local vicinity; that is, the concentration at the upwind edge of the local
sources."
The background CO concentration for the project area was estimated
to be 1.8 parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the Air Quality Section,
Division of Environmental Management (DEM), North Carolina Department
of Environment, Health and Natural Resources indicated that an ambient CO
concentration of 1.8 parts per million (ppm) is suitable for most suburban and
rural areas.
2. Air Quality Analysis
Johnston County is in compliance with the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards. The project is located in an attainment area. The worst-
case scenario air quality receptor was determined to be located along the
limits of the roadway's right-of-way. The predicted one-hour CO
concentrations for the evaluation build years of 2005, 2010 and 2025 for the
worst-case air quality scenario are 7.8, 7.9 and 8.2 parts per million (ppm),
respectively.
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS
(maximum permitted for 1-hour averaging period = 35 ppm; 8-hour averaging
period = 9 ppm) indicates no violation of these standards. Since the results of
the worst-case 1-hour CO analysis for the build scenario is less than 9 ppm, it
can be concluded that the 8-hour CO level does not exceed the standard. In
addition, a no build scenario was completed for all evaluation years. The
resulting CO concentrations were similar to the build scenario, thus not
exceeding the standards. The proposed project is not anticipated to create any
adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
3. Construction Air Quality Effects
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting
from clearing and grubbing, demolition or other operations will be removed
from the project, burned or otherwise disposed of by the Contractor. Any
burning will be done in accordance with applicable local laws and ordinances
and regulations of the North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air
quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure
-29-
burning will be done at the greatest distance practical from dwellings and not
when atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public.
Burning will be performed under constant surveillance. Measures will be
taken to reduce the dust generated by construction when the control of dust is
necessary for the protection and comfort of motorists or area residents.
G. Hazardous Materials and UST Involvement
Based on a field reconnaissance survey and database review of the project
area, two facilities containing underground storage tanks (UST)s and two
Superfund sites have been identified within the project limits.
The first UST site is a former service station (Jimmy Flowers Store)
located just east of SR 1704 on the north side of NC 42. The underground
storage tanks were removed in August 1994. These tanks were located
approximately 20.4 meters (67 feet) from the existing centerline of NC 42.
Soil contamination above state action levels was found during the closure, but
no groundwater was encountered. A groundwater incident number (17217)
was assigned to the site. No action has been taken, and the site is not under
any type of remediation.
The second UST site is located in the northwest quadrant NC 42 and
SR 1003. This service station (The Percy Flowers Store) is currently in
operation. The active underground storage tanks are located approximately
105 feet from NC 42. New underground storage tanks were installed in 1993,
and four older USTs were removed. No monitoring wells were observed, and
the site does not appear to be under remediation.
The first Superfund site, the Peele Company Pesitcide Disposal Site,
is located on the south side of NC 42 approximately 0.6 kilometer (0.4 mile)
west of SR 1902 (Glenn Laurel Road). The property was used for the disposal
of pesticides in the late 1950's and 1960's. The chemicals were placed in a
trench and then burned. This former trench is approximately 85 meters (280
feet) from the centerline of NC 42. Soils in the area were excavated and
properly disposed of in 1997. The groundwater at this Superfund site is
currently being monitored. The Town of Clayton plans to construct a fire
station on this property. No hazardous material issues are expected at this
site.
The second Superfund site, the Former Data General Corporation Site
(now Caterpillar), is located on the south side of NC 42 approximately 0.3
kilometer (0.2 mile) west of SR 1902. This site is listed as a Superfund site
because fish collected from a pond on the property indicated low levels of
pesticide contamination from the Peele site, which is nearby. This pond is
located nearly 305 meters (1,000 feet) away from NC 42. Two USTs were
removed from the property, one in 1986 and the other in 1990. These tanks
were located on the side of the building away from NC 42. No hazardous
materials issues are expected at this site.
-30-
No regulated or unregulated landfills or dumpsites exist within the
project limits.
The proposed widening will require property from all of these
potential hazardous material sites. A preliminary site assessment will be
performed for all of the properties prior to right of way acquisition in order to
determine the extent of any contamination. Right of way acquisition from the
two service station sites will be by permanent easement rather than fee simple
right of way due to the possibility of contamination on the properties.
Permanent easements will be obtained from the two Superfund sites, as well,
if the preliminary site assessment determines there is a possibility of
contamination in areas needed for right of way.
VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Citizens Informational Workshop
A citizens informational workshop was held on September 13, 1999,
to obtain comments and suggestions about the project from the public.
Approximately 43 persons attended this meeting, including NCDOT representatives.
Most of the comments received related to project impacts on private properties and
access to properties. This meeting was advertised through local newspapers and
flyers were sent to property owners and citizens in the project area.
B. Agency Coordination
The following agencies were consulted regarding this project. An asterisk (*)
indicates a response was received. Copies of the comments are included in
Appendix A.
U.S. Department of the Army - Corps of Engineers (Wilmington District)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Raleigh
*N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
*N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
-31-
FIGURES

,' l T I
BEGIIY
PROJECT
NG 4 2.
/
A `y
N N
oil
a
o ; ' mod.
0 was
r_

I o'
/
FI ers?.
42 -T
/ 1'
? F1YD
i `, PROJECT

%k

MILES
0 1 2
0 1 2 3
KILOMETERS
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
c OF TRANSPORTATION
i DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
S PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
NC 42
US 70 to SR 1003 (Buffalo Rd.)
Johnson County
TIP PROJECT R-3825
Figure 1

lu k
r
?s
rv
. .

F
e
AI . "
R;
lots

r :? • .m
"

F
it
n"

m.
s
:? m
a
MR- y
'
x"m m m V

Sh y
„ a

"
w. " m
.„.

is
y
-
yy V.

f ?'

WHO
7-
y v

s y ".

......:
.
,. ..., .
" °.... " .. Z
m ... .
,
.. .
y Y.
Rk:
Y "" ..
.

AU
O ....
' "..„ ..
S T y
.z.
.

.
YT . Y,
...
...

...
r
?
'
.. ..
Y
Y

m. .m.
......:......

yy,
m

".. Y,

y moo

"Y y
y Y,

.....

17
:
.
y
m
"

?.

„ ley
..
S
"
"

rm., r

s- s
Y.., 011 S

x

. .m

$ .
;

. " AFT To

„.

.. yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

".":,..
.

. ?;':
m.

?.
""°
::
..

. wi
" "
...' ?a. l my...'y ,
'
. ?
W
.
" . m„,.
: ..
.
..
. . .. .".: ... .:.
."..
?
Q
j{

...
C
IF .:"......... .... " .... --.
....

.
... ...
:.
m

.. " :. '.
,.
.. .. .

. ..
" Y.'
.. ..
...
.. " :.

