20190188 Ver 1_W5600_CE (2)_20190212

U.S. 70 Improvements
From US 70 Business to the Neuse River Bridge
Johnston County
Federal Aid Project No. HISP-0070(163)
WBS Element 50056.1.1
STIP PROJECT NO. W-5600
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Submitted pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)
and 49 U.S.C. 303
Approved:
DocuSigned by:
7/29/2016 �'" �'��'
Date Robert P. Hanson, P.E.,
for NCDOT Eastern Project Development Section Head
OocuSigned 6y.
7/29/2016 ���'�" ��'�'�] �M1'.
Date John F. Sullivan III, P.E., Division Administrator
for Federal Highway Administration

U.S. 70 Improvements
From US 70 Business to the Neuse River Bridge
Johnston County
Federal Aid Project No. HISP-0070(163)
WBS Element 50056.1.1
STIP PROJECT NO. W-5600
Administrative Action
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
July 2016
Document prepared by:
Stantec Consulting Ltd.
DocuSigned by:
7/29/2016 ����
Date Ryan L. White, P.E.
Consultant Project Manager
Stantec Consulting Ltd.
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
DocuSigned by:
7/29/2016 ��'" �'��,
Date James A. Mclnnis, Jr. P.E.
NCDOT Eastern Project Development Section
Project Engineer
DocuSigned by:
7/29/2016 ��� `���
Date Kim L. Gillespie, P.E.
NCDOT Eastern Project Development Section
Project Planning Engineer
H c A,q .,,,,.
�o.
� �ESSi��• C�';
� �% Z
SEAL �
a��zr i
7/29/2016

Table of Contents
Section
Page
1.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ......................................................................................................1
1.1 General Description ....................................................................................................................1
1.2 Project Schedule ..........................................................................................................................1
1.3 Cost Estimate ................................................................................................................................1
2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROJECT ...........................................................................................................2
2.1 Project Purpose ............................................................................................................................2
2.2 Project Need .................................................................................................................................2
2.2.1 Safety .................................................................................................................................2
2.2.2 Mobility ..............................................................................................................................2
2.3 Description of Existing Conditions .......................................................................................3
2.3.1 Functional Classification .........................................................................................3
2.3.2 Physical Description of Existing Facility .................................................................3
2.3.2.1 Roadway Typical Section ....................................................................3
2.3.2.2 Horizontal and Vertical Alignment .....................................................3
2.3.2.3 Right of Way and Access Control ......................................................4
2.3.2.4 Speed Limit .............................................................................................4
2.3.2.5 Intersections/Interchanges ..................................................................4
2.3.2.6 Hydraulic Structures ...............................................................................5
2.3.3 Utilities .................................................................................................................5
2.3.4 School Bus Usage .....................................................................................................5
2.3.5 Roadway Capacity ................................................................................................. 6
2.3.5.1 Existing Traffic Volumes .........................................................................6
2.3.5.2 Future Traffic Volumes ...........................................................................6
2.3.5.3 Existing and Future Levels of Service ..................................................6
2.3.6 Crash Data and Safety ...........................................................................................7
2.4 Transportation Plans ....................................................................................................................8
2.4.1 Johnston County Comprehensive Transporfation Plan .........................................8
2.4.2 US 70 Access Management Study .............................................................................8
2.4.3 US 70 Access Management Handbook ....................................................................9
2.4.4 US 70 Corridor Commission ...........................................................................................9
2.4.5 Fixing America's Surface Transporfation (FAST) Act ...............................................9
2.5 Adjacent STIP Projects ................................................................................................................9
2.6 Logical Termini .............................................................................................................................10
3.0 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS .....................................................................................................................11
3.1 Roadway Cross-Section and Alignment .........................................................................11
3.2 Right-of-Way and Access Control ....................................................................................11
3.3 Interchanges/Intersections ................................................................................................12
3.4 Service Roads .......................................................................................................................12
3.5 Speed Limit and Design Speed .........................................................................................13
3.6 Anticipated Design Exceptions .........................................................................................13
3.7 Proposed Structures .............................................................................................................13
3.8 Utilities .....................................................................................................................................13
3.9 Noise Barriers .........................................................................................................................14
3.10 Work Zone, Traffic Control, and Construction Phasing .................................................14
4.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
4.1 Preliminary Study Alternatives ................................................................................................14
4.1.1 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Alternative .................................14

Table of Contents
Section
Page
4.1.2 Transporfation Systems Management (TSM) Alternative .....................................14
4.1.3 Mass Transit/Multimodal Alternative .........................................................................15
4.1.4 No-Build Alternative .....................................................................................................15
4.1.5 Improve Existing Alternatives .....................................................................................15
4.1.5.1 Swift Creek Road Interchange Options ...............................................15
4.1.5.2 Swift Creek Road Interchange Options ...............................................1 b
4.2 Alternatives Studied in Detail ..................................................................................................1 b
4.3 NCDOT Recommended Alternative ......................................................................................18
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION .............................................................................19
5.1 Natural Resources ................................................................................................................19
5.1.1 Physiology and Soils ...............................................................................................19
5.1.2 Biotic Resources ......................................................................................................20
5.1.2.1 Terrestrial Communities .......................................................................20
5.1.2.2 Terrestrial Wildlife ..................................................................................21
5.1.2.3 Aquatic Communities .........................................................................22
5.1.2.4 Invasive Species ...................................................
5.1.3 Water Resources and Water Quality ..................................
5.1.3.1 Streams, Rivers, Impoundments ........................
5.1.3.2 Water Quality .......................................................
................................ 22
................................ 23
................................ 23
................................ 24
5.1.4 Jurisdictionallssues .................................................................................................25
5.1.4.1 Streams ..................................................................................................25
5.1.4.2 Wetlands ...............................................................................................26
5.1.4.3 Clean Water Act Permits ....................................................................28
5.1.4.4 North Carolina Riparian Buffer Rules ................................................28
5.1.5 Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10 Navigable Waters ...................................28
5.1.6 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation .........................................................28
5.1.7 Federally Protected Species ................................................................................29
5.1.7.1 Northern Long-eared bat ..................................................................30
5.1.8 Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act .................................................30
Community Impacts and Land Use .................................................................................30
5.2.1 Population and Land Use .....................................................................................30
5.2.1.1 Minority/Low-Income Populations ....................................................30
5.2.1.2 Limited English Proficiency Populations ...........................................31
5.2.1.3 Existing Land Use Plans and Regulations .........................................31
5.2.1.4 Zoning and Future Land Use ..............................................................32
5.2.2 Neighborhoods and Communities .....................................................................32
5.2.2.1 Community / Neighborhood Cohesion and Stability ...................32
5.2.2.2 Impacts to Mobility and Access .......................................................32
5.2.2.3 Economic and Business Resources ..................................................32
5.2.2.4 Impacts to Community Safety and Emergency Response.........33
5.2.2.5 Other Public Facilities and Services .................................................33
5.2.3 Right of Way and Relocation Impacts ...............................................................33
CulturalResources ...............................................................................................................34
5.3.1 Historic Architectural Resources ..........................................................................34
5.3.2 Archaeological Resources ...................................................................................34
Section 4(f) Resources .........................................................................................................34
Section6(f) Resource ..........................................................................................................34
PrimeFarmlands .................................................................................................................35
AirQuality .........................................................................................................................35
Noise............ ...... ... ...... ... .... ............................................................................................ 39
Hazardous Material and Geotechnical Impacts ..........................................................42
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
�

Table of Contents
Section
Page
5.10 Floodplains ............................................................................................................................42
5.1 1 Indirect and Cumulative Effects .......................................................................................43
5.12 Geodetic Markers ................................................................................................................43
5.13 Summary of Environmental Effects ...................................................................................44
6.0 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION .......................................................................................................45
6.1 Comments Received from Federal, State, and Local Agencies .................................45
6.2 Local Officials Meeting and Public Involvement ..............................................................45
6.3 NEPA/404 Merger Process ........................................................................................................47
7.0 BASIS FOR CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION .............................................................................................47
List of Tables
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
Table 10
Table 11
Table 12
Table 13
Table 14
Table 15
Table 16
Table 17
Table 18
Table 19
Table 20
Table 21
Existing Hydraulic Structures .................................................................................................5
Level of Service and Delay for US 70 Intersections - Signalized ....................................7
Level of Service and Delay for US 70 Intersections - Unsignalized ...............................7
US 70 Mainline Crash Rates Comparisons .........................................................................7
Adjacent STIP Projects .........................................................................................................10
ProposedBridges .................................................................................................................13
Proposed Hydraulic Structures ...........................................................................................13
Jurisdictional Impacts of Interchange Options ..............................................................16
Alternative Studied in Detail Comparison .......................................................................17
Soilsin the Study Area .........................................................................................................19
Terrestrial Community Impacts ..........................................................................................20
Water Resources in the Study Area ..................................................................................23
Physical Characteristics of Water Resources in the Study Area .................................24
Jurisdictional Characteristics of Water Resources in the Study Area ........................25
Stream Impacts of Alternatives Studied in Detail ..........................................................26
Jurisdictional Characteristics of Wetlands in the Study Area ......................................26
Federally Protected Species Listed for Johnston County .............................................29
Predicted Traffic Noise Impacts ........................................................................................40
Preliminary Noise Barrier Evaluation Results ....................................................................42
Summary of Environmental Effects ...................................................................................44
Public Meeting Alternative Preference Summary .........................................................46
�

Table of Contents
Section
List of Figures
Figure 1
Figures 2A-D
Figure 3
Figures 4A-B
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figures 9A-B
Figures l0A-B
Appendices
Vicinity Map
Proposed Improvements
Proposed Typical Sections
2012 - 2035 Average Annual Daily Traffic
Johnston County CTP
US 70 Corridor Improvement Projects
Adjacent STIP Projects
Interchange Options
Alternatives Studied in Detailed
Jurisdictional Features
A. Agency Correspondence
B. Relocation Report
C. Public Involvement
Page
iv

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
US 70 Improvements
From US 70 Business to the Neuse River Bridge
Johnston County
Federal Aid Project HISP-0070(163)
WBS No. 50056.1.1
STIP Project W-5600
Hydraulics Unit - FEMA Coordination
NCDOT will coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program (FMP), to
determine the status of the project with regard to applicability of NCDOT'S
Memorandum of Agreement, or approval of a Conditional Letter of Map
Revision (CLOMR) and subsequent Letter of Map Revision (LOMR).
Division 4 Construction-FEMA Coordination
This project involves construction activities on or adjacent to FEMA-regulated
stream(s). Therefore, the Division shall submit sealed as-built construction plans to
the Hydraulics Unit upon completion of project construction, certifying the
drainage structure(s) and roadway embankment within the 100-year floodplain
were built as shown in the construction plans, both horizontally and vertically.
,-
W-5600 Categorical Exclusion Page 1 of 1
July 2016

US 70 Improvements Cafegorical Exclusion STIP Project W-5600
This Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Categorical Exclusion (CE) has been
prepared for State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Project W-5600 in
Johnston County. This CE was prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 USC 4321 et seq.); the Council on Environmental
Quality regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508); and the FHWA
Environmental Impact and Related Procedures (23 CFR 771).
1.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
1.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The proposed project involves upgrading US 70 to a freeway from US 70 Business to the
Neuse River in Johnston County. The project will construct interchanges at the
intersections of US 70 with SR 1501 (Swift Creek Road) and SR 1903 (Wilson's Mills Road).
The project will close the remaining at-grade intersections and median openings that
provide direct access to US 70 from adjacent properties. Access to properties
adjacent to US 70 will be provided via newly constructed service roads. Figure 1 shows
the project location.
1.2 PROJECT SCHEDULE
The project is included in the 2016-2025 STIP. The following schedule is based on the
2016 - 2025 STI P.
Right-of-way Acquisition: Fiscal Year (FY) 2018
Construction: FY 2020
1.3 COST ESTIMATE
The total cost for the project included in the 2016-2025 STIP is $30,914,000. This includes
$26,008,000 for construction, $4,380,000 for right of way acquisition and $526,000 for
utility relocations. The current total cost estimate for the project is:
Construction: $ 46,050,000
Right-of-Way: $ 8,275,000
Utilities Relocation: $ 3,830,500
Mitigation $ 3,510,000
TOTAL: $ 61,665,500

US 70 Improvemenfs Categorical Exclusion STIP Projecf W-5600
2.0
PURPOSE AND NEED OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
2.1 PROJECT PURPOSE
The purpose of the project is to improve the safety and mobility of vehicular travel
along US 70 within the project limits.
2.2 PROJECT NEED
The proposed project is intended to address the following needs.
2.2.1 Safety
Detailed crash data was collected within the project study limits between May 2009
and April 2014. The data indicates 137 crashes occurred within the project limits during
this time period. Two of those crashes resulted in fatalities. One other crash resulted in
serious injuries to two people. The fatal crash rate for the section of US 70 within the
project limits is higher than the statewide average for similar facilities, although it is
lower than the critical crash rate. See Section 2.3.6 for more detailed crash data.
The two traffic signals within the project limits are a concern, given the high speed
traffic and free-flow nature of adjacent sections of US 70. Drivers, especially after
travelling along freeway sections, sometimes do not expect traffic signals on rural
four-lane highways such as US 70. Much of the traffic on US 70 in the project area is
long distance, intercity traffic. During the summer, US 70 is heavily utilized by travelers
destined for the Carteret and Onslow County beaches.
The current section of US 70 in the project area is an expressway with limited control of
access, while the portion of the project to the west is a freeway with full control of
access. For eastbound traffic on US 70, the traffic signal at Swift Creek Road is the first
signal encountered in approximately 19 miles. For westbound traffic on US 70, the
traffic signal at Wilson's Mills Road is the first signal encountered in approximately 7.4
miles (this will be the first signal in approximately 13.1 miles following completion of STIP
Project W-5107, which is under construction and will convert the next signalized
intersection on US 70 east of Wilson's Mills Road to an interchange). Traffic safety
studies indicate that closing at-grade intersections and replacing them with
interchanges may reduce total crash potential by as much as 42 percent and injury
crashes by as much as 57 percent.
2.2.2 Mobility
The existing traffic signals along the section of US 70 within the project limits result in
delays to traffic. These conflict points cause the substantial regional through traffic on
US 70 to stop or slow down to accommodate vehicles crossing and turning onto US 70,
as well as vehicles turning from US 70. The mobility of US 70 will continue to erode as
traffic volumes increase on US 70 and intersecting roadways. In addition, the speed
limit can only be set to 55 miles per hour (mph) because of the at-grade intersections.
The speed limit of the adjoining freeway section of US 70 to the west is 70 mph. In the
2

US 70 Improvements Cafegorical Exclusion STIP Project W-5600
year 2035 without construction of the project, it will take an average of approximately
six minutes to travel the 4.7 mile section of US 70 within the project limits.
Following construction of the proposed interchanges and removal of at-grade
intersections within the project limits, the speed limit can be raised to 70 mph. In the
year 2035 with construction of the project, it will only take approximately 4 minutes to
travel the 4.7 mile section of US 70 within the project limits. This is an approximately 33
percent reduction in travel time over the no-build alternative.
The latest federal surface transportation reauthorization, entitled Fixing America's
Surface Transportation Act or the "FAST Act" was signed into law in December 2015.
The law designates US 70 from I-40 to the port at Morehead City as a future Interstate
highway. The improvements proposed as part of this project are compatible with this
overarching plan to upgrade the US 70 corridor.
2.3 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
US 70 is a major east-west route in eastern North Carolina, connecting Raleigh to the
coast at Morehead City and is the primary east-west route in Johnston County. West of
the project, US 70 transitions into the full-access controlled Clayton Bypass which
connects to I-40. At the western project limit, US 70 also intersects US 70 Business, a four-
lane divided arterial that connects Clayton to Smithfield. Approximately 3.5 miles east
of the project, US 70 connects to I-95, the principal north-south interstate of the East
Coast.
2.3.1 Functional Classification
Within the project limits, US 70 is classified as a Principal Arterial. US 70 is included in the
National Highway System.
2.3.2 Physical Description of Existing Facility
2.3.2.1 Roadway Typical Section
Within the project study area, US 70 is a four-lane divided facility with two 12-foot lanes,
4-foot wide paved outside shoulders, and 2-foot paved shoulders in each direction.
The eastbound and westbound lanes are separated by a variable width grassed
median ranging from 30 to 46 feet wide.
2.3.2.2 Horizontal and Vertical Alignment
The existing horizontal and vertical alignment of US 70 is acceptable, although a curve
west of the Wilson's Mills Road intersection limits sight distance for eastbound US 70
approaching the intersection. To improve safety, flashing "signal ahead" warning signs
were installed in both directions along the approaches to the two intersections to
notify travelers when the through-signals are turning red.
�

US 70 Improvements Cafegorical Exclusion STIP Project W-5600
2.3.2.3 Right-of-Way and Access Control
The existing right-of-way width along US 70 within the project limits is approximately 250
feet. Limited control of access (access from public roads only, no driveways) exists
along US 70 within the project limits, with one exception. A driveway providing access
to a farm field exists on the north side of US 70 across from the SR 2566 (Sadisco Road)
intersection. The remaining accesses onto US 70 are public roads.
2.3.2.4 Speed Limit
The posted speed limit along US 70 within the project limits is 55 miles per hour.
2.3.2.5 Intersections/Interchanges
Two signalized and six unsignalized intersections are located along US 70 within the
project limits. Other than one unsignalized at-grade intersection east of the project
limits, these are the only at-grade intersections along US 70 between I-40 and I-95.
The existing signalized intersections are:
• SR 1501 (Swift Creek Road) - Swift Creek Road provides access to the town of
Wilson's Mills from US 70 and areas south of the highway, including US 70 Business
and the Johnston County Airport.
• SR 1913 (Wilson's Mills Road) - Wilson's Mills Road provides a connection between
the town of Wilson's Mills and the western portion of Smithfield to the south of US 70.
North of US 70 the roadway is generally parallel to US 70, serving as the only
continuous east-west roadway through the town on the south side of the North
Carolina Railroad Company's railroad tracks.
From west to east, median openings are located at six unsignalized intersections within
the project limits:
• SR 2566 (Sadisco Road) - Located on the south side of US 70, Sadisco Road is an
approximately 0.4 mile-long roadway intersecting US 70 Business to the west and
terminating at several businesses to the east. On the north side of US 70 at this
median opening, there is an unpaved driveway.
• SR 2574 (Uzzle Industrial Drive) - On the south side of US 70, Uzzle Industrial Drive is an
approximately 0.2-mile long roadway providing the only access to an industrial
park. On the north side of US 70, SR 2580 (Uzzle Drive) is an approximately 0.3-mile
long service road that provides access to a nursery business.
• SR 1907 (Strickland Road) - A north-south route, Strickland Road connects Swift
Creek Road south of US 70 to Wilson's Mills Road approximately 0.1 mile north of
US 70.
• SR 1914 (Bear Farm Road) (west section) - On the south side of US 70, SR 2568 is a
service road that provides access to several properties. Bear Farm Road is on the
north side of US 70. Bear Farm Road has two intersections with US 70. Bear Farm
Road was previously a loop street but a connecting segment of the roadway has
4

US 70 Improvements Cafegorical Exclusion STIP Project W-5600
been abandoned. This western section of Bear Farm Road provides a connection
to Uzzle's Pond Road/Main Street, which provides the only continuous east-west
road through Wilson's Mills on the north side of the North Carolina Railroad
Company railroad tracks.
• NCDOT Johnston County Maintenance Yard - At this median opening, the NCDOT
facility entrance is on the south side of US 70. The NCDOT facility also has access
from Turnage Road to the east. On the north side of US 70, SR 2568 is an
approximately 0.1-mile long service road that provides access to several properties.
• SR 1915 (Turnage Road) - Turnage Road intersects US 70 to the south, providing a
connection from Wilson's Mills Road approximately 0.9 miles to the southwest. The
eastern section of SR 1914 (Bear Farm Road) intersects US 70 to the north.
2.3.2.6 Hydraulic Structures
Three existing hydraulic structures exist along US 70 in the project area. These structures
are described on Table 1.
Table 1. Existing Hydraulic Structures
Culvert No. Descri tion Roadwa Stream Condition
N/A 3 barrel 6'xb' 172' long RCBC US 70 Little Poplar Good
Creek
513 3 barrel 10'xb' 139' lon RCBC US 70 Po lar Creek Good
514 2 barrel 7'x7' 74' long RCBC SR 1501 (Swift Poplar Creek Good
Creek Road
2.3.3 Utilities
Two high voltage power transmission lines pass through the project study area. The two
lines converge at the US 70/Swift Creek Road intersection and continue eastward
along the same alignment, crossing over US 70 approximately midway between the
Swift Creek and Wilson's Mills Roads intersections.
A 16-inch water main runs along the south side of US 70 between Strickland Road and
Swift Creek Road. Between Swift Creek Road and Wilson's Mills Road, a 24-inch water
main parallels the north side of US 70. Waterlines cross under US 70 in the vicinity of the
Strickland, Swift Creek, and Wilson's Mills Roads intersections.
2.3.4 School Bus Usage
Wilson's Mills Elementary School is located approximately 0.4 mile north of US 70 along
Wilson's Mills Road. Smithfield Middle School and Smithfield-Selma High School are
located approximately two miles southeast of the project study area near Buffalo
Road.
According to the Johnston County Schools Transportation Supervisor, approximately 18
school buses per day utilize US 70 within the study area, making a total of 40 trips.
�

US 70 Improvements Cafegorical Exclusion STIP Project W-5600
Below is a summary of school bus usage at intersections within the study area:
• Swift Creek Road
- 18 buses cross over US 70, 14 buses turn onto or from US 70
• Wilson's Mills Road
- 22 buses cross over US 70, 24 buses turn onto or from US 70
• Turnage Road
- 3 buses turn onto or from US 70
• Strickland Road
- 9 buses turn onto or from US 70
• Sadisco Road
- 7 buses turn onto or from US 70
2.3.5 Roadway Capacity
2.3.5.1 Existing Traffic Volumes
The 2012 traffic volumes along US 70 range from 21,800 vehicles per day (vpd) to
24,800 vpd through the project area. The highest volumes are concentrated along the
eastern end of the project.
2.3.5.2 Future Traffic Volumes
The 2035 (Design Year) projected traffic volumes along US 70 range from 37,200 vpd to
41,700 vpd.
Figures 4A and 4B show the 2012 and 2035 projected traffic volumes along US 70 and
the major intersections in the study area.
2.3.5.3 Existing and Future Levels of Service
The level of service along US 70 is projected to deteriorate slightly from B to C for
signalized intersections and for most turning movements at unsignalized intersections.
However, level of service for northbound and southbound movements (through, left-
turn, and right-turn) at unsignalized intersections is projected to deteriorate to level of
service F in most cases.
Tables 2 and 3 compare the 2012 no-build level of service to the projected 2035
no-build level of service for signalized and unsignalized intersections, respectively.
!.'

US 70 Improvements Cafegorical Exclusion STIP Project W-5600
Table 2. Level of Service and Delay for US 70 Intersections - Signalized
US 70 Intersection 2012 No Build 2035 No Build
LOS Delay LOS Delay
Swift Creek Road B 15.2 C 24.4
Wilson's Mills Road B 19.3 C 30.0
Table 3. Level of Service and Delay for US 70 Intersections - Unsignalized
US 70 Intersection 2012 No Build 2035 No Build
LOS* Delay* LOS* Delay*
Uzzle Industrial D 25.8 F 126.3
Drive
Strickland Road D 26.3B F 100.6
Bear Farm Road D 28.9 F 169.6
west
Turnage Road D 28.6 F 160.9
*Level of service and delay presented are for the worst operating movement, the Highway Capacity
Manual does not provide a method to calculate an overall level of service for unsignalized intersections.
Note: Due to low volumes on Sadisco Road and at the NCDOT Maintenance Yard, these intersections
were not included in the capacity analysis.
2.3.6 Crash Data and Safety
Detailed crash data was collected within the project study limits between May 2009
and April 2014. The data indicates 137 crashes occurred within the project limits during
this time period. Two of those crashes resulted in fatalities. One other crash resulted in
serious injuries to two people. Table 4 provides a comparison of the crash statistics
within the project study corridor and similar statewide facilities. The analysis indicates
the fatal crash rate for the subject section of US 70 is higher than the statewide
average for similar facilities.
Table 4: US 70 Mainline Crash Rate Comparisons
Categories Crashes Crash Rate Statewide Average Critical Crash Rate�
Crash Rate
Total 137 67.67 123.43 136.53
Fatal 2 0.99 0.93 2.29
Non-Fatal Injury 37 18.28 34.58 41.63
Night 51 25.19 44.35 52.30
W et 31 15.31 22.83 28.60
�The critical crash rate is a statistically derived number that can be used to identify high accident
roadway segments.
The crashes are distributed along US 70 throughout the project limits, with clusters of
crashes at most intersections. According to overall crash location data for Johnston
County, sections of US 70 through the project limits are among the county's highest
frequency crash locations. Twenty seven percent of the crashes in the project area
resulted in injuries. Rear-end slow or stop crashes were the most common crash type,
7

US 70 Improvements Cafegorical Exclusion STIP Project W-5600
accounting for approximately 27 percent of crashes along this section of US 70. Most of
these crashes occurred in proximity to the US 70 intersections with Swift Creek Road
and Wilson's Mills Road. Rear-end slow or stop crash types are an indicator of
congested conditions and/or turning movements and represent the effect such
conditions can have on driver behavior. Rear-end accidents typically occur where
unexpected traffic queues force sudden stops, at signalized intersections during signal-
phase changes, and when drivers are distracted.
Studies indicate converting at-grade intersections to grade-separated interchanges
results in significant reductions in crashes. According to the 2012 NCDOT Crash
Reduction Factors, replacing an at-grade intersection with an interchange will result in
a 42�o reduction in total crashes and an estimated 57� reduction in non-fatal injury
crashes.
2.4 TRANSPORTATION PLANS
2.4.1 Johnston County Comprehensive Transportation Plan
The Johnston County Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTPJ, adopted in
September 2011, recommends US 70 be upgraded to a freeway in conformance with
the US 70 Access Management Study and indicates proposed interchanges at the US
70 intersections with Swift Creek Road and with Wilson's Mills Road. The highway map
also indicates a realignment of Swift Creek Road north of US 70. The plan's pedestrian
map proposes sidewalks along Swift Creek Road crossing US 70 and along Wilson's Mills
Road north of US 70. Figure 5 shows the Wilson's Mills area recommendations as shown
in the Johnston County CTP.
2.4.2 US 70 Access Management Study
The US 70 Access Management Study (NCDOT July 2005) reinforces the primary
function of US 70 for providing mobility between regional destinations. The study
evaluated operational characteristics and safety concerns along the corridor and
identified preliminary access management recommendations for the 134-mile US 70
corridor east of Raleigh. General access management concepts recommended
include median u-turn treatments, traffic signal coordination, on-site traffic circulation,
and interchange retrofitting. The US 70 Access Management Study notes that
"implementation of the treatments over any segment or the entire study area would
serve to reduce travel time for motorists traveling on US 70 as well as reducing the
number and severity of potential crashes, thereby increasing highway safety."
Within the W-5600 project limits, the study identified the US 70 intersections with Swift
Creek Road and with Wilson's Mills Road as "points of concern." Analysis of NCDOT
crash data from 2001 to 2004 indicated a cluster of crashes in these locations. The
long-term recommendation for the US 70 intersection with Swift Creek Road was to
construct a grade-separation. The long-term recommendation for the US 70
intersection with Wilson's Mills Road was to construct an interchange.
r

US 70 Improvements Cafegorical Exclusion STIP Project W-5600
2.4.3 US 70 Access Management Handbook
The US 70 Access Management Handbook (NCDOT May 2007) is a companion
document to the 2005 access management study. The handbook presents a toolkit of
access management treatments, other design considerations, and policy guidelines.
While the focus of the handbook is on implementation of interim access management
strategies, the handbook acknowledges the overall vision of the US 70 corridor is a
freeway-type facility with full control of access. Access to properties adjacent to US 70
would be provided via connections to a secondary street system.
2.4.4 US 70 Corridor Commission
The US 70 Corridor Commission is comprised of representatives of state and local
jurisdictions with an interest in enhancing the mobility, safety, and economic
development potential of US 70 from I-40 to the Morehead City area. The commission
was formed to facilitate multi-jurisdictional coordination and establish consistency
among the jurisdictions traversed by US 70, including Johnston, Wayne, Lenoir, Jones,
Craven, and Carteret counties.
The US 70 Corridor Commission's Conceptual Freeway Plan (March 2012) recommends
interchanges at the US 70 intersections with Swift Creek Road and with Wilson's Mills
Road, as well as the closure of inedian openings within the W-5600 project limits.
2.4.5 Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act
On December 4, 2015, the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act was
authorized. The Federal transportation authorization identifies US 70 from I-40 to the Port
at Morehead City as a High Priority Corridor on the National Highway System and the
future Interstate 42.
Figure 6 highlights the US 70 corridor, the existing freeway segments, and proposed
improvements along the US 70 corridor included in the NCDOT 2016 - 2025 STIP.
2.5 ADJACENT STIP PROJECTS
Table 5 summarizes projects adjacent to W-5600 and are included in the 2016 - 2025 STIP.
Figure 7 shows the location of STIP projects in the vicinity of W-5600.
9

US 70 Improvements Cafegorical Exclusion STIP Project W-5600
Table 5. Ad'acent STIP Pro'ects
STIP Project Right-of-
Number Project Description Way Construction
Acquisition
R-5718 SR 1003 (Buffalo Road): Widen to three lanes from FY 2017 FY 2019
US 70 to SR 1934 (Old Beulah Road)
SR 1913 (Wilson's Mills Road): Intersection
R-5722 improvements from SR 1501 (Swift Creek Road) to FY 2017 FY 2017
east of SR 1908 (Fire Department Road)
SR 1923 (Booker Dairy Road Extension): Construct a
U-3334B two lane road, part on new location from SR 1003 FY 2016 FY 2018
(Buffalo Road) to US 301 (Brightleaf Boulevard)
U-3464 US 301 /NC 96: Widen to multi-lanes from NC 96 to FY 2023 FY 2023
SR 1007 (Brogden Road)
US 301 /NC 39-96: Construct Access management
U-5726 from SR 1623 (Book Dairy Road) to SR 2302 (Ricks FY 2023 FY 2023
Road)
U-5795 SR 2302 (Ricks Road): Widen to three lanes from US FY 2017 FY 2018
70 to US 301
US 70: Safety improvements from SR 2305 (Firetower Under
W-5107 Road) to SR 2310 (Davis Mill Road/Stevens Chapel Complete construction
Road).
2.6 Logical Termini
FHWA regulations (23 CFR 771.11 1(f)) require that logical termini be established during
the development of all highway improvement projects. According to the FHWA, "for
projects involving safety improvements, almost any termini (e.g., political jurisdictions,
geographical features) can be chosen to correspond to those sections where safety
improvements are most needed" (FHWA 1993).
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve the safety and mobility of vehicular
travel along US 70 within the project limits. The project limits were selected in order to
address safety concerns at two signalized and several unsignalized intersections along
US 70. Although the proposed improvements are compatible with and will result in
completing a part of an overall long-term plan to upgrade a 134-mile length of US 70,
the project is a usable and reasonable improvement, even if no additional
transportation improvements are made. In addition, the project will not restrict the
consideration of other transportation improvements in the foreseeable future.
10

US 70 Improvements Cafegorical Exclusion STIP Project W-5600
3.0 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
The proposed improvements are presented in Figures 2A through 2D.
3.1 Roadway Cross-Section and Alignment
Within the study area, US 70 will remain a four-lane divided facility with a variable width
median ranging from 30 to 46-feet wide. The project will add 10-foot outside and four-
foot wide inside paved shoulders, which is consistent with the 2005 AASHTO Interstate
Standards Policy. The proposed typical sections of US 70, Swift Creek Road, and Wilson's
Mills Road are shown in Figure 3.
The project will widen Swift Creek Road within the interchange area to a four-lane facility
with left-turn lanes in each direction to allow access to US 70. Exclusive right-turn lanes are
also proposed along the north and southbound approaches to accommodate traffic
accessing US 70.
Wilson's Mills Road will be widened to a four-lane facility with exclusive left-turn lanes in
each direction allowing access to US 70. Exclusive right-turn lanes are also proposed
along the north and southbound approaches to accommodate traffic accessing US 70.
From the western project limit to just west of the Wilson's Mills Road interchange, US 70 will
follow its existing alignment. In the vicinity of the proposed Wilson's Mills Road
interchange, US 70 will be realigned slightly south of its current alignment to avoid
impacts to two businesses in the northeast and northwest quadrants of the interchange.
3.2 Right-of-Way and Access Control
The proposed alignment of US 70 generally follows the existing alignment throughout the
project except for in the vicinity of the Wilson's Mills Road Interchange. At the Wilson's
Mills Road interchange, US 70 will be realigned to the south to avoid two businesses in the
northeast and northwest quadrants. The construction of the two proposed interchanges
will require the acquisition of right-of-way beyond the existing 250-foot wide right-of-way.
The right-of-way along Swift Creek Road approaching US 70 will be widened from the
existing 60 feet to 130 feet to accommodate turn lanes and drainage. In the vicinity of
the Wilson's Mills Road interchange, the right-of-way width will be extended a maximum
of approximately 320-feet along the south side of US 70 to accommodate the
realignment of US 70. The right-of-way width along Wilson's Mills Road will range from 120-
feet to 150-feet along the southbound and northbound approaches to US 70,
respectively.
The right-of-way widths present the worse-case scenario and it is likely that the right-of-
way widths will be reduced once preliminary hydraulic design is completed.
The project will upgrade US 70 to a full freeway throughout the project limits. This will
require the implementation of full control of access along US 70 and along Swift Creek
and Wilson's Mills Roads within the interchange areas.
11

US 70 Improvements Cafegorical Exclusion STIP Project W-5600
3.3 Interchanges/Intersections
The intersections of Swift Creek Road and Wilson's Mills Road will be upgraded to
interchanges as a part of the project. The Swift Creek Road interchange will be
configured as a modified diamond interchange with ramps and loops in the northeast
and southwest quadrants at the location of the existing US 70/Swift Creek Road
intersection. Swift Creek Road would be carried over US 70 on a new bridge. The Wilson's
Mills Road interchange will be configured as a compressed diamond interchange. US 70
will be realigned slightly to the south of the intersection and would be carried over
Wilson's Mills Road on new bridges.
All other intersections along US 70 within the project limits will be removed. Service roads
will be constructed (see Section 3.4) to provide access to nearby properties.
3.4 Service Roads
Service roads will be constructed to replace access lost due to the closing of existing
at-rade intersections along US 70 in the project area. Proposed service roads are shown
on Figures 2A through 2D and described below.
Service Road 1, located on the north side of US 70 near the western project terminus,
acts as a western extension of Uzzle Road. Service Road 1 would provide a connection
to the east via Uzzle Drive and Service Road 3. (Service Road 3 connects to the
western end of Wilson's Mills Road). This service road would provide access to an
agricultural property currently accessed directly from US 70 opposite Sadisco Road.
Service Road lA, located on the south side of US 70 provides access to Uzzle Industrial
Drive properties, via an extension of Sadisco Road.
Service Road 2, located on the south side of US 70 provides access to Uzzle Industrial
Drive properties via a connection to Strickland Road to the east.
Service Road 3 would extend Wilson's Mills Road to the west, providing access to
agricultural properties and a nursery/landscape business on the north side of US 70.
Service Road 4, located south of US 70, connects Strickland Road to Swift Creek Road
and enhances connectivity provided by Service Road 2.
Service Road 5 would realign the Twin Creek Road intersection with Swift Creek Road,
located on the south side of US 70.
Service Road 6 provides access to properties on the south side of US 70. Service Road 6
would extend from an existing service road west to Wilson's Mills Road.
Service Roads 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 would connect the eastern-most segment of Bear
Farm Road to Wilson's Mills Road on the north side of US 70. The combination of the
service roads ensures access for businesses along Wilson's Mills Road Extension and
Bear Farm Road.
12

US 70 Improvements Cafegorical Exclusion
3.5 Speed Limit and Design Speed
STIP Project W-5600
A 60 MPH design speed is proposed for US 70 within the project limits. The posted speed
limit for US 70 following completion of the project will be determined prior to completion
of construction.
3.6 Anticipated Design Exceptions
No design exceptions are anticipated for the project.
3.7 Proposed Structures
The recommended alternative will require the construction of three new bridges. Table 7
summarizes preliminary dimensions of the bridges proposed by the recommended
alternative.
Table 6: Pro osed Brid es
Feature Crossed Length Width Facility Carried
US 70 215' 56' Swift Creek Road
Wilson's Mills 160 40 US 70 (eastbound)
Road
Wilson's Mills 160 40 US 70 (westbound)
Road
The recommended alternative includes three existing major stream crossings. Section
2.3.2.6 provides detailed descriptions of the existing hydraulic structures within the project
study area. Table 8 summarizes the hydraulic recommendations for the proposed major
stream crossings.
Table 7: Proposed Hydraulic Structures
Stream Crossing Existing Structure
Little Poplar Creek � Triple Barrel 6' x' 6' RCBC (152')
Poplar Creek
Poplar Creek
3.8 Utilities
Double Barrel 10' x' 6' RCBC (139')
Double Barrel 10' x' 6' RCBC (74'
Recommendation
Extend Upstream 51' and downstream
64'
Extend upstream 27' and downstream
27'
Replace with new culvert
Numerous utilities are located within the study area. The project will require the
relocation of several power lines, water and sewer lines and a gas line.
13

US 70 Improvements Cafegorical Exclusion STIP Project W-5600
3.9 Noise Barriers
Noise barriers are not recommended for this project (see Section 5.8).
3.10 Work Zone, Traffic Control, and Construction Phasing
Resurfacing, shoulder reconstruction/ widening and other improvements to US 70
along the existing road alignment will be completed with lane closures such that a
minimum of one lane of travel will be open in each direction at all times. Similarly,
areas where new alignments diverge from existing alignments along both US 70 and
intersecting streets, such as Swift Creek Road, will create tie-in areas between the new
and old alignments. Tie-ins will also be constructed with lane closures; two-lane roads
having tie-ins will be constructed using a flagging operation to reduce the road to a
one-lane, two-way pattern. These lane closures will be subject to peak hour restrictions
in order to minimize construction-related congestion and to avoid commuter delays.
4.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
4.1 Preliminary Study Alternatives
4.1.1 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Alternative
The Transportation Demand Management (TDM) alternative includes walking, bicycling,
ride-sharing, teleworking, non-standard work schedules, and the use of public
transportation. TDM alternatives would not address the safety concerns at the existing
at-grade intersections and would not provide the same level of safety and mobility
improvement along US 70 as the proposed interchanges and access control. TDM
alternatives would not meet the project purpose and need and were therefore
eliminated from further consideration.
4.1.2 Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Alternative
Transportation Systems Management (TSM) alternatives include low-cost improvements
designed to maximize the utilization and efficiency of the existing system. TSM
improvements involve increasing the available capacity of the facility within the
existing right-of-way with minimum capital expenditures. Items such as the addition of
turn lanes, striping, signalization, and minor realignments are examples of TSM physical
improvements. Traffic law enforcement, speed restrictions, access control and signal
timing changes are examples of TSM operational improvements. TSM improvements
have previously been made at both the Swift Creek Road and Wilson's Mills Road
intersections. "Be Prepared to Stop" warning signs with flashing lights have been
installed at both intersections. Despite these measures, crashes including some fatal,
have continued to occur. Additional TSM improvements would not provide the same
level of safety and mobility improvement along US 70 as the proposed interchanges
and access control. TSM improvements would not meet the project purpose and were
therefore eliminated from further consideration.
14