" ..
.e.. . ."
..
„ „ ..
.
' I..
?
:
?
?
Y , ?'.? ?
???
' now "
x v ? 1 I V ? ?
.:

Y? ?-
r

,

. , , '

c
"
•
..
. .::

a
.

rv" " "" „s
...

m x ..
.
.. " i. ..
^, . :.•"
.
: m.:
..?. .
::
:. ..
:
."
, :
m :
..
.. ..." ... .m ., 5.m

.... ..„. ...
..

L Y.".",,,.
..C.
k: 7

,.
„.".
.

.
: ....... . . .:...
.
..
.:
. .
.
..
.. .
.." .. .
.„ ..
.- . "
"
.
0
" MY . L.: s
" . .:
"i
..
..
..
. '
:.
.I ?.' _. '':
: ' '.: : _
.... ... '" ...... ...
.
.. .. .. .. ... .
.
. Y".. "
..

,m
..
.
'
...
„
.
.. . .
...
..
` 3 ..
. .
m.
..
` .
"".
I ..a:

.

...
... z. -
.
.
.. ..
.:. .. . ;: • :. .
...
...
. .. ...
L
....
. .. ..

a'
.. •...
..
::'

....
...
..,

tr
A
m
g .
,. ..
.. ... . .....:'
.

... .„
•?•"• .
.

.
.. % ..
. ...

c
'^.
.
..
r
'
.
Y .. 3 .
11
'
"

m.
,..•
:
x' a

M x.
'.
.:.
ie
s.
x
,
x
.
:.. S
. . .
.
.
. I
[
.
?
..
.
.... . At
At 114
Y
S
.'. 5 i 9 2
:s. 'aw„
.
..
C 4
?. .
„ .

.. .:.:. .rv.rv...
'.?' S
'A .".. "FCC.(.:. [ .... ? At
?.
.:. .._
.
.
.. .... "'.:." ".' S S :.::
...
. .
.
N 'i.
."
.
.
. . m
h
m
m
..
"
.. C ,
:.
..: ,' ..: :w .....m

.
v A C.
.. „m ... ..."
" :. . ..m
.. ...: .. ... . . .::. .. '.r• . ..
..:

s...
:
" 3? c
.:
5
,.
.
.. ..
.:
!:
..
.: .. ' ' Y

YY r, "
.
m
,,.
nmm
: ""Y ,x,.,
r

...
. . x
_
T. 1 1 .? '.
r
?.?? :....
?i
; . x
„
"
..
.

m
m
.
m . ::,:
;. x
x a
.
mm.... z .. ". ;
.
. "'::Y.:

."
"... ...
; y
.....
....:. .."w .. .?.. ..
. :." •m
m;
,,....,m .,,.... , a
..
m
:
.
m
:: ..C .: .. .: ... .: :M"rv..' :.

m ..
m ""
..
i"
..
.m .... .".".....:...m

..
.. Y y.. ?,.

..
:.

E
.
E
"";w"
'Y".
m
:rv.
°.
. S
.. •'"; x.
''
" + _"
:.... m:.

x
..

A.
"
x

.. ..

rv
;„ •.
•:

m
.... "
n
..
.
.. .. ..
.: : . .
.. , .. . ..- .:: ..
..- .... .5y .
m .
w
m,
.:
. m
''
..: ..,m
::.F: "
.
:....
m :. ..
..
,
:
•
y.
.
..
::

? r"

..:
•' r . "
.. , .. ... To .. 7
i ?•

..

.
,
"..C. ..".C
- :.
..
..

.:. ..'

%:.
" .. ..
.:
...

.

..

. .
.. .

.

.. "
:..

5" ..
e. „ ? -.w m
m . . :.

.
E

"

:. .:
W
:
- .

m
-:
.
. ....: m?
.„....
..
.gym

G
„
..„.
..
. k .
k

m
,.. :

.G" -
w.
,,k.

„. m

w":?
?
,

., m
.

':
.. ,:.
.
.. :. ,... :„

m,
=" ryy.:
.. ....
.

.:
..

c
..
c'
'
„ „
.
„, .
,
,.
?

..„:.
.
, .
?
. x
a
;
^' .
. ^,
M. x m
r '.

L ..
?..."".'.:
'
.:
1
IM .Z_ "
..
E ..
. m ': .. .: r
..

..„ y. ".'
M
. .m .„, .. . .. . wm.

.„m „, ... .„„.
''
.
...

.
...
.
.. .. „ .
.. m. .. 1.
G .... .
„
G
...
.
.. ..:„
_
y

"... ?,
„
„.A.
.. ., G
? „
"
C I
- ? ,% Y?
rv .
. V- . .:
..
' r
?'
rv
„, „ r ....
y'
= -' s ..
.;. w
eGi .

r-'' "
%

_

„. ..
a.
m
,- . , „ .m

m .

C : .
x
^
.?^
..

rv . Y .M.
^?
I
. " .

.
.:
..
C. ?, ...
..
..
..
.... :::
5
..„ :. .„„. .:
.... " ..

%. .

„..
„ .

.:
. ...... .:
.

. - ^ ..

^"
" ... " "„. . ',
m :

-,.

- „„
..
rv'
:k

.

... . „

... &..
G
... „ „.
m . .
..: . „„ ..
G
.. „
.
.
.. G: ;:; ... ..
. '
.. ..
. .
'" G..
..
.: : .. ...
I..
. x
.„

......... .. ." ..

"' nr..
..

. .
I

:.
..
. .
' ..
... rv:.
. „
Y' r
„
:.... ...
...

..„^.. ... .. .. "

:. .:.. '. .... „

1.
... .
rv ..

5
. w Y
..".
.. .. .

:.. ^,
:. :

.
"
..::.: ... . ..

..: .„...::5.

, „E ..
.

.
.. .1 rv .„
.
„

T BF „ y.. ..
. . ..
.. "
..

.
:.
"

rv..
:::
I... .:

.
i
. :
rv
....,,.
. ..
.. .

rv JYy " S,

, m:
.": , ::

.r
.
.
"... ."
YrY ...

"".rv". :.
...
c."."",,.
,...F",?
, ..
...
....Y

_
. . .. .
'
.
.. , ..,.m ...Y. ., ::
...
A -1 " " , , , " .,. ,-..
" _

.:.

.
'.
... ..:.."'C' m"
' rv."
I "'7
. ....
.. m .. .... ."."..."
....'
y

,
'.
?
-
..
.
.
.
.
.. ?
?i ?
, , , :
.
.
.
."
%
K
? ?
-
: : ...
m
i
?
%? I Y, Y'x : .. ?
? . .. . .
? . ...
?M
.Y....

. „,
....
.
,, , . % I I .,
i
.. ,
........
.
5 M
?z? . ...
?
t
, , , "??' , ,
?
??]
'. - --n .,
c i
, ' ": & . .. ... . ?,",
?
C
rv.
... ..

?:
?
:
"
.:
:
?

I
??
?
.%
:: : ?
:
:
:
o
?
?
I
:
e? ... I.... I .-
F !vw! 1 . val N'... .... lx?
:
:: ..
?
??:
? ::??
:
.
.
, ... . Y...
,
- lo
p
1
... Y.

i I : ? ???:? ????? ?? :: ?????????:?????:?
::
:??
.
11
:
?
??
??
???
?
???

.
..
y I
?????????????:???? 110
f 1

Q '? ?? ,- ,, ?f,
.... . ....
y
:::::::::::
???
?
?
:?
:????????????:????????????
?
?????
?
..
? j
1 .

EL?? , , ?'

;
?
'
!
??
?
.
-
????
? ? I
Y,?.,
? '.
, -.
,
" ?,. ?
? 1 ,
mm
? ?????::
, -
??????????????????????????????????
?
?
? .
?
,
? ?
.. ?
.
? , 7, , ?
? ,
,-
, - ?? ? ?....%
,.
RA! - .
, ,? ... ?,
? ...,

?" ? ?
:: w
.. ..
.
y ?
? ?
?

" ?
I
y,.
?:
?:

......"'
:. •
.., .i
. ? ?
_
: " ,??
??
??

q..
fi
., - i
?
i'y , ,
.
.. ': 7j
P
??
-
?
????
??
?????????
,
: !
?:::???????????????
'
?
v

7 f
? :
4?
"
,....
.:...,.., .... .
.Y.
..
...
17"
,
?
??
?
????
??
.
,
?
??
7
!
AP
? ? , . :
?
,
,
.
.
.,
9
"': ?T ?? ,.?.. . , ...
!,; ??
...
.
ig? ..
rv
s ..
, , ? ", ,,,?
9 ??- ?

..:.... "............".. :.„. ..

" ..
. ... , ,.
'.: w.." ". y ". .- ..
. ' .' .:.. :'' :. ::
',
..

.. .
.

.
v .
.
..
4??
.
i
j I, y :
.-?, ?..
?
A?
: . ... ."
. 'i x'...
: i
..
, ,? I :
s'
a
A "

rv
7
. -
TO
:
.. ? ?
,
' . , '.
... . „
..
„.
- ..
.. .. ..;...

w ..
" -. :" . " ...
a. .. ..
. ,..
m. '.. ,
.. ' . ..J ...
:
...: .. ., :: ..: •: ". :

.

%
?
.
. ..
.
.
,. ..
-
. ".
!
,
?x?7
y ?:
'
NYO
?. , ? r ,
y :?, - ?? , - , ?? t ?
,
.
11

, . .4?
,
.
gt?
%
- - - " ,.. .. ,
?
.
?
.- ,
.
-
.
-
'
, " . 4
.
-
"
k
1
" " ..
R
-
AS il
" , ......
.
w .."
. ".
? ,
".. "
.. ". ... .
, ;. ; .... m
.."
m
?
?
N
,
,..
'
,
? ! I ES! A A
" ,•
rv"
.
. .
m ..
.
. "..

:: .
. •.
, % : :.. . ... ... . .. , ,......''.. ? ., e.
..
... .... ...:. . . ".. ...
-
??:O,
? y `

,

,
. . ., .... .y ......
..

. ... .. . . I .. ....''. ... ? ..% ....
m
... .` .:
„ „.
? ?
,!
- ?
". 9.
.. .. r. ..
." ..,
.: ..... :. .. :. .. .,
.
??::? , ..y 6

.
.
,
.
:.
"
.. ". .. ., x ... - - I I ? ,?' y ,
O
?
., - ,

"
..
!.
. ?.
? ? ? W
7
: % !"

il
„ ...
... .. .
..
? i ..... ,
` , , .. .... ? 7 ,
10 %

- . ? . ....

,
: ,.
.' " ..
.
%: %
, ?..... ? '.... :? I ... Y, y
` :
:
'
?

.,:?..:.
:.... ... '.....,. , ?xj?
.

.... ?
,.. , - , -
%
.. ... „; ?
„,. " , ..
:.
, - ..',? ...? ?ea, .........?,??*
. .,..,.
..
?!
?? : 1
?" ?n .? ?: ,..:, . . . .

.. ......
.
. i?'
. .

F

.:" :
"
?
? .
- ... .

?_
.
? ,
:. ,. ....
..":.. .. :..": ...
'
."
.. ..
"
rv,
,
..
Fy
.
rrv
,, .. " :.?. ...W: " . :.
..
'...
:
-
", " "
...
:
:
?? ? ?
11
1 2P
I !
? " 1
i
,-,"', ?
?
- ,
.. ,
..:. .
.. .,
.
:.:
l
?
;
- :
..
"..
! : ? .
????

, , r ?
- -
,
y.
,
i ? y ? '.... w. .
., ? ..., I
,
. , , '. ..... - ,
?
?
: ,
,
?k
: - .
. - , " .
? ,? .
". , ?,
....
??,- "
C

a
i
:TV" w .... ...
M!
???
,,
???? ??
??
,
y yx?'-'Y
-'
"f . .
..,
am.
G
,
Z
ffl
?
!?
?
;
.
,,
" , , ,
, .
..
?
? ? ????
?I ?
??
v
. ,.
y
.
.
..
.
. e ."
- , ., ..
? ,
.. y ... . . ...
., ,. . .
??:?
?:? ?
T
'
?
,
,
-
i,
v?? ?
-
Y ?
?:???
??
?
? !,
?
??
,,7,
.
?
z ? my
?
?
?:?
, `
Y
,
? , ?- , , ? '.
.
.
,
i
.
?
Y?
.: 0 r!
z
?
? ? ? ?
?
:
?:?
'i
??
? ?
?

:
. .
. C
?
:
z" ?.
m y E
. .., ? . ? , ? e. . " ?
? :? ? - w , , ,
,
Z
:
:
:
-
- MMMOR

?????????
'?
,
?
:
?
..

???????
?
??
-
.. . .
? ? ???:: ?
y k
? ??? ?:??
?:
?
?
I
.
, , ? .
?
...5
:
:
?????
?
??
Y

:
:???
?
??
,?
,
Y ? ,

:
.. ... . .... : .......
i . i
.11,
? . ... , ...,.?'...a : :
.: .'
?
: , x, ??
?? ???::???? ?
?? ?
?
?v
:?: ? ?:?? ??? ??? ? ??

??:
::
7'""" •..
.W..
,
,
I

: ..
'..
... ... .., rv' .
' :. .
???????
N Y?, -
?
,

"

????
?
- ????? ????
i ,
??
??
??? i?