US 70 Improvements Cafegorical Exclusion STIP Project W-5600
4.1.3 Mass Transit/Multimodal Alternative
GoTriangle Transit provides bus service between points in Johnston County, Raleigh, and
the Research Triangle Park. The closest bus stop is located approximately 7.5 miles
northwest of the study area in Clayton. The Mass Transit/Multimodal Alternative would not
address the safety or mobility concerns associated with US 70 within the study area.
Therefore, the Mass Transit/Multimodal Alternative would not meet the project purpose
and need and was therefore eliminated from further consideration.
4.1.4 No-Build Alternative
The No-Build Alternative would forego any improvements to US 70 with the exception of
routine maintenance. The No Build Alternative would not improve the safety or mobility
of vehicular travel along US 70 and this portion of US 70. The No-Build Alternative was
eliminated from further consideration because it would not meet the purpose and
need for the project.
4.1.5 Improve Existing Alternatives
The Improve Existing Alternative proposes to upgrade US 70 to a freeway within the
project limits. The alternative would construct interchanges at Swift Creek Road and
Wilson's Mills Road. The alternative would also remove all at-grade intersections within the
project limits and construct service roads to provide access to adjacent properties. Three
interchange options were developed for the Swift Creek Road intersection and two
interchange options were developed for the Wilson's Mills Road intersection. The
interchange options are presented in Figure 8.
4.1.5.1 Swift Creek Road Interchange Options
Swift Creek Road Option 1(SC1) proposes to construct a half-cloverleaf interchange with
ramps and loops in the northwest and southwest quadrants along a new location
alignment of Swift Creek Road. The proposed interchange would include a new bridge
carrying the realigned Swift Creek Road over US 70. The proposed interchange would be
located approximately 0.5 mile west of the existing US 70/Swift Creek Road intersection.
The new location section of Swift Creek Road will leave the existing alignment just south
of the Wilson's Mills Baptist Church and connect to Wilson's Mills Road just east of Pear
Tree Lane.
SCl includes a variation of Service Road 4, which was described in detail in Section 3.4.
Swift Creek Road Option 2(SC2) proposes to construct a modified diamond interchange
with ramps and loops in the northeast and southwest quadrants at the existing US 70/Swift
Creek Road intersection. The proposed interchange would include a new bridge
carrying Swift Creek Road over US 70.
SC2 includes a variation of Service Road 4 and Service Road 5, both of which were
described in detail in Section 3.4.
15

US 70 Improvements Cafegorical Exclusion STIP Project W-5600
Swift Creek Road Option 3(SC3) proposes to construct a modified diamond interchange
with ramps in the northeast, northwest, and southwest quadrants and a loop ramp in the
southwest quadrant at the existing US 70/Swift Creek Road intersection. The proposed
interchange would include a new bridge carrying Swift Creek Road over US 70.
SC3 includes a variation of Service Road 4 and Service Road 5, both of which were
described in detail in Section 3.4.
4.1.5.2 Wilson's Mills Road Interchange Options
Wilson's Mills Road Option A(WMA), proposes to construct a compressed diamond
interchange at the intersection of US 70 and Wilson's Mills Road. WMA would realign US 70
slightly to the south of the intersection and would include two bridges carrying US 70 over
Wilson's Mills Road.
WMA includes a variation of Service Road 6, which was described in detail in Section 3.4.
Wilson's Mills Road Option B(WMB), proposes to construct a modified diamond
interchange with ramps and loops in the northeast and southwest quadrants at the
intersection of US 70 and Wilson's Mills Road. The proposed interchange would include a
new bridge carrying Wilson's Mills Road over US 70.
WMB includes a variation of Service Road 6, which was described in detail in Section 3.4.
Jurisdictional impacts of the interchange options are presented in Table 8 below.
Table 8: Jurisdictional Impacts of Interchan
Streams I
Wetlands
Swift Creek Road
Option Option Option
1 2 3
r Feet 1060 1620 2030
es) 5.9 5.8 7.0
Wilson's Mills Road
Option A � Option B
� � ��
� �:
Service Roads (not
associated w/
interchange
..�
�
Swift Creek Road Option 3 was dropped from further consideration following detailed
environmental surveys because it would affect the most wetlands of the Swift Creek
Road interchange options.
4.2 Alternatives Studied in Detail
The detailed study alternatives are combinations of the Swift Creek Road and the
Wilson's Mills Road interchange options retained for further consideration and the service
roads not associated with either interchange option. The alternatives retained for further
consideration were:
• Alternative lA: Swift Creek Interchange Option 1 and Wilson's Mills Interchange
16

US 70 Improvements Cafegorical Exclusion STIP Project W-5600
Option A
• Alternative 1 B: Swift Creek Interchange Option 1 and Wilson's Mills Interchange
Option B
• Alternative 2A: Swift Creek Interchange Option 2 and Wilson's Mills Interchange
Option A
• Alternative 2B: Swift Creek Interchange Option 2 and Wilson's Mills Interchange
Option B
The detailed study alternatives are shown in figures 9A and 9B. Table 6 summarizes the
impacts of each detailed study alternative.
Table 9: Alternatives Studied in Detail Comparison
Resource Alternative 1 A Alternative 1 B Alternative 2A Alternative 2B
Residential 3 5 5 7
Relocations Business 6 9 6 8
Total 9 14 11 16
Minority / Low Income
Populations No No No No
(Disproportionate
Im acts
Historic Resources No No No No
Adverse Effects
Community Facilities 0 0 1 1
Im acted*
Section 4(f) Impacts N/A N/A N/A N/A
Prime Farmland (acres) 68.0 73.8 62.0 67.8
Wetlands (acres) 8.8 8.6 8.7 8.5
Streams (linear feet) 3,060 2,770 3,300 3,010
Riparian Zone 1 74,050 65,340 52,270 43,560
Buffers
(square Zone 2 82,760 77,540 34,850 30,490
feet Total 156,810 143,880 87,120 74,050
Floodplain (acres) 0 0 0.1 0.1
Federally Protected No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect
Species
Right-of-Way Acquisition $9,875,000 $15,800,000 $10,550,000 $16,800,000
Utility Relocation $894,000 $997,000 926,000 $939,000
Mitigation $3,780,000 $3,530,000 $3,860,000 $3,630,000
Construction
$44,900,000 $39,700,000 $43,300,000 $38,100,000
Total $ 55,449,000 $ 60,027,000 $ 58,636,000 $ 59,469,000
*Alternatives 2A and 2B will potentially require the relocation of 45 graves.
17

US 70 Improvements Cafegorical Exclusion STIP Project W-5600
4.3 NCDOT Recommended Alternative
Alternative 2A has been identified as the preferred alternative by NCDOT because it
would best serve the project's purpose and need while balancing environmental
concerns and costs with the concerns of the citizens and leaders of the Town of
Wilson's Mills.
Alternative 2A was selected for the following reasons:
■ Based on comments received at the February 2016 public meeting, Alternative 2A
was preferred by the public. Over four times as many people who stated a
preference selected Alternative 2A over the next most popular alternative
(Alternative 1 A).
■ The Town of Wilson's Mills passed a resolution supporting Alternative 2A.
■ Alternative 2A would require less total relocations than two of the other alternatives.
The alternative with the least number of relocatees, Alternative 1 A, would affect
the most wetlands and the most riparian buffers and has the second highest cost.
■ Alternative 2A would affect less wetlands than Alternative 1 A. Alternative 2A would
affect 0.2 acre more wetlands and 13,070 square feet more riparian buffer than
Alternative 2B, the alternative with the least impact on either of these resources.
However, Alternative 2B would relocate the most homes and businesses of any of
the alternatives, and would affect more prime farmland than Alternative 2A.
■ Alternative 2A would affect 530 feet more streams than the alternative with the
least impact on streams, Alternative 1 B. However, Alternative 1 B would have more
total relocations than Alternative 2A, would affect the most prime farmland of any
of the alternatives, had the least support from the public and had the highest total
cost of any of the alternatives.
• Alternative 2A would affect less prime farmland than any of the other alternatives.
■ Alternative 2A has the least total cost of any of the other alternatives.
■ Alternative 2A provides the most direct access to US 70, allowing emergency
services to respond faster to incidents that require them to travel east or west along
US 70.
On June 15, 2016, the NEPA/Section 404 Merger Team concurred that Alternative 2A
was the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA).
The recommended alternative is shown in Figures 2A-2D.
18

US 70 Improvements Cafegorical Exclusion STIP Project W-5600
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION
5.1 Natural Resources
5.1.1 Physiology and Soils
The study area is located in the Southern Piedmont physiographic region and consists
of agricultural land, bottomland hardwood forests, headwater forests, freshwater
marshes and ponds. Elevations within the study area range from approximately 180
feet above mean sea level (MSL) to 250 feet above MSL.
The Johnston County Soil Survey identifies 27 soil series within the study area. Table 10
summarizes the soil series within the project study area.
Table 10. Soils in the Study Area
Soil Series Mapping Unit Drainage Class Hydric Status
Appling-Marlboro AmB Well Drained Non-Hydric
com lex
Bibb sand loam Bb Ve Poorl Drained H dric
Bonneau sand BoA Well Drained Non-H dric
Cecil loam CeB Well Drained Non-Hydric
Cecil loam CeC Well Drained Non-H dric
Cowarts loam sand CoB Well Drained Non-H dric
Gilead sand loam GeB Moderatel Well Drained Non-H dric
Goldsboro sand loam GoA Moderatel Well Drained H dric*
Grantham silt loam Gr Poorl Drained H dric
L nchbur sand loam L Somewhat Poorl Drained H dric*
Marlboro sand loam MaA Well Drained Non-H dric
Marlboro sand loam MaB Well Drained Non-H dric
Nason silt loam NnB Well Drained Non-H dric
Nason silt loam NnD Well Drained Non-H dric
Nason silt loam NnE Well Drained Non-H dric
Norfolk loam sand NoA Well Drained H dric*
Norfolk loam sand NoB Well Drained H dric*
Norfolk-Urban land NuA Well Drained Non-Hydric
com lex
Rains sand loam Ra Poorl Drained H dric
Rains-Urban land RbA Poorly Drained Hydric
com lex
Rion sand loam RnF Well Drained Non-H dric
Toisnot loam Tn Poorl Drained H dric
Uchee loamy coarse UcB Well Drained Non-Hydric
sand
Varina loam sand VrA Well Drained Non-H dric
Wa ram loam sand WaB Well Drained H dric*
Wedowee sandy loam WoB Well Drained Non-Hydric
19

US 70 Improvements Cafegorical Exclusion STIP Project W-5600
Soil Series Mapping Unit Drainage Class Hydric Status
Appling-Marlboro AmB Well Drained Non-Hydric
com lex
Bibb sand loam Bb Ve Poorl Drained H dric
Bonneau sand BoA Well Drained Non-Hydric
Cecil loam CeB Well Drained Non-H dric
Cecil loam CeC Well Drained Non-H dric
Cowarts loamy sand CoB Well Drained Non-Hydric
Gilead sand loam GeB Moderatel Well Drained Non-H dric
Goldsboro sand loam GoA Moderatel Well Drained H dric*
Grantham silt loam Gr Poorly Drained Hydric
L nchbur sand loam L Somewhat Poorl Drained H dric*
Marlboro sand loam MaA Well Drained Non-H dric
Marlboro sandy loam MaB Well Drained Non-Hydric
Nason silt loam NnB Well Drained Non-H dric
Nason silt loam NnD Well Drained Non-H dric
Nason silt loam NnE Well Drained Non-H dric
Norfolk loam sand NoA Well Drained H dric*
Norfolk loam sand NoB Well Drained H dric*
Norfolk-Urban land NuA Well Drained Non-Hydric
com lex
Wehadkee loam Wt Poorl Drained H dric
* Indicates a soil that contains hydric soil inclusions.
5.1.2 Biotic Resources
5.1.2.1 Terrestrial Communities
Terrestrial communities are classified using "NC WAM User Manual, Version 4.1" and
"Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Third Approximation".
Seven terrestrial communities were identified in the study area: agricultural,
maintained/disturbed, headwater forest, piedmont/mountain semi-permanent
impoundment, hardwood flat, mesic mixed hardwood forest (piedmont subtype) and
non-tidal freshwater marsh. A brief description of each community type and figures
showing the location of these terrestrial communities are included in the Natural
Resources Technical Report (February 2014). The primary terrestrial communities in the
project study area are maintained/disturbed and agricultural.
Table 1 1 summaries the terrestrial community impacts resulting from the project.
Table 11: Terrestrial Communitv Imbacts
Community
ent I
Area within Study
Area acres
438.8
102.4
44.8
dment 1.6
20.5
Impacts (acres)
Maintained/Disturbed
Agricultural
Headwater Forest
Piedmont/Mountain Semi
Hardwood Flat
20
43.27
27.64
7.8
0.2
0

US 70 Improvements Cafegorical Exclusion STIP Project W-5600
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Piedmont Subtype) 87.2 25.0
Non-Tidal Freshwater Marsh 4.3 0.6
5.1.2.2 Terrestrial Wildlife
Wildlife populations within the study area are limited to those species that are
adaptable to human impacts and disturbance and habitat fragmentation. The regular
logging and agricultural practices are the normal condition within the study area.
Avian species exhibited the greatest diversity followed by amphibians and reptiles.
Individuals or evidence of a wide variety of animal species were sighted within the
study area. Species or evidence of species observed in the study area is indicated with
an asterisk (*).
Many birds utilize wooded and shrubby edge environments for breeding sites and
foraging. American robin*, northern mockingbird*, turkey vulture*, mourning dove*,
white throated sparrow* and eastern bluebird* are a few of the more common birds
that utilize the area. American robin, northern mockingbird, mourning dove, and white
throated sparrow are tree nesters commonly observed in residential areas.
A variety of amphibians and reptiles were observed utilizing the streams, wetlands and
ponds within the study area. Frogs were the most diverse group of amphibians.
Bullfrog*, gray tree frog*, upland chorus frog* and pickerel frogs* were present in most
areas of standing and ponded water. Other amphibian species expected to occur
are spring peepers, southern cricket frog, American toad and Fowlers toad. No
salamanders were observed. Salamanders expected to occur within the study area
are spotted salamander, slimy salamander, and marbled salamander. Reptiles
occurring within the study area are expected to include eastern garter snake, northern
water snake, king snakes, black rat snake*, black racer, eastern corn snake and
copperhead.
The diversity of mammal species found within the study area is limited due to the
disturbances and habitat fragmentation. The recent cutovers and brushy field edge
communities provide an excellent combination of food and shelter for many species,
while the mature forests and agriculture fields provide good foraging habitat.
Evidence of eastern cottontails* and white-tailed deer* was readily observed
throughout the study area. Other mammals likely to be found in the study area include
eastern gray squirrel, muskrat, beaver*, red fox, raccoon*, and Virginia opossum*.
Impacts
Temporary fluctuations in the population of animal species that utilize these
communities are anticipated during the course of construction. Slow-moving,
burrowing, and/or subterranean organisms will be directly impacted by construction
activities, while mobile organisms will be displaced to adjacent communities.
21

US 70 Improvements Cafegorical Exclusion STIP Project W-5600
5.1.2.3 Aquatic Communities
Aquatic communities in the study area consist of both perennial and intermittent
streams as well as ponds. The only fish identified in the streams and ponds were
mosquito fish. However, the perennial streams are large enough to support various
sunfish, salamanders and benthic macroinvertebrates. The intermittent streams, being
smaller in size, are expected to support crayfish, amphibians and a suite of benthic
macroinvertebrates. There are also ten ponds located within the study area. Eight of
the ponds are impoundments of jurisdictional streams or drain to a jurisdictional stream.
The remaining two ponds are excavated in upland areas and have enough depth to
collect or retain water. The only fish species identified in the ponds were mosquito fish.
Several fish species are expected to be present in the ponds including largemouth
bass, bluegill, and crappie. The majority of the reptile and amphibian species were
observed in the ponds.
Impacts
The aquatic habitat in the project study area will be both directly and indirectly
affected by the construction of the project. These impacts include fluctuations in
water temperatures, as a result of the loss of riparian vegetation. In consequence,
shelter and food resources, both in the aquatic and terrestrial portions of these
organisms' life cycles, will be affected by losses in the terrestrial communities. This loss
of aquatic plants and animals would affect the terrestrial fauna which rely on them as
a food source.
Both temporary and permanent impacts will be inflicted on aquatic organisms residing
in the project study area. These impacts may result from increased sedimentation,
having the potential to affect fish and other aquatic life in several ways, including the
clogging and abrading of gills and other respiratory surfaces, affecting the habitat by
scouring and filling of pools and riffles, altering water chemistry, and smothering
different life stages. Increased sedimentation may also cause decreased light
penetration through an increase in turbidity. The influx of organic materials may also
cause dissolved oxygen rates to be lower, and the water temperature to increase. The
level of impacts to the aquatic communities will be minimized by adherence to best
management practices.
5.1.2.4 Invasive Species
Nine species from the NCDOT Invasive Exotic Plant List for North Carolina were found to
occur in the study area. The species identified were Chinese privet (Threat), kudzu
(Threat), Japanese grass (Threat), multiflora rose (Threat), tree-of-heaven (Threat),
princess tree (Threat), lespedeza (Threat), mimosa (Moderate Threat) and Japanese
honeysuckle (Moderate Threat). NCDOT will manage invasive plant species as
appropriate.
22

US 70 Improvements Cafegorical Exclusion STIP Project W-5600
5.1.3 Water Resources and Water Quality
5.1.3.1 Streams, Rivers, Impoundments
Water resources in the study area are part of the Neuse River Basin [U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Unit 03020201 ]. Table 12 lists the surface waters identified in
the study area.
Table 12. Water resources in the stud area
Stream Name Map ID NCDWQ Index gest Usage Classification
Number
Reedy Branch, Reedy Branch 27-43-14 C; NSW
includin ond PA SA
Little Poplar Creek Little Poplar 27-41-1 WS-IV; NSW
Creek SB
UT to Little Po lar Creek SC WS-IV; NSW
UT to Little Po lar Creek SD WS-IV; NSW
UT to Little Poplar Creek SE WS-IV; NSW
UT to Little Po lar Creek SF WS-IV; NSW
UT to Poplar Creek,
including ponds (PB SG WS-IV; NSW
and PZZ
UT to Po lar Creek SH WS-IV; NSW
Poplar Creek Poplar Creek SI 27-41 WS-IV; NSW
UT to Po lar Creek SJ WS-IV; NSW
UT to Poplar Creek, S� WS-IV; NSW
includin ond PD
UT to Poplar Creek SM WS-IV; NSW
includin ond PH
UT to Po lar Creek SN WS-IV; NSW
UT to Neuse River SO WS-IV; NSW
UT to Po lar Creek SP WS-IV; NSW
UT to Neuse River SQ WS-IV; NSW
UT to Po lar Creek SR WS-IV; NSW
UT to Po lar Creek SS WS-IV; NSW
UT to Neuse River ST WS-IV; NSW
UT to Neuse River SU WS-IV; NSW
UT to Po lar Creek SZZ WS-IV; NSW
23

US 70 Improvements Cafegorical Exclusion STIP Project W-5600
Table 13 identifies the physical characteristics of each stream identified in the project
study area.
Table 13. Ph sical characteristics of water resources in the stud area
NRTR Map Bank Bankful Water Channel Velocity Clarity
ID Hei ht ft Width ft De th in Substrate
SA* 1 5-10 6 Sand Slow Clear2
SB* 2-3 6-10 12 Sand, gravel Moderate Clear
SC 0-2 4-6 8 Sand Moderate Clear
SD* 0-1 6-8 8 Sand Moderate Clear
SE 4-6 4-6 4 Sand Slow Clear
SF 2-3 5-10 8 Sand, gravel Moderate
SG* 4-5 4-6 6 Sand Slow Clear
SH 2-3 4-5 3 Sand Slow Clear
SI* 1-2 10-15 12 Sand, gravel Moderate Clear
SJ 1-2 2-3 3 Sand Slow Clear
SL 2-3 2-3 3 Sand Moderate Clear
SM* 2-3 3-4 4 Sand Moderate Clear
SN* 3-4 10-15 12 Sand Slow Clear
SO 1-2 4-6 3 Sand, silt Slow Clear
SP* 1 2-3 8 Sand, gravel Moderate Clear
SQ* 2-3 2-3 3 Clay Moderate Clear
SR* 1-2 8-10 8 Sand, gravel Moderate Clear
SS* 2-3 2-3 2 Clay Moderate Clear
ST 1-2 3-4 4 Sand Slow Clear
SU 1-2 1-2 2 Clay Moderate Clear
SZZ 2-3 3-4 4 Sand, silt Slow Clear
* Water in these streams is tannin stained.
5.1.3.2 Water Quality
Water resources in the study area are within the Neuse River Water Supply Watershed
protected area and are classified as WS-IV Nutrient Sensitive Waters, with the exception
of Reedy Branch which is classified as C. There are no additional water classifications,
such as anadromous fish waters or primary nursery areas, associated with the streams in
the study area. There are no streams identified in the study area that are listed on the
2012 Final 303(d) list of impaired waters. There are no streams designated as High
Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resources Waters (ORW), or water supply
watersheds (WS-I or WS-II) located within one mile downstream of the project study
area. There is no benthic or fish monitoring data for the streams located within the
study area or within one mile downstream of the project study area.
24

US 70 Improvements Cafegorical Exclusion STIP Project W-5600
Impacts
Soil erosion and siltation are the most common water quality impacts associated with
highway construction activities. Other potential impacts associated with the project
include scouring of streambeds, soil compaction, filling of wetlands, and loss of shading
as a result of vegetation removal.
NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters will be strictly
enforced during project construction. Under the conditions described herein,
permanent impacts to water quality associated with this project would be negligible.
5.1.4 Jurisdictionallssues
5.1.4.1 Streams
Nineteen jurisdictional and one ephemeral streams were identified in the study area
(see Table 14). The location of these streams is shown on Figures l0A-B. All jurisdictional
streams in the study area have been designated as warm water streams for the
purposes of stream mitigation.
Table 14. Jurisdictional characteristics of water resources in the stud area
Map ID Classification Compensatory River Basin Alt 2A
Miti ation Re uired Buffer Rules Im acts
SA Perennial Yes Sub'ect 0
SB Perennial Yes Sub'ect 182
SC Intermittent Undetermined Not Sub'ect 91
SD Intermittent Undetermined Sub'ect 138
SE Intermittent Undetermined Not Sub'ect 0
SF Perennial Yes Not Sub'ect 248
SG Intermittent Undetermined Sub'ect 208
SH Intermittent Yes Not Sub'ect 37
SI Perennial Yes Sub'ect 875
SJ Intermittent Yes Not Sub'ect 0
SL Intermittent Undetermined Not Sub'ect 0
SM Intermittent Yes Sub'ect 500
SN Intermittent Yes Sub'ect 0
SO Intermittent Undetermined Not Sub'ect 97
SP E hemeral Undetermined Sub'ect 0
SQ Intermittent Yes Sub'ect 0
SR Perennial Yes Sub'ect 379
SS Intermittent Undetermined Sub'ect 0
ST Intermittent Yes Not Sub'ect 297
SZZ Intermittent Undetermined Not Sub'ect 0
Total 3,070
Stream SP was determined to be ephemeral using the NCDWQ Stream Identification
Form; however, it is depicted as intermittent on the USGS Selma quadrangle map.
25

US 70 Improvements Cafegorical Exclusion STIP Project W-5600
iaaie i5. Stream impacts or Aiternatives Stuaiea in �etan
Stream Name NRTR Map ID �ength of Impact (feet) by Alternative
lA 1B 2A 2B
Reedy Branch, SA 0 0 0 0
includin ond PA �
Little Po lar Creek� SB 182 182 182 182
UT to Little Po lar Creek SC 91 91 91 91
UT to Little Poplar SD 138 138 138 138
Creek�
UT to Little Po lar Creek SE 0 0
UT to Little Po lar Creek SF 248 248 248 248
UT to Poplar Creek,
including ponds (PB SG 990 990 208 208
and PZZ �
UT to Po lar Creek SH 0 37 37
Poplar Creek SI 20 20 875 875
UT to Po lar Creek� SJ 0 0 0 0
UT to Poplar Creek, SL 0 0 0 0
includin ond PD
UT to Poplar Creek SM 0 0 500 500
includin ond PH �
UT to Po lar Creek� SN 0
UT to Neuse River SO 97 285 97 285
UT to Poplar Creek SP 0 0 0 0
e hemeral �
UT to Neuse River� SQ 0 0 0 00
UT to Po lar Creek� SR 379 193 379 193
UT to Po lar Creek� SS 297 0 0 0
UT to Neuse River ST 246 192 297 192
UT to Neuse River SU 0 57 246 57
UT to Po lar Creek SZZ 50 50 0 0
OtherUT 320 320 0 0
Total 3,060 2,450 3,300 3,010
5.1.4.2 Wetlands
Thirty-nine jurisdictional wetlands were identified within the study area (Figures 1 OA-B).
Wetland classifications are presented in Table 15. All wetlands in the study area are
within the Upper Neuse River basin (USGS Hydrologic Unit 03020201).
Table 16. Jurisdictional characteristics of wetlands in the stud
NCWAM Hydrologic NCDWQ
Map ID Wetland
Classification Classification ., __�,__ __
WA Headwater Forest
WB Headwater Forest
WC Headwater Forest
WD Headwater Forest
an 51
a n 54
a n 52
an 47
area
Area AIt.2A
(ac.) Impacts
3.12 0
1.02 0.1
1.00 0
4.53 0.42
26

US 70 Improvements Cafegorical Exclusion STIP Project W-5600
NCDWQ
NCWAM Hydrologic Area AIt.2A
Map ID Classification Classification Wetland (ac.) Impacts
Ratin
WE Headwater Forest Ri arian 35 0.29 0.17
WF Non-Tidal Riparian 19 0.02 0.02
Freshwater Marsh
WG Headwater Forest Ri arian 29 0.75 0.1
WH Headwater Forest Riparian 23 0.58 0
Headwater
WI Forest/Non-Tidal Riparian 35 3.32 0
Freshwater Marsh
WJ Headwater Forest Riparian 35 1.26 0.01
WK Hardwood Flat Non-Ri arian 50 5.08 3.92
WL Headwater Forest Ri arian 44 3.81 0.77
WM Headwater Forest Ri arian 44 0.03 0.03
WN Hardwood Flat Non-Ri arian 12 14.81 0
w� Non-Tidal Riparian 45 0.46 0
Freshwater Marsh
WP Headwater Forest Ri arian 65 0.51 0
WQ Headwater Forest Ri arian 49 0.18 0
WR Headwater Forest Ri arian 46 9.79 0
WS Hardwood Flat Non-Ri arian 44 0.79 0
wT Non-Tidal Riparian 30 0.12 0
Freshwater Marsh
WU Headwater Forest Riparian 40 0.72 0.43
WV Headwater Forest Ri arian 33 2.00 0
WX Headwater Forest Ri arian 65 2.03 0
WY Headwater Forest Ri arian 31 0.11 0
wZ Non-Tidal Riparian 31 0.49 0.65
Freshwater Marsh
WAA Headwater Forest Riparian 43 0.72 0
WBB Hardwood Flat Non-Ri arian 19 1.53 0
WCC Hardwood Flat Non-Ri arian 23 0.64 0
WDD Headwater Forest Ri arian 38 0.37 0.14
WEE Hardwood Flat Non-Ri arian 27 0.43 0
WFF Headwater Forest Ri arian 27 0.09 0
Headwater Forest/
WGG Non-Tidal Riparian 50 1.54 0.65
Freshwater Marsh
WHH Non-Tidal Riparian 32 0.17 0
Freshwater Marsh
WII Headwater Forest Ri arian 31 0.73 0.27
WUU Headwater Forest Ri arian 23 1.29 0
WVV Headwater Forest Non-Ri arian 32 0.41 0
WXX Headwater Forest Ri arian 34 0.12 0
WYY Headwater Forest Ri arian 31 0.43 0
WZZ Headwater Forest Ri arian 31 0.05 0
Totql 7.7
27

US 70 Improvements Cafegorical Exclusion STIP Project W-5600
Impacts
As shown in Tablesl5 and 16 above, the project will result in 3,070 linear feet of
jurisdictional stream and 7.6 acres of wetland impacts.
5.1.4.3 Clean Water Act Permits
It is anticipated a Section 404 Individual Permit will be required for this project. The
Corps of Engineers will determine the applicable permit required to authorize project
construction.
A North Carolina Division of Water Resources Section 401 Water Quality Individual
Certification will be required prior to issuance of the Section 404 permit. Other required
401 certifications may include a GC 3366 for temporary construction access and
dewatering.
5.1.4.4 North Carolina Riparian Buffer Rules
Streamside riparian zones within the study area are protected under provisions of the
Neuse River Buffer Rules administered by NCDWQ. Table 14 indicates which streams are
subject to buffer rule protection.
Impacts
The project will result in 43,990 and 28,750 square feet of Zone 1 and Zone 2 riparian
buffers, respectively.
5.1.5 Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10 Navigable Waters
There are no water bodies within the study area designated as Section 10 Navigable
Waters.
5.1.6 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation
The proposed project involves improvements to an existing facility. Wetlands and
streams are located near existing US 70. Total avoidance of wetlands and streams is
not possible.
In order to reduce stream and wetland impacts along the western end of the project,
Service Roads 1 A and 2 were realigned closer to US 70, utilizing a concrete barrier to
provide the separation. These minimization efforts reduced the stream and wetland
impacts of the project by 230 feet and 1.0 acres, respectively.
Where practical and safe, steeper slopes (no greater than 3:1) will be utilized along the
project. During project design, special consideration will be given to slopes in wetland
areas and near streams.
28

US 70 Improvements Cafegorical Exclusion STIP Project W-5600
On June, 15, 2016, the interagency team of state and federal resource agencies
(NEPA/404 Merger Team) concurred with the avoidance and minimization measures for
the proposed project. A copy of the concurrence form is included in Appendix A.
The NCDOT will investigate potential on-site stream and wetland mitigation
opportunities, as needed. If on-site mitigation is not feasible, mitigation will be provided
by the NC Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) Division of Mitigation Services
(DMS).
5.1.7 Federally-Protected Species
As of December 13, 2013, the United States Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) lists four federally
protected species for Johnston County (see Table 16).
Table 17. Federally protected species listed for Johnston County
�cientific Name Common Name Federal Habitat
Status Present
Picoides borealis
Alasmidonta heterodon
Elliptio steinstansana
Rhus michauxii
Red cockaded
woodpecker
Dwarf wedgemussel
Tar River spineymussel
Michaux's sumac
E No
E Yes
E Yes
E Yes
Biological
Conclusion
No Effect
No Effect
No Effect
No Effect
Suitable habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker does not exist within the study
area. There are no stands of pine within the project area that have trees of the size
and age required for nesting, nor is there appropriate foraging habitat. Additionally,
the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) GIS data files (July 2013) have
no records of any populations of this species within a one-mile radius of the study area.
It is expected the project will have no effect on the red-cockaded woodpecker.
Sections of Reedy Branch and Little Poplar Creek meet the habitat requirements for the
dwarf wedgemussel and Tar River spinymussel. No individuals of these species were
identified during the onsite investigations conducted in July 2014. A review of NCNHP
GIS data files (March 2016), indicates no known dwarf wedgemussel or Tar River
spinymussel occurrences within one mile of the study area. Dwarf wedge mussel are
known to occur in Swift Creek approximately three miles to the south of the project
area. It is expected the project will have no effect on either the dwarf wedgemussel or
the Tar River spinymussel.
Suitable habitat for Michaux's sumac is present in the study area along roadside
shoulders and utility easements. Surveys were conducted by biologists throughout
areas of suitable habitat during June and July 2013 and October 2013. No individuals
of Michaux's sumac were observed. A review of North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program (NCNHP) GIS data files (March 2016) indicates no known occurrences within
one mile of the study area. It is expected the project will have no effect on Michaux's
sumac.
29

US 70 Improvements Cafegorical Exclusion STIP Project W-5600
5.1.7.1 Northern Long-eared bat
On October 2, 2013, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) proposed the northern
long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) for listing as endangered under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA). The northern long-eared bat was officially listed as
threatened under the Endangered Species Act April 2, 2015.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has developed a programmatic biological opinion
(PBO) in conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and NCDOT for the northern long-eared bat in eastern North Carolina. The
PBO provides incidental take coverage for the NLEB and will ensure compliance with
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act for five years for all NCDOT projects with a
federal nexus in Divisions 1 through 8, which includes Johnston County This level of
incidental take is authorized from the effective date of a final listing determination
through April 30, 2020. The programmatic determination for NLEB for the NCDOT
program is "May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect."
5.1.8 Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act
The bald eagle was declared recovered, and removed (de-listed) from the USFWS
Federal List of Threatened and Endangered Species effective August 8, 2007. The bald
eagle remains federally protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
and the Migratory Bird Species Act.
Habitat for the bald eagle primarily consists of mature forest in proximity to large bodies
of open water for foraging. Large dominant trees are utilized for nesting sites, typically
within one mile of open water. Mature forests and large dominant trees do not occur
within the study area or within a 1.l 3 mile radius (one mile plus 660 feet). A review of
the NCNHP database in March 2016 showed no occurrences of bald eagle within two
miles of the study area.
5.2 Community Impacts and Land Use
The project study area is located within the southern boundary of the Town of Wilson's
Mills. The town of Clayton lies to the west of the study area and the neighboring towns
of Smithfield and Selma lie to the immediate east of the project study area. The
project study area is rural in nature and is surrounded by a mix of residential,
agricultural, institutional/governmental, and commercial/industrial land uses.
5.2.1 Population and Land Use
5.2.1.1 Minority/Low-Income Populations
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, protects individuals from discrimination on the
grounds of race, age, color, religion, disability, sex, and national origin. Executive Order
12898 provides that each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice
part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
30

US 70 Improvements Cafegorical Exclusion STIP Project W-5600
and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income
populations. Special populations may include the elderly, children, the disabled, low-
income areas, American Indians and other minority groups.
Non-white individuals comprise approximately 43 percent of the population of Census
Tract 409.01, Block Group 2, compared to approximately 22 percent of the population
of Johnston County. These data indicate that an Environmental Justice population is
present in the Demographic Study Area. However, the census block group is large and
includes areas that are far removed from the US 70 corridor. Wilson's Mills officials
noted there may be minority populations in subdivisions in proximity to the proposed
Wilson's Mills Road interchange (northwest quadrant).
In Census Tract 409.01, Block Group 2, 28.2 percent of residents were below the poverty
level, and 1 1.8 percent of residents were very poor (incomes less than 50 percent of the
poverty level), compared to 16.1 percent and 6.2 percent, respectively, of Johnston
County.
During site visits, several additional areas with minority or low-income populations were
identified in proximity to the US 70 corridor. The Adelphos mobile home park, with
approximately six homes, is on the north side of Sadisco Road. This mobile home park
also includes a potential low-income population. The mobile home park would not be
directly impacted by closure of the US 70 median opening at Sadisco Road. Access to
US 70 for this neighborhood will be provided via US 70 Business and the eastward
extension of Sadisco Road, connecting it to the US 70/Swift Creek Road interchange.
A public meeting was held for the project on February 2, 2016. The meeting was
advertised in local news media. Newsletters were mailed to property owners and
residents in the project area based off of a mailing listed developed from the most
recent Johnston County GIS property data.
Based on the public involvement process and studies conducted, the proposed project
has been implemented in accordance with Executive Order 12898.
5.2.1.2 Limited English Proficiency Populations
The presence of Limited English Proficiency (LEP) populations in the study area was
determined in order to inform the public involvement process. LEP populations are
defined as individuals who speak English less than very well. LEP populations within the
project study area meet or exceed the U.S. Department of Justice's Safe Harbor
Thresholds. As a means to ensure outreach to LEP populations within the study area,
the project newsletters distributed in May 2013 and January 2015 consisted of English
and Spanish text.
5.2.1.3 Existing Land Use Plans and Regulations
The Town of Wilson's Mills does not have an adopted land use plan. The area
surrounding the Town of Wilson's Mills, is considered a"Primary Growth Area" according
to the Johnston County 2030 Comprehensive Plan, adopted in March 2009. The area is
31

US 70 Improvements Cafegorical Exclusion STIP Project W-5600
one of the areas identified as best suited to accommodate development and growth.
This is primarily due to the completion of the US 70 Clayton Bypass, which sends travelers
around Clayton and ends at the beginning of the subject project. However, substantial
development has yet to materialize.
The proposed interchanges are consistent in concept with local plans for the US 70
corridor.
5.2.1.4 Zoning and Future Land Use
The Town developed a new "General Business" (GB) zoning district to apply along the
US 70 corridor (within 500 feet). Properties were rezoned to GB based on property
owner consent. It is assumed the primary land use along the US 70 corridor will be
commercial, while residential land uses will continue to develop behind the
commercial uses and along the intersecting roadways.
The project has the potential to influence the location of development along the US 70
corridor. The modification of two signalized intersections to interchanges will create
new land use nodes, because the interchanges would be more conducive to
non-residential, highway oriented commercial development. There are a number of
large tracts adjacent to the proposed interchanges and along the proposed service
roads. However, the project is not likely to attract development to the area because
of the limited scope of the proposed project.
5.2.2 Neighborhoods and Communities
5.2.2.1 Community / Neighborhood Cohesion and Stability
There were no specific signs or indicators of community cohesion observed within the
project area. Therefore, the project will not have negative impacts to community
cohesion or stability.
5.2.2.2 Impacts to Mobility and Access
Current access to the Town of Wilson's Mills and the properties surrounding US 70 are
via direct connections at the at-grade intersections within the project study area. The
project will convert US 70 to a freeway, which includes full control of access. Access to
US 70 and areas north and south of US 70 will be limited to Swift Creek Road and
Wilson's Mills Road and the proposed service roads. The addition of the service roads
minimizes the overall access impacts of the project. This will result in minor changes to
existing travel patterns throughout the project study area. However, the project will
enable Swift Creek Road and Wilson's Mills Road to function as the primary access
routes to Wilson's Mills from points south.
5.2.2.3 Economic and Business Resources
The primary commercial resources within the project study area are located in the
32