.
-
???????????????
?
????
?
"
, , .. . ::. . ".. ..
.!,.. - .. ... .
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????? ???????????????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ii?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
, f
?
-
?
?-
n-
- 'y
? -7 y " , ?X
, " ? ".. ? '..., :
sy
?
?
?
r ??
???????
????????????
??7??
?
, . %, ?
"
".. .,.
. y '.
.. .,.. ... " ? ..... L
. ,:
..
'... :
, .. . ... '
?,,
?
-
i
?y '! ?
..
, . .. ?: . :
?
.
.
.
.
,.
.
, .
".. .
??.

.
" m .
Z
V
,
?
,
... .. :" ,
1 ?? ? ?
r.?..:"
.
- "Y ?
:

n.

"
f
??? ?
? ...
?

??
." J
???????:? ?
?
?:
-
..
_
.. . ...". "
k
x

:? ?
::
? ?,. .
'.. ?..... .:.
.. , , ? . , .. '. .
? ? ,.. ..'
TO!
O
."...,Y...?. .??,?
?
.
.'
"
..
. . ????
:
.
7' "
..:
APAY
y
im, %
?
.?,
?
, ,
A
"
.. I - '.. r :
'
?'
' E
??
'E
.
? A -
. . ..
.,
.
Y
.
..
Z
.
w . " .
7
'
?
W
RY,
? ??
?
?
..:
4
?
.
? ?
I
I
?
T

.
..
.
;. ."
":. .rv.. ..'.'
. t S
"
:
TIMS -
...
:
". .... "
..".
..
., ,
rc
,
:
?
:

?A ?
:
:
? ?
. . .
.
.,
..
, . .
..
.
.
..
%.
-
o- ?
?,? ?
??
??
? ??
?
?
a
???
?
?:??? ?
??
.
..............................
.
.
.
... .
.1 ?'... . . .. .
." , y , .Y. S.-e . . . .... . .: .... - ??, , , .,
?
.
? ,
:
?!...
:??:
?????
? :
:
::
: ?????? ?
: ?:

.,.
„ .
:
F . " am x
"
'
e
,
???
- E"
?
-

??
?
? : ??:
"
rv.
'. '.
.
... ?. Y.L'" . , .. . . ...... k?
"
-
" .
; .
` '?",, & , ? - , k?
? ??? ??? ?: *W??
: ?? ???? ????
? ??????????????
?????????
???????
???
?!
!
'.,

? ..., , ,.. . ....
Y .,...,
"

??
?
??
??
??
w
.
" s e :. ?
'
'

.Y .1
.Y I:
.Y .1
a...x „
".".
"
?",
` ?- ?. ,
a i?4 ?:
? ? ? ? ?
?
:
7
? v
r, ?y
"
?

U

., „,,.
.
'. ..'
".-,
.
.. :
?
?
?? ???
????:??: ?
?
,
?
.
: MY &1011
,
?
? e ,

?
1

.
-
1 ... I . 1.
, ,
: , .
,
.
M
vies
'?
!
R on, r"
IN ? h
?A 5
: : ::: ::: &
: : : ::::: :?:?:??:::??::? ??
a Kv
??:::
?
? ?? d N APPQ
?
:::::
...?
...
. ? -
?. ... ..%%%%%%% .................. " Q
.,,
.
...
?
? j
:?
? ??
?? % . e.
?
,
,., ....
? ??????
:
: ??
?
. , ??
. . . .... ... ..
:..
-,
I ,..
i
. ?
xx ? ?, , - ?
. -?
:..
.

" ;.. ,- Y
y
Z7
x

"
?x a
J- I t
,?
I
,
.
.
,--
?

?
?

7
,
.
,
z
"
.
.
.
- -
. .
? ? ?
.
ccccccccccccccccccc
rv.
:
::
v
,
-
,
::?: :

:
? ?:
?
'.... . z?n?
::.. %
???
' -
?????:
..
?
.
- I y 1
:
7
"
?
??
;
?
?
? :?????? ??? ?
?????? ? „
::
:
,
.
??
,. ?
?,
,
"
'
v" k:
: ??? v"I"
?
-, , " " - x
;
:
.
.
L .
.. , , .. ?:
- - - ,
... .. ".
??
7
'
y '
?

:

:: ::::

m„.
.. ",
'Y
:
??
. .. .. .. ...... . ... . . .. ... . - ?
Y
? ?
y -
m'
r z I -.
-Y -
Y
-
I
Y
-
, ?? I - I
??
Y
??
?
? : :::
?? ? ?? ?????:::: ?
:: ???
???????
?
?
?
?
.
.
,
.
, -
w.. c
- !
ii
W
, ? ?.- ? ?? ?
::
'
!
i Iyy
Ii? ?
?
?
?
? ?:?:
::::?:
: ::
??
?
?:? ,
,

.
,
-
:
" " . . a
"' ..... Y. •.
" . ."
...,"
".."
.
'
??
?
: :

?
...
yyyyyyyyy

,...." .
.. y : ??
::
C.
. ..
- - -
, '. y - ???
?
????
::???
, ???????:???:???????????????????????????????????????

"
-
11
:
......... . . . ...... - ... .. . ?..,... I 1. , , .. :
"G .. ..
? -
I 'Y' Y, ,
?
?
: 1,

.. " .,
?::
...
y
?? v
IF
??
?
-
?
" w
? ???
?
?
?

::: : : ??
?I
..
.
. ,
.
-
...
-
-
".. C
. - ?
' I
1
v -
-
y
'
1
T
S J
-:
... w ......
? ..
- ,
....,
.......
,.,."
"
TRI
T
?
?
-:
"z
?'7' ?
-
,
?

"
y
n
I

.
.......'.
.. `'•.
m C "
?
I
? - y - -?%
?.- :
:
: y
y
R NP i ?

"
"
S!

r
m
: :::::::: ?:
,
:' :
;"
." .".: 1; 1 NO
? . . ?..
:???:?? :?:? ???? ? ???

...
....
.."
'..
.. ...? .Y.., , .
"
„
" :
.
s.
"a ..
. . - - - ?, - ? ????? ?? ????
? 0
y
i "-" ?y
?_
Y
..
. ... ...
. .... -
r ;: .?::. "
?
: ? : : :: :
:
-

,
?
, ...,

:
.. ..:: m
?
,
Yy
--
???? ,
?k
- !??
?
.
.
. :1 k
'
F
?
??
Y
y
?
??
..
.
,
" .. r ...
.
....
..". ....
... .
. . . . ... . .. .
.. ..
..
?
-
°
s .
.. .....
.
,
.

.
..
. . . , "., . ,. .
:,

a:
3
to it
NZ
00
C7 O
W V
UZ
LU 0
O F-
w V)
CL Z
a. z
-o F0
o z
w
? F
A W
W
M
O Q?
N
n
0
w (1'l)
Vi 09 01
IQd
"re
U
0
cl
ea v;
119 F-- O I
Wd
PM
p 10 ---:?. 60

.-1

PM
10 X60
e (3,1)
a.
a.
F

r^
rn `?
r,
s --
9 - - - 55 I
.o
0
a~
z

tY
a
P
x
w ? z
F A ?
U Z ?.
O U _ r
F z
z <
W
w A m
F
z (n
z Cti»
0
7
C

A 8 £ `
a
H
<zmo? p
R?OD
oFZ>F
oc U
®

ua
z
=,
0
O O
Z
2
Z z 0 a
O V)
A
F

..? Z
0
W F
a" U
A w
z A
zW
z
m F
o ?
F ?
D r°?
H w
0.
?a
W ram?
W
F_
44

11 O

x wa
:D za
0
0
? ?? ? ? ? >F? WcG
O i4f0A? -O
A
W
> x ..) x z x
z F OxZa. A
p
W o z x?CZ odF

w
<F
M
w
p' C >

i Il w
>c
> AD4A0.A
W
cz
r,
? x
a -
v
O z A G .. j
N
U
z?.
00
O t` ?, ?n
O M 6`! C`!
PM
10 - - 60 tR
W W
WWW WWWW (2,2)
ct

to n
0

x
N
00
Z
M
0
U
100-
V Z
W
1
0
O F-
W V)
CL Z

/?
CL

O

F-
7

? ?
I?I•
Ian w
F
A
O W
W- _

0. W
1ra> F-?
?.
09<- --01
wd
O U
F z
z <
w ?
? °zN
O <wz
a?a
z "oa
_o
-?FTWF
o< >z
eaccx
?
SgO 0
E- znW,?
ze^O>
ox
a ?xz
?Eaw
i. 1
i A
oa
@

w W
a
z y, •n
"? ? F aNO C7
fi
o;?zM
@ OU U
0
zF
oo
a
wo°

F
F
O
z
A ti
W O
? Aa
IN o
10 60
cl
'IV
C`t
11 1=

U
z
-e ro
O

N
N
0
ct
1 A
?/

11?L1 ? 4 Q
o n , /
1Qcl
a
c
P
0 ?.
P?

O`.
W?

oa

o?

0. F A W
E-' ' ?

U q •(
!
am CL
? d
C
, ?
- a
W Z
? F
°a

„o
G hF
..l
w SOH
w
m O
F

`?
o W G Lr?„IW!'
0SaavE
O E =SOe
F
RL w ,?
Fw.

i :, auaaa

o 0
a
,? o
'
04
ca
W
z"
F?
U
Wa
ao
a,,,
wa
AF0
?W
WW
E?
U coil
>q>
oza
w
E
O
z
co
LO
W
N
W

Q
Q E
J ? N
D

O U.
O

E

CV
Z
O T
i
N
?
N
00 ?

M V Z

N Q
?
E
'4R
ri

N
? J
V Q 0

V a: in o g
LU
? i>- Lu W
to
O
E
O N

N
LLJ
^ ?
^ N
w V

)
LLI

w

?
CL
O ^

CL C
O
N N
12 E
N moo.

P GC
CL W
Z
O M
1-0
g
I vs E CN
D
O M V

co E
N co
LU
W
L _
m N
m
EW
N Q
W
W
v?
N N
}
d
E uj
N Q
d
O
C
3
E
M
M
M
Q
W
LL
0
C
rn
Ul
w

rn
? N a N
l 1 l
rn

rn
Z
? N w
°? m
y
3
I
CA)
to

v V
Ln
L
n
V • ?,+
N
N v

r)
rn o
D 3 ?
n
O
Z D
X

m O
w v

Z N
? p?
3
D
rn -
C

to
rn
W
a
v
=
C

rn

T
0
y
N
W O
?rn
rn n
r W
N 00
n N
-? Cn
O
Z

'-
a U
p
O a\
?
w ?
o
? A'
o
0
¦
¦
or a
u
¦ (D
, -N

pp
in
aJ ¦
iii ¦
r
?7

?1-
A
ii
l?

¦ `j
W

¦

r
. o Cl

O ul t
I

r?
¦
¦
r
01 -
¦
¦
¦

a t ?l ?
APPENDIX A
e1
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
?•
NCDENR-,:r
May 24. 1999 j,.
MEMORANDUM a "
a?
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E.. Manager. NCDOT, Prc Development & Environmental Analysis.
From: John E. Hennessy, NC Division of Water Quality
Subject: Scoping comments on proposed widening of NC42 from US 70 to SR 1003 (Buffalo Road),
Johnston County, Federal Aid Project No. STP-42(4), State Project No. 8.1312301. TIP R-3825.
Reference your correspondence dated May 5. 1999 in which you requested comments for widening project
TIP R-3825. Preliminary analysis of the project reveals the potential for multiple impacts to perennial
streams and jurisdictional wetlands in the project area. Furthermore, the impacts include a crossing of the
Neuse River with a classification of WS-IV NSW. The DOT is respectfully reminded that they will need to
comply with all the Neuse River Rules prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification. Further
investigations at a higher resolution should be undertaken to verify the presence of other streams and/or
jurisdictional wetlands in the area. The Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT consider the
following environmental issues for the proposed project:
A. We would like to see a discussion in the document that presents a sufficient purpose and need to
justify the project's existence. Since the project is a widening project, we assume that the Level-of-
Service (LOS) is one of the primary reasons for the project. Therefore, the document should
delineate a detailed discussion on the existing Level-of-Service as well as the proposed future Level-
of-Service. The discussion for the future Level-of-Service should consider the Level-of-Service with
and without the project.
B. The document should provide a detcled and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts to
wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping.
C. There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is required.
it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental
documentation. While the NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be practical, it should be noted
that for projects requiring mitigation. appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance
of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
D. Review of the project reveals that WS-IV waters are located in the project area. The DWQ requests
that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled "Design Standards in Sensitive
Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout design and construction of the project. This would
apply for any area that drains to streams having WS (Water Supply), ORW (Outstanding Resource
Water), HQW (High Quality Water). B (Body Contact), SA (Shellfish Water) or Tr (Trout Water)
classifications.
A-1