US 70 Improvements Cafegorical Exclusion STIP Project W-5600
vicinity of Uzzle Industrial Drive, along Sadisco Road, and at the Wilson's Mills Road
intersection. These areas currently have direct access to US 70 via at-grade
intersections. Following construction of the proposed project, access to these
commercial areas will change and be via interchanges and service roads, resulting in
minor access impacts to businesses. The closure of the at-grade intersections will also
result in changes to access to agricultural areas along the north and south sides of
US 70. Farmers who must cross US 70 to reach farm fields will now have to travel via
service roads and one of the interchanges to cross over US 70. This will result in longer
travel times.
The construction of the project will result in the displacement of two businesses.
5.2.2.4 Impacts to Community Safety and Emergency Response
Primary emergency services within the study area are provided by Wilson's Mills Fire
Station Number 1, located approximately three-quarters of a mile north of US 70. EMS
access to areas north of US 70 will not be impacted by the project. However, EMS
access from Wilson's Mills Fire Station Number 1 to the US 70 corridor and areas south of
US 70 will be limited to Swift Creek Road and Wilson's Mills Road and the proposed
service roads due. The project will have a minor impact on EMS response times.
5.2.2.5 Other Public Facilities and Services
Three churches are located within the project area. Wilson's Mills Baptist Church is
located immediately south of US 70 on Swift Creek Road. Wilson's Mills Church of God
is located along Wilson's Mills Road, less than a quarter of a mile west of Swift Creek
Road. Wilson's Mills Church is located along Wilson's Mills Road, approximately three-
quarters of a mile northeast of the US 70/Swift Creek Road intersection. The project will
not impact any of these community resources.
Two cemeteries are located within the project area. The Wilson's Mills Cemetery is
located approximately 700 feet north of US 70 on the east side of Swift Creek Road
and the Lassiter Cemetery is located just opposite of the Wilson's Mills Baptist Church
on Swift Creek Road. Additional right-of-way will be required along Swift Creek Road
north of US 70. The project will result in the relocation of 45 grave sites within the
Wilson's Mills Cemetery. In relocating the grave sites, NCDOT will comply with NC
General Statutes Chapter 65, Article 12, Part 4). The project will not impact the Lassiter
Cemetery.
5.2.3 Right-of-Way and Relocation Impacts
The project will result in the relocation of four residences and two businesses. None of
the homes and businesses are minority-owned or occupied.
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 North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-
5 through 133-18). The NCDOT relocation program is designed to provide assistance to
33

US 70 Improvements Cafegorical Exclusion STIP Project W-5600
displaced persons in relocating to a replacement site in which to live or do business.
Appendix B contains copies of the relocation reports prepared for the project.
5.3 Cultural Resources
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, 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 the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and to afford the
Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings.
5.3.1 Historic Architectural Resources
Twenty-six architectural resources fifty years in age
evaluated within the project's area of potential effect
Places (NRHP)-listed or eligible properties are present.
5.3.2 Archaeological Resources
and older were identified and
. No National Register of Historic
Eight archaeological resources (one previously recorded site and seven newly
identified sites) and three historic cemeteries were documented. None of these sites
exhibit the qualities necessary to be recommended as eligible for the National Register
of Historic Places per Criteria A through D. Grave locations within one of the historic
cemeteries (Wilson's Mills Cemetery [Site 31JT419**]) will be impacted by the proposed
project.
5.4 Section 4(f) Resources
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation (DOT) Act, as amended, stipulates that
publicly owned land from a park, recreation area, wildlife or waterfowl refuge, or land
of a significant historic site may be used for federal projects only if there is no feasible
and prudent alternative and all possible planning to minimize harm resulting from such
use is included in the project.
No properties protected under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act, as
amended will be impacted by the project.
5.5 Section 6(f) Resources
Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (LWCF) protects
grant-assisted areas from conversion to uses other than the original intended purpose.
No public parks or recreation areas funded with LWCF monies were identified in the
study area. Therefore, the project will not impact any Section 6(f) resources.
34

US 70 Improvements Cafegorical Exclusion STIP Project W-5600
5.6 Prime Farmlands
The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) of 1981 requires all federal agencies or their
representatives to consider the impact on prime and important farmland of all
construction and land acquisition projects. According to the FPPA, "farmland" includes
prime farmland, unique farmland, and farmland that is determined to be of local or
statewide importance.
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.
Prime and important farmland soils are located in the proposed right-of-way. In
accordance with the FHWA Guidelines for Implementing the Final Rule of the Farmland
Protection Policy Act for Highway Projects, a preliminary assessment of farmland
conversion impacts in the project area has been completed (Part VI of the NRCS
Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form AD 1006) and a score of 46 points out of 160
total was calculated. Because the total site assessment score does not exceed the 60-
point threshold established by NRCS, this indicates a notable impact on protected
farmland soils is not anticipated as a result of the project.
Impacts
The project will impact approximately 60.4 acres of prime farmland soils.
No properties participating in Johnston County's Voluntary Agricultural District program
were identified in the study area.
5.7 Air Quality
Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions from industry and internal
combustion engines are the most prevalent sources. The impact resulting from
highway construction ranges from intensifying existing air pollution problems to
improving the ambient air quality. Changing traffic patterns are a primary concern
when determining the impact of a new highway facility or the improvement of an
existing highway facility. Motor vehicles emit carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide
(NO), hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (S02), and lead (Pb) (listed
in order of decreasing emission rate).
The Federal Clean Air Act of 1970 established the NAAQS. These were established in
order to protect public health, safety, and welfare from known or anticipated effects
of air pollutants. The most recent amendments to the NAAQS contain criteria for sulfur
dioxide (S02), particulate matter (PM�o, 10-micron and smaller, PM2.s, 2.5 micron and
smaller), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (03), and lead (Pb).
35

US 70 Improvements Cafegorical Exclusion STIP Project W-5600
The primary pollutants from motor vehicles are unburned hydrocarbons, NOx, CO, and
particulates. Hydrocarbons (HC) and Nitrogen oxides (NOx) can combine in a
complex series of reactions catalyzed by sunlight to produce photochemical oxidants
such as ozone and NO2. Because these reactions take place over a period of several
hours, maximum concentrations of photochemical oxidants are often found far
downwind of the precursor sources. These pollutants are regional problems.
A project-level air quality analysis was prepared for this project. A copy of the
unabridged version of the full technical report entitled Air Quality Analysis, "US 70
Improvements From West of SR 2565 (Sadisco RoadJ to West of SR 1915 (Turnage
RoadJ" dated April 2016 is available for viewing at the Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Unit, Century Center Building A, 1010 Birch Ridge Drive, Raleigh .
Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT�
Controlling air toxic emissions became a national priority with the passage of the
Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990, whereby Congress mandated that the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulate 188 air toxics, also known as
hazardous air pollutants. The
EPA has assessed this expansive list in their latest rule on the Control of Hazardous Air
Pollutants from Mobile Sources (Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 37, page 8430, February
26, 2007), and identified a group of 93 compounds emitted from mobile sources that
are listed in their Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) ( http://www.epa.gov/iris/). In
addition, EPA identified seven compounds with significant contributions from mobile
sources that are among the national and regional-scale cancer risk drivers from their
1999 National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata 1999/).
These are acrolein, benzene, 1,3-butidiene, diesel particulate matter plus diesel
exhaust organic gases (diesel PM), formaldehyde, naphthalene, and polycyclic
organic matter. While FHWA considers these the priority mobile source air toxics, the list
is subject to change and may be adjusted in consideration of future EPA rules. The
2007 EPA rule mentioned above requires controls that will dramatically decrease MSAT
emissions through cleaner fuels and cleaner engines. According to an FHWA analysis
using EPA's MOVES201 Ob model, even if vehicle activity (vehicle-miles travelled, VMT)
increases by 102 percent as assumed, from 2010 to 2050, a combined reduction of 83
percent in the total annual emissions for the priority MSAT is projected for the same
time period.
MSAT analyses are intended to capture the net change in emissions within an affected
environment, defined as the transportation network affected by the project. The
affected environment for MSATs may be different than the affected environment
defined in the NEPA document for other environmental effects, such as noise or
wetlands. Analyzing MSATs only within a geographically-defined "study area" will not
capture the emissions effects of changes in traffic on roadways outside of that area,
which is particularly important where the project creates an alternative route or diverts
traffic from one roadway class to another. At the other extreme, analyzing a
metropolitan area's entire roadway network will result in emissions estimates for many
roadway links not affected by the project, diluting the results of the analysis.
36

US 70 Improvements Cafegorical Exclusion STIP Project W-5600
Incomplete or Unavailable Information for Project Specific MSAT Health Impact
Analysis
In FHWA's view, information is incomplete or unavailable to credibly predict the project-
specific health impacts due to changes in MSAT emissions associated with a proposed
set of highway alternatives. The outcome of such an assessment, adverse or not, would
be influenced more by the uncertainty introduced into the process through assumption
and speculation rather than any genuine insight into the actual health impacts directly
attributable to MSAT exposure associated with a proposed action.
The EPA is responsible for protecting the public health and welfare from any known or
anticipated effect of an air pollutant. They are the lead authority for administering the
Clean Air Act and its amendments and have specific statutory obligations with respect
to hazardous air pollutants and MSAT. The EPA is in the continual process of assessing
human health effects, exposures, and risks posed by air pollutants. They maintain the
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), which is "a compilation of electronic reports
on specific substances found in the environment and their potential to cause human
health effects" (EPA, www.epa.gov/iris/� Each report contains assessments of non-
cancerous and cancerous effects for individual compounds and quantitative estimates
of risk levels from lifetime oral and inhalation exposures with uncertainty spanning
perhaps an order of magnitude.
Other organizations are also active in the research and analyses of the human health
effects of MSAT, including the Health Effects Institute (HEI). Two HEI studies are
summarized in Appendix D of FHWA's Interim Guidance Update on Mobile Source Air
Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents. Among the adverse health effects linked to MSAT
compounds at high exposures are; cancer in humans in occupational settings; cancer
in animals; and irritation to the respiratory tract, including the exacerbation of asthma.
Less obvious is the adverse human health effects of MSAT compounds at current
environmental concentrations (HEI, http://pubs.healtheffects.ora/view.php?id�282) or
in the future as vehicle emissions substantially decrease (HEI,
http://pubs.healtheffects.ora/view.php?id�3061.
The methodologies for forecasting health impacts include emissions modeling;
dispersion modeling; exposure modeling; and then final determination of health
impacts - each step in the process building on the model predictions obtained in the
previous step. All are encumbered by technical shortcomings or uncertain science that
prevents a more complete differentiation of the MSAT health impacts among a set of
project alternatives. These difficulties are magnified for lifetime (i.e., 70 year)
assessments, particularly because unsupportable assumptions would have to be made
regarding changes in travel patterns and vehicle technology (which affects emissions
rates) over that time frame, since such information is unavailable.
It is particularly difficult to reliably forecast 70-year lifetime MSAT concentrations and
exposure near roadways; to determine the portion of time that people are actually
exposed at a specific location; and to establish the extent attributable to a proposed
37

US 70 Improvements Cafegorical Exclusion STIP Project W-5600
action, especially given that some of the information needed is unavailable.
There are considerable uncertainties associated with the existing estimates of toxicity of
the various MSAT, because of factors such as low-dose extrapolation and translation of
occupational exposure data to the general population, a concern expressed by HEI
(http://pubs.healtheffects.org/view.php?id=282). As a result, there is no national
consensus on air dose-response values assumed to protect the public health and
welfare for MSAT compounds, and in particular for diesel PM. The EPA
(www.epa.aov/risk/basicinfor mation. htm#q) and the HEI
(http://pubs.healtheffects.org/aetfile.php?u=395) have not established a basis for
quantitative risk assessment of diesel PM in ambient settings.
There is also the lack of a national consensus on an acceptable level of risk. The current
context is the process used by the EPA as provided by the Clean Air Act to determine
whether more stringent controls are required in order to provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health or to prevent an adverse environmental effect for
industrial sources subject to the maximum achievable control technology standards,
such as benzene emissions from refineries. The decision framework is a two-step
process. The first step requires EPA to determine an "acceptable" level of risk due to
emissions from a source, which is generally no greater than approximately 100 in a
million. Additional factors are considered in the second step, the goal of which is to
maximize the number of people with risks less than 1 in a million due to emissions from a
source. The results of this statutory two-step process do not guarantee that cancer risks
from exposure to air toxics are less than 1 in a million; in some cases, the residual risk
determination could result in maximum individual cancer risks that are as high as
approximately 100 in a million. In a June 2008 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit upheld EPA's approach to addressing risk in its two-step
decision framework. Information is incomplete or unavailable to establish that even the
largest of highway projects would result in levels of risk greater than deemed
acceptable.
Because of the limitations in the methodologies for forecasting health impacts
described, any predicted difference in health impacts between alternatives is likely to
be much smaller than the uncertainties associated with predicting the impacts.
Consequently, the results of such assessments would not be useful to decision makers,
who would need to weigh this information against project benefits, such as reducing
traffic congestion, accident rates, and fatalities plus improved access for emergency
response, that are better suited for quantitative analysis.
Conclusion
Based on the qualitative analysis completed, for all detailed study alternatives in the
design year it is expected there would be slightly higher MSAT emissions in the study
area relative to the No Build Alternative due to the increased VMT. However, in
considering the entire project study area, EPA's vehicle and fuel regulations, coupled
with fleet turnover, will over time cause substantial reductions that, in almost all cases,
will cause area-wide MSAT levels to be significantly lower than today. In comparing the
38

US 70 Improvements Cafegorical Exclusion STIP Project W-5600
detailed study alternatives, MSAT levels could be higher in some locations than others,
but current tools and science are not adequate to quantify them. However, in
considering the entire project study area, EPA's vehicle and fuel regulations, coupled
with fleet turnover, will over time cause substantial reductions that, in almost all cases,
will cause area-wide MSAT levels to be significantly lower than today.
Summary
Vehicles are a major contributor to decreased air quality because they emit a variety
of pollutants into the air. Changing traffic patterns are a primary concern when
determining the impact of a new highway facility or the improvement of an existing
highway facility. New highways or the widening of existing highways increase
localized levels of vehicle emissions, but these increases could be offset due to
increases in speeds from reductions in congestion and because vehicle emissions will
decrease in areas where traffic shifts to the new roadway. Significant progress has
been made in reducing criteria pollutant emissions from motor vehicles and improving
air quality, even as vehicle travel has increased rapidly.
The project is located in Johnston County, which has been determined to comply
with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The proposed project is located in
attainment areas for CO; therefore, 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93 are not applicable. This
project is not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of these
attainment areas.
5.8 Noise
This section summarizes information contained in the Noise Impacts Analysis Report
prepared for the proposed US 70 Improvements.' In accordance with Title 23 Code of
Federal Regulations Part 772, Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and
Construction Noise (Title 23 CFR 772) and the North Carolina Department of
Transportation Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, each Type I highway project must be
analyzed for predicted traffic noise impacts. In general, Type I projects are proposed
State or Federal highway projects for construction of a highway or interchange on new
location, improvements of an existing highway which substantially changes the horizontal
or vertical alignment or increases the vehicle capacity, or projects that involve new
construction or substantial alteration of transportation facilities such as weigh stations, rest
stops, ride-share lots or toll plazas.
Traffic noise impacts are determined through implementing the current Traffic Noise
Model (TNM) approved by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and following
procedures detailed in Title 23 CFR 772, the NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy and
the NCDOT Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Manual. When traffic noise impacts
are predicted, examination and evaluation of alternative noise abatement measures
must be considered for reducing or eliminating these impacts. Temporary and
localized noise impacts will likely occur as a result of project construction activities.
Construction noise control measures will be incorporated into the project plans and
1 Traffic Noise Analysis for the proposed US 70 Improvements. Prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc. June 201 b.
39

US 70 Improvements Cafegorical Exclusion STIP Project W-5600
specifications.
A copy of the unabridged version of the full technical report entitled Traffic Noise
Analysis-US 70 Improvements from west of SR 2565 (Sadisco RoadJ to West of SR 1915
(Turnage RoadJ-June 2016 can be viewed in the Project Development &
Environmental Analysis Unit, Century Center Building A, 1000 Birch Ridge Drive, Raleigh.
Traffic Noise Impacts and Noise Contours
The maximum number of receptors in each project alternative predicted to become
impacted by future traffic noise is shown in Table 18. The table includes those
receptors expected to experience traffic noise impacts by either approaching or
exceeding the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria or by a substantial increase in exterior
noise levels.
The maximum extent of the 71- and 66- dB(A) noise level contours measured from the
center of the proposed roadway is approximately 150 feet and 250 feet, respectively.
ianie its. t�reaicrea iramc Noise im acts
Approximate # Of Impacted Subst'I Impacts Total
Alternative Description Receptors Approaching2 Noise Due To Impacts
Or Exceedin Fhwa Nac Level Both Per
A B C D E F G Incr.3 Criteria4 23 Cfr 772
Existin 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A 45
No-Build 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55
Build Alternative 1 A 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 145
Build Alternative 1 B 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 145
Build Alternative 2A 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 145
Build Alternative 2B 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 145
�This table presents the number of build condition traffic noise impacts as predicted for the build condition
alternatives and the no-build alternative presently under consideration. Refer to Appendix B of the TNA for a
detailed analysis of traffic noise impacts at each noise sensitive receptor location.
2 Predicted traffic noise level impact due to approaching or exceeding NAC.
3 Predicted "substantial increase" traffic noise level impact.
^ Predicted traffic noise level impact due to exceeding NAC and "substantial increase" in build condition
noiselevels.
5 The total number of predicted impacts is not duplicated if receptors are predicted to be impacted by more
than one criterion.
No Build Alfernative - The Traffic Noise Analysis also considered traffic noise impacts for
the "no-build" alternative. If the proposed project does not occur, five receptors are
predicted to experience traffic noise impacts and the future traffic noise levels will
increase by approximately one dBA.
Based upon research, humans barely detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5-dBA
change is more readily noticeable. Therefore, most people working and living near
the roadway will not notice this predicted increase.
Traffic Noise Abatement Measures
Measures for reducing or eliminating the traffic noise impacts were considered for all
impacted receptors in each alternative. The primary noise abatement measures
40

US 70 Improvements Cafegorical Exclusion STIP Project W-5600
evaluated for highway projects include highway alignment changes, traffic system
management measures, establishment of buffer zones, noise barriers and noise
insulation (NAC D only). For each of these measures, benefits versus costs
(reasonableness), engineering feasibility, effectiveness and practicability and other
factors were included in the noise abatement considerations.
Substantially changing the highway alignment to minimize noise impacts is not
considered to be a viable option for this project due to engineering and/or
environmental factors. Traffic system management measures are not considered viable
for noise abatement due to the negative impact they would have on the capacity and
level of service of the proposed roadway. Costs to acquire buffer zones for impacted
receptors will exceed the NCDOT base dollar value of $37,500 plus an incremental
increase of $210 (as defined in the NCDOT Policy) per benefited receptor, causing this
abatement measure to be unreasonable.
Noise Barriers - Noise barriers include two basic types: earthen berms and noise walls.
These structures act to diffract, absorb and reflect highway traffic noise. For this
project, earthen berms are not found to be a viable abatement measure because the
additional right of way, materials and construction costs are estimated to exceed the
NCDOT maximum allowable base quantity of 7,000 cubic yards, plus an incremental
increase of 100 cubic yards per benefited receptor, as defined in the NCDOT Policy.
A noise barrier evaluation was conducted for this project utilizing the Traffic Noise
Model (TNM 2.5) software developed by the FHWA. Table 19 summarizes the results of
the evaluation.
The first potential barrier location evaluated is north of US 70, south of Wilson's Mills
Road and west of Strickland Road. Based upon criteria defined in the NCDOT Traffic
Noise Abatement Policy, a barrier at this location is not preliminarily justified and is not
recommended for construction, contingent upon completion of the project design.
The second potential barrier location evaluated is south of US 70 and east of Swift
Creek Road at Twin Creek Drive. Based upon criteria defined in the NCDOT Traffic
Noise Abatement Policy, a barrier at this location is not preliminarily justified and is not
recommended for construction, contingent upon completion of the project design.
The third potential barrier location evaluated is south of US 70 along Bear Farm Road.
Based upon criteria defined in the NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, a barrier at
this location is not preliminarily justified and is not recommended for construction,
contingent upon completion of the project design.
41

US 70 Improvements Cafegorical Exclusion STIP Project W-5600
lable I Y. Prellminal'y Nolse Barrler tvaluatlon Kesults
Square Feet per preliminarily
Alternative �ength / Square Number of Benefited Receptor Recommended
(Noise Barrier Location) Height Footage Benefited / Allowable Square for
(feet) Receptors Feet per Benefited ,
Receptor Construction
NSA-1 /-N W 1- 2,580/ 14- 44,481 4 1 1,120/2,544 No
Alts. 1 A, 1 B, 2A, and 2B 18
NSA-2/ -N W2- 1,660/ 10- � 9,841 5 3,968/2,556 No
Alts. 1 A, 1 B, 2A, and 2B 12
NSA-3/-NW3- 1,840 33,123 4 8,280/2,549 No
Alts. 1 A, 1 B, 2A, and 2B
Summary
A preliminary noise evaluation was performed and no noise barriers were identified
that meet preliminary feasible and reasonable criteria found in the NCDOT Traffic Noise
Abatement Policy. A more detailed analysis will be completed during project final
design. Noise barriers found to be feasible and reasonable during the preliminary noise
analysis may not be found to be feasible and reasonable during the final design noise
analysis due to changes in proposed project alignment and other design
considerations, surrounding land use development, or utility conflicts, among other
factors. Conversely, noise barriers that were not considered feasible and reasonable
may meet the established criteria and be recommended for construction. This
evaluation completes the highway traffic noise requirements of Title 23 CFR Part 772.
In accordance with NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, the Federal/State
governments are not responsible for providing noise abatement measures for new
development for which building permits are issued after the Date of Public Knowledge.
The Date of Public Knowledge of the proposed highway project is the approval date
of this Categorical Exclusion. For development occurring after this date, local
governing bodies are responsible to insure that noise compatible designs are utilized
along the proposed facility.
5.9 Hazardous Materials and Geotechnical Impacts
A hazardous material evaluation identified one underground storage tank (UST) facility
within the study area and one likely UST site. The confirmed UST site (ID# 0-036319) is
located at the Handy Mart at 3657 Wilson's Mills Road. The other potential UST site is
located in the vicinity of the eastern end of Sadisco Road. The project is not likely to
impact either site.
5.10 Floodplains
Johnston County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program. According
to the Effective Flood Insurance Study and Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map obtained
from the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program, Little Poplar Creek and Poplar
42

US 70 Improvements Cafegorical Exclusion STIP Project W-5600
Creek are currently located in Federal Emergency Management Agency Detailed
Study Areas. NCDOT will coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program, to
determine the status of the project with regard to applicability of NCDOT'S
Memorandum of Agreement, or approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision
(CLOMR) and subsequent Letter of Map Revision (LOMR).
5.11 Indirect and Cumulative Effects
The project is expected to improve mobility through the area, and cumulatively with
other US 70 corridor projects, would contribute to improved mobility for the 134-mile
US 70 corridor between I-40 and the Port of Morehead City, which is designated as the
future Interstate 42.
The project has the potential to influence the specific location of development along
the US 70 corridor, as the proposed interchange locations would be more conducive
to non-residential, highway oriented commercial development. However, the project
is not likely to attract development to the area.
When considered in combination with the US 70 Clayton Bypass, the project could play
a role in influencing development in the area and into eastern Johnston County.
However, the Johnston County 2030 Comprehensive Plan acknowledges development
at the terminus of the Clayton Bypass, a freeway facility, will likely extend east of I-95,
with or without the project. The contribution of the project to cumulative impacts
resulting from future development is expected to be negligible.
5.12 Geodetic Markers
NCDOT will coordinate with the N.C. Geodetic Survey prior to construction to identify any
geodetic survey markers which will be impacted by the project. Any affected markers will
be relocated before construction.
43

US 70 Improvements Cafegorical Exclusion STIP Project W-5600
5.13 Summary of Environmental Effects
Table 20 provides a summary of the environmental effects of the NCDOT-
recommended Alternative.
Table 10: Summary ot Envlronmental Ettects
Project Length (miles) 4.7
Residential 4
Relocations Business/non-profit 2
Total Relocations 6
Minority/Low Income Populations - No
Dis ro ortionate Im acts
Historic Architectural Properties (adverse No
effect
Archaeological Resources No
Community Facilities Impacted 1
Section 4(f) Impacts N/A
Noise Impacts (impacted receptors) 14
Prime and Unique Farmlands (acres) 64.4
Wetland Impacts (acres) 7.7
Stream Impacts (linear feet) 3,070
Floodplain (acres) 0.1
Riparian Buffers (square feet) 72,740
Federally Protected Species May Affect, likely to Adversely Effect
Right-of-Way Cost $8,275,000
Utilities Cost $3,830,500
Cost Mitigation Cost $3,510,000
Construction Cost $46,050,000
Total Cost $61,665,500
+ Wilson's Mills Cemetery (45 grave sites impacted)
44

US 70 Improvements Cafegorical Exclusion STIP Project W-5600
6.0 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
6.1 Comments Received from Federal, State, and Local Agencies
In a scoping letter dated November 16, 2012, NCDOT requested input from the federal,
state, and local agencies listed below. Written comments were received from
agencies noted with an asterisk (*). These comments are provided in Appendix A.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service
U.S. Department of Interior- Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Highway Administration
N.C. Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse
N.C. Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services - Agricultural Services
N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources - Division of Archives and History
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources - State Historic Preservation Office
N.C. Department of Environmental Quality Natural Heritage Program
N.C. Department of Environmental Division of Water Resources*
N.C. Division of Parks and Recreation
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission*
Johnston County
6.2 Local Officials Meeting and Public Involvement
A Local Officials Meeting was held at the Wilson's Mills Town Hall on February 2, 2016.
NCDOT presented maps of each of the four detailed study alternatives. Based off of
the impacts to businesses in the vicinity of the proposed Wilson's Mills Road
interchange and concerns about connectivity and access along Swift Creek Road, on
February 16, 2016, the Wilson's Mills Town Council passed a resolution in favor of
Alternative 2A.
45

US 70 Improvements Cafegorical Exclusion STIP Project W-5600
A Public Informational Meeting was held on February 2, 2016 at the Wilson's Mills
Elementary School. Approximately 180 citizens attended the meeting. Alternatives 1 A,
1 B, 2A, and 2B were presented at the meeting. All of the meeting attendees were
provided a meeting handout providing a description of each interchange option,
impacts and costs of each alternative, project mapping and a comment sheet.
Seventy-seven comment forms were either submitted at the meeting or received via
email or mail after the meeting. Table 21 provides a summary of the alternative
preferences on the comment sheets received.
Table 21: Public Meeting Alternative Preference Summary
Alternative 1 A Alternative 1 B Alternative 2A Alternative 2B No Preference
12 I 2 I 58 I 8 I 5
The primary concerns noted at the meeting and on the comment sheets are
summarized below. Other concerns not listed included future land use changes and
property values.
■ Property Impacts/Relocations: Twelve comment forms noted concerns due to
property impacts and relocations. Of primary concern was the potential impact of
Wilson's Mills Interchange Option B, which is a component of Alternatives 1 B and
2B, on the Handy Mart/White Swan restaurant and the Family Dollar store. Also, of
concern was the potential relocation of elderly community members due to new
location alignments. Citizens noting concern for the project's impact to businesses
generally preferred either Alternative 1 A or 2A.
■ EMS Access and Response Times: Eleven comments were received expressing
concern about EMS access and response times. Members of the Wilson's Mills Fire
Department, including the Fire Chief, and citizens in attendance noted the project
would have impacts to EMS routing and response times. The Wilson's Mills Fire
Station is located north of US 70 and closing the at-grade crossings of US 70 would
limit EMS routing to incidents south of US 70 to the new interchanges and the
service roads. Most attendees noting concerns about EMS access selected
Alternative 2A as their preference due to its use of existing Swift Creek Road.
■ Access: Fourteen comment forms noted concern about changes to access.
Citizens and business owners stated the project would have a direct impact on
daily routines and access to and from businesses, schools, and other community
resources. Attendees noted that Swift Creek Option 1, a component of
Alternatives 1 A and 1 B, resulted in a much longer route for travel between the
community resources on opposite sides of US 70. The single access proposed by
the project to the Uzzle Industrial Park also gave concern. Business owners and
community leaders noted additional travel time and transportation costs
associated with single access to the industrial park could result in business closures
or relocations. Comments received also expressed concerns related to extended
travel times for farm equipment due to the removal of the at-grade intersections
and new routing via service roads.
46

US 70 Improvements Cafegorical Exclusion STIP Project W-5600
6.3 NEPA/404 MERGER PROCESS
The NEPA/404 Merger Process is an interagency procedure integrating the regulatory
requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act into the National Environmental
Policy Act decision making process. The merger process allows federal and state
environmental regulatory and resource agencies to participate in the transportation
decision making process. The NEPA/404 Merger Process is structured with milestones
called "concurrence points" occuring at key decision points in the NEPA process.
The project is being developed through the NEPA/404 Merger Process. A merger
screening meeting was conducted on July 17, 2014 and it was determined the project
would enter the Merger Process at Concurrence Point 2A (bridging decisions).
Concurrence Point 2A was reached on November 18, 2015.
The merger team concurred on Concurrence Point 3(least environmentally damaging
practicable alternative) and Concurrence Point 4A (avoidance and minimization
measures) at a meeting held on June 15, 2016.
Copies of concurrence forms are included in Appendix A.
7.0 BASIS FOR CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
Based on the studies performed, it is concluded the proposed project will not result in
significant social, economic or environmental impacts and the categorical exclusion
classification, as defined in 40 CFR 1508.4 and 23 CFR 771.117, is appropriate.
47

US 70 IMPROVEMENTS, JOHNSTON COUNTY
STIP PROJECT NO. W-5600
WBS NO. 50056.1.1
FEDERAL AID NO. HISP-0070(163)
�, HOR7k ❑_
�c� Y�Cs
e �
�
a
� TnA�
■
i u res

� ���
US 70 Improvements
From US 70 Business to the Neuse River Bridge
Johnston County
TIP W-5600
Figure 1
Vicinity Map

��,
�
�
I ��" F � y
w�
�� 9� -0 �ti �'
,�'+;�, �1 f,. �
� ���� �
-.�
x'a
,
��
,
�srrur`,� � � . r � Alr`� - �,
�i;:�i� ��' _ � _ �.�.\ . �� : _. ��. - - � ' . y �
a -
e
' � � ,e�r, '- � �;, \tiv, #°'�"� � �- , ., _ .. _ _ . - _ � � � yy
� � � _ ' ' _ � � -yC�. �.. -
, • _ _,._ raa s .� : S �y � �'�
� � _ �?�S _ 1 , �- , R 13 �GORO
Pr�. ` � ':r�� � . y�e•.' - °'�'
� 4 � � , � y � �.r� e: ('� c� ��
,�� �� � ~� �` ` . - ; �'' ` y+""�'�,c�` ''� #���� -�' ��� J
:.
.
� . �
r--=-�- ' �' i : . � , ��"f, t't � . .. ,► f7 ;� - - �
R----..�e-._--- !� �- � . . _ � � " � ��
� � ' �~��
� � y� �� '`;..
:.`
f:i ` ,+�, � � �4 '' _ �� �
� . }� _
E � � � i . -� '•'�:� "�` i
� _ � �,, , f . . �;
t{ ��'�f F 1,' G . .. ��.\, �
� � f ft `� �• � \� �
• � r� � �� !� �. . � . � �� � 1 `♦ . .
, �
�
. a 7
. . � f .' �•�J � ��
J � � � j � ,, •,A,%' � � i i. �
/ ' , ' �
r . � �
' ,, , ; "� .� � �� 1
► f � ,�, `
.�` r��,.. ts +. ,� .
� �r �
. \�• {►
. � F 'J � � � � . � �++� • � - . ' r�• %°; \` * _
°�' x. �!`� �. . t., ���,. .�� -� ,.���_, , f... �� �y�
, B S � .1.� 4.` �� f� �y �_'. Il,.��,+ � �� �� .
�� !/� . � �ti;, �f" -- . � ' , `� , •��� �` ,r
%0 s � '��Ff �� 7 . �� �`\ ��a ��
'.,�� � BEGIN =< � � '��' ��.� -
�' � PROJECT ` � +�' � �:.� � \. .i �
'-�`���-;� .� � �T�-�-� � �- --- -- " ,� �� ``�.
� . 'rr • � �
�,.�s.L�.��,►,�_ - ; +rr►, _
_...
.�. - `_ •,
-,�
��.'�• —r ', -- r ' SR .� • `� � � ; � ``•'�
�M � z.,, r,` � - - 2566 (SADISC Rp� �~ � '``'s ��``��� ` �� ..- „�. � ' �
( � �� . O � . + ,-
� A � � Q � �� � ,s '� ��� ��� T
'l � � .. ` � '' �/` r � . '+
.,�� :.„. t�� �'� :a.��rs .a,�. �� '�.�y �..� . �...�� .r� . ,/,,• O ' ' � ��,.:+� .. -
, .
{ «�
S � +r °� ~���~ �.�� �"'� M . - �C' � _ �� � ��r � "...-+`` -
� •
:�. � � . ����. ��� i
� �:
.r • � �_=- �
J'��'� - � ��
� + ;� r �� .._ . ��� 70 " _ - �
� �
�
� � . . r�P ` -�._e _' � — — __ —_" � �� _ .
'�` . .a. . ��� �
� + �.- .
s• 1� ��` � '� �,� �' ° ` f '� -4-� • - � .�.�+�.� ' � ��
� ,
. .
^' '� � �2 .q �. � � " ' . �j
, � 1�. � � "` ��M. . . .. .. . • y�: � � . . - � � �1 � �4��
•. � �, ,.. ' .
.
� � . _ ., . �� ''T � . .
_ . ' r. �
_ . "!' m� . .� . -
.. � � . . r �- � � �a.t� -; • .. :', . � r, ... ,� ' ! ' c
r
�
, ■ f � . ,. +. , i ' , � � (g �-��,.�,� •'� � y ' `
� ,. �
� +i, �pr �` r
� 1 _ . i . �N ..4 � . �. . '1 ��� .. _ ' � �'_ R
��'f . \ � ;a, 1 �1 i�
BUS - t' � . , ��__•.. .. . , ..,^['F_ �..�,,,t _ � i �
,J� � 1 s � 'i i,��4'+,�+�ra� s F a I r f�4� �
" �� �, Y �"� � �, ,.� �' ..'�'% � _ r �' _�s�� . ,r,r�
.f f .
.. `w�i � R � k y'�1 t T I� • � x . � . ���. � � JI . � ri. � :� � j � �r f
� ^I
.
�{F�'l.� �, � � � y� . z� � . i� .. ' . ' . . � _ _ .._ �f - �..-�
.
.
tY' .=i
r
}q . i � ! _ . . — _ —
, y y'� �' � � � r .. ��+.` Y� � � �. €.. � . �. a � �� ' � � � . E —. � ' N � ,
w
.� _
.�.
k 70 f � . .4 Y� � , f ,.r'�� �� t �•� - . .. � � .,� A - �
�_� x,-i . t,_� ? � -,� E , �/*; ,�,�i„ � ' '� C L�]
. ,
� '- � �r' -� , � ' , ' .. . � N : ��
..
. ,
.,, , �
4,,. ' ►�•r ` � � � „`, ° �r` �4�,r LEGEND � , m -
�; ` "'�y - ; a � '�r, 't
e - � �--- . . � ,�*y�, • � , �� �'�° �' ` , Z
„ , �.�.�
` ti'� ' : ,. ' � • ` � Proposed Improvements ttt Cemeteries Jurisdictional Resources $; -� iF•` c '
WILSON'S MILLS
:.-� �• .S"' � � �\ '�::' ..,y '� .° r �' � ?,, ,. cn �
� ` � • �-�`� w - � 3 , �i�'� -� ' � ; � %' Prop Roadway Improvements � Wetland . � �
: � - , $ �� F1_ � \\ J . , u �' Churches St k ��.
�
i • '� D
"� ,���,` ^`� � . � �'" ' �' ,,;f�/ Prop Right of Way Lines /�� reams . " ;t � ",� � . {,
� ,,
r, .- ; `` �
'► ; . i� . S h I v
�, �::i �, � ��f -_ -�.� -. '"` c oo s _ _ � �,►� , ��= � •
` . , � �rj . • , i"�.� Prop Construction Limits 5� '' �� �t . - _ - _
'� ;; �;��, � � � °��� ����i '`�' `.f. _ � Prop Bridge . Fire Station � 4 V
�,� , � � , •i. ,R '�:'. 4 � ' i
� i � r I
� - ` � ����11 .�, ? {� �
; , _ ,, r�
,.,..• .+ �� . � � �- . Community Features '` . '' � `�;-�
,, . � � • ,r /r� Hi h Volta ePower Line
� ,� ,. Bus �� �,, .� ` � . �- - s g 1 inch = 500 feet �
:` ���- ., , y ' _- �, ., �- �- /' / Exist Right of Way -- �
' ': -- � �{ _� ",. '� 70 '- > __.. , s a,f .+�,` � 70 � Municipal Boundary Feet - �� ' --�-- ---;..� ':,'�' �
� �'` �� ' ' Exist Property Line 0 500 1,000
�' F
' < < � ,4 _ . � a . � _ _ . _. � .
���
�. .��ti _ � .
US 70 Improvements
From US 70 Business to the Neuse River Bridge
Johnston County
TIP W-5600
Figure 2A
Proposed Improvements