P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Athimative Action Employer 509% recycled/ 100o post-consumer paper
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
05/24/99
Page 2
E. The DOT is reminded that road crossings are permitted through Neuse Riparian Buffers. However,
pursuant to 15A NCAC 2B.0233, the impacts to buffers less than 150 linear feet or 1/3 of an acre
will be allowed so long as no practical alternative for the impact exists. Impacts in excess of 150
linear feet or 1/3 of an acre will be allowed with no practical alternative and will require mitigation.
F. Pursuant to 15A NCAC 2B.0233, sediment and erosion control devices will not be permitted in Zone
1 (edge of the stream to a perpendicular distance of 30 feet) of the riparian buffer. Sediment and
erosion control devices will be permitted in Zone 2 (30-50 feet from the edge of the stream)
provided they promote diffuse flow (dispersed overland flow) through the buffer and do not
compromise the integrity of Zone 1.
G. When practical, the DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on the existing location with road
closure. If a detour proves necessary, remediation measures in accordance with the NCDWQ
requirements for General 401 Certification 2726/Nationwide Permit No. 33 (Temporary
Construction. Access and Dewatering) must be followed.
H. Due to the presence of Water Supply Waters, the DWQ requests that hazardous spill catch basins be
installed at any bridge crossing a stream classified as HQW or WS (Water Supply). The number of
catch basins installed should be determined by the design of the bridge, so that runoff would enter
said basin(s) rather than flowing directly into the stream.
If applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent
practicable.
Wetland and stream impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures) to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternatives that
minimize wetland impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be required by
DWQ for impacts to wetlands in excess of one acre and/or to streams in excess of 150 linear feet.
K. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation will
be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
G. DWQ prefers replacement of bridges with bridges. However, if the new structure is to be a culvert, it
should be countersunk to allow unimpeded fish and other aquatic organisms passage through the
crossing.
H. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is
approved under General 401 Certification Number 3027/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey
Activities.
In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6) ), mitigation will be
required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that
mitigation becomes required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost
functions and values. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules f 15A NCAC 2H.0506
(h)(3)}, the Wetland Restoration Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
K. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater should not be permitted to
discharge directly into the creek. Instead, stormwater should be designed to drain to a properly
designed stormwater detention facility/apparatus.
A-2
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
05/24/99
Page 3
While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and soil surveys is a useful office tool, their
inherent inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior to permit
approval. Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401
Water Quality Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality
standards are met and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require
additional information, please contact John Hennessy at [phone] or
[e-mail].
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, Corps of Engineers
Tom McCartney, USFWS
David Cox, NCWRC
C:\ncdot\TIP R-3825\comments\R-3825 scoping comments.doc
A-3
W
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
M iehati F. Easley, Governor
Ulsbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Mamh ?Z 2001
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Nlanagcr
Pro)ect Developmenr and Envu-onmental analysis Branch
Fro tn: David Brook
DePurv Smce Historic servati,on CIFrcc=
.
Division crArchlves and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Rc. Arehaeoloeie»1 Survr+ Repor: and Evaluation of N'C 42, fobnston County; ER 99-991r-
7haalc you for vou.r letter of jnriuart• 24, 2001, transmirang copies of the above referenced report.
W,-- have rn ieured the report by Coastal Carolina Research and offer our cernmenrs. We agree that
ch.> Single site located during the survey, 311742-, is not eligible for inclusion of the National
Register of Historic Places and that no further archaeological work will be necessary for the project
as planned.
7ne above comments are rnnde pursuant o Secdoa 106 of the Naaorn--l Historic ?reservaaon Act
and the advisory Council on Historic ?reservation s Regulations for Cornpiiance with Secaon 106
codified ac 36 CFR Part 300.
Thank you For your cooperation and consider--non, If you have questions concerning the above
cornment, convict Rente Gletdhill-Earlev, Environmental Rcview Coocd:naror, ac 919/733-4-763.
DB: kgc
cc: John ;y/achworrb, FHvrA
Loretta Lautzeuheiscr
Tom Padgett, NCDOT
bc: County
Reading
Claggett/Clausez
A-5
LOC200n Mulling Addrm Telephane/Fitx
ndminticrntian 507 N. Olaunt St, Ruicigh, NC 4617 Mail Servicc Center, Rale gn 27699-W 1 7 [phone] •733-8653
Re$toraiinn 515 N. laluunt St, Ralcit h . NC 4613 ,,Maii Service Center, Raleigh 2 7699-16 1 3 [phone].715-4801
Survey & Planning 515 N. t3luwtt St. R41clgn, NC a6t 3 Tall Ser+tc.- Ccntcr, Rdletgn 27699-4611 (919) T33-4763 •713-4801
0 10
LV
oz)4\?
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
MAILING ADDRESS
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4617
June 7, 1999
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
Department of T bhsportation
FROM: David Brook e/GV ?-CJ 41cer
DePuty State I4istoPSUBJECT: Widening of NC 42 to multilanes from US
70 to SR 1003 (Buffalo Road), Johnston
County, State Project 8.1312301, Federal
Aid Project STP-42(4), TIP R-3825, ER 99-
8910
Thank you for your letter of May 5, 1999, concerning the above project.
LOCATION
507 North Blount Street
Raleigh, NC
State Courier 53-31-31
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of historical or
architectural importance located within the planning area.
There is one archaeological site in close proximity to the project (31JT52**) and there
are a number of high probability areas which should be considered. We recommend
an archaeological survey be conducted of the project area.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning
the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review
coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB: slw
cc: Nicholas Graf
Barbara Church
Thomas Padgett
A-4
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director