-- ---
-- '`�r, '� . �' � • � � .,� ■ � R .
Ri� � �r�q��' - �� �rr - � � ���•� -� � � {
. �. t � . F��' {
. �. �; �� ��'' � , r,- � LEGEND
- �y ,
� �;�1;- R� <.. Proposed Improvements ttt Cemeteries
r r I
� ,
. \ # � -, .�� �i
, ' �,� �.y p r � � ; , � I �✓% Prop Roadway Improvements Churches
w�_. ' y}-���
. — �� V ~. 1 Y . . � �
� r� �' f�/ Prop Right of Way Lines
~~�4 r n` ~�`�.� ., ��r� ; ,!�':.�� � # � ��, � � . � Schools
`. ; . '� e.
��{ � ; .� i"�,� Prop Construction Limits
`����- - .._ �� ,
^Y`_-+,:"� �`� `' . � �M. � { � - ' � ir - �, .
� Prop Bridge . Fire Station
...
�-`-- - �`��4`<'-� =- ... ` � �ti�` � �, y,' T� �.� " ` � _ 4 I Community Features
�--�-- . � ,� `�� •�- } • . .; �� �� � " ' ` �+� /r� High VoltagePower Lin
,� �.... 4- �;, � ~ I �� .. . , ��:.,� +f +��a. �fi �� �.
� _� �.• . ,�. � �;�. , � � - � /' / Exist Ri ht of Wa �
� " _ , , -.." i�� . ` �'�.: � • � �x"� � �� : �- . � 9 Y Muni p I Bound ry
'ci a a
-�� _'��._ - 1`,f ,� 70 '`� �� � - #�� �� �'� • � Exist Property Line
� �' � � :� �� ;>;''� � , . , � �� �".� . �
���., . � ►,`., �, n ,� � . «. , . Q , . r� _ { .
_-` r. \,'� %� , "� � ,�+R� s ,yqew r l "�
T� . �`` �' - '��' . ��� . . e .E � z a , 4;`. : • tM1 � � „ �' - �
� y� n
+ '_ r `- � , .' � �`' � ''• ' 7Ks. \'�. � �-i� , �� _ '� �.:- ', r'.,':..- r . , r���� � I i. . . -�,fi�
� . , .. . ' . ` � _ . Y � . �
.
' ,r . � . �.` , � ': �fI` 7� ;.,� i . , '`� �� t .. Q ' . � Z , '��, � f '`{F .
. t Lr � � �
� ; y� `�; °' a , ���„ R ' *'..-. � . !,� �� . ' - J �� r. �p �f � ;. , .t . y�
r' � - - .�� . _. - �. �`..�. - _ S #`�. .r ' ' '� � 'a ,.W - ? � [ 1 r ;a.� '�? T � �� �`�
�ii ��'� �. � +� �9�3/I,�. ' � .` �'�t�' a � '1` i W �}�ti� r��1��yr�•(,y� 4 ylti � 1
S _ F� _ � �� �� �'�� 4 1,Y�/S3'�. � �.y���4�. • . c� • �� , L,�Y ���i�, YC T f e�1 •
jY.. , -t.,:} iti'� �� ``. �N`SM/.. � � '- `�� Q � . ' �t �
°£ � , � .a
_ v _ � �
� - .., + � -- • ,
- � . , � �1 ' , <S R � • 1'_ f ��M t
.
a� .
. . � ,,� . � W
. �. . _` " Ol . t� � � a "`` .•' ,,
rf � . , � ,
, �" : 'l
� , ., r ti�
+ r ' � � � ` , ' � � .�
�. .
R . . . ►
� • � �.
- �. , _ . ;� „ - i „�„ �
'��� � �
.,- .
i ' �
� y- ; � �.'�..� .� , � - , ,.;r � �,,' �`,
--�-.���_.. `�r
„ �. , , y ;.
� � �
. . r , .. . ��. ��
x� . '�
' , � � . � 4�-
f � � ��� ` � I�'
. . _ l
. � � • � ', � . � � �✓ 1 i � � � �� � ' \4 A' �' '# � !� � ��t
'� ' f, . r
, .. � k�` � �� ` - .- ��` � `� ,' r� �' + ;� ,�'" �1
, ._;� _ . � �,_ �� �.,,�' . , .
_ ,
a. i . .., •�� . ��
� I „ � �f . � * �' � ° �` * 4`
;. ..., . (
.._._�.�_� _ , . , ; 1 ,.,.
��� \� � � �1
y � � `"
. u.-.�. .__._�� 1� ' . �' +
__ .. w .. . .• � ' ' �s . . .: ' 4 e
.«"f � . t-` �r�. .�\, ,.�� : � .� s �� , _ . f," _. `, y.' ,:� .
��N! 3'1 q� �A.� ,. � '�'�'4 �t
. " � �"•.� �` � �� ,
�
_ .
__ ,
.' � `�, • �.: �'S �� * �:- ���' � �'�
� . � 1 ' C . � i
� ''�� : ' . _ . . . �i X,, �1� 1 4 � `� .'r 'ai�J'� ■ 7 � •M� ��
e ,
��.M" .Jy',, + �� �., � ,'�` . `� �� ' �T r+ /� '�
'�' � .V 1 � �';� �,� � a �f' �' 1, � 'g.�,�
-��
i �' �'s �
. s.Fy,
I {�.
Jurisdictional Resources 's
�/i-'(l f` o
Wetland
Streams R,��`.
.
e }
� ' 4
�
���� �
�� a' �.
'1'D.w.. �.
a '
�, �y �., jk -_ � �. � . . � ■.. j I _ . �
�. � —' /�
� , r
` � ♦ I� : . .. � �f; i� , �. 1 � � , . 'ry � �ry� � . f ti � � i
� ' " f . e"- ' \ry ' Y � �'. '.. - } - ,' �
BU.S j� � � � �rt��`~ ��� 't' � . �� � � *!� !
.
� � . � i ,� '(�),r , ' .� �7 �'�, 7 �4� :' �7��� ` h� .
� :, r�i • . i �. ~\ . I
_ :'
, , ._ �.►
� � 70 � r il f-c , '-� . , � . . �,_ �► . °,+S ��`� a,' # �. • �� , y "'� a
A_---' � f. !
<� _
,
� �,� - , , .
, , •
'� � ,. Y ,� ' . . , - : �. , '-� * '�M!' �Q � • . , . � "p' 'i� • ��•�
� , �
.
.. .. .. _- ..: . .�.r �� 4 , '.:.. `�. r
� i
� ,�s r �� _.�' �
� ' • '_
f -?"' � ay ,� Ra�k .,F r'A� '=t .-.' � �+.U, \� �l�i' ',. � .a i � �►
T .��� t. li �� . z, : �; • �. ,.{-,- �r•�'♦. . �. . �`" ,'.. Y • q. 4,r, , If�
.�.. -=�` r.... ,.. - ' .' � i d �. ' �� -'... � `•\ � � . : r /�� , . � ' ' •-"+H �1 �... ''•� ` ; �, ► . �,: � "
_ �z
70 �� f , r� � � �'� M1� 4 i sj' � + ��°� . v � �
� � * . . '�� � � O 'kf r �\��� , r f �,� . ti ` •i �
, - �, � i • r w ,� E ,' _ ��"' i� � .* � 1 ��,� , 'ti� ' � , �G� ���� a
. . ,
: � �,. , • , ti. - a ^ R �`
_
, .
� •
: -• I *"r � ,�,�1� ' `/`,• o t� ��LP
. �
- �.
.� � � � „� 4�^ r� � t
---
- ,
, i a• � . 3' e :�� ��
� ,,,;- r _.
, , , , " .
.
- ,
. ._
. � „'� � r, L 4 ` � , 'v� i � �� .!�►� A�'.e
,
� ,�
,;, ` � , '
. ; �-- �.., _ *�. . � ,� � � �; � ;�'.
.
� y r
. • v �:- .. �. , .,�.r , -: � �. `�,, r a+ !�� �;/ � �
� � .
`�' . -. '� � . -- . � .. z�• - E fi� ,, e `\ �-�� �� . �F' f
�: _. '�� _'��� � , .4 .- WILSON'S MILLS, ,. t � ", ' •,��' ;��';,� � �iu�u� .•,,
y�� � , .,°'%' � � � �.
I l�. F , �� ."� *1 � � -.._, , ..�,� ! ���� _ 4� ,� . :,,` .,- �.� t,� �� �.A� .r�� �f! r ��
I _ ,� . � � J t �1•
- �.
� '' , � f �" �s f j��r � �� !E �r
� �� „ f�` ti y: �'
' ' - ,. r '� 3� �� . /�
'� '' � � a� a4\O n� '� � f'� � � � `4 � �� �f,l�� ' � ���j� �� � � • �
! � { t . r' %0����� ! � ' � � • ■ �.
_ � ,. • _ . � �� �
i. , � . e� � J"� '� �' �''. - ,� '`a� ...� 1 ' '� �` _ ! [ � .,._�
.; . �k.- . . r Y "�df _ '_ —�+�., _. i,� �, .!� }1. _ 1� � �
_ r
. w
,�y^ t 7 ♦ +; A - �,`°� . � i t � '�' 1�
. y�
wfP."� .1-'4rt � � ' 'k .,�'� � A , , � � . '- y �, �'�i � `.,� � � �• •�: jl '�, _ y�l��
� ..''� �. .I. - ;y I� .E'- �'�, i� ,� . t� _ �ti , �.r� . . . �� �� ` '��y.s+° .t .,w . `+�s: 'x..� � `�".^ ��
' ,� ' �� � � ` � „ `" � �i ,,; , 1 r e ��� � �- �` ��y s� - • r v` ��� � �'
� �� � '�:�'' �` -- �-^ � ��"� - ' �`E�
��, ,. Bus ��� � � =.,� - 1 inch = 500 feet �.ti�, �., �� � � `�� � _ .
. � � �',� ; _- '' `'� , � . .
� �: �� r' �,���,� y , ��, 70 Feet � '�.� �, s.:. ",.�
, { ''f'' `Q� - t ' �� 0 500 1,000 �� ''`- `'` �� ��k, r"'�r �' � tt# �
� �.s .r .
. � :.� �� '�1. 3 t �..
� rjr'. v : r st � t
US 70 Improvements
From US 70 Business to the Neuse River Bridge Figure 2B
,���, Johnston County Proposed Improvements
TIP W-5600

e\ ` , 1� � f d�r•i"
� 1 ::ti . ; `.y ��'^ * ���'t�! � ` � ` �'• 4' � � �; � '. . � ' yt'`Jr • "+�` a`
, � � �•:ti. � �+ ', �;, , ' �f ~� `� � � ' � ` - LE G E N Dp
~ , ' `!C �`' R �. � i � �� - � �` . „� ,: ±� :. �
� ��.� �i`•, • •- • � �. ,r . � r_� . � _ � Proposed Improvements ttt Cemeteries Jurisdictional Resources
�
�"'<.. i �ttt �. . ' �:. �"� i
��� � � � ,� ''-:,��{. �`i,, � 1 �� �� • ` � S,Q Prop Roadway Improvements Wetland
� � � � � �,•K,� ", �,, ���::��.. ��,F �.� 7g3/ Churches
�� ` y � ` �, ,� ` � '� � �: • �fi ' �� �,`� ' �'i�s f�/ Prop Right of Way Lines Streams
i , ':�, ���'�d ; q ,, . -'+�r+� / R Oti � Schools
• � � � 1` .�;� � � '`� �, r , f � �. -� �� .� �f : �'''"`R; Stij�� i"�,� Prop Construction Limits
�� � � .: �T.� , ¢,.. �.�= f �; �I-. �S
�� � `
�� ._ ��, `e,s.�.� 1 . ,� � �P �; Rp� � Prop Bridge . Fire Station
�� � � � r . ��;�:,�``;, � `�� �x ,. � _ CommunityFeatures
t � ` �• ���., ti, \,'� � � � . � . , � High VoltagePower Line
� f �.: �'� �.. �.,.
1 �'� � "/' / Exist Right of Way r�
� j � V .�� .� '`��.., � � t,� Municipal Boundary
�...
� �::. . � :..
� . ► � � :� � Exist Property Line
�� � . f ..� :.. f''= ::..:;► ,
,�; + 1 r 1 � ,� , _; � ,�,
1 4. , ., � .��� ,,� "
1 1 � � 1 � ' . ��� ' 'r �
1 � �"�
,� � � ����'J ,' � �..1`' . �1 # f ,l • �f � J .
�}P�},� 1 � �� . � � ��,� :`t ':� �f .� �� f.�� } �•�` ' �'.'`� � 4
/ - � �+ r� �t~ � �r� � . ;�I r� ��� `r
. '�/f� . , � �� � � '.ti d': V L � ��y� � . .
/ •" i \ ��`� � �`1 � � -7 e e�
\ • ` � 1 � � . 4F� ' � � !
. \ � � ! �, t'�� ` _ `� i � � W/�. - ,�� �` ' '�41 • .
� ' ♦ �� � ' SS..
:�� `\ � f'� l ,'`'';.. �, �. � y'� `''� ;i�i rt� �s,�. � . � �
,� �� '���-.1 r� r�,� � �� ;�;, .�� ;' �;f o� y, � ' ..� .��'� � � � ���� -,,
'!*I I: ' ^ ����'� )� „ -�"''� � ��
I f �I � 1 � `� �\� �'~,'`�� .�:f f/ �� ' ��. � *w + � '
� � � 1 � � � �1. � �Mti ` f
�i �.�� /`% .�, , - �� �(� _\ _� `.�\t� ���� y ���t_ � �/ .. ' / . K . , - �`s ` r .
� j .(� . � ` \. ` \\ � ��. / . �'� �•}=] i
.�r � �d �' ' i i-1� •� l �\ ':.ti �� T� � _ j
, � Q �{. .: � � � % . � � �� �' ~r' !
� � t ' L o �G.� �`:� �`. _ r t � M j _ • •�w� �j ' � = � ! .
��, �!/� �� ��' � � � �~ ..,`� _y � C"�i �i, ,r `� .� �. � _ {� r�,� , `� ��r ,.
� V�" ! �#. ��'�� k . � ' � ��. �� �"" �� �C` � �• � � j � � � �� � ' � .
f - � ti ti. � � �,. } , � 4' � � � � - � r . �,�ry
� ��'t� # �" � ,� �r ' � `� `�\•ti. � '� • -. _ _ _�l, ��i.. - - - _ ��_ _ • 1 -��` � } '��r r
t t !. ` .� � 7p .� .* �, Y � - ' � ' � , �� ,�^ ■��' i � �. ° ��,
^ � �'. : - '.�y , � � � �;A' I � �_...} �� ��; .
^`'° �°- ' , • Fy.�.� . t - � � `� � "" � . f � ;i f ~r q� ( E 5. �" - •�'?. � . '
y� '� i� • 'r,. � � � +� �`�`:� ! + �.�.. _ MITCHNER DR � � x. � . ,
� I � � • � , , � `���• \�, � . r _ , �.e� y .
� f � , ` `;� . �"�' �1,r[��, .. . . � ' , �. � '� i"
� � ��,� - .� ti \. . �-�_� ; � ����������� � � � �£ •I
� ' �. ���i 1 ` � •� \\\.��`�. ~ �.� � � � .� � `-�^� ,^_ �� v ' � '��l�r�'=. ..s-f• . - _ � �
BUS .'`•..1'¢`� � . `� � _ ��.. - �" � ' " `�:,,�.� ��~�`� ~� -'' � - n �
70 �� �f '„�" • _ '��,�� .,-:_ -- ��w�� '�- - '- �~ � a t
� � . - , � �,�•" � � _ � � ` � � � �
�- '�,�r' ^ i � : "� _ � hy n`� �j1i�4, . _ -
+ _� ���`�� � � � .
�, �� J . � 1.� ` - _ � � �� I � , �3`�
, � i � � . , r �+I t ;._`` ' r � - Cp •
V q � a . �:. `� t
� 7p � .�. a 3 i . �` � .. \�� . , � _ ` �. � '>� ��
t� L. . , , _ -,s �a`"�_� . ��r ,��;� ll �'�'�'�.- . �� . `� ' G� 2
/_ _ , •a _ t .�� � � r �'�n ,'\. � �_�3�'•• s'� r r � � `'yON.
# ' � � �` ^'.a.� � ti ,
� �� x� y • �{ � . ��, r ',~•� ,"�' � � �" �� � � � r`� � � .
} . - - � .-r��•� �`��• �.�°' f' �•�R �L L , �. `�
, �t "�� +n � �� ;4 '� '� � �� N � .
� � � � WILSON'S MILLS '��. � � ;` � � �a �p
I �t ' ��+ � �� � \\\. . �ti, � ��, � I r.�-'.'-'�'���'��µ� ; �f r
. � , J^ � � . � �� f � ^�- � �. � �� .
- - _� :'.h 'r r:a; , �.i'-. '\ i�J."_J��. I . .��� � .+,� ��
� _ � � `� r`-� -- ,�_. `�.-}. ,�� \` ll'/I.:YII"�111�11�J.7Uil�AM17(1"/ �� ~1 ■ `,L�
. ^` �� � � ��� . . '� ` �:k � + .� `` , @
y, _ • � . � . 1 � � ` ++ �` y _ 4". \ 1 3.
, �'ti�� J.- 4 :� "R 4" . . - `�.k `�~`ti � f �s� � � ti,��-._�:. 14 t''��
� i� � , -- ' � .. ', . r • ���t =:.; � ` _ � `,� -_,� � �1
�: � �.� , ' ��._.� +,�r�J.�� � 4 �, �_�± iY',�•' _L'-,� n ' '� ��`` .` r. . �; - �.._, ��, � �.1
� �:� r ��..�� _ �' - :r�l��. ' . r• .�; � '� ��1�
-- i BUS �' � �.r-[ � inch - 500 feet !' + �i ��� •.i • �. ;�:�� S: '� ,.:� ',,\\, �M � ';.'A` .e`' . "y �` '
' f L�' �. �k-�Y�_ .rr� '� ��i �� a
�� s�� . � �t� '`
70 � 70 Feet , , . � : �'� ! � •a � °�
0 500 1000 � �` �` 1�
�,►�- . y •:� ` � � s : ���
:..� ';. ' �.. � � � �
�US 70 Improvements
�, From US 70 Business to the Neuse River Bridge
Johnston County
- TIP W-5600
Figure 2C
Proposed Improvements

� � .a �� � ��J • - %�r�4 �� ���� � LEGEND �
� �� � ' . � � � .._�� -
� � ,`� . _ . . ' .. � ' � f Pro osed Im rovements
,�� � l � ,,� : , '� P p ttt Cemeteries Jurisdictional Resources
�� �
;, � � ,� � , � � �� ��
� ��;�.�� � �,; � �,�� : "\,� �r ,�,* � Prop Roadway Improvements Churches � Wetland
sx �.
� a _ ``'-��' � �� �,��� � .� �, , ' ' i � � �``�,,'r`.� :s.,�,,►�' .��/ Prop Right of Way Lines
�� Streams
��F � . r �,�' ,�' ! � ��� �.' r �^ �° � , � Schools
B , .� � � �� �" 'x � `� q� , �;,_ � .: r�� �' i"�.� Prop Construction Limits
� � n� ' `�' � �y .�. ��'f � �.
_ ,, .
�t " ;-�.�� �, ? ,�� °• ����� � � Prop Bridge . Fire Station
, G�fl� -ti,��, o- � �" `. s �, .
,+� t_ `�� ; � � � r�`� � ��`{ � 4 t' Community Features �� Hi h Volta ePower Line
- � ._ � • ti �. � � . . � ��. ,1 t s�� � � 9 9
=-., � �• ��� �� R
,:, • . � „ � �� � . � ., � , � �f� ;,�" �,� � ° r! � * � �' •' ' y /' / Exist Right of Way
�_ � . ' � � - �,� h ,fy�,+ ��" i�� r �,- r �. a ��+� , � � Municipal Boundary
' � � �,/F�4 ( � _ � � � ��,� ` � � �� � � r ��� '�r� ,� '"� ^ _ ��� � Exist Property Line
;, � .. '� �" � . "" �,, m' "
�
�.` .�. � 1. .+ �. �� �,� rY ' � ' _ , �
V �� �`' ; �• �. � 5 � � S., �1 \ R. r .
`�' � , ✓ f. k.
,; -ti-f •r' ��, � '�, � ��a. �k.y,�P 1��.'7 ,�I I '��%'`� - � �� � 4�FC� . �� , L f � }1� � � .
�(� E�. \� � . .�r'�. - � � 7� �>�� � i !':� St Y � ' �. �� S�� � 1"�H� d �'4�r . �' r� .i �• .. ,.i � _ -
A �I s �� � � . .� : ' " � • ...' �� - , �y fX �y• #r .� �� i i�., � �� °` id'�'�� .,. * r . , �.
f � _r;� 1 �l � � .� � �+� � �� `�,� �.��,'�►.�, ���r ... �"�r; iP a. �
� . � �
� W..�,� �� `'� ��� r �E t!,� �_ '��>�++, Ih�r �'�.�+}: �. �k��e � - _,
i �� � l� .�. +�
, � ,
. � .�.
� �y�a . ,. w,� : � �� �
# . ? ; � . �., : - � ,
., , � , ' � ._� � .
. � �
,�
�
'i � . r,�.�i� j ```... � � - �`�.�� _ . ��r�
(n ��rg� � � �.� +A►a /� - r n _ . I � h
O � $� .� � \., . . .�, . � -F+.. - � '�
+�i- ►"•.� `� '�.�� � r„ , , ��� � ` , �,, '' f �
Z, �.. �. .. `, � �
� , �- �,� ,� .
y. �
., _ �
:� ��
,
� . , -
3 � � �, _ f . � � '� • ,�
_ �, .� . � «.� �:-2 � � �
� � � ��� �� • - , � •" + � `
� `.� R s �.,; ,� `� I _ �
� � �
� � ' ,�� +���1 d ��: � � � - � %� ,,� s�':'F; b i�, �
v. � ��,,' `p� .. `I';4 ��'F K� � T,� � "�;'��t a�;� > x'1.
�. F� .z � �^'a r a : ;� ' ;� .
, � .
4 I- _ �6 J� 1 x
*t \ \\ s rt., � ' , • ::+ ,
,� � . , .
� _. .
� � , . � `� . _ ;. . . . , .
� J `'�``.., '``�,� .;E, r . ' �r , ' t� � . . �. "� . . � _ f � f ,
' ',
.. `
, .4 ,. ,• . , ,. _ , �;, .` ..
_ :.
�'�' . . _ � ., �: � ' , ; �.`
� ..
.
. ti.` .. � : ' � " �,^. .' A,
r
.
� '`.. " ,.� ' � * I
E ��j� �i `,:�,. ,,� M ' , ��'�. ��t� � .,•'/� � � ��.�,� � t�. 1l��ti 1"'St' j i '._
�'
� �, �; M. , � � � ..�
_ ;.
� �/ +1� � �1
_ . i . .� t� . . ,ti .
' � .c � �I r`. . ��" • °r+. ` � '!*'T� _ ` "�.'
.
' ■ " .. \ � � �P ,' �� � � .. f �,. : +,� jrie,f�'� �i � . � ■ } � } � ! �� ,
+ 1 = t�. , �,,�I 3, \ .y+f �,l, � � ; �� ':4��'��r. YI� 1�,"�•,"�.,�i� ,['A I �,� �;
- } � � �ti\�. �y �'- V ��\�` �. � ,dyf �� . � �`it�� r f�"�J � - I � M1�' �,�? ��/7. .r! ..ri , i�a' re
; 1. �.` . .•fS � �, .�d �. � � � �£ 4� � ��
i '�" �! :\ 9!`.^� ' . � � .. �j y � �' � x�,�f ��' 4�'F�, /a � �� �� � �kr'/ � �.' ` � '� A `����
, � y�
� '`fi' . �`` , � � � \ . � ;,'.�._�' 4r�;,'Y �� �,f-' •,� .�r`+k�. 1'...rL+":�������a �r �J
.
V
� ��•`..� . � .: k
� � � � :, '\Zy ` � �y a . -.. -. - \ • .Y Y,� } n �' / �',
'.t }�, _ ", `� � �� \ '� ��� Q _ 1f� �r�'� J1} i f: f� � .
- . �. '� � � , �I � �
�" ,� � ^�. � ``, 6.*,�. ��,�" ''f' r,�'�r� , ,�'' �''� ,'� �
�� , r- i _ � � � ��'� Q' -� , � ` � �
- ,
. ., �
, ..
, - ..
. , � �
. . + r ,-.. , ;� �,: * '� :ti� :ya, ' �,�N'��" `
— � , �. : , . �
, :.
.
� �BUS + .�'� �� �. �, i *^�' w . �'� � �' �� ��P�� ' l..�f ° '�:. � "� �� '�, �r�,�i^ a
.
�' '
� , � � •
,
�����
.;
- ... �... '. �;� , ` '� .
; r
. ,. .
� ��,
�� �
, 70 � r ' � : _ , ' ' _� •i ��� �, . � ^h � � �G.' � •'
.
r �� , �
� _ �, ., ,.. .. . , ._.. . , :�. . , . �, � �, ;-� � '�� , . � '}�-�. ,
r ' � s� k "��. . y� �� ^ ,. . * J�: �'.� �\ . � � �� � ` �,, �°`! � . I`,} ' 4 w w ` f�I�� w�,C �j., � �'
y � �� ��� i, ��. � ;�'^ s ��xc '.� � �
� Y ' 1�. 'I ! -+ ' � � - e G% y'i ' � . . . . Y ..
� " �. ' _
' - t - ' t � +' " -r` ..�Y � � ��. 1\ ! . • • . ���
.. - f.. ,.. . . '� .. . ,
.
7U � ��� Y � I � �- `� � �4 �
, -
. . . -, f . � �� •.� � � .
.. r , � � {, , � .� .as � �
., '„ , + � ` �- . j a
ry '; 'w1` I� �_ . , . _ � �tia�r*r ��� �I !
. .
� � v � It "� . � _ '� � �". \ti
E ,
.. .
` .� � . . _, � � 1,
+
.
, , �. , -- ��
�i.+ • " _ _ r.
. , � , �, ' , • � ti�~�\ �
, ,
., , . .
, ,., .�-r �: .� -� �.�„`, "ryl, _ ° . \ ` � �` ;a.� k�
� y � 1 I y
. ,
.� f� 1 -. _ � f . F 1't` �
� � - +" . . . i � 4 .. �.
� .
� �
- ', • - , ,.. ,
'� ` � �� -'--+��,.e, �.' � *� 5�:��� � ~`���titi �. , � �r rf` � .,. � � + .L + }� �. �y�" r4 �� ���,� �I
! � � � ��� � .. .,� , WILSON'S MIILLS �:���' ''��. :., y �# . � PROJECT i ��' � f, � j ,$ � � '
�
. _
. .. _
. '�', � ,. ` `
� , �� n �� �, � ! �' ,� `� �.� .� �"'
._
� � ..
:.
t. fr ��ir .«�. �� . r�+�.� �;. � � ` " +�
-� �` � J ;�, - � � ' , .
; • , _ ` � � w . . � a .
.. , f �` .F� � \ .Ln\ . t. � 'f,�,+� }xk �, �y��y,. � ��;� r � r 1:'"�.".�. �rr'� r'4,�r.•'�� . � .-�
` � .
.
, � . , . yr �
�.
. _ . �
�
.
: `
> i
2 4 fi
.r i ���� ` � •"�t � _ �I� 4�� � 1�_ . `�•`� ' - ;� `•f � = il
, - , . ,s
b � �
, , r
:
.,
� � } ' . � . _ , r
. _.
�
r , - -
y ,
. ,
x
�.
� �k._ , . , �'�.�� � �__=ya �^ i� � ;� �� �, � � , �T.::,..
�p�� ` �` �'n � �w ' r� - '�(h'-� . .R . VG .. �� v,4` .�, �� '�t.+ _ ..'.; �If _
� ' � � � ��� `� �.� � * ; �
`.;.��, a���' _ , j'� �- ;�,., ,j � ,:., �� - �`'19'►5�RNA R�� . � .;� � � �, , � ' ; � 11
� � �''�'� � �, i � ,� SR � ' � �'�� � � � � ,'
. . � - t _
�1w � � ' , '.. 4 � i � _ •� � . 4. - . . . t � M1" . � t _ :�;. > F "'� '�r � � 1l� . ..
. ` � . ,, t� �"� • ��� •� , �' � �' ` _ t ' '\�;` '" �,�, , , �'',� ,
.
_ .. .J � � M
rY ,.� `, . � F. sus ` � , � _ — � `�� `�., ,� �'�it . , �
, . _
_ . �.
, .
:
. _�, ,
�
., 7 - ! £ ` �.�, � � ' �
� . _- �. �
_ h 500 fee � y ,�
� �. �
. .�j, .. r s 0 >`�►�" + . � � . ...� Feet � ' �ti.,. ~�•., " � � �"�` �' ''� � "'
� . � f ,
..� .
70 , s`* ; �` �� �I
. , . ..r. _. .w .
. .:�1 ��� � � �^ _ :__.!. _ �,_,� e p 4 t�,'� t . � `Y . . I� ':.\,`�:� � y i , . . �
_
� "� 0 500 1,000
, �
. �,. ,.. .
. _ , .� w. .
, .` �i , � =, `� �`�,.., �. �� , � ,� � r +s.
,. }o-
US 70 Improvements
From US 70 Business to the Neuse River Bridge Figure 2D
,���, Johnston County Proposed Improvements
TIP W-5600

,s�y
NOT TO SCALE
C.MdPC7 .q,-� rs su8yaf ta rJ'ar.ge
uafh arr updala ol ths CAA.A'a7 C � �?
HdMCh PS WnqBM1l2'y.
f�
0
�
a
�
�
�
. e'^�y -1
�� "! i 'a �,�
a3
Yg
r
r.o�
� Ry�SR
��
f'�
f .� b�
Area Meiropoltlan
k'
�e �
•' ,ty�� d
`I FS � 1
Gt°�n�`�
���t�9
�b
�6 �.
V ��
� ¢
�
�1�95
Inset 4: Wilsan's Mills ���
i� Y
nv �
a � 1,
L2
$�
1- -^
�
-
Four
QAks
:InNet 5 �,
�y
(i p
G �
Ly
r
�
C� �
� �
G s
2 �
�2
��n;e;6
P
ff
� r�% �' x !
Y j j/
Y:1 . � [�a 4 7
4 +�i b
r. • �'4: ' -._.. _..ai �t�O94 !� l�j k
r 2ti
{ �o� �. �
��
gva��„ a efl x _ � .s`' p
s�. °'_ z � FR�5x3 ._` -. . . U
�: �
9y L �
!']1 � �6
� �� f�
R9o: Ay.SR,rrn-� 6 �
Freeways Oth�r Major THaraughfaree
�� Existing � 6cis�ting
� Needs irnprovement � Needs Improvement
■��������� R�nrrtmertded ■����i���� Rer,ommer�ded
Expressways MinorThoraughfares
� �x�sting Existing
� Needs Improvement Needs Improvement
���������� Recammended �-�---�-�� Recorrlmended
Buuie�arvds O �isting Grade Separation
� Existing
� f�aeds €mprovemerrt � p�QP�ed Grade Separativn
■■■■■■■■■� F�ecommended � �dgtir�g Irrterchange
� Impro�ed Irrierchange
� Proposed Interchange
US 70 Improvements
From US 70 Business to the Neuse River Bridge
Johnston County
TIP W-5600
Figure 5
Johnston County CTP

�
US 70 Improvements
From US 70 Business to the Neuse River Bridge
Johnston County TIP
W-5600
Figure 7
Adjacent STIP Projects

�. .
� , � �
�Y/�So � ,,.
�VS �" ��
( "' �-`� '�l M�<��5� �f,+r
�'� ��, `�� ��• �:,
s �
I �
`���l,� i ,� '�y..✓
r °`�� s�� f f �' _ • �1
�`��� '� ��� �� � �f : '~ t
� ,� � '� �f '�- ' �,. �,�' � '�� , ' + �
� , • .� � � �` , , . ..,. ,
\ I �
\-` � i �'
` �� ��
� , #� ,., - .� i+.
� � . �r� �•�.... �i • � , �
� 1 �' ! � �. -_ � ` .
1 � 'r��� '� �
_ l \ ��b' .'�, �<l/
t `� � � V�
� � 4
1�� � ' i� 4
�� � � ;�y�.�
i �� +�� ,
r , �
' 4 r �
. � . . +.4'-. ... � � ,�� � �q1
, / ,` t �
� .�
r i � ' ���re.�� - ,� r �
SWIFT CREE - � P�.ON 1 ��.. ,� � ��.�� �
� • ! � �,�� f. 4 � .✓,�^ ._�, �, e�.��a "+■' ' �'�' , I
. ,
. ;
_
�`� C •. �. ' ` 's� ,;. v^' . "� - -Y I
�� `> � � ',y .x� �� „ � � - � ++� !'Q'� ' n � * r r `` ' � -
'�� ;,.+'` �. � r� �� •_ �_� �
���•�. ;� ..'� 7,,` � ,� 4
' � ; s� `i "� � \� �� �F �,�^.#
�� .,"� �. �_ � ;� O � •:� `' � �.: � y' - '�.
, , •. ,�
\�� . f.�� '!, �,-. , � � • "�,� •
\` �� —_. �'� . �f wr �kr. • ���� �• e
� � �-• } � � '��� � `� � � `'. .i.
� �`. . a`� r � ' r `� t � :. ° �� .
*.� . �', t
� `�\ � `�, .�. Y � �� .:�f F, '
�``^•w, f ,._ �.i ' � ��'✓,. ��4
� ` '� • � \ �. - —s�� �,.
� � � ��, r , � � ��,
�� � � �
� �� � � \� � �~ �'�� s�
\�;:, �r '✓�tA, . � � � � .�� � ��\- �
�\ �,r '�-��� \\1 \ i ���'`�` �7
�\ ` � � ,;� ; ��`\\ �� � � � �� ��`\ , _
�� ) `
\ �� � �/ / � � `. l � `\
, �� : / / _i � / �
�\\�,� / � �f ��. \\
\\ �> � �\ ' �
t \
\\�; ���--� �\ � ` � ` i' -'r
�, / �\ �. '�
�� `�,,s \ �.�-• +� ' � �� 'F �
��' � � � "�� ��.0 '� ,� z
' ' e ,'' •�
.. �O 'e \. ' � _ - . !`� , - ,i.`i'� , r; ._ ..�. Y`'
�� � Y �
���� F ,,� : i �` ��' �#-.,. ��� :� ' � , � • �� —
� � � :
G C � F ��. ��` + f; ..
_ �.�{.. �... • . �� �:�,�. � .., ��� - .._ . . . . , . .. y . . . . . ' ..
. .
. , _
. . �
. •� � t � . , ,� . � 5 � _ "` .. . . '_ '� - , ... � .
yS� ` �. . � : *~:� ^M�,�: � ; �� ; � ,T".r_
�
�VIFT CREEK OPTION 2 ��w - ��:--a�. SWIFT CREEK OPTION �'� � � � �ry
L� ���grt�'���i�. �• ���;.��'..r , w•� �` � `+`..Y��. ��I� �• ^� `� ���� �.� �`•
�
���� — �����`` . x �� J �` k „ . �_� - _. `� � �.� rr
, -
.t ``���, I I s. � ,+�_- •� �� �'� ;;., . ^
`h T' ,. * � � i �'�, . � . �.rx � � e ` � .
. '� • r
� �
� � _ , ��_� . �� � ' - .
.
. �. , . ,� � , . _ � ,
._ . . , . ,
, � -,
, � � ,
: � -� .
� � , �� �� i ,
� - ���� .� , F �` \ I�;� �� -
� .` � ` � >�` � •�� .,I� � ��
�« � _ � �� % �� �� �-- . � �
�„� -�� �` � � � � '� �� `' �� ` '
(I �`. � ;�' �. , _r���t'
. .._..._... } ,� � ` �. s' � � �"1 1 �_ ;._ I I „'' a��` ���
.� - r - ._.,...... . . �;. �� �.K .
, _�_ •,� �, • ,,�„�. �:'� -
� � � . , ,� ` � � _ � - �.�..,
J �� � F` Ip � ��
, � � 1 y _. . • ``�� ',�,•s . t � �. +a � x w � � � � 1`��r^ ..
y �"r, Y�,,,� . . \ J � sv�
��Z�r� . .V�� _-� ..� �� ,r - ♦ ��tr; .,`� ...
�� � �
. 'L•�' ���r� tA `�': f ' s h Z -'k�� t� . � `����
= J �� �
._ _
. ` � .�r . '
- � ? - �i . �" i ' - �i+w.. �. • �fJ • . `�
:�. p . �'; � �� "�
. .
;
f"� e
Feet `
� .: . � . k. � �.� i` ._ �. - 1t~ ,. }�Y i ' �-.
0 500 1,000 2,000 � �
WILSON'S MILLS OPTIONA WILSON'S MILL�S OPTION B
US 70 Improvements
From US 70 Business to the Neuse River Bridge Figure 8
Johnston County Interchange Options
`'----��� TIP W-5600

, A� ,
� L r
� �- =
, ,
, � f
. . �- .
q .. _ � _ � 7 _ . {.YI
u
� � � �'� 7# ~ f $>
. . �
r. �
Y �
` .
s ,
, ,� 1 �� �y �" � � ' / y _ � , '�� ;, , . , , �' #4 . �" , f '"-�I}� .�. r+', �,�. LEGEND
, �p
r .
4 ;�� � �r`"� v � , �+�1�'' ;� +'� � • 1 - �s''` � �.�,.3; � �
��� �*� . � -s' �� 711r �,,
1A , * .� . , .
,�! . � � �� �* f. ,�'r "` � '- '• J`�� Railroad Tracks
. �� _ _ ,�i i
'el �
� , � �. -
�,. � - .j �'- .
�
� ��.� ' � � � WiLso�y " � ', i� ; � ' .�.� �,, � r y r,s Prop Roadway Improvement
F � ;,-,, " ' 70 " . - �r� t � _ s MiLLS RD _� 1� r . ►..�- .. - � • - -� :a ' � �� �' r Munici al Boundaries
.`�`.._ � �- F�' r ," � P
, � � _ � ,, ,� � ,
. —, , G .. , . • . .
, R� - -- N ��
.; - � ,.
� " .T� ADIS� �. ,�, ' _ � - , � �`a,:, _ 'w� ��`` - ' .�i. �r 1 t :��.� ��. �',� � ��'`� � ;: � ' '` � Hydrologic Resources
,. _ S . � �= � •
. � - '
, . . -.: ,. . � - �: . Wetland
_�
`*� '�. '� � a . `� �` ��+ - �r `� ' �. �
.. , . • _ , . x
r -
, � G :r � � �� w �
_
�. . �„ . � _. _ , . -- ,� ,�"�r, , � � � reams
, , - N � -. :
, ,rA�
, � - ��
� # ' _ �,. �.� � ~ ++,�/ . � , � St
` n�.{ � }* �`� ' ` � f ` i] ,,,,.� ,?�.•� ■ • .� - _ �' :,a.�.'� F. � .. . 'y�%
` - ��f . .� �Y . . �{ � � • J , s� - .. �
� w� • � -,�� rF^ � .. /^, � �. �4��.M. �/�����e � � i'�_• �
' fi � ---� - � � _ � � . � v . . Q
� . k � � .. _ . .....
4 �� 6 .. '' � • � ! - ^�:., O , L � -� '
4 � '� p ~.
.� � � \
� • . � _ _
i�'r � , o `�,,�� - • � ' Y
,r
_
. � .
. - . .
.
# ` ' -
: � . ., �n:.' , .. ' BUS Q . : � - � � 1
. . _
.
�,. � -
; � . , .,,� °2 .-J . � ��,_, '� '
` >" ?. � k �
._ .
,
� - t.. Y , �:, --- � �
, , -, •..
�j ' _ ��
, � � %Q .r��`, V : ' � u , �_ . � �� ����
� , . , _
} � �... ,r �� 1,1� ���_.� �jY f!
. . . �
� .e � -� � � ` , �, �:
e . y 5 a
. . '
� ` �
_ �
.
e
� � f ... (�
�.., .. ,�: • : � - (/i � �C ., �- t �� �� .. � : �'��5� . . . . t4a.� _.. 's' i . � ��
� -
'k
. _ . `." : . ,� _ : ..
4 iJ. ,�,;ti�;�
�� ,
�: � - � ', ,
. �, , `. .:
` - - �
. . �� ,.r r
�, I
�r� � *� 1
; �''� •,�� .: ..
�'��`"� ' ,
, .�� � .
� p -RD
` �SA��� C
�„ 3 ��. ��,�
�T
�" .�
,� i l;p
�4
r
rf`'Vk�' v��.
� .,! ``'� � ,.
�� * , °�
� ',���� � '._
1'4 '* " ��� , r
� � � TM
� ��} . - n ��'f . ��{ ^� ���'
+�� � -•
1 inch = 2,000 feet �
Feet
0 1,000 2,000 4,000
'��
� '•,� � .� . �,, . , , � • � � � , G� �ty�,.� '��
.
r. .
� .
, ..
.,
. � . x
, . ., :
� - �r, � �� . ,� j � R � � � � N� � �Cv�NP' �� � 70 �� ..,�
•
_- � �
, . ..
.. . : .. _ _ � .. * . . � , �
� 5ti • • . • , �` �, O'
.-
.. tY
'r�. � �;��� i �
,.
, .. . -a
� �" , •/�1� . �'� y�,J''.� � 'a' � `'� �• � �� � ..
• "
..� � �� � �,I' Y .
�
ii ' ' i.C�. � � _� ,,,1_ � ? ���� �� . . _
�,� , .�.,��� �' � � 4 .� ` • � ,,,�. .� " �.
, ,
.
.
_ ._ _ .
- � _ �3 ' -'
,
� � — --�,, Wl�g ' � . . 1� .. .+�� 4� _ "� �h
. -
�i � � I �
, � . .
:- •. s . � � .
� • ',
- �N�S MIL , r.�• _, ' • . 3�: X �,.
; . ... �. , . , -. � '` �
- 7O G, � ir LS RD` �,a M ._ k� � "' !� �' � ��'�,r - _. ' i \
. ._ .
F
� ' , - , , -r� b X.ti.. �
���� '� i�, ~`'�� i ` .r '-*`' ";_� � �.�� �'� /; �a �` q' � m �' � � �
� �� r� � : �� ' ,
� .� , �. ,,,� .,,,� . s a
.. � � � . �'+.�.� _, __. ,�. res,r.,,� � � '2' . . d('. .
� r��,-��.I�� -"� `# •-. �:s �e �to -, .:
. ,_ s
� � F
i ,:
.n f. ♦ � .'a k., � ����� �.3 �. f.' �
�y ���� `.'c.� t '+ � � . �
: T'� i �e �
�+ [� _ � ' �
. Q {) '�•�� � � -- � ,% .'�� ' �` � , 'f 4�. �iJ.
� • y �
. �... � � � ' . •r� 7
. a� � � _ � . � r� � .+�"�,, '+�, 4 � ����� .+ . �,.y `F'� w ` Rb � �� .
-w - , e,�.
� � � '� �4 «O! F'� � ;'�� '` ., 1 �� .
--- Q �� �. ,� � `"'°'� � � - ^-�� ,�� - � � , _
L Q �� �y I" �''�s . � s�I , � � '�' � �w�,�
. ..
• �� _� + r;z , ` � �} �
a
, �� Q. . , � : :._�� ;� .�
.
,
* .
.
. . , . _ � „ • '�' .ir, ` '�
^ � ry � f'`,�. Y '0�' �� � � �s ' �y � � � S{ -;€..-�; (`.
, s, c
. U. �
�' ' � � �� .v, - _�A t 1 i
` �
.. .,�� a � ,.
� � * , ,. ; N � ���„ r , �' ys' ' ,�.� ' r, .,.. 4�'�3, i
- .
_�" / . .
' � �'L
� �
. . . ..,.. - .'�, i, ti� �� � _ . F . .
• 'r
: .
..
�_ � � ''� � � �� \
�
S!N
� � 2
� ,�� .
, � •�. .� ..' ,4�,!
. „ . -� ., . � - .
- � - � - - �
. . . .� , _ • y - � "i�►!
_ . . � ( N �
.� . �, ,. , , w ,. . �'+ � ; - -
. � . �
� �y
y,�� �� ,. .. � , p�� • � �. rr.r • _ �� � � �
` ' �ry_'.1:- R .. .� 2 1 . � �.� � ...« _
,�'�`� � .: �. � f '�k "'-'. .,� �;� . .,� 70
� '' �'ti.r- .. �Q b .-�' . . " iy, '�a5``:`L.d_-� .
_�
US 70 Improvements
From US 70 Business to the Neuse River Bridge Figure 9A
Johnston County Detailed Study Alternatives 1A and 1 B
TIP W-5600

` � � � r � � .. � _ � .� n '�.. , � � •�:-
�j� - _. • . •,•, • �a� LEGEND
� , �� � � a ': � �� �'' � `�� : �Fa� .' �: _
�
�' .��� ; � �� ��� _ � ` f,. -,�,� •'� �� � , �� Railroad Tracks
- � : � �',�� , . "-„ �j
���. _ � ' r, Swfit Creek Option A
� w��S�Ns N1/LLS /�p '� � ��-���,�� � � r Municipal Boundaries
' 70 G ,_�,,� :"-
SAD1SCo RD < �. �':�' ',��_. �•,�I w�`So ' y Hydrologic Resources
' � tn � _ �=� �V• �
�` � : -'�� � �� �• .. M��CS R Wetland
ry� -�, " o � -� S � ''�° . _-
• �L�' � G ' '�—� Streams
�,� c ; f.. �.� �. A + , � "� � ,'r. �
��� ��,� �f Y _ � � �..� ; � ' •. ' �y1�
y��. .� •t� �" v � � � ` .w ���'.•� � .; . � 2�
_ .�. �;� . -o `, _ � . �rt" - `a�'` ` _
_ � � , t o` , � _ ��.`- �
�k _ �`��•. '� ~� �"' o
cr • ' �` � � � �� d� � �� �. -- • �
!� �, � r • � - � _ �� ► ��
�+r � o - � ,�. �-,y -
.. a � `.� ,.� .n' _
i r: i `S " Y ' � � ���� �� - � i �.
tl 'f . . i� � 1. 5 � U ' . . - � "�'' -�' . ' � � _' . .
�. '1L, .i 7� � /1� �1 ti . ,
. _ . �{ /,r � -_ �r J ♦
. � f/i � ' I �f .
i
�1 � '�r- *t..
�• - _ � -�. � �rr': �r � .
� 3 1 �.
� �� � � .... .
•r .1 �� � l� " " " - . _ . •� y �� �-+�•+ '
��," .1'- - � , ' . .. R�
�' �i `v� - •�:S ���.,�' 3%.-;�� ,�y.�.-.: `.i� 7 �`. -. _. } •..Y !� �. 7� .. .
'�S • , .: 'Rl- . �j
z , S �. •^Ti:' � �.,;� •.� � p. .,.
`��'�`���r 'r ���;:��. _ � �, �da;� � '�:, :�i ..,.�.'���� ��r ' �x. • . � � <0 �vfZN �., ; . '� -
-� .. - . = . , . 2
�.
N
�
<
.� �
., �� � H � �. . � / i i� � � � - } �� �.- � , Y _ � - _ _ -
} �,y� ��-�r `��i � . � / ��� � �1 ��� 'S �. }��• .� �F .
�r � , � -f � . - � 4i� - ,
� . � ' / f � !� � � � f .. . _
) � `'� ' � - . . � . - - �
• ' � . -,% �� Wl�sp _ . � • �
N,S �, ' -
70 G MILLS RD �'�•
R� �r m '' i. •.r.` �'-ff:`� � r� �
SA�ISC� Z _ :� . � . . - • . .. . •
-=ti . � G .� . � + � .� .� .�.�: ' � J 6'
�" `�!►' � v . � ' - • � F �
.� � � � �
r ; � � � . �` ,�:'� � ' �
t. ' ; � ._ � _ � :... _ �
�r� I �'� • „ � � A ��� � _ ��'. / '�r'•� �` �2!
_7 . �� � ." �v . } `�.r' � i 1
#,'� 31 �rw I,�� ���
� •#`� �1� �1���.. . � � : . � 1� ` � ��
, - _ . ,,� � . �` � „�e; �,�. L. --, "��,--1, �
��! � � ', �',� �?!'` � � - .- �� , . , � " � � .� :• � -
�
t�Y - y : � ;;,� 0 1`• .-
.. . ,.. � L o � � ���� � ���
, � � p � Y ' �- � '
� �' I ' '° OUS, y��' ' � Q � � .��`b.. � 1��'sF/. ' �I ._
, ���. :,'� ;: � %0 ;� � r�S V � ' � �
�� �- • OC �1: �C _. s�•, '� i.-+ '
�1-. N . y i' � � r�-. � I' T•�r .
i" N - ' �
1 inch = 2,000 feet . �4,� �► _ ,. ,;_ � . . ` "°q�- N .* �� � ,.
- k } . t� ��� 4 f . �� , �,.:ir- . . . -'�'�►: . 2 � �' � '• � ;�: .,
Feet _ � �. .z�- � -� �
0 1,000 2,000 4,000 `'� �- _;i' t . N�o 70 �
�'' * -
�US 70 Improvements
�, From US 70 Business to the Neuse River Bridge Figure 9B
Johnston County Detailed Study Alternatives 2A and 2B
— TIP W-5600

.. m .�. � �-
� �pr��� - .� " . h f_r
`.� "� w � '1- ! .. � �� .
�� \f s �,f�'f �i,
: T` � � � ' � , : • ' �.` s � , s
. .� �
� ' ,
. _ �,
,. � � " `-- �` �
_ ,
��
. ' , ' ;
� ^ i i � _ �' 4
' f f '"_ ' .��-. f � F � f�'- - � l� �Q
,
- .
.
° � � � f � I I * O�y
..
, T _µ
f,
, . i. • , ,;}� . � , i_ � �: .
� �.
.� ° f . : .'� •
� . 1 . -; . � ., ��,'�
� �,� ,- � � �" !''� .: ,..
SA *L ,�' y� I, � a r J.a
��� 'y
, ., � ' i ,t r. ,�r
� .
' .., � _ .#� 2
� '� r .
� - .� ., n �
# a� y� , � � _ ``��� � � � - � .. � � � �� .. ; . � r O
- �`a :,� "` �� 'dy�.t.
�'�i �,:ti_ ! f ' - .,� .�. � ► . .-_ _ ,�I�: ��� . +.f �
�
�. r ""`�.. _ SR 2566 (SADIS� +RD 70 • ,:, s , K r � � �. � t
, ��� ���wi, CO' )- .� ..._ - � � �, � ` � � . . . --f.r .n - r , , 1, `�!� �+ '
.� �, ,� a,` �q _.�
. , �
. _
� � -_, _ � -... _ . _ 1-- SG '� -* s;,
��� _ SB
� t� � �
+�r.r,• ' - ' 'r '. yc ;� - -- ' i ' � .
� ,
r.
. . ..� , �y� - - ..a, �•_� �• .r
�1 �
� � � . , � .. . . ,.
v4
•+. ' , R
�'� �. R . � ^r�= _ .. yS�,YR T
, .
4 �� � �' �
' «' � . � , - � � " `� r . .r1it �
�' a� . .. . �F.� SD � , �' �:� +��I+ '� z�,�. �r' �` �.. r�
- �� � .�` �.�t_.�"` ��i Y. +`�F
�:.�� `�+f . N� 1 • � _ � � �,a ` �
a r�
i . N + +�
�, �ls .�$ .'� ',�' S� ' . • _ . � - � - �� �` . .
,
--y � ` - r', � a�r- - � ��� .' y'� ' � ` - r f �if
� . .
. . , •
.. -- . „
r e � � r • y,- � ;C � r. 'SE '� % �� aR � .
+ •,� �p,. � � � ^' N -. � r `��. `4:_ . � � i+l � r � � 1
� . .� � ,
. . ,
_, `'�. " , x
�i ry r _ � '4. � � S'R � � s
9`
, � r�, � Zi � . ' � / i„ `
# -"1i ""` � �` � a r G' • ' �`? (�'l�� �� �
�. ` °�:�•t. (�/� " a.
.
_ . � •: ',
.
' .. � �a � ,R# . „ C� f.. �:,i,, , .S+/yr�`iT'}. ,
r. � ' � ! s '� � ' - _ rM = , - ra a 'S r SJ
. , __ .�� � ,.
. � _. , ,•. A ,. ; � . R i
. . {_._-� . - . , D ` _: � ��.
"` `,� , . , . � _r � � ,
, _
� ,
. , s p ` ; . '• �J
' •
' s
, • . �
, -.
� +' �
. .
� i A
�� � � • 4 - � ►� �.�: A . . �<i" �
pAR 1r -� �„ . _•� - h � • - S•� t �,
�'� M � � ; y y� - ; � —` _ �
. � .. .
- 1 •
F +, , � � ,� .' { � i� � � `�. r � " Rr ,��
. . , . �
- _ , _.
.
�, ,
, . _ . s � � � ,+� •2F� �►+r .
� . . �" 4 ' .. �� RrY" •
. � . a ,� _
r � �
• � . • -�- •. i ` o c • � +� �,. • . � �i
,
� , i � .� . � �.. ,4
^ n�
. y�
r _.. . • . • _... O�l'.� ..... _. ` ' � .
+ ,. �� � < ��Y �4
. , . , _ , .J : .
� � r �`
.
7U � , ���HR �,
1 '�• ^ ��.,� '. =� '�'"�,.
is � nr�,� , � $G •c
y� � f .G, . o a w�
•,"°• �: _ - - ,� .:�;=_ ,�' � �� �, f�``��,�� �
�y"'� �'� � ��'_�,.. ��� � � S �"�' ' � �=�, �'� r
_ �+-�� � 4! �'„ �
9! i '� � ^ � �-•
Y �' � a� 'i�", i,_ • I� -
.
� .. � . ,. _.,, +
, _ .` �
� � r� 2 *
't
- . `'�
..
�t -:-. ,�• . � '
. � ,.
� �„��"':.._-�,,. . ' � � ; +. � � � / �.
�. � � = !i V `__'' � �s�� � /� '��`lM +
S � f
* . � 1 r �,� � . _ . � . l !
.
-a . �
� w • , 1y_�l
� .:. `? �V...i'� � • , , _.. ' .. • . ,,� � � � ��. A�
� Q� ' _
-^ . ,. { .. ..� : .. . , . . . ..,... :., . ..�
. .
o ;� °' � • � � ,
� rn
, � .
��
, . -.
� ,�� .' , { •�
` � ,, , , �.
- l� G�" `., � , , .
LEGEND . � ! t ,--" � �,� . � :f �
1� � �� `� � � � ` � ti.
� ' y ` � .. rs�
� Study Area +i�►� ' ;,,�k . - . - ; � �
/�,� Delineated Stream • �"i � � �� ~�� ��'�• �SL .� �
� ,, _ �': � , =� yQ- �,
�, � � ,
� Wetland �., `� �,�_ � . a � � ��� 6 J �
1 inch = 1 000 feet �" x � Y �
FIOOdw2y ��, , ' 4, �� 1R" �,? i � �'�� 3� � �
- - i_�_..- Feet t� , , -. ,. , .. , , ,. �: ,- . t. � ��, �' - , ,
100 Year Flood ��:•�� - �, r ' ' ' ` , �
0 500 1,000 2,000 � `''�' # ' `
- � ;� , - ,
- ,�,.
US 70 Improvements
From US 70 Business to the Neuse River Bridge Figure 10A
���'' Johnston County Jurisdictional Features
TIP W-5600

r. � r £ 1 � �..s' �„�,�,_.
R
. � � w .� �� �-
. S� ' � '�e�. ► � • - .
.
,,
__
� __ � .
�.: . ,�� �
., , . r
.F �1� f + � ' � � w � �
. . �a.� La� •f ' � � 1��'T
. �� .� w
.
.
�' �'� �a� .F ��•' " �� / ! _. . :jx� �' �
i .. �� w'a �� �� �,. �A
• , '
.
4 �• ' - t . f_yry. � � �!+ f
� ' � , ' •
s'�f s . »�.�C * . � �P
.
. � v.,. ��� ,r � -
. ti.
�
.t.. :. ' , # . _ � � .,-_.. Y w � � • .
�
� �� !��
..1 ' ,� a.. j. � � ' •..��+ I^ I
., ' . .� . � '- �
.�
• ..�� p t� - �
� ..
. i� . . �� � � � . �
. . '
�� ; � . ,•r �, • f�i f. '�` � . � � . y I �.�` •
, � �� ` �, � ' ,
'+ ' -
; , , - f,
SG ,' ' ' ' M ���1��
.. � • � a, ' i .. ... . � �.,
r 4
• �, "� s S��k. . � . ��� 1 . • � {:.. . a ` w!I
;u , � o! r� jy' � * ",�: � �� ts :�.. �' �` f +r •� - �
''� 1 ,�� ����'< _ � ��=�4 '; �� �_ � �
S � � ��' � � C � ' � # SO r , �
� �f
_ , ''{'' '� { Y ��'�f /r� {�.�` �* NS,� i � �. �'��'
, `� �� � � ` * ,<<S+ � �. �� .
'`:� ��.T� . , F� R� � � „�,
�- _
,, j ..� . • / r
'. 7 . S � �� - 6 f „ _
. - �_s f . . � �
, r" '� J � :
. „ .ti
� r . . :��`" .�¢' .
.
.
.' ,._. - r �� i ,' 70 ;.,+4. •SM ; .�� � }� • � i �i'-�, -�..�'r � , . '�, — ,
,
_ .::. . . �. .
*
'�G
� rf � w�.�w
- �... p�.� ' � i _. i !% ��e�: .�_ � ry, �i.+}
� '! { { y
'��, � �' � ��� . Q� ". �\"�� 1.� - �'f f.� w,� r •� . . �A� i, � �1 - �* �l
�,/ e•
� F �•�+ { �� � ;:t � �' � � � ry� �' *� � � f ` � � �
.
.' .0 . � . . �.
' s
� " ,
. _ �
. .
* � . . t. � . ,.� �' � � � r ; , � . ` .:i: 5 +H}" � ...'' p � !
t
. . ,
_. a ��ti �,� � ' 7� " • �, _ . . ." .
r c •
� `. f�� .. .,,� , �„�(%��`, r�i�►r. b . µ r . '� . " .. i r a�' r ,
r " ' �
_ .� � �
:
. , . �,� �' �i .. . _ . , � +
r , � ., � . � y r-` � � ,�r Y �„�4 --� ,y� � r �
'I ... .� i ' ".. 't�i��+ ';, - I ' j ' �� T "'� r .
` ry � .. r� � f � Y � .
i =yy� ; Y` .�_S� � , �'� � �� `���t-��. � ,� a ,,-� `
_ ' .� ' �.
O� , r, . E r SN r' a„ t: ' �'
.
y , 4 i•
�r. . � �SL �. „�, `� - *` `+ � � � � �.'W , f k
Q' .Z 7f � �'= 1 p. •ti *,
.5 ,i 4, �y '"' $F r • '� p
. ' - .
. . , ' r` s�
-
, , .. .�
: . ��_
-- , a ' . , r -� ..i � , � ��•` r ��_,�__ ,�.
. ,
-. • ` ^,
... . „r, N
,
, � � � . .
A ; _
.� _ '- r� :.� � - r�: .. .. _. . _ � ;}, . '. � n.. y�_ �' .., '. . �] �.,.
� � •
'� :
- ��e � �
.. , -.- . _. .
� �,r ' '►. 4r ' ' r � �
.. , : �+1
�
� , ,
,
. „�, n+ v $Q _ � •�,v'
.
.
�:,� . . �
. �
, , �. . � - ,, , . `:r � ' v'
� :.
. . „_ _
..... „� „� - t - �� o�
,
.. , ,� �,..y. -�� , ,, . , �. _ � m
� � � . .
. xr +
•��j,/ `_� � w x ,� e�',�; �4' ...� '� /� ,+ �J► . �* y ;
��' [ �'���, i " r,'S.p7�` . �� .'..-'.y. �� ; � 7�
,.
.. � � ! ; ` G • _ r „ -n
i _,
,
a'
� �. -•.., . ,� t'r �, , � .- �i ?_+yy� .w
� 1 .\ �d y j�.
,a
'� ��.. i. . Lw , . ' • _
_
�
• _ !�" e .. ��
, ,. «
..,, z , � .. . �
. � *` 4�t�`�� � . . �. � � �
. ' �h�
� � _
f � $U
�� � 'tR" �';� ' ...
�' �y . �� � � ,��� v' �:.
��� ,•�''� �.,. .�. ,... �� r . ;,:.
, � . �� � i
� � , ..,.. - � . � - _�..._... ..,,,_ , �, t
� + �ei • �� � � � ' i� I j•
�, . i . �;i� ..
. � ' i � ST `',�"'� � �" � �
.
' d ti y �� �� i r.. -�.
� � ..5� �{4. s � s � w� � � � ,� � , !s
� ^ � f '�
R S eM p '' r ��, ��
� , , . � .z'� -4 �
, � : E . {' .
, . �S; ,r j ��e . �'�J �t . , . i . ��/. ''1'
�.� K ' �+'-a ! -- • � e��. � � �I '�
,i� �."� �� . �� i, Y� ��t �� . �. � ',�� ��' r •�� . . +
�� ' , , � � �
;�'' ' • 'a , t ' - , Y , „'ti <
_ .
. , . , � ,�� � r
�,
_
! * '. � .: '� i
�
- � '� \{\
.... �. r ♦ r, � � � -� -
�:- - � , •. . �� ,i
, ,,. ._ .
: . ,
� Y • yF ' 1 F {4 . . I ., . ',i..
y� 4 �
�"zq„ , • \ • _.. - '�. .. �' � �
` r , • �
. �� . �' � `'� * ��� � . �` � � �
r � . �. ...�.� �
. LEGEND z'� � � ' 1 q ��`
� Study Area
/�,� Delineated Stream
� Wetland
Floodway
100 Year Flood
.`�
� ,.A- � �`
,
� .
. . , ,� 3 � . �'a
. � 4 N: � , � � F . . S._
. ` or .u� +'
= 1 004 feet =.;� _ ? =-� ,, ��``-.'"
�
' �" �: t : - = 70
Feet � , ,�--_._r-�y r- _ �.-� NAGE RDl ,�, ��s��
0 500 1,000 2,000 N � SR �g15 � '�
�
US 70 Improvements
From US 70 Business to the Neuse River Bridge
Johnston County
TIP W-5600
� .�;�
.��
Figure 10B
Jurisdictional Features

US 70 IMPROVEMENTS, JOHNSTON COUNTY
STIP PROJECT NO. W-5600
WBS NO. 50056.1.1
FEDERAL AID NO. HISP-0070(163)
�, HOR7k ❑_
�c� Y�Cs
e �
�
a
� TnA�
■
en ix
Agency Coordination

Bevetly Eaves PerGue
Gavemor
a�n
FCDETiR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
�ivision oi Waler �uality
Charles Wakild, P.E
Director
December 17, 2012
MEMORANDUM
Ta Kim Gillespie, NCDOT PDEA ��
From: Rob Ridings, NC Division of Water Qualiry, 77ansportation Pennitting Unit
Subjoat Scoping comments on proposed improveinen[s to US 70 in Johnston County, Federal Aid
Projao[ No. HSIP-0070Q 63), State Project No. 50056.1.1, TIP No. W-5600
�ee Freeman
Secretary
Further i�rvestigations at a higher resolu[ion should be unde�ffiken to verify [he presence of other st�eants
a�id/orjurisdictiunal weUnnds in the area. In the event that anyjurisdictional areas are identifed, [he
Division oC Water Qualiry reques[s Chat NQDOT consider the following envimnmental issues for [he
proposed project
Yroject SpeciPc Comments:
1. These stresms ere NSW waters of tl�e State. NCDWQ is very concerned witli sediment and erosion
imactsthatcouldresultfromHiisprojecL NCDWQrecommendstliathighlypro[ectivesedimentand
erosion control 6MPs be implemented to reduce Ihe risk o1'nuCrienl runoH'm these waters. NCDWQ
izquests that road design plens provide heatmen[ of [he storm water nmoffthrough best management
praotices as deteiled in [he most reccn[ version ofNCDWQ's,Slormwaler Qe.s1 Mmmgemenl Prpe(ices.
2. This project is within thc Nuuse 6asin. Riparian buffer impacts shall be avoided and minimizud m[he
greatest exten[ possible pursuant ro 1 JA NCAC 26.0233. New developmen[ ac[ivities loca[ed in the
protected 50-foo[ wide riparian areas within the basin shall be limited To "uses" iden[ifled within and
consnvcted in acwrdance with I SA NCAC 2R.0233. Ruffer initigation may be required for buflfer
impac[s resulting fi�oin activities clazsitied as "allowable wifh miNgation" within Hie "fable oFUses"
section of [he ButTer Rules or require s vnriance under lhe Bufter Rules. A buffor mitigation plan,
including use of the NC Ecosystcm Enhancement Program, must be provided to NCDWQ prior to
Tansporcation and Permming uni� One
iseo rnau seh� ce��c aaiegn, uann ca�oima z�bss.�s�v NorthCarolin2
Locafion: 514 N. Salisbury 5[ Nalegn, NorIM1 Carolina 4]604
ano�e: sivam s�oo � Fnx 9isao� snsz li�llCQl�l, J
In�emeC uwn.ncaa�emualiN.om
RnE4ualOppMuniblAMimaYvePsfmnEmployer
Reference your correspondence receivmd November 26, 2012 in which you requested commen[s for the
referenced projecc Preliminary analysis of the prnject reveais the po[ential fm� impac[s Po streams end/or
jurisdictional wetlands in tho projec[ area. More speci(ically, iinpacts to:

approval of the Water Quality Certifi�ation. F3��ffer mitigatioiz may be required f'or buf�'er impaets
resulting fi•nm act�vities classified �s "ailawable witli initigatioi�" within tlie "Table of Uses" seclion of
the F3iaffer Rt�les ar require a variance under the Biiffer Rules. A buffer �ttiiigatioi7 plan, including usc of
the NC �cosystein �,nhancement Pragra�n, inUst be pro�ided to NCDWp pri�r ta appro�a] of the Water
Quality Certification.
General Praject Caminents:
The enviranmental docunient sltou]d pravide a dctailed and itemized preseistatioi� of tl�e p�•opas�d
i�npacts to wetlands and sti�eams with correspai�ding mappi�tg, f f �nitigatian is necessary as
required by 1 SA NCAC 2H.45��i(li), i� is pr�ferable to present a conceptu�l (if nc�t fina�i�ed)
miti�alion plan witl� the enviranmental dacume�7tatinn. Apprapriate mitigatio�z p�ans will be
required priar to issuance of a��}1 Water Q��ality Certification.
2. En�iromnent�i finpact state�nent alteriiatiwes sEia�] cansider desi�n criteria that reduce tl�e impacts to
streams a�1d wetlanc�s fi•om storm water ruitoff. Tliese altcrnatives sIiall i��clude roac! designs that
allow for treatment of the storm water i�z�7off tlirough best inanagement practices �s detaiied iii t]}e
most recent �ersiQn af NCDWQ's S1oi•��aiarater 13est Mirrtrrger�zenl Pruciices 11�fcrnuul, July 2a�7, sueh
as �rassed swa�es, �uffer areas, �refornted scvur I�o�es, �•etei�tio,t basi»s, etc.
After tE�e selectio�� nf the prefe�-rec� alternati�e and prior to a�i issiiance of the 44 f Water Quality
Certification, the NCDDT is respectfully remiitded tl�at tliey will need to deinoilstrate ti�e avoidance
a��d rninimization of impacts to wetla��ds {and streams} ta the maxiinum extent practical, rn
accordance with the Ei�viron�nental Manageinerii Commission's Rules { 15A NCAC 2f I.U5�6[h}},
mitigation wi[l be required for rmpacts of grcate�� tlian 1 acrc to wctlands. In t�ie er�ent tl}at
mitig�tion is rcquirecf, tf�e miti�atio» plan slia�l be desigiied to replace apprapriate lusl functions and
valucs. ihe NC Ecasystem Enhanceinent Prog�•am inay �e a�ailahle far use as wetland �nitigation.
Ii� accordai�ce witlti t3ie En�iranmental Manage�nent Cnmmissi�n's Rules � I SA NCAG
2H.4SOb(h}�, mitigatioEi will he req�iired for iinpacts of greater than 1�U linear feet ta auy si��gie
stream. fn the event that initigatian is required, t�ie mitigatioi� plan shal� be �esigned to replace
appropriate 1Qst functians and values. The NC Ecosyste�n Enl�ancement Program may bc a�aifable
far use as stream miti�ation.
�'utu��e documentation, iiicluding the 4D1 Water Qualit�' C01'LIC[:�1tIQ11 App�lCc�tlol3, sha�l cont�nue tn
include an itetniLed liscir�g of t17e praposed wetland and stream impacts with corresponding
mappin�.
G. NCDWQ is ve�y concerned with se�iment a�id erasioi� impa�ts tE�at c�iEld result fi•om tl�is projecl.
NC:DC}'i' slzall address tl�ese coi�cerns by descriUin� tl�e potentia� impacts tl�flt may occur to thc
aquati� environments and any mitigating factors thflt would reduce the impacts.
An analysis af cumulative and secoi�daiy impacls anticipated as a result of tl}is project is reyui��ed.
Tlie type ai�d detail af analy�sis shall canfar�n to lhe NC Division af Water Quality Po�icy on the
aysessinent of secondary a��d cumulative imp�cts dated April 1 d, 2404.
8. NCDOT is respectf�illy remi�}ded t��at all impacts, includii�g but ��ot li�nited to, brid�ing, fill,
excavatiqn and ciearing, and rip rap to jurisdictioi�al wetlands, streams, and riparian bUfFcrs necd to
be included in tlie fiiial impact calculations. Tl�ese impacts, i�i Addition to any coi�str�iction impacts,
temporaiy or otlierwise, a[so need to be included as pai�t oft[}e 4U1 Water Quali[y Certificatio»
Appl ication,

Where strean�s must be crossed, NCDWQ prefers bridges be used i�} lieu of cul�erts. Hawe�er, we
realize tl}at ecanainic considerations often require the use of cul�erts. Please be advised that
cul�eits sho�ild be cotintersunk to allow unimpede� passage by fish �nd other aquatic organisms,
Moreo�er, i�� areas where fiigh quality wetlands or streams are impacted, a bridge �nay prave
preferal�le. When applicable, NCDQT shoutd not install the brid�e betits in the creelc, ta the
maximuin extent pracficadle.
1�. Whenevcr possible, NCDWQ prefers spanning structures. 5panning structures usually do nnl
requia-e work withi» the streain ar grub�ing of the streamhanks ai3d do not req�ure stream �hx�u�el
realigiiment. The horizomal a��d �eitical clearances pro�ided by hr�dges shall allaw for hu�nan and
wildlife passage beneath ti�e structure. Fish passage and ��a�igation by canaeists and boaters shall
nvt be hlocked, F3ridge supports (ben#s) should not be placed in the stream when �ossible.
1 l. Brid�e deck draii3s sl�all itot discltarge directl3� iiito tlie st�•eam. Storrnwater sl�afi be directed across
the hridge aaid pre-treated through site-ap�rop�•iate mcans {grassed swalcs, prc-formed scour ltoles,
vcgctated buffers, etc.} before e��tering tl�e siream. �lease refer to tE�e invst cui���ent version of
�CDWQ's Stoi°��t1E�atef• Besf Mur�u�c�nzen! Prrxclrces.
12. 5ediment a��d erosion cnntrol measures sliould not be placed in wetlands or streams,
l3. Borrowlwaste areas sl�auld avoid wetlands to tlte inaximum extent practi�af. Iinpacis to wetlands iit
barrowlwasce areas will need to be presented in the 4Ui Water Quality Certificatian and cauld
precipitate compe�is�tory �nitigatian.
1�}. Tl�e 4U 1 Water Quality Cei�tificatian application will need to speci�cally adtlress the prapased
rnetl}ods for slu�•mwater management. More speci�ically, stormwater sl�al] t�nt he perntitted to
di�charge direct�y into streams or sUrface waters.
l S. Based on tl�e information presei�ted in t�ie document, tl�e magnitude of impacts to wetlands and
strearns inay require an Nativiiwide Permit appli�ation to tlte Corps af Engi��eers a7�d correspondi�ig
4�] Water Quality Certif'icatian. Please be advised thttt a 4� 1 Water Quality Certification requires
satisiactary protcction of water quality to ensiirc that water quality standards are met aiid no
wetla»d ar stream uses are lost. Fi�ia] permit authorizat�vn will require il�e s�ibmiital uf a formal
app�icatian by the NCD�T a��d writlen concurrence from NCDW�, Please be awa��e tl�at a��y
approval will be cantingent on appi�o}�riate avoida�tce a���f rninimia_atir��� of wetland and stream
irttpacts tn the it�aximum extent practical, tl�e develop�nent nf an acceptahle stormwater
management plan, a�id the inclusion of �ppropriate mitigation plans where appropriate.
1 b. Ifconcrete is used d�irinb construction, r� diy ti�ork area sliall be �naintaincd ta pr�c�ci�t direct contact
bctween curing cai�crctc and strcarn water. Watcr that inad�ertently contacts uncured concrete shall
nat be discharge� to surface waters due to the �otential for ele�ated �H and possible aquaiic [ife ai�d
f15�] ki��5.
17. fft�mpoi�aiy access ro2ds or dekours are construcked, the site shall be graded to its preconstructian
conto��rs and ele�+atians, Uisturbed areas sl�all be seeded or mulcl�ed to stabilize tlie soi� and
a��ropriate nati�e woody s�ecies shall be planted. W[iei� usi�ig ternpora�y stru�tiires tl�e area shall
be cleared �ut nat grubbed. Clearing tlte area witl� cliain saws, �nowers, buslt-liags, o�• othcr
mechanized equipment and lea�i�7g the stumps aEid root inat intact allows tl�c area to rc-wcbetate
i�atura�ly a�ld mi�iimizes soi! disturbancc.

i S. C]��iess vthe��wise authoE•ized, placemcnt of cul�+c��ts and other structures in wate��s ai�d streamsshall
bc placcd bclow the cle�ation of the streambed by one foot for all c�ilu�i�ts witl} a di�meter greater
tltan 48 ii�ches, and 20 percent uf tlte eul�ert diair�eter for culwerts lta�ing a diameter iess t�ian 48
i�iches, to allow Inw Clow passage aFwater and aquatic life. Design and placement nf culr�erts and
other structures including temporary erasion cnntrol rneasures shall not be conducted in a manner
tl�at may result in dis-equilibriu7�� of we#lands or streambeds or banks, adjacent to or upstrearn and
dow�, stream of tl�e abo�e structures. "I'Ite applicant is required to pro�ide evi�leiice tliat the
equilibrium is bei��g maintairoed if requested in �vriting by NCDWQ. If this condition is ui�ablc to
be met due ta bedrock or otl�er limiting features e�icountcrcct during construction, p�easc contact
NCD1iVQ for guidancc an l�ow ta proceed and to determine wlsetlier or tiat a permit modificatian
wil! bc rcquired.
19. If rnultiple pipes or barreis are req�aired, t��ey shall be designed tn mimic �,atural stream cross section
as closely as possible incEuding pi�es or barrels at fiooct plain ele�ation, floadplain bencl�es, andlor
sills may be required where ap�ropriate. Widening the streain chanEzel shau[d be aUoided. Stream
clia��nel widei�ina at the inlet ar autlet end af structures typically decreases water velacity causi�ig
sedi�rent deposition tl�at requires ificreased maintcnai�ce and disriipts aqiiatic life passage.
2�. [f foui�datio�i test borin�s are necessaiy; it sf�al! be nated in il�e dacument. Geotecl�nical work is
appro�ed under General4Ql Certificatio�i Number 3b87fNationwide Permit No. 6 fo�• 5ur�ey
Aclivities.
21. Sediment and erasian coi�tral measures suff'icient to protect watar resources must be implemented
and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of North Carolina Sediinent and Erosion
Control Plani�iizg and Design Manual and tl�e most recent versio�i ofNCS400250.
22. All work in or adjace�it ta stream waters slsall Ue conducted i�l a di•y work area. Appro�ed BMP
measures fi�vm tiie mast current version of NC�OT Construction a��d Maintenance Acti�ities
man��al siicl� as sandbags, rack berms, coffer�{a�tts and other di�ersio» structures sl�all be ��sed #o
prever�t excavatinn in flowing water.
23. Wliile tl�e use af Natio�ial Wetland lnventory (�! WIj inaps, N� Caastal Region E�al�iation af
Wetland Si�ni�ca�lce (NC�CREWS} maps and soil sur�ey map� are useful taols, tl�eir inlierelit
inac�uracics require tl�at qualified personncl perfo�•in ansite wetland delineatiai�s prior to peri�zit
appro�al.
24. Heavy equipmeitii sl7oulcl be operated from the bank rather tf�a�i in stream cl�aiinels iti or•der to
minimize sedimentation a�i�[ reduce the �ikelihnod nf introducing other poll�itaizts into streams. This
equip�nent sltal] be inspecte�! daily and maititained to preaent cnntaminatioi� of surface waters fro�n
leaking fueis, lubricants, I�ydraulic f]uids, or oti�er tdxic materials.
25. � Riprap shall nat be placed iii the active thalwcg chann�l o�• placed in the strcambed ii� a manne�- that
pre�ludes aguatic lifc passag�. Bincnginccring boulders or structures shouid be properly desigi�ed,
sized a�id ii�stalfed.
2b. Ripai`ian ve�etation (nati�e trees and si�ruhs} shall he pres�r�ed fo fhe maxiinum exfeni possibie.
Riparian �e�,etation must be reestablished witl�in the constructioi� limits oftlte praj�ct by the end of'
the grawing seasan follow�in� cainpletion ofconstruction.