APPENDIX B
NCDOT RELOCATION REPORT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS RELOCATION PROGRAMS
It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement
housing will be available prior to construction of state and
federally-assisted projects. Furthermore, the North Carolina Board of
Transportation has the following three programs to minimize the
inconvenience of relocation:
* Relocation Assistance,
* Relocation Moving Payments, and
* Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement.
With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff will be
available to assist displacees with information such as availability and
prices of homes, apartments, or businesses for sale or rent and financing
or other housing programs. The Relocation Moving Payments Program, in
general, provides for payment of actual moving expenses encountered in
relocation. Where displacement will force an owner or tenant to purchase
or rent property of higher cost or to lose a favorable financing arrange-
ment (in cases of ownership), the Relocation Replacement Housing Payments
or Rent Supplement Program will compensate up to 522,500 to owners who are
eligible and qualify and up to $5,250 to tenants who are eligible and
qualify.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in
accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and/or the
North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-18). The
program is designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in reloca-
ting to a replacement site in which to live or do business. At least one
relocation officer is assigned to each highway project for this purpose.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced families,
individuals, businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations for
relocation assistance advisory services without regard to race, color,
religion, sex, or national origin. The NCDOT will schedule its work to
allow ample time, prior to displacement, for negotiations and possession
of replacement housing which meets decent, safe, and sanitary standards.
The displacees are given at least a 90-day written notice after NCDOT pur-
chases the property. Relocation of displaced persons will be offered in
areas not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and
commercial facilities. Rent and sale prices of replacement property will
be within the financial means of the families and individuals displaced
and will be reasonably accessible to their places of employment. The
relocation officer will also assist owners of displaced businesses,
non-profit organizations, and farm operations in searching for and moving
to replacement property.
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will
receive an explanation regarding all available options, such as (1)
purchase of replacement housing, (2) rental of replacement housing, either
private or public, or (3) moving existing owner-occupant housing to
another site (if possible). The relocation officer will also supply:
information concerning other state or federal programs offering assistance
to displaced persons and will provide other advisory services as needed in
order to minimize hardships to displaced persons in adjusting to a new
location.
The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate the dis-
placee for the costs of moving personal property from homes, businesses,
non-profit organizations, and farm operations acquired for a highway
project. Under the Replacement Program for Owners, NCDOT will participate
in reasonable incidental purchase payments for replacement dwellings such
as attorney's fees, surveys, appraisals, and other closing costs and, if
applicable, make a payment for any increased interest expenses for
replacement dwellings. Reimbursement to owner-occupants for replacement
housing payments, increased interest payments, and incidental purchase
expenses may not exceed S22,500 (combined total), except under the Last
Resort Housing provision.
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not to exceed
55,250, to rent a replacement dwelling or to make a down payment, includ-
ing incidental expenses, on the purchase of a replacement dwelling. The
down payment is based upon what the state determines is required when the
rent supplement exceeds 55250.
It is a policy of the state that no person will be displaced by the
NCDOT's state or federally-assisted construction projects unless and until
comparable replacement housing has been offered or provided for each
displacee within a reasonable period of time prior to displacement. No
relocation payment received will be considered as income for the purposes
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or for the purposes of determining
eligibility or the extent of eligibility of any person for assistance
under the Social Security Act or any other federal law.
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement housing
is not available, or when it is unavailable within the displacee's finan-
cial means, and the replacement payment exceeds the federal/state legal
limitation. The purpose of the program is to allow broad latitudes in
methods of implementation by the state so that decent, safe, and sanitary
replacement housing can be provided. It is not felt that this program
will be necessary on the project, since there appear to be adequate
opportunities for relocation within the area.
RELOCATION REPORT
El E.I.S. 0 CORRIDOR F] DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
PROJECT: 8.1312301 COUNTY Johnston Alternative 1 Sheet 1 of 2
I.D. NO.: R-3825 F.A. PROJECT
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Proposed NC 42 wide ning to a four lane facility from US 70 to SR 1003
4.
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential 1 1 1 1
Businesses VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms Owners Tenants For Sale For R ent
Non-Profit 0-20M $ 0-150 0-20M $ 0-150
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 160-250 20-40M 150-250
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70M 250-400 40-70M 250-400
x 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 400 -600 70-100M 400-600
x 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 up 600 up 1 100 UP 600 up
displacement? TOTAL 1
x 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond by Number)
project?
x 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 3. Similar services are close to affected area.
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
x 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? 12. adequate housing is available
6. Source for available housing (list).
x 7. Will additional housing programs be needed? 14. Smithfield Herald & News and Observer
x 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
x 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
x 10. Will public housing be needed for project?
x 11. Is public housing available?
x 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
x 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
x 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION?

Ri of Way Agent Date Relo Lion C rdinator Date
Form 15.4 Revised 09-02 Original & Copy 1: Relocation Coordinator
Copy 2: Division Relocation File
II RELOCATION REPORT 11
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
El E.I.S. [:] CORRIDOR [:] DESIGN
PROJECT: 8.1312301 COUNTY Johnston Alternative 1 Sheet 2 of 2
1. D. NO.: R-3825 F.A. PROJECT
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Proposed NC 42 widening to a four lane facility from US 70 to SR 1003

ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential 1 1 1
Businesses 1 1 2 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms Owners Tenants For Sale For R ent
Non-Profit 0-20M $ 0-150 0-20m $ 0-150
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 150-250 20-40M 150-250
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70M 250-400 1 40-70M 250-400
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 400-600 70-100M 400-600
X 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 up 600 up 100 up 600 up
displacement? TOTAL 1
X 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond by Number)
project?
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 3. Similar services are close to affected area.
indicate size, type, estimated number of 4. Rebecca Flowers Finch- appros. 8 employees
employees, minorities, etc. Repair Shop- approx. 5 employees
x 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? 12. adequate housing is available
6. Source for available housing (list).
X 7 Will additional housing programs be needed? 14. Smithfield Herald & News and Observer
x 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
X 10. Will public housing be needed for project?
x 11.
1 Is public housing available?
12.
X Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
X 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION?

i h of Way Agent Date R I cation Coordinator Date
Form 15.4 Revised 09-02 / Original 8 Copy 1: Relocation Coordinator
Copy 2: Division Relocation File
RELOCATION REPORT
El E.I.S. 0 CORRIDOR F] DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
PROJECT: 8.1312301 COUNTY
_ ?JohnSton Alternative 2 Sheet 1 of 2
I.D. NO.: R-3825 F.A. PROJECT
___
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Proposed NC 42 widening to a four lane facility from US 70 to SR 1003

ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees
Owners
Tenants
Total
Minorities
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
35-50M
50 UP
Residential 1 1 1
Businesses VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0-20M so-150 0-20M $ 0-150
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 150-250 20-40M 150-250
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70M 250-400 40-70M 250-400
x 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 400-600 70-100M 400-600
x 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 up 600 up 1 100 UP 600 up
displacement? TOTAL 1
x 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond by Number)
project?
x 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 3. Similar services are close to affected area.
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
x 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? 12. adequate housing is available
6. Source foVvallable housing (list).
x ? Will additiVal housing programs be needed? 14. Smithfield Herald & News and Observer
x 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
x 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
x 10. Will public housing be needed for project?
x 11. Is public housing available?
x 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
x 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
x 14 Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION?

d .ti L1- a -03 / j
Right of Way A ent Date c on Coordinator Date
-oim 15.a Revised 09-02
Original & Copy I. Relocation Coordinator
Copy 2 Division Relocation File
RELOCATION REPORT
FLI E.I.S. [:] CORRIDOR [::] DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
PROJECT: 8.1312301 COUNTY Johnston Alternative 2 Sheet 2 of 2
I.D. NO.: R-3825 F.A. PROJECT
DESCRIPTIO N OF PROJECT: Proposed NC 42 widening to a four lane facility from US 70 to SR 1003

ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential 1 1 1
Businesses 1 1 2 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms Owners Tenants For Sale
I For Rent
Non-Profit 1 ?? 0-20M so-ISO 0-20M 1 -7-0150
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 150-250 20-40M 150-250
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70M 250-400 1 40-70M 250-400
x 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 400.600 70-100M 400-600
X 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 up 600 up 100 up 600 up
displacement? TOTAL 1
X 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond by NUM r)
project?
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 3. Similar services are close to affected area.
indicate size, type, estimated number of 4. Rebecca Flowers Finch- appros. 8 employees
employees, minorities, etc. Repair Shop- approx. 5 employees
x 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? 12. adequate housing is available
6. Source forrevailable housing (list).
x 7. Will additiVal housing programs be needed? 14. Smithfield Herald & News and Observer
x 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
x 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
x 10. Will public housing be needed for project?
X 11. Is public housing available?
x 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
X_ 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION?
"=] L1101L
Pi h of Way Acent Date R2I cation Coordinator Date
uriginat s Cooy I Relocation Coordinator
% "ooy _, Division Relocation File
APPENDIX C
TABLE N1
HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY
140 Shotgun blast, jet 30m away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chamber HUMAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD
130-

Firecrackers
120 Severe thunder, pneumatic jackhammer
Hockey crowd
Amplified rock music UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD
110-

Textile loom
100 Subway train, elevated train, farm tractor
Power lawn mower, newspaper press
Heavy city traffic, noisy factory LOUD
g0 -

D Diesel truck 65 kmph at 15m away
E 80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
I Passenger car 80 kmph at 15m away MODERATELY LOUD
B 70 -

E Quiet typewriter
L 60 Singing birds, window air-conditioner
S Quiet automobile
Normal conversation, average office QUIET
50-

Household refrigerator
Quiet office VERY QUIET
40-

Average home
30 Dripping faucet
Whisper at 1.5m away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVERAGE PERSON' S THRESHOLD OF HEARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE
10-

0 THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
Sources: World Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body, Encyclopedia
America, "Industrial Noise and Hearing Conversation" by J. B. Olishifski
and E. R. Harford (Researched by N. Jane Hunt and published in the
Chicago Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz.)
TABLE N2
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
CRITERIA FOR EACH FHWA ACTIVITY CATEGORY
HOURLY A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL - DECIBELS (dBA)
pAchvity
ry
Leq(h)
Description of Activity Category
ME=
57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance
(Exterior) and serve an important public need and where the preservation of
those qualities are essential if the area is to continue to serve its
intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas,
(Exterior) parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and
hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories
(Exterior) A or B above.
D - Undeveloped lands.
E 0.52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools,
(Interior) churches, librari es, hospitals, and auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration.
CRITERIA FOR SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
HOURLY A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL - DECIBELS (dBA)
Existing Noise Level Increase in dBA from Existing Noise
in Leq(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
< 50 >= 15
>= 50 >= 10
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Policy.
kr)
? N
p" 00
? M
? I
w a
F"
zW?
a?
acv
0
?zo
w o'
L?
cn
w
N 00

0

O
N >
U
C7
Qf)
LLI
d
'II
c
LLI
cl
0
0
w

M

^

F ? o
U ca a
O (U
C7
o .`?°
a` c
0Y
I
CO
) v
O N
O
r- O

E E

LL W. U

N
?

U .O
N
r7' L
0.

z U
z o
LLI
N

6
E
L
N
SFr
0
N
C'.
?a
N
Cc
u
s
w
O
c
u
E
u
C
az
O
u
E
0
41-U
O
L
e
u
3
a
u
u
O
C
C
N
E
RS
S
F-
fJ.l
E-
O
z
u
a.

O
zW
U
F-'
tr)
N
00
M
a
a
E
C
U
0
c
0
on
G
3
7
U
z
w

LpQY? -» o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 -»
pq + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
a
0
?O N M V \O N O N O N h d 110 .-? O ?o
G
!/1 V1

W
a
w
En
p
Z ,
A

U
A

a
? .? a a a a a a a a a a a ? a a a a

O w, O O C O O C O C C C C O O C O C
?
.O N .-. OV f N v1 N ?/1 M 00 ? ? M V1 00

O U o
a
b
A G
%) W
C

a
a
a Z ?

W O
Vy C cV M V \O N C N C N -- to tt 11 --• C W)

o a ?.,
En

Q

z 3

G N

-,
?
a q
N
lr
F-
Q ? z z
v
W a 14 cp
O . 1
,7+ G I

O C7
ZO v ° oa ?c nc n w aa m aa aa v m cra m ao cn aa aa r?a

U U U U
z c w c a c c U U
N N
' N N U N N ^ N N N N
a z ? ? ? " O 0 ' O ' O ' C7 ' II ? ' C ' C ' C7 ' C ' C ' L7 ' C ' C7
O Q an) U u u V U N N N N 0 N u
a a z a a a x a a m a a a a a a a a
U N M ` 7 V1 t - 100 T C N M et ? n r

e
00
vi `J*
T ?
b L
O
O L.. V
a?
oa
o '3
o
.o s
U y
N N
O U
v 0
o
T7
o?
aU
?
a
? N
y L
b U
0 an,
? N
O
a
? U
O O
00
N
00
M
i
W >;
h ?
Z U U
W F"" C
O
Ste,
W ?
1--y
O
zN
Q ?
3z
w
W W o ? 0 0
F ?

az?
fir„ O O O
w O
U a
¢pC
Q U U o 0 0

O W m ^ i M
.-?
F
_
F
Q ¢ o o 0
C/1 m r q
00 r
V "a
?oz
F ?
?
¢
QOZC/) Q o o F¢-
U O ? v v O
r

?
C
0 M 00

v1
W)
W 0
N
Lu <

??
=
CD
O ?D
m O
O "

a
O r

_ O
z -' `
0 `
a
O
? w
N cc O
a' O? C C

C/)
LL1 C
O N
O
O O\
r O

P E m
p 0 ..
W. LL M
??
N ^
O
0
a U
Z ZEn
N
T
R
'II
tCt
? O
C -?
c0 y
a
N
`
C
0 U
O
?. N
N
u 0
U O
v t!-
-0
E
L N
C 6.
cn M
c? y
G U
(u a7
C
ti y
U ?
U
m O
U
O Q
.O
N ?
'O r
C ?p
td
b
o c°
o Q
" m
o ?
Q, N
00
M
W H
Q
zz?
? w o
H W o
w
O ?
z-0
U
N
z
W
[-? O W f V O O

aa O
a
Q
O
U
?

W
W

Qom=
?; o 0 0
tip cn U
?
z
?

a N o 0 0
W

Z N

a c
N o 0 0
W
w
...]
W
V) o 0 0
O
oG
O c o 0 0

W

w
w I o 0 0
0

CL
W
U

-
o 0
0
W
o=

v - -
A
o V)
-.d
.o
? 0
L
C7 °? a
E-
N
O °` aci Uj

U
0
C, 0?
W O
C/) o! w

E C1
O L
? LL. M
N ? O
z U
zcn
N
N
z
w
w
w
0
E
0
00
(U
(U
cn
y N
mz
cu w
c m
R (-
C
+R-R
N L
c
co U
? .^?
c O
O .0
c c
Q