T13ank yvu fvr requesting our input at this time. NC�OT is reminded that issuance af a 401 Water
Qua[ity Ce�-tification requires tliat apprapriate measures he institutec! t� enst�re tl�at water quality
standards are met and designated uses are not degrade� or lost. If yo� ha�e �E�y questioi3s or rer�uire
additianal infarmation, ple�se conta�t Rob Ridings at 919-791-87Ib
cc: Tam Steffens, C]S Army Corps of Cngineers, Washington F�eld Of�ice
Cl}ad Coggins, �i�isiou 4 En�ironine��tal Officer
File Cvpy�

Project Tracking No.
12-08-0007
p��� ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED FORM ,�.'�'�?�
� �� This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLO❑ICAL RESOURCES for this project. It is not � �
�.��`�r �.
ti;,�;o � a.: �,� valid for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. ❑ou must consult separately with the f, �,,�
�'F �_.'� Historic Architecture and Landscapes ❑roup. c��Q�
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No.
W-5600
County:
Document:
Johnston
WBS No
F.A. No.
50056.1.1
HSIP-0070(163)
Federal Permit Required?
Categorical Exclusion
Funding: ❑ State � Federal
❑❑es ❑ No Permit Type: To Be Determined
Project DeC�ri C1'ion ❑ The proposed project is described as US 70 Improvements from West of SR 2565
(Sadisco Road) to West of SR 1915 (Turnage Road), in C�hnston County. The Purpose ❑ Need for the
project is described as: "Improve the safety of US 70 within the project area." Otherwise known as US 70
Improvements at Wilson's Mills, the proposed project is part of the US 70 Corridor Plan, which intends to
upgrade US 70 to a freeway facility from the Clayton Bypass to Morehead City. Potential improvements
include grade-separated interchanges with US 70 at Swift Creek Road and Wilson's Mills Road. The
project will also explore access management techniC3zes for the corridor, and consider median
modifications and service roads within the project limits. Project length measures about 5.5 miles
(29,040 feet). Permanent easements as well as additional ROW will be re C3zired. The Area of Potential
Effects (APE) re C3liring archaeological field investigations cannot be sufficiently determined until
preliminary design plans have been prepared and reviewed.
SUMMARY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES REVIEW: SURVEYRE❑UIRED
Brie ❑de C�ri Cl'ion o❑re C3e ❑ C�ti C�tie ❑C3�e C� 0❑0 �e Cie ❑�cd con c C� �on �
A map review and site iile search was iirst conducted at the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) on
Friday, August 10, 2012. Comprehensive archaeological surveys have been conducted in various locales
along the US 70 corridor, resulting in numerous archaeological sites having been recorded. Digital copies
of HPO's maps (Powhatan and Selma ❑uadrangles) as well as the HPOWEB ❑IS Service
(http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/) were last reviewed on Friday, C�ne 14, 2013. At this time, there are no
known historic architectural resources located within the project area that may have intact archaeological
deposits within the footprint of the proposed project. In addition, topographic maps, historic maps
(NCMaps website), USDA soil survey maps, and historic orthophotography were utili C�d and inspected
to gauge environmental factors that may have contributed to historic or prehistoric settlement within the
project limits, and to assess the level of modern, slope, agricultural, hydrological, and other erosive-type
disturbances within and surrounding the archaeological APE.
Federal funds are to be spent on this project, which may also reC3aire Federal permits. Permanent
easements and additional ROW may be necessary as well�owever, their locations are not known at this
time. From an environmental perspective, the APE consists of relatively level to gently undulating
terrain, drained by the Neuse River and its tributaries. Based on the overall length of the project, soils
along the corridor fall within three (3) different soil associations: 1) Cecil-Pacolet-Nason, 2) Rains-
❑oldsboro-Lynchburg, and 3) Norfolk-❑oldsboro-Rains. Descriptions of soil types within these
associations range from well-drained to poorly drained and occur on the nearly level to moderately steep
terrain of the Uplands of the Piedmont and Coastal Plain. Much of the previous archaeological work
`ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEYREQUIRED "form far Minor Transpartafion Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmafic Agreement.
1 of 4

Project Tracking No.
12-08-0007
(1981) conducted in the vicinity was a result of what was known at the time as the US 70 Bypass of
Smithfield, which was eventually constructed by the early 1990s. Various archaeological sites were
recorded on the upland flats and slopes overlooking tributaries of Poplar and Little Poplar Creeks as well
as those creeks themselves. However, despite the previous archaeological survey and the disturbances
such new location construction causes, it cannot be determined what has and has not been previously
surveyed until preliminary design plans have been prepared and reviewed for the current limits of the
Proposed Study Area may be greater than what is actually to be ac C3iired and/or impacted. It is known
that much of the area for any proposed interchange location may not have been previously surveyed since
interchanges were not a component of the early US 70 improvements. It should also be noted, too, that
historic cemetery locations were not adeC3zately taken into account either. Based on the information
provided, an archaeological survey is recommended for the proposed project contingent upon review of
preliminary design plans when they are made available. Once preliminary design plans have been
reviewed and the potential need for an archaeological survey is determined, a visual inspection of the
Area of Potential Effects (APE) should be conducted, followed then by systematic archaeological
excavations within areas of moderate to high archaeological probability. Should the description of this
project change, additional consultation regarding archaeology will be reC3iired.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: � Map(s) � Previous Survey Info ❑ Photos
❑ Photocopy of County Survey Notes Other:
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST —SURVEYRE❑UIRED
�
r.
NCDOT ARCHAEO�LOGIST
❑Correspondence
Clttne 20, 2013
PROPOSED FIELDWORK COMPLETION DATE
Date
TO BE DETERMINED
`ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEYREQUIRED "form far Minor Transpartafion Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmafic Agreement.
2 of 4

Project Tracking No.
12-08-0007
`ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEYREQUIRED "form far Minor Transpartafion Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmafic Agreement.
3 of 4
Figure 1: Powhatan, NC (US❑S 1964 �R1981 � and Selma, NC (US�S 1964 �R1973, PI1988C�.
Figure 2: 2010 Aerial Photography, showing the Extent of the Proposed Project.

Project Tracking No.
12-08-0007
`ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEYREQUIRED "form far Minor Transpartafion Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmafic Agreement.
4of4
Figure 3: Current US 70 Alignment superimposed on Powhatan, NC (US❑S 1964 �R1981 C� and Selma,
NC (US❑S 1964 �R1973, PI1988C�.

Project Tracktng No.:
12-08-0007
NO NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
O°�� ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES F'�`��c�.�.
Q � �
�
� p�� �'� PRESENT OR AFFECTED FORM �� �
�
`� ���y�� Th al d for Hi to ic Arch t cu e and OLa ds❑capes. ❑ou must consult separately with the�t �? _���
Historic Architecture and Landscapes ❑roup.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No.
W-5600
County:
Document:
Johnston
WBS No
F.A. No.
50056.1.1
HSIP-0070(163)
Federal Permit Required?
Categorical Exclusion
Funding: ❑ State � Federal
❑❑es ❑ No Permit Type: To Be Determined
Project DeC�YiC�'ion ❑ The proposed project is described as US 70 Improvements from West of SR 2565
(Sadisco Road) to West of SR 1915 (Turnage Road), in C�hnston County. The Purpose ❑ Need for the
project is described as: "Improve the safety of US 70 within the project area." Otherwise known as US 70
Improvements at Wilson's Mills, the proposed project is part of the US 70 Corridor Plan, which intends to
upgrade US 70 to a freeway facility from the Clayton Bypass to Morehead City. Potential improvements
include grade-separated interchanges with US 70 at Swift Creek Road and Wilson's Mills Road. The
project will also explore access management techniC3zes for the corridor, and consider median
modifications and service roads within the project limits. Project length measures about 5.5 miles
(29,040 feet). Permanent easements as well as additional ROW will be re C3zired. The Area of Potential
Effects (APE) re C3liring archaeological field investigations cannot be sufficiently determined until
preliminary design plans have been prepared and reviewed.
SUMMARY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDINGS
T❑eNort❑CC3�of�iz❑De�t❑ento❑Tr6��rtC1'ion �NCDOT❑Arc❑C�oC�m❑rou❑reCie❑edt❑e C�C3ect
C3•oject C3zd deter❑ined:
� There are no National Register listed ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES within the project's
area of potential effects.
❑ No subsurface archaeological investigations were reC3xired for this project.
❑ Subsurface investigations did not reveal the presence of any archaeological resources.
� Subsurface investigations did not reveal the presence of any archaeological resources
considered eligible for the National Register.
� All identiiied archaeological sites located within the APE have been considered and all
compliance for archaeological resources with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and ❑ S 121-12(a) has been completed for this proj ect.
� There are no National Register Eligible or Listed ARCHAEOLO❑ICAL SITES present
or affected by this project. (Attach any notes or documents as needec�
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR AFFECTED
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
1 of 5

Project Tracktng No.:
12-08-0007
Brie ❑de C�ri Cl'ion o❑re C3e ❑ C�cti Citie ❑D•e C� 0❑0 ❑re Cie ❑�i d conc C� C�on �
A map review and site file search was first conducted at the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) on
Friday, August 10, 2012. Comprehensive archaeological surveys have been conducted in various locales
along the US 70 corridor, resulting in numerous archaeological sites having been recorded. Digital copies
of HPO's maps (Powhatan and Selma ❑uadrangles) as well as the HPOWEB ❑IS Service
(http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/) were last reviewed on Friday, C�ne 14, 2013. At this time, there are no
known historic architectural resources located within the project area that may have intact archaeological
deposits within the footprint of the proposed project. In addition, topographic maps, historic maps
(NCMaps website), USDA soil survey maps, and historic orthophotography were utili C�d and inspected
to gauge environmental factors that may have contributed to historic or prehistoric settlement within the
project limits, and to assess the level of modern, slope, agricultural, hydrological, and other erosive-type
disturbances within and surrounding the archaeological APE.
As stated in the Survey Required Form for this project, "Federal funds are to be spent on this project,
which may also reC3zire Federal permits. Permanent easements and additional ROW may be necessary as
well�owever, their locations are not known at this time. From an environmental perspective, the APE
consists of relatively level to gently undulating terrain, drained by the Neuse River and its tributaries.
Based on the overall length of the project, soils along the corridor fall within three (3) different soil
associations: 1) Cecil-Pacolet-Nason, 2) Rains-❑oldsboro-Lynchburg, and 3) Norfolk-❑oldsboro-Rains.
Descriptions of soil types within these associations range from well-drained to poorly drained and occur
on the nearly level to moderately steep terrain of the Uplands of the Piedmont and Coastal Plain. Much of
the previous archaeological work (1981) conducted in the vicinity was a result of what was known at the
time as the US 70 Bypass of Smithfield, which was eventually constructed by the early 1990s. Various
archaeological sites were recorded on the upland flats and slopes overlooking tributaries of Poplar and
Little Poplar Creeks as well as those creeks themselves. However, despite the previous archaeological
survey and the disturbances such new location construction causes, it cannot be determined what has and
has not been previously surveyed until preliminary design plans have been prepared and reviewed for the
current limits of the Proposed Study Area may be greater than what is actually to be ac C3zired and/or
impacted. It is known that much of the area for any proposed interchange location may not have been
previously surveyed since interchanges were not a component of the early US 70 improvements. It
should also be noted, too, that historic cemetery locations were not adeC3zately taken into account either.
Based on the information provided, an archaeological survey is recommended for the proposed project
contingent upon review of preliminary design plans when they are made available. Once preliminary
design plans have been reviewed and the potential need for an archaeological survey is determined, a
visual inspection of the Area of Potential Effects (APE) should be conducted, followed then by systematic
archaeological excavations within areas of moderate to high archaeological probability. Should the
description of this project change, additional consultation regarding archaeology will be reC3�ired."
URS Corporation (URS) conducted terrestrial archaeological Phase I Identification and Phase II
Evaluation for an approximately 5-mile section of US 70 from just west of Sadisco Road (SR 2565) to
just west of Turnage Road (SR 1915) in the vicinity of Wilson's Mills, C�hnston County. Much of the
existing US 70 facility was subjected to archaeological survey in December 1980 prior to its construction
in the early 1980sC3herefore, the current project consisted of selective survey in areas where specific
project enhancements (e.g. new service roads, grade-separated interchange ramps) were planned and
where the earlier 1980 survey had not covered. Fieldwork was conducted during C�ne and C�ly 2014, and
primarily consisted of shovel test pit excavation and/or surface inspection of agricultural fields. The Area
of Potential Effects (APE) for the proj ect covers about 520 acres �owever, survey coverage was not
complete in all areas based on the selective survey coverage.
As a result, eight (8) archaeological resources were encounteredC�the location of 31 CI'193/193** was re-
established, with seven (7) other sites newly identified and assigned the following site numbers:
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR AFFECTED
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
2of5

Project Tracktng No.:
12-08-0007
31 CT411/411**, 31 CT412/412**, and 31 CT413 through 31 CT417. In addition, three historic cemeteries
were documented and assigned the following site numbers: 31 CT418** through 31HT420**. None of the
eight archaeological sites exhibit the C3zalities necessary to be considered eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Erosion and agricultural practices have severely impacted these sites
that they no longer retain any clarity or integrity to their deposits. No subsurface cultural features were
identified during the project. The artifact assemblages generally lack both variety as well as C3zantity.
Therefore, additional work at any of the sites would not substantially add to our understanding of
prehistoric or historic cultures and lifeways. As such, URS recommended that none of the eight
archaeological sites are eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, and that no additional archaeological work be
reC3iired in conjunction with the project. The three historic cemeteries fall just outside the project's APE,
and do not exhibit the C3ialities necessary to be considered eligible for the NRHP. As planned, the current
project will not adversely impact these cemeteries. Should project plans change to potentially impact the
cemeteries, then the NCDOT will need to comply with State laws governing the treatment of cemeteries.
RECOMMENDATION
An archaeological investigation of the Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the US 70 Improvements in
C�hnston County was conducted by URS Corporation (URS) in the summer of 2014. During the course
of the survey, eight (8) archaeological resources were encountered, with one being the location of the
previously-recorded 31 CT193/193** along with seven newly-identified sites. Three (3) historic
cemeteries were also documented during the project. None of the eleven (11) resources C�ight (8)
archaeological sites and three (3) cemeteries ❑exhibit the C3zalities necessary to be considered eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) per Criteria A through D and applicable Criteria
Considerations. No further archaeological investigations are re C3zired. Based on the information
provided by URS, I concur with these recommendations since the proposed improvements will not impact
any significant archaeological resources. A finding of "no historic properties" is considered appropriate
in association with the proposed US 70 improvements. Should the description of this project or design
plans change prior to construction, then additional consultation regarding archaeology will be re C3zired.
Should project plans change to potentially impact the cemeteries, the NCDOT will need to comply with
State laws governing the treatment of cemeteries.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: � Map(s)
Signed:
�
�
NCDOT ARCHAE O
❑ Previous Survey Info � Photos ❑Correspondence
November 24, 2014
IST
Date
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR AFFECTED
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
3 of 5

Project Tracktng No.:
12-08-0007
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR AFFECTED
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
4of5
Figure 1: Powhatan, NC (US❑S 1964 �R1981 � and Selma, NC (US�S 1964 �R1973, PI1988C�.
Figure 2: 2010 Aerial Photography, showing the Extent of the Proposed Project.

Project Tracktng No.:
12-08-0007
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR AFFECTED
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
5 of 5
Figure 3: Current US 70 Alignment superimposed on Powhatan, NC (US❑S 1964 �R1981 C� and Selma,
NC (US❑S 1964 �R1973, PI1988C�.

ry Y •
��
�.1"
North Carolina Departmcnt of Cultucal Resources
Swtc Hismric Prescrvation Omce
rtom�,�a ni. u.n���, nd������si�w
r,m�m..r.� ni.�:a,y
loaxinmNnnn ALuu
October 23, 207d
N[FMO&1NDLM
TO: VancssnPah�ick
[ Imm�n Emuoamcnt Uni[
NC Dcparrmeot of Tennsportacion
�� ,�` t
� �.:. P %+. _ 1�,1�." > u �.. � P. � {.
FROb1: RenceGledhill-Eaxlcy jG-.�.+�� %V
Environmentall2eview Cooxdinaroe
i �ma �r n�.n�...,�n u,�..,�
I)cpni) X¢.mq Acain (Lur��
SUDJECT: Hls�oric S�rucmres So�cey Repoet Eor the U5 70 Impravemevts &om V'i'est oFSR 25fi6
7�o IX/est of SR 7915, W-5600,]ohneton Cwnry,EI1142332
Thank you foryour memoandom of Octo6ev 7, 2014, uansmittiog tlmabove a£ereuced xepott, CD; a�d
Hism�ic Peopa[y Field Da�a Povns. We have revic�acYi [he m6mitted nmtednLa and oEfce t6e following
mmmcntv.
�\�e cancur that [hc Patriah Fatms QT1877)� Jones House and Bam QT1876)� Lan�.ston House and
Ou[buildings QT7879)� and Lassi[e� Cemcrety QT3880) are no[ cligible for listing iv die Na[ional
Regis�cr of hlisroric Placcs.
Pur[heq ae do m[ couwe lhal [he ]ones House QT1876) is eligible for lis[inp� in the National Regis[er.
W'hile i� is true �h�t �he one-swxy (not one-�nd-o��e-half-smi:y) hoose appeais ro ietain most of its hismric
L bnc on [he extulor, d�e house is iv only fa¢ condition nnd diere is nuioFoimvtion obo��t the intei�iov. I'f [he
only potential area of signi6cance is azchitechixc, �ve must know t6at dic Inlerio�'re[ains good inregeity Eor the
house to 6e eligible.'Pheee is nothfng vic6itecm�allp on�smndiup� about �he building. bC/hile onesrory, one-
coo��i-deep hame houses mlt6 [nplc-A xooflines am slowly disappeaxiug &om Ihe Inndscape, Ihem am still
meny leCt in Jolmsmn Counry. The Cua ti�a� [his nne cecnins elecovntive Ceamres oF ste�ideid Inte 19ib-cenmry
milhwik that might hacc mme G'uin [hc �4'ilson &\G'addell lnmhev company docs nut raise it to �he leeel of
significance necessary tov National Reb scer eligibility. �C/cre [he ho�ee r]igible, ao aPpeopdate boundaiq woold
no� be �estxicmd ro the biulding Eoo�p�int.
1'he nboee mrtunen[s aee mnde purmant m Sccuon l OG of the Nazionnl Histurlc Pve�crvation dci and the
Advisory Councll on H3stocie Pmservuuou'a Regulntions fo� Complianee �vidi Secuon 106 mdiEed at 36 Ck�li
Pae[ 800.
Loimimeli191lmIwoFLm.Nnk�gliNC?9491 MoI11nyPJLrevrAGPTb�IScrvi¢Im¢51ia1m4FNC2lfi'A.V61iT�leplmne/Poc�919�Poii.fiN:'MI{99

Thank you foe yout mopetation and consideeation. If you have questions cancerni�g the above romment,
rontac[ Renee Gled6ill-EaAcy, emivonmrntel eeview wordinamr, al 919-807-6579 or
c ry ionmrntal.re�icw(t4ncdce.gnv. In all Cvmve communicemn concemi�g this p�ojecq please ci[e [he abwe
refu�en<ed nadung number.
ce Mary Pope Furq NCDOT/PDEA/HF,S fi i� do

R JnfT�AilrgNu.(FiluarzfOerf
12-�B-�Q�%
'�"R'qC'?R�^'+1
�1�'a ����
,�'Ti�L
�:�
rt
Fe�l. Aid No:
Federnl
Permit(sJ:
H1S7'ORIC ARCHIT�CTURE AND LANDSCAPES�
GLICI6ILITY EVALUATiON FORM
This form only pertains to Historic Architectwe and Landscapes for this project. It
is not valid for Archaeological Resowres. You must mnsult separately with the
Archaeology Gro�p.
HS[P-0070(163) Femdin�
X Yes ❑ No Perm11
Assumed;notspecified TYPe(�I�
ProiectDescrintioic Imp�Ovementsto
west of SR 1915 (Turnage Road)
CE
❑ State X Pederal
Not specified In review
request
2 2566 (Sadisco Road) to
SUMMARY OF HI&TORIC ARCHITECTURC AND LANDSCAPF.S REVIEW
There are no National Regiscer-listed or Study Listed properties within [he project s area of
po[e�tial efFects.
The Following properties within the atea of potential effects have been evaluated for
eligibility in the attached documentarion:
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
X Map(s) ❑Previous Survcy Info. ❑Pl�otos X Correspondencc X Report
F,VALUATION BY NCDOT ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN
Jones House
X Eligible U Not Gligible
S�a•vey Sde Na.: I JT1876 I Criterion: I C J
SC0 8Y[dChOd 1'¢pOlt. Five pmperties are evaluated in the technical report for National Re9ister
eligibility: Jones Farm (]T1876, PIN: 168600-94-1187), Parrish Farms (1T1877, PIN: 16961933-5125),
Jones House and Bam (JT1878, PIN: 168600-63-3R2), Langston House and Outhuildings (]T1879, PIN:
168600J4-2405), and the Lassiter Cemetery (JT1880, PIN: 168600-84d29z). Only one of the fve, the
circa-1890 dwellirg house of the ]ones Farm, is remmmended as eligi6le for the Na[ional Re9ister under
Criterion C as a 9ood representative of irs type inwrporating ar<hitectural elemen[s produ<ed by the locally
prominent Wilson and Waddell millworks. MPO disa9rees with eligi6ility for historic architecture, citing the
existence of many similar buildings in the county and the wilson and Waddell mnnection as insufficiently
significant (see attached mrrespondence). FOr purpo5¢5 Of th¢ W-5600 prOjeet NCDOT
agrees to proceed with non-eligibility of the resource for historic architecture
(see attached mrrespondence). The project complies with both GS 121d2(A) and Section
106 for historic architecture.
1(mmi�.lrtAimnurenwllw�bttpu+lilllilHll.11'1'IiUII,U.TONI/���F✓A/nm'T uymXMlnnRu/u�uu�Quelllinlurlli�llN1'fY�opuxnmLv:l}rrumon.
Pxge 1 of 2

W-5600,)ohnston County
WBS No. 50056.1.1
PA Tracking No. 12-08-0007
Page 2
REVIEW BY STATE HIS7'ORIC PRESERVATION OFFICF.
HPO Representa�ive
Da[e
FIPO Commenls:
ILvunedrAipeanrrtmdL�md�aipnliO4/NlL?I'/1'AI.UAIIUN/nmi%rMnin��imWwi xrPnHe[ rrr(�qllflulniq¢'JNI/l'mArvrurvrtAN�muut
P�ge 2 OCZ �
NCDOT Archilectural Histm�ian Da[e

�"M��
r,
�
� North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission �
❑ordon Myers, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kim ❑illespie
Project Development and Environmental Analysis, NCDOT
FROM: Travis Wilson, Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: December 19, 2012
SUB �CT: Response to the start of study notification from the N. C. Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) regarding fish and wildlife concerns for the proposed
improvements to US 70 from west of SR 2566 to west of SR 1915, C�hnston
County, North Carolina. TIP No. W-5600.
This memorandum responds to a re C3zest from NCDOT for our concerns regarding
impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from the subject project. Biologists on the staff
of the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the proposed
improvements. Our comments are provided in accordance with certain provisions of the
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).
At this time we do not have any specific concerns related to this project�owever, to help
facilitate document preparation and the review process our general informational needs are
outlined below:
1. Description of fishery and wildlife resources within the project area, including a
listing of federally or state designated threatened, endangered, or special concern
species. Potential borrow areas to be used for project construction should be
included in the inventories. A listing of designated plant species can be
developed through consultation with:
NC Natural Heritage Program
Dept. of Environment ❑ Natural Resources
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1601.
WWW.ncnhp.or�
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

W-5600
Page 2 December 19, 2012
and,
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. O. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the project. The need for
channeliting or relocating portions of streams crossed and the extent of such
activities.
3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted by the project. Wetland
acreages should include all project-related areas that may undergo hydrologic
change as a result of ditching, other drainage, or filling for project construction.
Wetland identification may be accomplished through coordination with the U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers (COE). If the COE is not consulted, the person
delineating wetlands should be identified and criteria listed.
4. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland wildlife habitat impacted by the
proposed project. Potential borrow sites should be included.
5. The extent to which the project will result in loss, degradation, or fragmentation of
wildlife habitat (wetlands or uplands).
6. Mitigation for avoiding, miniminng or compensating for direct and indirect
degradation in habitat C3zality as well as C3iantitative losses.
7. A cumulative impact assessment section which analyC�s the environmental effects of
highway construction and C3xantifies the contribution of this individual project to
environmental degradation.
8. A discussion of the probable impacts on natural resources which will result from
secondary development facilitated by the improved road access.
9. If construction of this facility is to be coordinated with other state, municipal, or
private development projects, a description of these projects should be included in
the environmental document, and all project sponsors should be identified.
Thank you for the opporiunity to provide input in the early planning stages for this
project. If we can further assist your office, please contact me at [phone].

A RESOLUTION IN FAVOR OF
NCDOT ALTERNATIVE 2A FOR STIP PROJECT W-5600
WHEREA5, the Town of Wilson's Mills Town Council recognizes the efforts of the North
Carolina Department of Transportation, the US Highway 70 Corridor Commissioq and
numerous other planning agencies involved with the STIP Project: W-5600 — Proposed
improvements along U.S. 70 west of S.R. 2565 (Sadisco Road) to west of S.R. 1915 (Tumage
Road); a�d
WHEREAS, the Town of Wilson's Mills Town Council understands the importa�ce of the
mobiliry and connectivity along the U.S. 70 comdor not only in Wilson's Mills but in Johnsto�
County and across the state as well; and
WHERF.AS, the Town of Wilson's Mills Town Council believes the proposed intemhanges are
impoRan[ [o the future planning, development, and success of the Town; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Wilsou's Mills Tovm Council believes [hat the different proposals
create new and unique challenges to the Town.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE [T RESOLVED by the Wilson's Mills Tuwn Council that the Town
Council voted u�animously in favor uf Altemalive 2A in which SwiR Creek Road remains open
and Wilsods Mills Road is diverted sou[h to avoid any adverse effects on local businesses off of
US Highway 70 and Wilson's Mills Rd.
ADOPTED THIS 16'^ DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016
��id✓ �n ����7.�i//I� �'
PHILIPR� WB- H�
�✓ '�z-c.c�v / i --.
LEIGHANNA T. WORLEY, CMS� CCMG Town Clerk
L/

Araject Trac�6ai�gNo. (1nte�wn! Use}
xz-os-oa��
�.�"'� �
� �
� �
..,,y
J .i!�.
HIST�Iu� ARCHITECTURE AND LAIVDSCAYES
N� HISTUR�C PR4PERTIES PRESENT OR AFFCCTED F�RM
This form only gertains to Histaric Architecture and Landscapes for this project. It
is not �alid far Archaeolagical Resources. You must consult separately with the
Archaeology Group.
PRCI.TF,C'_T iNF[7RMATYON
Project .Na: VII-SfiQQ Count�: Jahnstan
W�S No.: 50056.1. �. Dncument
T e:
Fed. Airl No: HSIP-U07D�163) �'unding: ❑ Stai� X Federai
Federrrl ❑ Yes � No Permif
Permif s : �'y e�s :
ProiectDescrintion: Establish grade-s�parated interchanges with LJS 7D at 5R 1501
�Swift Cree�c Road} a�d Wilsan's Mills Road, and possible median rnadificatians, service
roads� and Y-line improvemen�.s alang US 70 fr�m west of 5R �5b5 [Sadisco Raad} ta
west af SR 1915 �Turnage Raad}; some RD1N acq�isitian anticipated� need far off-site
detour currently unknawn.
SUIVIMARY 4F HIST�RIC ARCHITECTLIRE AND LANDSCAPES REVIEW
❑ There are no National Register-listed ar 5tudy Listed properties within the project's area of
potential eff'ects.
❑ There are no properties less than fifty years old which are �onsidered to nneet Criteria
Consideration G within the praject's ax•ea af potential effects.
❑ There are no properties wxthin the proje�t's area of potential effects.
❑ There are properties ove� fifty years old within the area of potentia! effe�ts, but they do not
meet the criteria for listir�g on the National Register.
X There are na historic properties present ar affected by this praject. (Attiach any nates ar
documents as needed.}
Date of �eld �+isit: Feb�'udry 27, 2413
Descr' tion a review �rctivities �esulls and eonelusiv�as: HP�Web reviewed on 22 August 2412
{revisited 2fi Fehruary 2013} and yielded no NR� SL, DOE� 5S, or LD properties in the proje�t area.
)ohnston County current GIS mapping, aerial phQtography, and tax infarmation identified multiple
properties containing p�-19GD resflurces {viewed 22-23 August 2012} in the Area af Potentiaf Effe�ts
{AP�). APE established as extending iQO� feet to either end of the p�-opased S.S-mile prajec� length and
1�00 Feet to either side oF the existing US 70 centerline to encampass all prapased canstru�tion activities
as currently defned. Rvailaple imagery proved insufFicient to accurately assess the pre-1950 properties
ancf possibly other resvur�es in the APE, indicating the field survey carried out on 27 February 2013
Field survey recorded eight unexceptional domestic proper�ies (two including agricultural buildings}
dating ta the early- and mid-twentieth century in �anstruction and alteratian. None are likely to Eae
ad�ersely affected by the proposed canstruction, Similarly remo�ed fram probable impacts are four
cemeteries: two an the nvr�h side oF �S 7D near the western end of the project area �PINs: 1677�U-91-
�947 and 167i00-8i-3262j, the Lassiter Cemetery (PZN: 158GOD-84-3292} lacated on th� Jones Farm
Nislnric Ar'c'lii�ecrirre aur! 1.arrcfscnpe.r Nt? FlIST'CJN1C' Yl?i?YJiH77F..i J'1tL•'Sf'NT' f]R Rl�f•'1:C7�'!) fu+•ir+for A,firrr�r ]i�emspnrruiiurz Niv�jreis
a.r (h�nfifierl ur rh�r 7!1(17 !'ingruuulraric Rgi•cemeu�.
Fage 1 of 2

(#801 Swift Creek Road), and the Wilson Mills Cemetery (PIN: 168600-96-6473) on the east side of SwiR
Creek Road north of U5 70. A finding of "no historic properties affected" satisfies Section 106 compliance
requirementr. There are no properties listed on the National Register in the APE.
Should any design elements of the project change (including the additlon of an off-site
detour), please notify NCDo7 Histodc Archltecture as additional review may be necessary.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
X Map(s) ❑Previous Survey Info. Photos ❑Conespondence ❑Design Pla�s
Photograpirs on fi/e, NCDOT— HistoricArchitedure
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN
HlStoiiC A[ClllteCiUce Hlld L311CISC3j/f5 —NO HISTORIC PROPERTIES PRESENT OR AFFECTEO
NCDOT Archi[ec[ural Historian / Date
Tracking No. 12-08-0007
W-5600,Johnston Counry
WBS No. 50056.1.1
HLvaticdMnrccnveaidl�udrmyeeNO/09pAlCTRpI•/�FT[ESC/ttiS[NlORA{l'!T%9iUforrnl^�'MO�oriimiu� fdionl'r%�a.r
arOimlJieAln ihe?OOJ P�vR�'onm�alm ARrmmem.
Page 2 of 2

TYA<kt�Na• la-o%-000�-

� ������
l�fEETI1VC SlIM�IARY
Subject;
US 74, Frvam Vl�est of SR 25b6 {Sadisco Rvad) ta
West of SR i 915 (Turnage Raad}
Johnston County
STIF Project No, W-5C�D4
PlacelCaie aF A9eetir�:
Century Center, Building A
10:�U g,m,, Thursd�y, July 17, 2014
Meeting Summary by: ,� J �'
Roy Currin �� � �k` , f
Team Participants:
Kun Gillespie, NCDOT-PDEA
Jay McIruiis, NCDOT-PDEA
Steve Smallwood, ARCADIS
Roy CurnEn, ARCADIS
Tnm Steffens, USACE
]erry Page, NCDOT Division 4
Rab Hanson, NCDOT-PDEA
James Salmons, Upper Coastal Plain Rural Planning
�rganization (UCFRPQ)
Copies:
Parrish Stricl�lana, ARCI�DIS
ARCADIS GiM of NC, Ina
804 Corporate Center Dnve
SUite SOO
Raleigh, NC 278D7-5073
Tel 879 $5d 72$2
NC Engineering LiCense ND. G-1859
7V
ARCADIS ProjeG No.:
Nc6oaoas.o4o�
Issue Dale:
12/23114 Final
�no cammerrts received on draft)
Rob Ridings, NC DWR
Cynlhia Van I]er Wie]e, USEPA
Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Gary Jvrdan, USF4�i�S
Chad �oggins, NGD�T DE4
Gordon Cashin, PDEA-NES
Ran Lucas, FHWA
Meeting Q►�er►�iew: The putpose of the meeting was to review the proposed project, decitle if it shaul�i
gv through the merger process, and if so, decide the appr�priate pZaeemen� in the merger pracess, A
handaut was pro�ided including the praject descriptian, preluninary alternatives, purpose anci need.,
technical reparts to date, potential impacts, and figures showxng the praject vi.cinity, study area, and
preliminary altemati�es.
The following was presented l�y 1tilCDC7T;
+ Kim Gillespie af PDEA presented an ovexview of the praject and preliminary alternatives,
passible median alosures, and service raads. The recQmmended fa�ility type is a freeway with
interchanges at Swift Craek Road and Wilsan's Mill Road. The existing facility type of US 70 to
the west and east of this project is a fi-ecway. Each af the six preliminary alternatives were
presented and discussed.
• Ms. Gillespie and Rob Hansan of PDEA discussed the U5 70 strategic corridor, on-gving prajects
alang the carridor, and h�w this proje�t fits inta the o�erall iJ� ?0 Strategic Highway Corridor.
� Ms. Gillespie discussed the purpvsa and need and work ��mpleted to date, Jerry Page af Divisian
4 discussed the history vf the projeci, a�cident histary and, public inval�ement ta date. lvir. Page
Page:
1�5

��I�
menti�ned fhere was recently a fatality at the Swift Creek l�oad intersecfivn. A car �'ailed fo stop
for the traf�c signal and rear-ended anather vehicle stopped at the light.
The follawing discussions tovk place following the presentation pf th.e prelirninary alternatives:
• Tam Steffens af #he Carps of Engineers mentioned it was not clear fmm the tables which serr�ice
road.s went with each alternative. He asked the table be updated to provide this informatian.
Table 1 from the m�eting handnut has been revised and is attached.
� Mr. Steffens also said service a-oads 7, 8&9 were mentioned in the handout bu4 were nat shown in
the handout figures and net inclnt�ed in lhe impact tables. Infarmation regarding these servi�e
roads is includ�d on the attached updates to Tables 1, 3, 4, and 5 of the meeting handaut and the
att�ched figures.
• The I�yd.raulic recommendatians have nvt been completed yet. There are two existing box
cul�erts at the Swift Creek intersection. There is a se�ere skew I�etween the two haxes and it is
nat known at this time how these hoxes will be impacted.
•�mthia Van Der VL�iele of the US�PA asked if the Tawn of Wilson Mill's haa been contacted
abaut the project amd if they had a land use plan. Mr. Page and James Salmon af UCPRP4 stated
that they had caardinated with the Tawn af Wilson Mill's planning staff and that the town hias a
land use plan.
� I3�pending an fiuiding, the project cauld he implemented in phases.
AIl af the participants agreed the praject should go thraugh the merger process and will enter fhe merger
process at Conourrence Poi.nt ZA. The foliawing steps will be perfarmed rnaving forward:
• Complete the preliminary designs.
• Hold a pu}alic workshop in tbe fall.
• Hald the GP 2A marger meeting by the end of the year.
Page:
2�5

��nis
T�ble 1. Al#ernati�es*
Akernatives Interchange Qptions
5wift Creek Road Wilson's Mills Road
Half�lover��af ramps Ioops in NW and 5W
1A quadrants -shifted west- Includes 5ervite Tight diamond
R�ads1,2,3,4,6,7,8,&9
Half cln�erleaf ramps�loops in NW and Sw
16 quadrants - shif#ed west - Includes Service RampSJloops in f�E and 5W quadrant5
Roads 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, & 9
2A RampsJloops in NE and 5W quadrants - Includes rght diamond
Ser�ice RoadS �, Z. �, 4A, 5, 5, 7, 8, & 9
Rampsjfaops in NE and SW quadrants - Includes
2B Ser�iee Raad� quadrants - Includes Service RampsJloops in NE and SW quadrants
Roads 1, 2, 3, 4A, 5, 6, 7, g, ��
Ramps in NW and NE quadrants, ramp/Iaop in
3A 5W quadrant quadrants - Includes Service Roads Tight diamand
1, 2, 3, 4A, 5, 5, 7, 8, & 9
Ramps in NW and NE quadrants, rarnp/laop in
3B SW quadrant quadrants - Intludes Service Raads Rampsjloops in NE and 5W quadrants
1, 2, 3, 4A, 5, 6, 7, 8, & 9
*Seavice mads are similar for a11 alternaziw�c, with the excepcion Rf Sen�ce 12oad 4,
Table 3. Potential
Resouree
-- Su
1A 16
to [;hange)
Alternative
ZA 2B
3A 36
Residentiaf 4(3j �(3} 5�3] 6{3} 7{3j 7[3}
Relocations* Business 7 8 8 9 8 9
Tatal 11(3� 12 (3j 14 (3y 15 �3) 15 {3] 15 �3j
Section 4(fj DaT Act resvurces D 4 4 � � 0
5ectivn 5(fj LWCF A[t res�urces 0 0 0 � 0 p
Wetlands (atres} T2.29 1231 5.53 5.65 fi.76 5.7$
5trearns �iinear feetJ 2,278 2,384 1,397 1,508 1,fi8fi 1,797
Riparian bufferS Yes** Yes** Yes** Yes** Yes** Yes**
Water supply watershed -�ritital area No No No Na N� � Na
Federally protected spe�ies TBD*�`* TB�'�*'� TSD*** TBD�** TBD*** TB�'���`
*Numbers in parentheses () indicate low-income andlor minority-owned or occupied homes crr lwsine�es.
�`•5treamside riparian zones widwi die study area aze prata�ted under provisions of the Neuse River BufiFer Rules administered hy IdCDWR.
Tab[e 5 indicaces which ssaeeams are subject tv buffer rul� protection.
�**To Be Determined - Sections 4f Reedy Branch and Little Pvplar Creelc meet the ha6itat re��rirement of fhe dwarf wcdge masscl and the Tar
Ri�er spiny mussel. No dwarf wedge mussels or Tar Itiver spiny muase�s were identified dw�r►g the site investigations. Howe�er, d�siled
5urveys were nat conduc[ad. Surveys will be canductad 6y NCaO'[' Biological Swvey staffto dctcrmine presarcc or abscrtcc of dwarf wedge
mussels andlm Tar Hi�er spiny mussels.
�lote: Wetfand and strcam irnpacts wcre calculated using a 75 foot offset from tlie edge oF pavemen�. Slope slake line�t w-e ncN known at this
time.
P�ge:
315

I'������
'1'�ble 4. Potential Stream and We#]and Im aets b U'on
Option 5tream Tmp�tts �feetj Wetland impacts {acres}
1 Madified clo�erleaf—shifted
west, realigned Swift Creek 1,7U5 5.Q7
Raad
Swift Creek Raad 2 RampSflavps in NE and 5W ��4 037
interchange quadrants
3 Ramps in NW and NE
quadrant5, ramp�loap in SW 553 1.S
quadrant
Wiisan's Mills Road
A Trght diamond 201 0.35
interthange B Rampsllaaps in IVE and 5W
uad rants 312 0.37
� All Alternatives 105 4.52
� All Alternatiues 42Q 0.57
� All Alternatives 0 0
� Alterna#ives 1A, I6 �OD 5.59
4A Alternati�e� 2A, 26, 3A, 3B 15Q 3.fi3
5ervice Road 5 Alternati�e5 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B 0 0
fi All Alternati�es 165 0.19
7 All Alternative5 0 0
8 All Alternatives 82 0
`� All Alternatives 0 0
Page:
4/5

fal� �1���
'1'ak�le 5. Fotential 5tream Im acts � Alternati�e
Stream l�iame Map ID F�ar$ Lengt� nf Impact (feet}
lA 1B 2A �B 3A 3B
�Reedy Bran�h, including SA ZA 0 0 0 0 0 4
pnd PA
*Little Po lar Creek SB 2A 105 1 Q5 lU5 145 1 U5 1 dS
UT ta Little Po lar Creek SC 2A 0 d Q � 0 0
*UT to Little �a lar Creek SD 2A 175 175 175 175 175 175
UT to Little Pa lar Creek SE 2A Q 0 � 0 p p
UT to Little Po lar Creek SF 2A 245 24$ 2�5 245 245 24$
�UTtnP[�plarCt�ek, c�G �Al2S 1,3�5 1,3Q5 1b0 15� 1CQ 1G0
in,ciudin ds {P� and P'L�}
UT ta Po lar Creek SH Z�►12B 0 � 1�� 100 14d 1 UO
*Po lar Creek SI 2AIZB 0 4 � 0 325 325
UT ta Po lar Creek 5J 2A � 4 0 D a 4
UT io Papfar Creek, SL 2Al2B D 4 d 0 Q 0
includin and (PD}
*UT to Poplar Creek �� �q�26 D U 16� 1G4 12$ 128
includin nd PH
�`UT to Po lar Creek SN 2B D d 0 4 � U
UT to Neuse Ri�er SQ 2B 95 312 95 312 �5 312
*UT ta Poplaz Creek �P 2B � 0 D Q Q 0
e hemeral)
*llT to Neuse River S 2B 82 82 82 $2 8� 82
�`CIT to Fa lar Creek SR 28 0 Q 0 p Q Q
�`UT to P lar Creek SS 2B 0 Q a D 0 4
UT ta Neuse River ST 2$ 27l 165 271 165 271 1G5
UT ta Neuse River SU 2S Q 4 0 � U �
UT to Fa lar Creek SZZ 2A Q a 4 � U �
Tatal 2 78 2,389 1,397 15Q8 1686 1797
'�5trcam is subject to Neuse Rivcr Buffer Ru�e protection.
Page:
5/5

r
N�PA/A04 MERGER TEAM MEETING AGRE�MEN7
C�ncurrente point No. 2A: 8ridging Decisians and Alignmenf Re►,iew
PROJECT NO.JTIP N�.� IVqMECQESCRIP7lON:
�,..,� � .,F.,�ui �.� rcn H�L 3 � 6'x6' RCBC '-� � �` x �' R8C
{152'j (extend 24' upstream) ;
, ..
__...._.------.�- ---......._.—.- ----..._.__..-_T..,..._...•- --..._..._..`_�_...T..__...._.:--- ---...M---
; .: : - �: . < ' - .;�� ` ,;� po�ar ,�rgek . ..� Swift:Creek Qpti ori 1 - - — — -
,. ..
...;
.... � -
.. ,. . �- :.�, � �.� :�;: �<x.�
� `2;�,7':X 6':. RC6C � ,;:• ._Y.._
� � ' ��� . R�BC•;� ;:
,
�" , ;�°f
��. k
- �'; .
_ - ��!
� i eri�
, � 97' - 9`-
- e� ` nStre' -
t "( riF �
�
];'� . �.
�
�.,.
- � -�. ::.;�:
:�
.
,:.
_;
:
�
. � : .
,..
�,
::
. . ,.< . : _
. <:
,. .
.
,.
. .. .:.
�.. _...... _______._.�.�.._:.�_._._�_:.. : _ - -
, .� �,,.. . , ;;, ,
�.w..�.._1.. .. :.. .: : . .. :. .. . . - �pst�C.e:a�''�r'',., . ,,�
,. , � ,. „
_�:.. . ,
,;
.....�.....___�...,:_._._____.___..._� _:..� w_..���—._.�.�._w.... ;.��_:: :�..
q Popiar Creek Swift Creek Option 2 2@�p' x 6' RCBC 2@ 10'�x 6' RCBC W-- --�
{138'j textend 27' upstream �
;.... �_- - �--_._.._ � _._.,Y,„_, a�
, . . . , . . , - �-- �
,: :
•: p---
;.
..:
, . 5..:•. :�:.:aP ai'C �� .:.'.:.:
� � ,..; �.._..._ �._.__.......
, �:...... �� -
. ,.. � -
,,;:. .:..:
r: s ......�......_ , �__.,..._.�..._..._...,._._...�„�...
5w�ft Creek {7pt.�an'�:' �: �x.. � ��:.:
, -> . , . �:.- .: ., . �;. :.: - , - ��. X':.x T' j�CB�
�:
;; .
,. ...
_
, . . �...
.�. .
, . ....... ,.. ...
�: . . .: ...... ... ..
. ,. ,. . ., .�.. - -
..:.
., _
, ._ . ; ; > .. .,... . . .,; _ -
,.
,. -
, ... . .... . ..... .. '
.
..
';
, .. . x�. . . . .:...: ....:. .:. . . ......
, . ...,_:.
� .. . . . ........::: .: .:' _ . ury'i�v
j4.'.• . . :{trBii����''�`b. `�rts�1'j.:
.. . ,.. ...... -
.. •,� ,;?�
<
` � j' �
�.
��: .
r ,. . _, _
,.
.
.
,.
.
---- �:..._ , -
�
1�
_.�,.__.___ . ;,
,
,..� .� ....,,�.__ _ :y.�.:
' "'_—. ri'•
_.��.. _ �1.•...
T_.� __ . J..... ..-.f ....._ " ". . .� • .
-.. . . . ... .�. ... . .. �. .. : ��� ..':
-.. �._._.�....._.—. ....�_..'__._._._:a...._-�.. ��_"_—'.... :.. ... � �: . . ..
(Site 3 was a trassing of 5wif# Creek �ptiqn 3, whi�#t was eliminated frarrr tonsideratiQn,J � ^
f--Iln�¢Si�neJ 6y_
��-i WA
STEFFE N S.TH OMAS.A�PJERl��4: �'''F p�j �rUS, o� U.SbGovern ment, ou=�aD, ou=Pkl, vu-USA,
U SAC E �n=STEFFENS.THOMAS.ANCRVM.i �84706273
�1SER� � .�,� 4 r! t,..� . w r�
A €�:�- r1t. ��� � �._ � �� r� �..�'tf � � � , C i ��_- 1 �� ' �
�.4 r�tfc'. .�' C� ,.�
l^"� (' .. �DacuSigne[i hy:
US�INS
NCWRG
SHPCl ^
� � ��Q
NCQQT
---DncuSigned hy:
r ri V1 } �14.1N1
— 3 i 5R!,nn�:I;RTI� a.if+
5�`�
,��. �[ �.�,
—'i[11 f 1{�I 1F! IC'47M1-`�'1
—L1ocuSiyned 6y:
�e�..e�, J�Qe,ct�n,i.P_A,-��,
� ���.n.n,�,�,�,n,�t.n�,n
��-�,-� . _
Upper Coasfal Plain RPD
°�t.W�., �lQ.�.¢�.pl.t�
—uau�a�gneu vy �
4,Jki,rxa.b ��4.ir...ovLi
v
�__ii�.rn i. ���ni;��n,�r��i
W•56DF7 US 7D IMPI4OVEMENTS -- �PIR MEETING
State Project IVumber: WBS �lement 5Q05b.1.1
T!P Praject Number. W-5500
TIP pescription: t�S 70 Improvements frorn west of SR 2565 �Sadisco Road} ta west of 5� 1915 (Turnage Road j

NEPA/404 MERGER TEAM MEETING AGREEMENT
Concurrence Point No. 3: Least Environmentally Damaging and Practicable Alternative
TIP Description: US 70 Improvements from US 70 Business to the Neuse River
Federal-Aid Project: HISP-007(163)
TIP Project: W-5600
WBS Number: 50056.1.1
- Alternative 1 A: Swift Creek Option 1, Wilson's Mills Option A
- Alternative 1 B: Swift Creek Option 1, Wi�son's Mills Option B
�- Alternative 2A: Swift Creek Option 2, Wilson's Milis Option A
- Alternative 2B: Swift Creek Option 2, Wilson's Mills Option B
The Merger Team has concurred on this date of JUnL I���6��0 with the selection of the
Least Environmentally Damaging and Practicable Alternative as stated above, as indicated by
the signatures below.
---�� �
.�� � �--
FHWA
DocuSigned by:
Ba,. C�n�l.,,;a. I�..n, �9w kJ�2016
USEPA
!
NCW
� � �-
NCDW
�
Upper Coastal Plain RPO
�
USACE
USFWS
DocuSigned by:
f��RRi ✓J�—< q
7/1/2016
HPO
�� � •
NCDOT
W-5600 US 70 IMPROVEMENTS, JOHNSTON COUNTY — CP3 and CP4A MEETING

NEPA/Section 404 MERGER TEAM AGREEMENT
Concurrence Point No. 4A: Avoidance and Minimization
TIP Description: US 70 Improvements from US 70 Business to the Neuse River
Federal-Aid Project: HISP-007(163)
TIP Project : W-5600
WBS Number: 50056.1.1
Section 404 Resources
■ In order to reduce stream and wetland impacts along the western end of the project,
Service Roads 1 A and 2 wili be realigned closer to US 70, utilizing a concrete barrier to
provide the separation. These minimizafion measures reduced stream and wefland
impacts by 230 feet and 0.5 acre, respectively.
■ Where practical and safe, steeper slopes (no greater than 3:1) will be utilized. During
project design, special consideration will be given to slopes in wetland areas and near
streams.
Human Environment
■ In order to minimize impacts on the Wilson's Mils Cemetery, the proposed right of way
along the eastern side of Swift Creek Road, adjacent to the cemetery was reduced by
20' .
■ In response to concerns regarding reduced access to businesses along Uzzle Industrial
Drive, Service Road 1 A, which extends Sadisco Road eastward to Uzzle Industrial Drive,
was added.
■ In order to minimize the impacts on businesses along the western end of the project,
Service Roads 1 A and 2 will be realigned closer to US 70, utilizing a concrete barrier to
provide separation. These minimization measures will reduce the number of
relocafees by three businesses.
The Merger Team has concurred on this date of �GinC- / 5. <���0 with the avoidance and
minimization measures as stated above, as indicated by th signatures below.
�� ��
�v
FHWA SACE �
USEPA USFWS
� i�i " —
NCWRC
. ,
NCD
l'Y�-
Upper Coastal Plain RPO
HPO
l�., ar� °. � � , ��
NCDOT
W-5600 US 70 IMPROVEMENTS, JOHNSTON COUNTY - CP3 and CP4A MEETING

US 70 IMPROVEMENTS, JOHNSTON COUNTY
STIP PROJECT NO. W-5600
WBS NO. 50056.1.1
FEDERAL AID NO. HISP-0070(163)
�, HOR7k ❑_
�c� Y�Cs
e �
�
a
� TnA�
■
en ix
Relocation Reports

EIS RELOCATION REPORT
� E.I.S. ❑ CORRIDOR ❑ DESIGN
WBSE�eMeNT: 50056.1.1 couNry Johnston
� T.I.P. No.: I W-5600 � `2evised ia ecenuni
of
Farms
/ I
ESTIMATEU DISPLACEES
Owners Tenants Tot
?]1�7
czpiem an "res"answers.
1. Will special relocation serv�ces be necessary
2 Will schools o� churches be affected by
displacement?
3. Will business services still be available
afler pro�ec�?
4. Willanybusinessbetlisplaced7lfso,
intlicale size, rype, estimated number of
employees, minonlies, etc.
5. Will relocation cause a housing shotlage?
6. Sourceforavailablehousing(list).
7. Will atltlitional housing programs be
neetletl7
8. Should Lasl Resort Housing be
considered?
9. Are there large, disabled, eldatly, etc.
famllies?
1�. Will public housing be needed for projecl?
11. Is public housing available?
12. Is it (el� Ihere vnll be adequale DSS housing
housing available during reloca�lon penotl?
13. Will there be a pmblem othousing within
fnancial means7
74. Are sui�able business si�es available (lisl
source).
I5. Number months estimated lo complate
RELOCATION? i2mnnf��-
0 2/2 812 01 6
North Carolina Department af Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
A of 2 Altf
<e ��ad
�co Rd.) to west of SR
INCOME LEVEL
0-15M � 15-25M � 25-35M � 35-SOM � 50 UP
FEMMK5 (RESpOfItl by NURIbEf)
1.) Wilson's Mill Cemetery - This option would require
appx. 45 graves to be displaced, with the possibilit!
of additional, unmarketl graves also being present.
Additlonally, [here wlll be appx. 10 billboards
displaced
4.) Pleaseseeaddendumorfollowlink
W-5600 - Ontion 2-A - Sadisco Service Road xls
8.) MWtiple Listing Servicea, Local Realtors, Etc
8.) As required
14.� Multiple Listing Services, Local Realtors, Etc.
Ex[ra Notes:
-There may be atltlltlonal relocataes due to lack of
suitable repair area and/or perkable soil.
-Poten[ial miscellaneous move on parcel 034-Parrish
Family Trust.
-Miscellaneous mova on parcel 002-Automotive
Recovery Services
FRM15-E
Revised 7/7/14

EIS RELOCATION REPORT
� E.I.S. ❑ CORRIDOR ❑ DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
WBS E�EMENT: 50056.1.1 COUNTY Johnston Alternate A of 2 Alternate
T.I.P. No.: W-5600
�EscRiPTioN oF PRo�ECT: US-70 Improvements from west of SR 2565 (Sadisco Rd.) to west of SR 1915
(Turnaqe Rd.)
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES
Type of
Displacees
Residential
Businesses
Farms
Non-Profit
��
�-
-�
-
0�
-
0�
-
��
-
■�
�■
-�
-
��
0�
0�
-
��
-
0�
INCOME LEVEL
Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
4 1 5 0 0 0 1 2 2
5 O 5 O VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
0 0 0 0 0-20nn 0 $ 0-150 Q 0-20nn Q $ 0-150 Q
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40nn 0 150-250 � 20-40nn 3 150-250 5
Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70nn p 250-400 p 40-70nn � 7 250-400 15
1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100nn 2 400-600 � 70-100nn �g 400-600 30
2. Will schools or churches be affected by 100 uP 2 600 uP p 100 uP 400+ 600 uP 50
displacement? TOTAL 4 1 433+ 100
3. Will business services still be available
after project?
4. Will any business be displaced? If so,
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6. Source for available housing (list).
7. Will additional housing programs be
needed?
8. Should Last Resort Housing be
considered?
9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
10. Will public housing be needed for project?
11. Is public housing available?
12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION� 12 months
���
C. James Coughlin
Right of Way Agent
FRM15-E
Revised 7/7/14
02/19/2016
Date
RennaitKs (Respond by Number)
1.) Wilson's Mill Cemetery - This option would require
appx. 45 graves to be displaced, with the possibility
of additional, unmarked graves also being present.
Additionally, there will be appx. 10 billboards
displaced
3.) Businesses are still available
4.) Please see addendum or follow link
W-5600 - Option 2-A.xls
6.) Multiple Listing Services, Local Realtors, Etc
8.) As mandated by law
11.) Public housing is available
12.) There is adequate DSS Housing.
14.) Multiple Listing Services, Local Realtors, Etc.
Extra Notes:
-There may be additional relocatees due to lack of
suitable repair area and/or perkable soil.
-Potential miscellaneous move on parcel 034-Parrish
Family Trust.
; �
Relocation Coordinator
3/1/16
Date

EIS RELOCATION REPORT
� E.I.S. ❑ CORRIDOR ❑ DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
WBS E�EMENT: 50056.1.1 COUNTY Johnston Alternate A of 2 Alternate
T.I. P. No.: W-5600 *Revised to account for proposed Sadisco service road
�EscRiPTioN oF PRo�ECT: US-70 Improvements from west of SR 2565 (Sadisco Rd.) to west of SR 1915
(Turnaqe Rd.)
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES
Type of
Displacees
Residential
Businesses
Farms
Non-Profit
��
0-
-�
—
�-
—
0�
-
��
—
■�
�■
-�
—
��
0�
0�
—
��
—
0�
Owners Tenants Total Minorities
4 0 4 0
2 0 2 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS
Explain all "YES" answers.
1. Will special relocation services be necessary?
2. Will schools or churches be affected by
displacement?
3. Will business services still be available
after project?
4. Will any business be displaced? If so,
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6. Source for available housing (list).
7. Will additional housing programs be
needed?
8. Should Last Resort Housing be
considered?
9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
10. Will public housing be needed for project?
11. Is public housing available?
12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION� 12 months
���
C. James Coughlin
Riaht of Wav Aaent
02/29/2016
Date
INCOME LEVEL
0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
0 0 0 2 2
VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
0-20nn 0 $ 0-150 Q 0-20nn Q $ 0-150 Q
20-40nn 0 150-250 Q 20-40nn $ 150-250 5
40-70nn � 250-400 0 40-70nn � 7 250-400 15
70-100nn 2 400-600 p 70-100nn � g 400-600 30
100 UP 2 600 UP p 100 UP 400+ 600 UP 50
TOTAL 4 0 433+ 100
RennaitKs (Respond by Number)
1.) Wilson's Mill Cemetery - This option would require
appx. 45 graves to be displaced, with the possibility
of additional, unmarked graves also being present.
Additionally, there will be appx. 10 billboards
displaced
3.) Businesses are still available
4.) Please see addendum or follow link
W-5600 - Option 2-A - Sadisco Service Road.xls
6.) Multiple Listing Services, Local Realtors, Etc
8.) As required
11.) Public housing is available
12.) Adequate DSS housing is available
14.) Multiple Listing Services, Local Realtors, Etc.
Extra Notes:
-There may be additional relocatees due to lack of
suitable repair area and/or perkable soil.
-Potential miscellaneous move on parcel 034-Parrish
Family Trust.
-Miscellaneous move on parcel 002-Automotive
Recovery Services
'� 3/1 /16
Relocation Coordinator Date
FRM15-E
Revised 7/7/14

US 70 IMPROVEMENTS, JOHNSTON COUNTY
STIP PROJECT NO. W-5600
WBS NO. 50056.1.1
FEDERAL AID NO. HISP-0070(163)
�, HOR7k ❑_
�c� Y�Cs
e �
�
a
� TnA�
e n ix
Public Involvement

Johnston County
U.S. 70 Improvements
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Attn: Kim Gillespie, PE
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
�:��:�.�.��:�������.��������.•�����
Introduction
550 copies of this public document were printed at a cost of $467.50 or $0.85 per copy
The North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) proposes im-
provements to US 70 east of the US 70
Clayton Bypass through Wilson's Mills.
In accordance with the National Envi-
ronmental Policy Act (NEPA), a plan-
ning, environmental, and engineering
study is under way for the proposed
project.
Why Is This Project Needed?
urpose of the project is to improve
� and mobility along the US 70
or in Johnston County.
What Improvements are Proposed?
The project proposes to convert two
intersections to interchanges and close
or modify median openings. The pro-
ject begins west of SR 2565 (Sadisco
Road) and ends west of SR 1915
(Turnage Road). Interchanges are pro-
posed at the following intersections with
US 70:
1501 (Swift Creek Road)
1913 (Wilson's Mills Road)
Median opening modifications or clo-
sures will be studied at the following
locations along US 70:
SR 2565 (Sadisco Road)
SR 2574 (Uzzle Industrial Drive)
SR 1907 (Strickland Road)
SR 1914 (Bear Farm Road)
SR 2569 (NCDOT Maintenance
Facility)
SR 1915 (Turnage Road)/
SR 2815 (Bear Farm Road)
It has not been determined which me-
dian openings would be closed or modi-
fied. Service roads along US 70 will
also be considered.
Current Project Activities
This project is in the early planning
stage of project development. As part
of the process to develop the project's
environmental document (Categorical
Exclusion), the NCDOT must identify
and document environmental resources
so that they can be avoided or impacts
reduced. Streams and wetlands are
two of the resources to be identified
during the review process. If you own
property within approximately 250 feet
of US 70, representatives of the
NCDOT will need to perform field inves-
tigations on your property.
What are the next steps?
After existing conditions information is
collected, engineers will begin develop-
ing interchange designs and evaluating
median openings and service roads.
This will include evaluating several in-
terchange concepts already developed
by NCDOT. A public meeting will be
held to provide the public an opportu-
nity to comment on the preliminary de-
signs. A date for the public meeting will
be announced in the next project news-
letter.
Connecting people and places safely and efficiently, with accountability and environmental sensitivity to
enhance the economy, health and well-being of North Carolina.

U. S. 70 Improvements
Notice to Property Owners Along the US 70 Corridor
Over the next several weeks, representatives of the
NCDOT, as well as the US Army Corps of Engineers,
may be present on your property for the purposes of con-
ducting or verifying the limits of waters and wetlands pur-
suant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Sec-
tion 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. These
representatives will wear orange safety vests, have pic-
ture ID badges, and will hang pink and black flagging, or
ribbons, on trees and shrubs to identify the limits of
streams and wetlands, if present, on the property. This
flagging does not indicate the location of a proposed
transportation project, but it is very important in our envi-
ronmental review process. Please do not disturb this
flagging.
Please note: If you are aware that the US Army Corps of
Engineers has issued a Jurisdictional Determination on
your property, determining the presence of streams and/
or wetlands, contact the NCDOT Natural Environment
Section at [phone] to inform us as soon as possi-
ble. This will avoid potential duplication of effort. When
you call, please mention the NCDOT project number
W-5600.
For general questions about the project, please contact
NCDOT Project Planning Engineer, Kim Gillespie, PE at
1548 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1548,
phone [phone] or via email klqillespie(a�ncdot.qov.
Thank you for your cooperation.
May 2013
Introduccion del Proyecto
EI Departamento de Transportacion de Carolina del Norte
(NCDOT) propone mejoramientos a la carretera US 70 al
este de la carretera de circunvalacion US 70 Clayton que
pasa por Wilson's Mills. De acuerdo con La Ley de Poli-
za de Ambiente Nacional (NEPA), un estudio de planea-
cion ambiental, e ingenieria ya esta en camino para este
propuesto proyecto.
�Cual es la propuesta de mejoramiento?
EI proyecto propone de convertir dos intersecciones a
intercambios y cerrar o modificar aperturas medianas. EI
proyecto empieza al Oeste del SR 2565 (Sadisco Road) y
termina al Oeste del SR 1915 (Turnage Road). Intercam-
bios se proponen para las siguientes intersecciones con
el US 70:
• SR 1501 (Swift Creek Road)
• SR 1913 (Wilson's Mills Road)
Modificaciones de las aperturas medianas seran estudia-
das en los siguientes lugares a lo largo del US 70:
• SR 2565 (Sadisco Road)
• SR 2574 (Uzzle Industrial Drive)
• SR 1907 (Strickland Road)
• SR 1914 (Bear Farm Road)
• SR 2569/NCDOT Maintenance Facility
• SR 1915 (Turnage Road)/SR 2815 (Bear Farm Ro-
ad)
Todavia no se ha determinado cuales aperturas media-
nas seran cerrados o modificadas. La construccion de
calles de servicio a lo largo del US 70 tambien seran con-
sideradas. Seran consideradas en un esfuerzo por mejo-
rar el acceso de las propiedades impactadas.
�Por que se necesita este proyecto?
EI propdsito de este proyecto es para mejorar la seguri-
dad y movilidad a lo largo del corredor del US 70 en el
condado de Johnston.
Actividades Actuales del Proyecto
Este proyecto esta en la planificacion inicial del desarrollo
de proyecto. Como parte del proceso del desarrollo de
este proyecto ambiental , el Departamento de Transpor-
tacion de Carolina del Norte debera identificar y docu-
mentar recursos ambientales para que puedan ser evadi-
dos o reducir el impacto del proyecto en su ambiente.
Corrientes y patones seran dos de los recursos que se
identificaran en el proceso de revision. Si usted es dueno
de su propiedad dentro de 250 pies del US 70, represen-
tantes del Departamento de Transportacion de Carolina
del Norte tendra que efectuar investigaciones sobre su
propiedad.
�Cuales son los siguientes pasos?
Despues que la informacion existentes es coleccionada,
los ingenieros empezaran desarrollando disenos inter-
cambiables y evaluaran aperturas medianas y calles de
servicio. Esto incluira la evaluacion de varios conceptos
intercambiables ya desarrollados por el Departamento de
Transportacion de Carolina del Norte, NCDOT. Una reu-
nion publica sera efectuada para proveerle al publico una
oportunidad para comentar sobre los disenos prelimina-
res. Una fecha de esta reunion publica sera anunciada en
el siguiente boletin del proyecto.
Notificacion al los Duenos de Propiedad a lo largo del corredor del US 70
A traves de las siguientes semanas, representantes del
Departamento de Transportacion de Carolina del Norte ,
ademas de Los Ingenieros del US Army Corps, pueden
estar presentes en sus propiedades con el proposito de
conducir o verificar los limites de agua y pantanos consi-
guiente a la Seccion 404 de la Ley de Agua Limpia y/o
Seccion 10 de la Ley de Rios y Puertos de1899. Estos
representantes estaran uniformados en chalecos anaran-
jados, portando insignias de tarjeta de identidad, y colga-
ran banderitas de negro y rosa, o listones, en los arboles
o arbustos para identificare limites de corrientes y pato-
nes , si estan presentes, en la propiedad. Estas banderi-
tas no indican el lugar donde se esta proponiendo un
proyecto de transportacion, pero si es muy importante
para el proceso de revision ambiental. Por favor no to-
que las banderitas.
Por favor tome nota: Si usted esta enterado que ya los
Ingenieros del US Army ha publicado una Determinacion
Jurisdiccional de su propiedad, el poder determinar la
presencia de corrientes y/o patones, debera contactar al
Departamento de Transportacion de Carolina del Norte
Seccion Ambiente Natural al 1-800-481-6494 para infor-
marnos lo mas pronto posible. Esto evitara el potencial
de trabajo duplicado. Cuando Ilame, por favor mencio-
nes el numero de proyecto W-5600.
Para preguntas generales acerca de este proyecto,
pongase en contacto con nosotros en el mismo numero
de telefono.
Gracias por su cooperacion.

�
US 70 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Unit
Attn: Kim Gillespie, P.E.
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
4
The North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT), is proposing to upgrade US 70 from west of
SR 2565 (Sadisco Road), east of the Clayton Bypass to
west of SR 1915 (Turnage Road). The project will
remove the existing signalized, at-grade intersections at
SR 1501 (Swift Creek Road) and SR 1913 (Wilson's Mills
Road) and replace them with interchanges. Other at-
grade intersections and median openings will be
removed. Service roads will be constructed to provide
access to properties along US 70.
Proposed Improvements
Swift Creek Road Interchange
Option 1
Swift Creek Road will be moved west of its existing
location. The ramps for the proposed interchange will
be constructed on the west side of the relocated Swift
Creek Road. Swift Creek road will be bridged over US
70.
Option 2
Swift Creek would remain on its existing alignment.
The proposed ramps would be constructed in the
northeast and southwest quadrants of the Swift Creek
Road crossing of US 70. Swift Creek Road would be
bridged over US 70.
Wilson's Mills Road Interchanqe
Option A
Interchange ramps will be constructed in all four quad-
rants. US 70 would be bridged over Wilson's Mills
Road.
Option B
Interchange ramps would be constructed in the north-
east and southwest quadrants. US 70 will be bridged
over Wilson's Mills Road.
Service Roads
Access to US 70 from adjacent properties will be pro-
vided via service roads connected to the Swift Creek
and Wilson's Mills Road interchanges.
�n's Mills Elementary School �afeteria l
What Happens Next
NCDOT is completing a Categorical Exclusion (CE), which
will document the environmental impacts of the preferred
alternative. Comments received from the public will also be
included in the CE. The CE will be submitted to the Federal
Highway Administration for approval.
Schedule
• Categorical Exclusion Approval .................April 2016
• Begin Right of Way Acquisition .........................2018
• Beqin Construction ........................................ 2020
500 copies of this newsletter were produced at a cost of 38¢ per newsletter.
Project Description PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETING

Descripcion del Proyecto
EI Departamento de Transporte de Carolina del Norte
(NCDOT), propone actualizar US 70 desde el oeste de
SR 2565 (Sadisco Road), al este del Clayton Bypass
hasta el oeste de SR 1915 (Turnage Road). EI
proyecto eliminara las intersecciones senalizadas
existentes por SR 1501 (Swift Creek Road) y SR 1913
(Wilson's Mills Road) y las reemplazaran con
intercambios. Otras intersecciones a nivel y aperturas
medianas seran eliminadas completamente. Calles de
servicio seran construidos para proporcionar acceso a
las propiedades a lo largo de US 70.
Propuesta de Mejoramiento
Swift Creek Road Intercambio
Opcion 1
Se moveran Swift Creek Road al oeste de su ubicacion
presente. Las rampas del intercambio propuesto se
construiran en el lado oeste de la reubicado Swift Creek
Road. Vehiculos viajando por Swift Creek Road pasaran
el US 70 por medio de un puente.
Opcion 2
Se mantendria en su alineacion presente. Las rampas
propuestas se construiran en los cuadrantes del noreste
y suroeste de la interseccion de Swift Creek Road ay US
70. del cruce de Swift Creek Road de US 70. Vehiculos
viajando por Swift Creek Road pasaran el US 70 por
medio de un puente.
Wilson's Mills Road Intercambio
Opcion A
Se construiran las rampas del intercambio en los cuatro
cuadrantes. Vehiculos viajando por US 70 pasaran
Wilsons Mills Road por medio de un puente.
Opcion B
Se construiran las rampas del intercambio en los
cuadrantes del noreste y sudoeste. Vehiculos viajando
por US 70 pasaran Wilsons Mills Road por medio de un
puente.
Calles de Servicio
EI acceso propuesto a US 70 de las propiedades al lado
de la carretera sera por medio de calles de servicio
conectados a los intercambios de Swift Creek y Wilson's
Mills Road.
AUDIENCIA PUBLICA Y SESION INFORMATIVA
� :,-�,. •��•� .. �..
�Cuales son los siguientes pasos?
NCDOT esta realizando una Exclusion Categorica (CE por
sus siglas en Ingles) que documentara los impactos
ambientales de la alternativa preferida. Comentarios
recibidos del publico sobre los diferentes alternativos
estaran incluidos en la CE. La CE sera entregada a la
Administracion Federal de Carreteras por aprobacion.
Schedule
Aprobacion de la Exclusion Categorica .......Abril 2016
Inicio de Adquisicion de Derecho de Via .............2018
• Inicio de Construccion .....................................2020
2

North Carolina Department of
Transportation
PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETING
PROPOSED UPGRADE OF US 70 FROM WEST OF SR 2565 (SADISCO ROAD), EAST OF
THE CLAYTON BYPASS TO WEST OF SR 1915 (TURNAGE ROAD)
STIP PROJECT W-5600
��
FEBRUARY 2, 2016

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), is proposing to upgrade US 70 from
west of SR 2565 (Sadisco Road), east of the Clayton Bypass to west of SR 1915 (Turnage Road) to a
freeway. The project will remove the existing signalized, at-grade intersections at SR 1501 (Swift
Creek Road) and SR 1913 (Wilson's Mills Road) and replace them with interchanges. Other at-
grade intersections and median openings will be removed. Service roads will be constructed to
provide access to properties along US 70.
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve safety and mobility of vehicular travel along
US 70 within the project limits. The proposed project is intended to address the following needs:
• The fatal crash rate for the subject section of US 70 is higher than the statewide average for
similar facilities (although it is slightly lower than the critical rate).
• The existing signalized intersections within the project limits present concerns regarding
driver expectancy given the rural, high-speed and free-flow nature of the adjoining sections
of US 70.
• The existing signalized intersections within the project limits result in delay to traffic along
this section of US 70.
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES, IMPACTS, AND COSTS
Swift Creek Road Interchange Options
Swift Creek Road Option 1: Swift Creek Road will be moved west of its existing location. The
ramps for the proposed interchange will be constructed on the west side of the relocated Swift
Creek Road. Swift Creek road will be bridged over US 70.
Swift Creek Road Option 2: Swift Creek Road would remain on its existing alignment. The
proposed ramps would be constructed in the northeast and southwest quadrants of the Swift
Creek Road crossing of US 70. Swift Creek Road would be bridged over US 70.
Wilson's Mills Road Interchange Options
Wilson's Mills Road Option A: Interchange ramps will be constructed in all four quadrants. US 70
would be bridged over Wilson's Mills Road.
Wilson's Mills Road Option B: Interchange ramps would be constructed in the northeast and
southwest quadrants. Wilson's Mills Road will be bridged over US 70.
Service Roads
Access to US 70 from adjacent properties will be provided via service roads connected to the Swift
Creek Road and Wilson's Mills Road interchanges.

Alternative Impacts and Cost:
Alternative 1A Alternative 1B Alternative 2A Alternative 26
Stream Impacts
2,060 1,840 1,460 1,240
(linear feet)
Wetland Impacts
6.3 6.0 7.4 7.0
(acres)
Farmland Impacts
50.2 55.8 30.1 35.7
(acres)
Residential Relocations 4 4 6 6
Business Relocations 3 5 4 6
Estimated Construction Cost $33,950,000 $32,850,000 $28,700,000 $27,600,000
* Impact and relocation quantities are estimates. Final numbers will not be known until designs are further developed for right of
way acquisition and construction.
PROJECT SCHEDULE
Alternative Selection ....................................................................................................................March 2016
Environmental Document Approval .............................................................................................April 2016
Rightof Way Acquisition .........................................................................................................................2018
Construction..............................................................................................................................................2020
ADDITIONAL PROJECT INFORMATION
US 70 Improvements Team Members
Jerry Page, P.E.
NCDOT Division 4
Project Manager
ipa�e@ncdot.�ov
[phone], ext. 3551
Kim Gillespie, P.E.
NCDOT
Project Development Engineer
kl�illespie@ndot.�ov
[phone]
Ryan L. White, P.E.
Stantec Consulting
Senior Transportation Engineer
[e-mail]
[phone]
More detailed project maps can be viewed and downloaded on the NCDOT Public Meetings
website at the following link: http://www.ncdot.�ov/proiects/publicmeetin�s/

� ���
US 70 Improvements
From west of SR 2565 (Sadisco Road) to west of
SR 1915 (Turnage Road) in Johnston County TIP
W-5600
Exhibit 1
Project Vicinity Map

, .� ; f , �
. �r .f .. Ui'� � � � rf ; ��`' ; i t �• { � .
.' r` fs � S ,�/" � +� T '` c ` �'°! `
,
, ,�, . � .
.
.
. _ .
es_% ". �, �' �/� S%y ��t : _� , r ` .'« ,��` � 1� ��, � �
.# �► � - � � � �, ° 'm � ���Ls �j0 , , , �� � "' • - �° �, T` �� r* �"�'�'� � f
,•,, r +� � � Y��l/ � .,,�++`
r� j� s � +� .
� �'�. .,� ° � $1 - •�..�r� e - , - • c er � ; f *� . I - � ,' r ''� ,v . � r�, k.
� � �� � �... A � r i �r� �/ �� 4 � i
� T
�7'�� � �-� y._, Y �., � � � �I� + � � � �T.j�_ �_� ���f./�� '�V� .'�'. � �� �►i����v �� �. '�� � �� � � .
1 P'a . � f f .� �1E.
, �
� + r
� ti e �
;':� � . 4 � 1 �` �� r + ,�� ..� �f°�_ ' ��1 T, ��i+- ,, � �` If
�� � � -�--- � '� � /' �, , �S � �
-
,
� ��`� 7 . , .� �
_
_ �q
� ��-`��,:�,��..� Jf ' �`, ��,� � �`� '*-�, ��/'� '�i�'s _� � � * - .+�
f , .
.
"w � � �� J � s. � } �
, yC , `��
� ..
'�.'� � , " �� / . � . -"o-.
.
_ �. . ::' {' , ��
� •
-. , '�' �y,. �
J - . . .
. .� _ � 1 �T+RI . / �
�
� �,� t r: � '_ � � �.
.
`� �, �;�. �"'�-j . � r �,r � WILSON'S MILLS � f �,��, ,� * �a � ' t �,� �'� � .
� �^
� � �' _� -. j � � `� � °' � �' � � �. � ` r �, ''; � ��i� � �� ,�
f � _ ,._ F GO , , ;.
.
- , � - .._.
•' " -
J � � ,
,
w CHURCH O
�` � �~ �] � � . � � � - A' 1.
1'• ` �` _� ' r ,''� ,. . � ! , ' F� �..
� � . � ''' � � � � ��
� f
,r
, , .
� j r ��� + f � r�
,
' u�
� ,
'.',► t, � r,t'` ' � � e � �
.
j� � �
� y � a.
L 9 •
r
, �� .�� . �� . , 5 l� t ,. .
i
, i � J
, � � WILSON'S MILLS
r � '
/ � ` �• �. . �' . � f
i �, � f
� � �� � � t � ./`� �. �, � � " � .. � '. � � �4 +►� • r~ CEMETERY
�� �
� . . , z
� -
.
, '� �' � . . ; . � �� �'�,� , � �1�
, .- .
� � . , ,� � � '� `�,,, �,, ��,
Y
,
, .
� � !�. ��- . . � ��
I � � •-" -• � ' � �
� : , t'�. . �.;� r :� � ��F ;
'� +' � ,; �, � �
I { :� ��� , �� �� . ,: � 1 ,
1 ��
� � �
.
� ; � �,. , � � . . � � ��.
� ..F
' , d
.
, �, � � � , � ,�, , .,
. ,
' '�'"'' �
� �� '� 1 . r � - ; . f �` � �i } �., �� � �,a ��.
� � - � � (� , � � � .. 4 . �� �+f� ��,. �- �.. ►,>>C
� � ,. .�-4 4 .
: ` �, \ti� '+t�' � '�., � 1,� � �. �! `f �"-�,� � ��
� � � � � . � � � `\ ;���'' ; [ ,
� � '` f �,� �. � � , � 0 1� ,� � \ � ,, .
� . . � `� � �"• � � � '`+� / - .-� , � •f
�
� 1 . � � � �.
, �
` , ' � ~ ► V `� ' � � ;•r- �Y� '
� � � � � 1J��7�. k ` _ � = 1�►�'�� �' �'' - `� � f � . �� �� � '�-
r � r� ��`� �' 1� �f / � � *� �►�
' ��� � .. ' �' �, . `� '� t f '� 1 4 � r a� M1 - '
� .���� '� . « ' � _ ` ,fi;`� � � ki' �►�, J� i��' � � ,�!,.
� � .. �• .� � �. r 4 •i� ,. �
� � � ' � I � � �
�.
� � ,�,� i � f' �,,y''.1� , �; , ,, :., � • �� '� 1 ` �._ 'Y
: - .
1 ... ,� .r,`� ' � .f'�� ..," � d . , � � �.�. ��/ "�� � 5
, I Y` �, ,�,_f �,.. .,-4. �� ..,M1.� � �,�"��'��X�. i"`��r � 1�� F
! �f � r
�
� ' , ,,
� . F €�1 �; � '
� � �ti � �°�� � �Y+ ( � � T, y t M.s � � � ( ���� '� � � — - ^� � � ti � _
f ` ,+ �, � . . ', �`�.� �f,J ' �
� f ,'� ` f�. ✓,� ;�, � ��` ° - �� ,.:"'�� � f • r.� �`�
� ,,� - ,� �� �.,,a ��, � �, . �t y,
, � � .,1 . . .a �` ,.;�ii�y� _ ;k,,-.: �� �� ���� `�; �.,.
�
� . _
� . �r
. . , a
Q � � /e' r�:F%{' �� �� ��. ^ � , �, �I . '•l� �,y� ((J� '�"� �� ��
i � �� . ,` "'J f f l� ,`; �. a,, � � � �e� a/ � � + J,' . � � ����:
, , �
4 � i `' :. , �` , : ' - , .,,�� � ��� . _
�
� �� r �
r� , ��. �„ ��„f � ��, � ��', + y' ;-�, , 'iQ i,
„ �r,� .� - f f�. ,. �l/IL N'� MILLS -, „ �► 1 #�� .
_ , � � ���,,;;� f,, "�'"+�"'� � 'l�" �' BAP IST CHURCH ' '- f ' ` �/,/''�,/'��, LEGEND
, v . - � T : � - � Y � � ,� r 'r,,� � k� f � � ti,; � kf�,�',e!� st�
j f ,}''.� /; � • � ,� , - a �"' - � � � �' • . � • .' ' Prop Roadway Improvements
.
� " � .Y
� 1r's r�,. � ,J , f ,' �,'` �,, r , " � ,�}",� h�;•'' �'1 ..��`
.. . . F ,_'',� /.' .� r , :� -. . . ,/ � '�
1 � '� . ;�,,. , ;-}`, <,fF�� �,!'f � ,r ,�,• �.. ' '" ` : , . ' �, LL �., �' /�.� Prop Construction Limit
� � r . �.!'�, ��' s � : ° .!`,. �r ; j^, r� , - • +a �, .: ,� ,�.:
fr ,��'� � �
� , ,�y ,� � f; , r ����/�'.�ri°`J d �' t /,�r� . �� '� �4 '` f �/ Prop Right of Way
� �, .ti ���,�,%�f ��'./ r f�, j r ; , � LASSITE14. `✓',�.. �„
� � ��.�` f� '� l 'f���`����,,+''� / , . , �. : n � . �/, / CEMETE� �' ir//,�,- . - Prop Roadway Bridge
, { f /
� p �''`,.'��` a .. > �f � � �� � .. � 7' � { f � / f�J � �a � ; �'
t �� � - ,�f'��/ , ,�. ` �; �. � % �' ',!, Exist Property Line
..�' ��1'�'/ ' �.�,q�;�� � `�+� '� > �' •'� �� � �� �• � � ` �� ' �`,r .�
� A�\' f � 1f,�.. �'" ' `` , � -:►• '�.�" / .� Q-O ` � ,f /� / Exist Right of Way
\l• ��r!r''���'` ~ F , • � ������ ��' ��v�v� � "y Stream
, %
,�,� 1� �',,,•�`", � � � � � �
. ,�� �_ . - - - � �� WIL�dN'S NllLL _ � ��,;t �� Feet £ '� s Wetlands
�.�`�� BA�TISTCHURCH .. y` Y� . �yS�� 0 500 1,000 �
. �.
` ti � . . � �,_�:
US 70 Improvements Exhibit 2A
From west of SR 2565 (Sadisco Road) to west of SR 1915 (Turnage Road) in Johnston County Interchange Options
'`----'` TIP W-5600

�
�
fI • �
i �
.er f• - '�..� r
, � �-; �.
. � _-� ,� .
� . ��
,.,h ,�� �`�l�'
�"' � � � r . � �
• ` � . ' �.
�. �� � � y __ � f
�� � i� — � �
w � ....
.
�; T �` �� �� '� �- � a,''� J,r ` � � f ` r �i►,„��`, �. -. � '`+� � �r� ��
� �� r�,'��; � {-�, .' � ,z �,_�., �; /�� ;'�, ��� � '4 � .r^ . � .�.` �� �� � i G �� ��,
. � � .., ' , � � -+ � � � . „ ( + ._ . .�1 ` � �� 4 + "
� r • " �. . �3l � ���� s . � (�� i j Y r�' ��� . s . - �\ �� 'G� - _ +.�4� - � F A .
� � 2� � ,�, � �� � '�.,`. +�'�„y ls r
�"� ��`, .. -`<ccs+ ' � ���M��'�'`.' `'s.. �,�0
� i.'-� ` 1: : �� ``.� '00 � '� ,':' .,, _ ,�"` �i°''' � +r � �■r��,�� ,Q r
, � 1 �,�.�; � _ .�,� ..,, � � ` � , � � � • `1 . �� ; �._•��, . O �•
. . .� -_
- . .
- � ` � y
�- �;, ``'"� � �'p Ir � � 1 r yu -ar. �. ' , _ i �.�k r ,,
�pr`^C - , - � � � � � �
�i. •i�„ � .� ; . r` J�/ "�!= � � I . � �� � �r
�, � , � ' � � M +f' � �� � � Q �:�� ir � . �'� �, �
- w;t -�..� �._� Q' i r � 4 _ _. . :i
�� , "� � �� : � , �. :.. �� 3 ' , � �. a�.t ��� , � '
� � i
.
��1 � � � ���� .. .
. �
M .:, , • �
��V� _ M � � ! � q � �`'� L Q # ����� �� / � � , . . �
. � .'�\_. � r��"�+ � �11 �^f�� � �!' � .
.� -, . �a � � r �`w � k �
� � .�. � , � MIT�
,� t _�� � - �• ' `,�
,. ; . � , , r
• �, ..•
' �r���� � fi.
MITC�NER DR �"� ' , : � � ,� � �
, -
� � �, � ,' '�� � ��,�
.
� � �, , ,, �,
..
: ,� , . _ _ _ �"'�'��id � �.,
,
.
. � {{ � , � .� = ,,,;; .�
. .�, _.
f � ' � r • � r `�`� �•y �"`,/�' ' ' �z` � �- ` � • "��� �� - ' _
� ��' "� " - I� .r'�`��r� ,yr� .., � � "" �� �N °.,
� � � . ���!'r,. / / ✓ � .
_--_„ #. ` i ; , ��� ., . f:�-�:.L���� � . '� ' � � �. � HANDY MA�T/ � � � � -: . -- , 2�
�� <,��wii.�, +�+�w� . _ , �r�.., .. _ � __ �..r� �. _ _. y - AN Q �� � N � -�,�.
,.
`' �' A�. �� ��`��` ��� HANDY MAIfT/ , �.r`'`�,�,`�� � �[r ` �'� � �_ !� •1.� � - 'r��
TE SW 8 �
.
� � � � -� • WH/ TE SWAN B�Q '� �� �'�---� �c'"�� v ��
� ` +
'� ��,� `"�- * . E , , �,. « � N4
• - t�, k�.-- _ � � - , r �� ^ � i, '�`,+ � � ,` `�—� ' • �I'I �Y ` � �
"� �'.. � ' . .+ _ / � `jLAR ,
-�._.t , . _j � � , �z�''� ,� � � � , p •
. `-^'�- . � ..��. � � T � .. <N , . M � 4 ,: L . � � a .. � , � � i .
�4
Y �. ' ., .
�'�'� �� 1.� �L��,'�. ' , rFAMILY p � ` � �., � ` � ��,.�, �\ ]c� � f��y '�
� ... -.�, „ . , ;
� � . � �
�`'` ' —�_ �- '► DOLLAR 2, - �;��,: . � � �
. � -._ a r � / � �_ � � �
f �.��''-` '` _�`t,1� � , � { ,� � ����� . � � �` � _a �� �� _ �/
� :
, �
, � 1,
� ' ' ' �
'� > ,�'`'. � � : � �� 1,
� ._
: _ � � 1
. , _ . �, � ���
�', �
+ ' `' `�c �r,k N _._
r� , .
' � r ,. �" . � ,.� , � � ' � Al I �
-. , ^ �
~� �� � '� ` � t�� + �� i .�� �� '� j� ;'� � ��,
�
`�,� _ �` ,�, 4 ;" ` � � � � !
� � '�, � �
`�� \ � � j � �
.� .� ,� `� � �� �. � �
� .
a � `., � , : s .
_ . . t —� � � . .
I �:� • `�. � •~�lJ � ', '�
. � i � \'� ,, ` � �.'�' � � ��. �,
.
. w +
-� ` � � �`' � : \ ' � � �' ---' -=� _ - " ' ` ��
. � �
�`"'� i �� �. � t�� .,� � .:�� r,..
� � �
_. F ._ . � -- .
-y � , � 3�.�_ . , . s� '�� � W� � �"�.�. ♦
.. i � _ d� . �. ` r ,. �+� � � � `t
. � � n. �y �.._��'$,": 1�: .a �1' .`�.�..�� � � ` . �
� ;, . �.�` � ' � �Y � , � ..
: :, • �� j� `� '* • _ _ \`� �� ��'
+ � � '�. `� �`�;,� �� .,, - ,� __ � � � �
� r�i� �� ' ��' � � , �� � �+.. , � . �` �S, "`ti. ��. 1--�. �.
..., r ��`,, .. � ^ s ~ .
� 4 � '� `'� � ,. ,� �` �, /
�
,
�..:. • � �.� .a��.
� il a�r ��'` � � �. � '�. - �;1� � ;. ~ �
rM� '=�°. � y, , �.. � � � 'ti
� ���_ : _� _�� � \ �1 , �v� �+ .; ��,:, - . ,, �.' ('�,'n?\ �
� . . .r—��'���,+yv� � � � \�y r�� U _ �r . i , � � I'� �1��J ��
. �` r � { `� —� � � � �_ ��; ' ar �� r� � � .. ��� .,r „ � r' �`,�� �`
�"g. . '�. . �'- � t ' �5 .
� ��"'�IC ` o � ..�,`'���``';� `.;_ ��'� � � f LEGEND
��' r `�;,�,�' �` wsr.r��ir��;��� "� "�t_S��`r "iMr�����: �J
� � n � , �' ,/'' + � • � • ��g � � Prop Roadway Improvements
��fl��.�.�,�,��! ��`N "' 'J� '' I� �t � •� � � k� �M (q ° _
� �+ ` � � � �, � , �,�, � � ti�. ' ,, z � i�,� Prop Construction Limit
�� .w a � '��_ r =. a �. � � , � � v�i
� �
� '_ y �, '' -�� �� w f�/ Prop Right of Way
z: f
#�. i,., � � + � � �� ¢ � ' t � • ' � � � - 3 M
� ' � �d � � ' � Prop Roadway Bridge
�,a• ' "'� � 3 ,,, . -� +. - � . � '��, ��
=,� �� : f � . � : � ` � �"�' �� �� � �' ''�- Exist Property Line
� �
. �r
d� � ,'� /' / Exist Right of Way
.I �r, • ,,
�.. f ,- -�.:.... _ � �;- } �:
_ _ _,.� _ � ,,� ,.� . � ''� • _ � ��
--�..- � � 1 -
/�/ Stream
J�'l�,y Feet � -�
� � Wetlands
'" � 0 500 1, 000
1' � "c .�
US 70 Improvements Exhibit 2B
From west of SR 2565 (Sadisco Road) to west of SR 1915 (Turnage Road) In Johnston County Interchange Options
'`---'` TIP W-5600

, .
' � ,�+ , _ ` _ ` ,.
, '. ,_ , ' �� . I .;.,.. ��!' J
; ' -�� _ . , f r �
' , n . , �� � ' i �� � '(�' . �i . � � -. - '{.�
�
' r. '
�
_ i n \ ..� . ��
. -.. _ + � `�+..
_ e ' �p
; ''t f� �� / a lr .�.
� " �� . � '� � � � #4 r r � .� '�} �' .,r , LEGEND
'� ;�� � �`;�`r� ;,, � R ','�'� J:'� ` ''� • ,�- � ���,:3� - ,�
. - ��� - ���. _ �� � �r =.� � � , , ,
\� r 4�' - � '' f •�r "� �`,�'� '_` '• Prop Roadway Improvement
�� a�� � . - - y -- � � � � �
._ . � � � � � + - " � ` � � r,' l`�� Railroad Tracks
� ��F . _ --~ " , ".! .�- �' r , . _
�•�,, t Y 70 �' r7 r'�—y� W/[SpNS M/LLS �� , r y
. , -
� N , � ` R� - � � �'-� � ''�y � 7� , - -,r Municipal Boundaries
-_.,
. ( , p �.R� �.�. �...-- y , �� - -- ' . N `. , I �: � w.-. , . � ,r 1 't � �E �' � � ya� +� � H d
� : � �:
,�� ., . _.
P:
_ ,
� , T�, �g""� � �c�i � -' `;�. • � , �'` " � , rologic Resources
.A�
, . - _ ., 4 '�
,._ _ . . S , < ,� �: ,�, .�.: ,. �� - �i: . �
: � � � . " �
� - . ''t,� " ' ,
.. = .
,,. } - �
{� �.Y -. w � � +g$ 5_ �� ` ` Wetland
} . . 1, �v' i . Z ° / � �"a r� � ' i:� 4. � '� � �
. .`�S ,. � : �.� Q ..- ..,,.... _ .
� ,
- :r. �- y- w �
�. . �„ . � c • �� � . �, , - � �,� Streams
'� ` , , �. � "� `",'�.,� t; - �' +� `� , _ -
� � ' f: r� , �, � , �` � ..-'�!=
`����` _ �w ''.`; �`� �Y � .�af�. ,� � � ��� � f `� ' , J � ,S� � - .. y�_ ���
w'
�
' ^ �� •'f�` ` . y/y+�� O .. /", � �, �4��.M. 4' v.�. � � V. �
�' fi � --- f - � � /,.� � i . ' Q
9 a, , � � _ p 0 r w, L � � �.
.
��
. 4 _.
.. � . �- � �
,
4 6k �. ,� � -
�h � _ Q �
� ~� _
i�'r � ; .� o �� �."� � ' Y
_ �
. .
. - .
# • ' -
.
: � . ., �,` n:.' , .. . ' BUS ;a - �: � 1
.
.
,
. . _ _
�,. �.�
;�
_..
, . . , , . ,,� 1 ,�J . � .-, ' !C/ - �
� � � . � k
.
� t.. Y , .: = - � �
j ^ y •`'
� � .�:r - -. . � . ��
. � .�. 70 , ��`, � ., � �, , _ ~ :, � '� ;; ����
� y . . . . ., .�
-, . �
: ,
} �� .�:`- �r ,r ;.. I' � � , �, .. (� � r i. . ,� {,y ., �� � � ��
.
�ti
� `
'
i� .. . . y � . 5 .. f. .. � : , . 1
. .. � , � . � � ' . . � • � � �� 1
� /'
Y�� ,�:. ,. ,�, � _� . : :r....�.. : N . .. � �C � ,��- t �� �� : ���i�► . t�a'� � . ... i ���F'
',�� ♦
�� . . . . . . .. � . . ..
4 iJ. ,�,;ti�;�
� i f
�. � - { r, ,
1 `
�•
` - - �
. . �� ,.r r
�� r
�� � *� 1
��� .��l,;c;' �; ..
��`�' `�- �
,�s►� �Ftp
. •SADISC
\ ' �.r- � . `� a ��
� �'_�-��
��.
�P �t�( ' p `�'�j.
� ,�� `�� � . �
��, * , °�j
* ;,�"�`�� = �_
� `'�' •�
��4� � n ��'f . ��{ �� � si :: +^
}�� � .,
1 inch = 2,000 feet �
Feet
0 1,000 2,000 4,000
'��
� 'r'� � � � �n'". , , ' � � � � ' G� Rv��,,,, •y��
r = � x � � � `�' � , P �+a
_ ��, ` ' � ^� t�"j � � � �F ` �.�. F N� � ���N r � ��. . 70''<< "•�
. Ir�' " y ' . . . . � -.t � . , . * . . . Tvi. � ` Q. +,� .y � ' .. � 'c.
� `, , _ �y �
'r�. � �;��r' i �
..
, .. . -a
� 'i� � �-: , 'a� <,R� �. ^ �._ � .
• -
,1 - ��
_
.
,� , �� , "�
�'
f �*� ,�� � � i-c• . .. ., • � _ ,'���'�`
.
- , � �� �w, � �� �.
�� � � � . -+ .
� � i w.�. �1 ' M .� r � ,r �: .- � � � � ��.
-- _-�,r,. Wl�g � v:�� 4� _ '� �h
.. . � s
,.
.
1. .. �
7O � ;; G . - ;��N�S MILLS � F � �. � r.:� � �
� � �. �
_ s RD`" �* w . !i r r � ��' i ' � �.
� ..� �' �. : ,�, �, � � J�
� .,>�.. � k .
� . .
r .
-. • < . . ._�� ,. X ..
P L � . ..._ . � �y � . e•'-
� �. (t� �1� . I+� ��"�� ' f - ::t' ''�' ';� - , .��� �R� � ...� i � F"'� � �.4` . � � f . • �•� � �
i � :� �` ' � ',�� � I � . _ { a .
O .,,�. �,� ,� ree.�,,.. ��` S � 5��.
.
� -
G ' % �
. .
- -
N '�.-u„�"- �.� . ,. "�" , -
. �# - � ��
« ••,
� • -� -
ai. ♦ f � I .'-�.:: ` r ': k., • ' '.,.' � �, � -�,r. - : y � ��. F - _
� � � �� � ��"" � � . _ --. ��
� �,. � �: � �b� ` � -�
�' o ii � ''" '' -- `,� '� � �`� � f� .' 9�'
. . �
_ "'� .� ��'A � r. � ���'. .,�;� � `�`�' - .��� �. , o
�
- ' � � � "�i1 � ~ � O'� � "� � ''� � � ,��.� - 1 � ��
_ ;
p �r . � Y IY ' � , , r �-,yt� �: - �� g �`
- L � /�. �Y' . ... �' � � • ' ..� �.�r 'l' � �� 5�
.
,o W ,� �,,��.,:. :�t.
_
. �a1� ,Z . � .
> �� : � _ ,Q. ,. , � : _ �� . ; f, ;
..
.
. .,J . �� -� --,��
,
,
" , �,
� r Y �Bi !� � � �.`; � �+ir:l ° '{� -r. ; t,`.
*
�t �
. .
_. , ,
,,
.
. . .'� U , � �� v : ,
. ^�
` ,_ �
� �
�- • -
. � � � .,`;..� . _�A tj ��..
, � ,
A •
� r . �.. _
� , ,
f � + •
. � � �,�
� a.; . 1 N. .�,r. , �,��s..., � a �-� 9. � . �.,�• t �, . �a � L� f :
{ .�6
,• ,
' , � . • .�,.. - �. i .� �
.. .
�_..� . •'- . , �i ° - •:rN r� \ �
�k. � ' `*! a"! ,
. . , . -�. •, -
�, -
..
. . • �
.
_ ,
�.�. '�. ^ . � y,. i y � ' �� s � '��� � � ~ . �
�a
.
♦�
.. ... k .. � � ♦. � . .� \ .
�� �
� ' _
�ii
�
. .. •
r.. .
+ � ` - , � • ' . . ' -
2
, . ��; .%c- -., . � . . .. . r
� �. �
.�'� � � . .r . ? t4"- , :;�'
� ,
- . .. �
. .
.
.. . � . ._
. , ,k , ,
, 'N � r <<� 70 � � - ��
""� _ •'�, .. O � ..� �-�
US 70 Improvements
From west of SR 2565 (Sadisco Road) to west of SR 1915 (Turnage Road) in Johnston County Exhibit 3A
TIP W-5600 Alternatives 1 A and 1 B

,., .: ° .
� � i � �. # �� ��'f ��• � Ir:�y' ��)'`..
- . •� �' . . 7 '�� � � -. � ii {,�Y
. ,. ..
�- .
. . *
�,. � �
, _, +
� �
,
.' . �}, . # ' . �1F� _ ' _. . .` a.� � � ��`Y
..
I�'j� � ,S d� �ii . �"�" �'� 'y}Y, c, �rr. LEGEND
7� r�. • i,�,,"�1[ � � �'�l�'' ;n. �� � ' �- �' � �,.3� ■
', �a.: tj�.,` •j�/'.*!r ,.-� . a r� � . -` '.�, f�'. a[ '. . -
� .
. .. . . � `�'� � .3' ; #
, +� �� �'�� ,, , _ � �y _ � r � ^;��,�' - • J`�� Railroad Tracks
w� `.
_ . -
,
� ,., r ;
�
��. a � Y _ �. _ wfit reek ion A
Wi�spN k� , �,� ; .�. �`, � r, � S C Opt'
• � , � � '_-�t S M/LLS � ` : . .
� . -, �� .s �.,_.� �.� N ,,� i �_ .. � .,.� I "� ` ��T �� 7�. t�� ya� �T .�.,
�,�7 p � r l � , r+-.. . �,R� , ;� � � g � '`� � +� �'-r Municipal Boundaries
F: � �' �: .
� . , Tr SADISCO �.R . N _ � , � a,: _ F�. `�.., R 1 ;p� , rol Resources
,. _ . � , <� ,� � : ,�_ - ,�� �, "'� w/� SON S i. . �
.
,
- • H gic
: _ _ _ __ , .
�
, � yd o
, .,�` � -� �^ � .- -
y '.
• -.w � � � . . _ , . , �� Mi�� a� Wetland
.,,ys `� '�: � a ` , �'�- �•-.� �' � - � � S Rp �� �.
. , . ,
. .
�. .,� . � � c :. � _. � � " - , - � _ �. F Streams
•- , - . s
.-
. . .
,�� � :l" � � � � ,+i, '� ,- e
`n�{' � r� �`,� ^Y ` � ,� f � � �� � ` i �� 'y
_
,
,.
. P � �w
.
� . ; � °�� o �, �.,, !� � ��
.
. . Y � �� ��'� . .� ` i�. ' .0 � . � .. F, ��� '...4 �2.
.,
v
S � �
fi � --- ' .. � . `s'� ° ��
Q1, �� �'t • • ,, � � ,M � i� � � -.,+e � '� . ' ..... ,
_ _ .
'k , �,
` �+�r � ; r � �� _ i . - �
�
. � .
. i _ , . r Z �� � �+ r,� i
# ` -
: � . ., �n:.' , .. . ' ,Q - `?
r.. ,� - f � �@ _y k a�'T •� � _ .
� .�r.: S '1 - [u - ' � ���,��._ '�''� � � j��}
�f�� �j �, %0 .�:r��`'. .V• � u., i. . �1,ti,- �+--.} ��.. 'LA:� ��.�( .��d
' �; F '4 • y '� � �
.
� .
��. .1 � � -_ - - .
,_ �
�.. � .
. , : - � �
�,. .�, r � . : N � � , • � � ��� :
, . .�• .. ' � � �" - _
�
,
�
, � �
, . .
� �
. �_ .. . - ., � . `'�• ��' . '_ - 'r...,.# , ..r
- �. .
.
k
,. . ,�.
. . �
.
r�
� . � -� }, � . ti �
- * �. s
.
•. ,
� - �' .
. , . . . ...,
, F `.
. ,
.
` ` � ` 'r , ,_ '� ��''�--" — _ - � �.,� �'` �� u,b _
- k �-
,
> . �:
� , , _
� . � •� +
r°
�E .
,� ,:
s
,. . `��C.- .. � � � �� �� , �ti
_ .. � _ � . �^�.�, � . � ' RO�
:. , , - t
�� �
f � ' ,
. . 4 J _ ._� '�+"K , ^�' . -� _�� � . ���
•. � Y� ��'~.1� .. �i � � � j � ��.
� '.
. " ! f-', � � � . . . ' 's . . •
+
.�
. , : x .
� � �'� < E , �NP r ]p � �
�- . ,.
, ••, �,� �, � � .
�
. . , r - � . , � • � � � 5-� _ .,.�
� .� � � � , ` � No �f v � � �.
. ` � - , ,. _---i .'� _ , . . _ _.; , . * . �,,;; �' y � � _.
. � , , N,� �:'
., , 3
, - . .
:
, ':� � �x..�.- � . ,�; ... � _ r�t� ' - -
,�+�� , �.w _ �^.
t
_
� �`:�� / P • � . � r �
,
/ i.ti !)� � " � � W�'_ � /�r '. . ,m' yr....,• 'a, �y,.• F�,' � � � � - .
w �"� ' `3 � �' jj `; ''� . � � ' . , _ � , `
,. ,
. ..� � / �. ��' . � ��1f � ,�a. ��A• �5��
� � 1 ..'� :r � ' ' / ., s ��: � �•� , � � �" � � ., � � . :.,� ' . . � '
� �� . _x . . . . .
' .. �i y�ji4 �*".�� � � � _ r `�'� } � � .
�'�� � � * � ,. , , G .; � � WI�gpN.s MILL 4 r:� , �!'�:
� {3 s� � ' ., �
,�� .
7Q - -. �--,"� � r�"' , N ` S RD .t,� � `� � �h �` i � �� ! •� �•- � - • ` '�
.. � ^ . _ �
_ h� .
�• „ • ,
� O _F2D - , r� .:. � , . � =�� �� � � ,
,,
��
D C ��,
� �
. .
_ . , �„ � � :~.�_ ;;
� �SA iIS 2 1 �- � '�`�` � '+' � y 1 ��+�.�� , �,
` . . ''- � - !, ` M �;� �
_ � �
•., . N ,.. ;�-.a 4� "a;,ti
� kr �
6.:�, � y � l. -_... ' y� � : r . ,. .. �� � .
« ., ;.
., , .
�;
. • •
. . � r , ,« �
�
,4
' .�,- 1 F a � - —
-,.
,r, ,� ' - � � ?� ; z„ �.. _� . � � - ., . �
,E
`; ..
..
ti } y ' .� t
�
.� �
�''� ' `: 4��. ..'.A, r �"n � '°��,F,: � . '• � �,` ' � � .
� r �,,�. . Q �� 5 , � i. � �,�.. t` � �"� ` 'L �`� �,,., �� � f s� 'A�
. .,
't"t .R�`' � ��� �` _:x"�' � `.,� �.�� � �� �_ '`'.:'c.�� � .. . �,'{i�)? . �, F �-, _ � �Q �t
�
. . . � r.
� �'.r F _ � , } , � , �� - �.-� _ . ��.�
; . . ��, � �
� ,�` , __ ; ' ,
.�` .:
. _ ,�
�j� ; . `°' / : 'sq `� p ..'_ _ . , �
.
.' ' � ' ,� •. �#
.
�
✓ .. 1 ' :. �� , e Q f .: , ' " �. �
� �
!• .
ry : �
i .
• r �
y�r . r �/
.
� \�T . -' ! 1i /.� . �Q� _ . ' 1 � � �¢
• id • � !
y ' �` n � ' - � . •.
�
f . �
� . . .�� L � • �.. ,. . �`
. .
�.
: < .' e
�
: a ' ' ti ' . a. " ..
. . . .�.._ r . ,�. . . � � � 7 _ .
, , � r�r ' BUS � ° Y : , ,
.. � ❑
,
.4 � � � �. � �. Q, _ 4, ,� � � . .. .�: ' �,. - ` A
1 r � Z W '
.�
..a. • � � �}
+'+ � ,�r�. �� s" Y , �' :. �. !: -Y : :, F � ���' #`� #,_ ; �� ' y �r4-"'� , �'.
•,
� N -
, • :-�'�,� -� 70 .� ' . �"� ., c:� - - v �- :� �t�.�
` • . ...
�
_ .� ,
. � �, w r�., y
•
� . . _ ; ,. . � � j�.,..�,. � � � � _ � �'' {y1 e � � •. .
.
'� . _°'_ - �' �, . `. . LL . �'".` ���{ �- '.!� � - 'yY?.
:. ' ' . .-.w .�_. �
:� • y .� ��, . ": �. . N . .:,, , � ��w�• . � ,E.�;,F�• E^ '�f3
.- _ �
• _ � � ,
. ._
. _. ,
�_
. �
��
. . :
- ' � ` �N �
`: ' �" .+ �
.,
1 inch = 2,000 feet �, � . . ,. �. ,�. ., `..; . �'� `'•�" -�' 2 �.� `:►
�� .
:
� , . _ . _.: ..- , N .
..
- . �� ,� , , ,. . + .T {
. ,
Sf .�= �` � . . - �' n��Y'�� � �
� ' `' y
Feet �' . - -
,
.
� . �+
�
.
.
' ?� �"� y' <��` 70
0 1,000 2,000 4,000 -�" � �`�'' ''�. . ` . •� 4��y
s � �'`� '� r-,� � - 9
-y�. �. . - �5' p .y� ,-# r�
US 70 Improvements Exhibit 3B
From west of SR 2565 (Sadisco Road) to west of SR 1915 (Turnage Road) in Johnston County Alternatives 2A and 2B
'��.-�' TIP W-5600

PROPOSED US 70 IMPROVEMENTS
WEST OF SR 2565 (SADISCO ROAD) TO WEST OF SR 1915 (TURNAGE ROAD)
STIP PROJECT NUMBER W-5600
Please Print
Name:
Address:
Email:
Would you like to be included on our mailing list for this project? Yes No
Do you support the overall Proposed Upgrade of US 70 Project? Yes No
If you support a particular alternative(s), please check the appropriate box(es) below.
Alternative 1A � Alternative 2A ❑
Alternative 1B � Alternative 2B �
Comments, concerns and/or questions regarding this project:

To help improve our public involvement process, we would appreciate your responses to the following questions. The
following questions relate to today's workshop:
Was the project adequately explained to you? Yes No
Were NCDOT representatives understandable and clear in their explanations? Yes No
Please explain
Were NCDOT representatives courteous and helpful? Yes No
Please explain
Were display maps and handouts easy to read and understand? Yes No
Please explain
How might we better present proposed projects and address citizen's concerns in future informational workshops?
How did you hear about this meeting?
Do you feel that the workshop was adequately publicized? Yes No
Please explain
Do you have any additional comments or suggestions regarding our public involvement process?
Please leave your comments with NCDOT representatives at the workshop or mail them to:
Ms. Kim L. Gillespie, Project Planning Engineer
NCDOT, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548

TITLE VI PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT FORM
Completing this form is completely voluntary. You are not required to provide the information requested in order to
participate in this meeting.
Meeting Type: Public Informational Meeting
Location: Wilson's Mills Elementary School
TIP No.: W-5600
Date: February 2, 2016
Project Description: Upgrade US 70 to a freeway from Sadisco Road to west of Turnage Road
In accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 antl related authorities, the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) assures that no person(s) shall be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or
subjected to tliscrimination under any of the Department's programs, policies, or activities, based on their race, color,
national origin, disability, age, income, or gender.
Completing this form helps meet our data collection and public involvement obligations under Title VI and NEPA,
and will improve how we serve the public. Please place the completetl form in the tlesignatetl box on the sign-in table,
hand it to an NCDOT official or mail it to the NCDOT Office of Civil Rights, Title VI Section at 1511 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, NC 27699-1511.
All forms will remain on file at the NCDOT as part of the public recortl.
Zip Code: Gender: ❑ Male ❑ Female
Street Name: Age:
�i.e. Main Street)
❑ Less than 18 ❑ 45-64
Total Household Income: 18-29
❑ ❑ 65 and older
❑ Less than $12,000 ❑ $47,000 — $69,999 ❑ 30-44
❑ $12,000 — $19,999 ❑ $70,000 — $93,999
❑ $20,000 — $30,999 ❑ $94,000 — $117,999 Have a Disability: ❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ $31,000 — $46,999 ❑ $118,000 or greater
Race/Ethnicity: National Origin: (ifborn outside the U.S.)
❑ White ❑ Mexican
❑ Black/African American ❑ Central American:
❑ Asian ❑ South American:
❑ American Indian/Alaskan Native ❑ Puerto Rican
❑ Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander ❑ Chinese
❑ Hispanic/Latino ❑ Vietnamese
❑ Other (please specify): ❑ Korean
❑ Other (please specify):
For more information regartling Title VI or this request, please contact the NCDOT Title VI Section at
[phone] or toll free at 1-800-522-0453, or by email at slipscomb(a�ncdot.qov.
Thank you for your participation!

Transpartation
MEMORANDUM TO: File
FROM: Kim Gillespie, P.E., Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: STIP Project No. W-5600, Public Information Meeting Summary
P,4T McCR4RY
coverflnr
N[CHOLAS J. TE�INYSQN
5ecretary
On February 2, 2016 at 4 pm, a Public Information Meeting was conducted for STIP Project W-
5600, at the Wilson's Mills Elementary School cafeteria. The following project team members were
in attendance:
Tim Little, P.E.:
Wendi Johnson, P.E:
Jerry Page, P.E.:
Jiles Harrell, P.E.:
Jay Mclnnis, P.E.:
Kim Gillespie, P.E.:
Steve Smallwood, P.E.:
Ryan White, P.E.:
Division 4 Engineer
Division 4 Construction Engineer
Division 4 Operations Engineer
District Engineer
Project Engineer
Project Planning Engineer
Stantec Consulting
Stantec Consulting
Per the attached sign-in sheet, 184 citizens attended the meeting. Meeting handouts were
made available to all attendees as they entered the cafeteria. The meeting handout consisted
of background information, a description of each interchange option, impacts and costs of each
alternative, a project schedule, project mapping, a comment sheet, and a Title VI survey form.
The comment form provided meeting attendees the opportunity leave specific comments and to
note which alternative they preferred or to note if they had no preference. Seventy-seven (77)
comment forms were either submitted at the meeting or received via email or mail after the
meeting concluded. Below is a summary of the alternative preferences and primary concerns
noted on the comment sheets received:
Alternative 1 A Alternative 1 B Alternative 2A Alternative 2B No Preference
12 2 58 8 5
Propertv Impacts/Relocations: Meeting attendees were generally concerned with how the
proposed alternatives would impact businesses and residences within the community. Twelve
comment forms noted concerns regarding property impacts and relocations. Of primary
concern was the potential impact of Wilson's Mills Interchange Option B, which is a
component of Alternatives 1 B and 2B, on the Handy Mart/White Swan restaurant and the
Family Dollar store. Also, of concern was the potential relocation of elderly community
members due to new location alignments. Citizens noting concern for the project's impact to
businesses generally preferred either Alternative 1 A or 2A as Wilson's Mills Interchange Option
A avoided impacts that would require the relocation of the Handy Mart/White Swan and the
Family Dollar.
�N4thing Cr�mpare��.�
State of North Carolina � Department of Transportation � Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1000 Birch Ridge Drive � 1548 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
919-707-6000

EMS Access and Response: Eleven comments were received expressing concern about EMS
access and response times. Members of the Wilson's Mills Fire Department, including the Fire
Chief, and citizens in attendance noted that the project would have impacts to EMS routing
and response times. The Wilson's Mills Fire Station is located north of US 70 and closing the at-
grade crossings of US 70 would limit EMS routing to incidents south of US 70 to the new
interchanges and the service roads. Most attendees noting concerns about EMS access
selected Alternative 2A as their preference due to its use of the existing Swift Creek Road.
Access: Fourteen comment forms noted concern about changes to access. Citizens and
business owners stated that the project would have a direct impact on daily routines and
access to and from businesses, schools, and other community resources. Of particular
concern is the single access proposed by the project to the Uzzle Industrial Park. Business
owners and community leaders noted that additional travel time and transportation costs
associated with single access to the industrial park could result in business closures or
relocations. They stated that additional access could be provided via an extension of
Sadisco Road. Comments received also expressed concerns related to extended travel times
for farm equipment due to the removal of the at-grade intersections and new routing via
service roads.
• Future Land Use: Two comments submitted noted a solar energy farm proposed on farmland
east of Strickland Road. Alternatives 1 A and 1 B would have direct impacts on the land that
would be used for the proposed solar farm.
Propertv Values: Two comments submitted questioned how the project would impact
property values of residences and businesses. In particular, there was concern that single
access to the Uzzle Industrial Park would devalue properties.
Corrections and Omissions: This summary is the writer's interpretation of the events, discussions,
and transactions that took place during the meeting. If there are any questions and/or
corrections, please inform Kim Gillespie at 919-707-6023 or at [e-mail].
Attachments:
Meeting Sign-in Sheet
Page 2 of 2