19910314 All Versions_Complete File_19910405

Q%??

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. N L v b n , Govemor A r i l 5 1991 George T. Everett, Ph.D.
\M111am W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary p •
Director
Mr. L. J. Ward
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
Subject: Proposed Fill in Headwaters or Isolated Wetlands
Bridge Replacement, SR 1004
Duplin County
Upon review of your request for Water Quality Certification
to place fill material in 2.4 acres of wetlands for bridge
replacement (#99 and 101), we have determined that the proposed
fill can be covered by General Water Quality Certification No.
1734 issued August 28, 1984. A copy of the Certification is
attached. An additional condition is that the existing causeway
must be removed and replanted as described in your January 28,
1991 report.
If you have any questions, please contact John Dorney
at 919/733-5083.
Sincerely, 4??
f140VX--
George T. Everett
GTE: JD
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Wilmington DEM Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
PoDu"n hevadion Pays
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An r-ul n-4, -1ti, AM--N - A-- t-__.__

t;LNI KAI, CE.RTIFICAT1t)N
THIS GENEKAL CERTIFICAlioN t,, issued in t_Onlwith the requirements
of Section 401 of Public Laws 9'-500 and 95-211 of the United States and
subject to the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management Regulations
in 15 NCAC 2H; Section .0500 for the category of activities as specified below
in the waters or adjacent wetlands of the State.
This General Certikication is issued to the North Carolina Department of
Transportation and is only valid for the following activities:
1. Reconstruction or modification of an existing bridge structure on
essentially the same alignment or location (e.g. widening less than
a single travel lane, adding shoulders or safety lanes, walkways,
bideways, or pipelines) except bridges on or eligible for inclusion
on the National Register or bridges providing access to barrier
islands. Reconstruction or modification of an existing one lane
bridge structure, presently serviced by a two lane road and used for
two-lane trafric to a two lane bridge on essentially the same
alignment or location, except bridges on or eligible for inclusion
on the National Register or bridges providing access to barrier
islands.
2. Construction of bicycle and pedestrian lanes, paths,, and facilities.
3. Modernization of an existing highway by resurfacing, restoration,
rehabilitation, widening less than a single lane width, adding
shoulders, adding auxiliary lanes for localized purposes (e.g.
weaving, turning, climbing), and correcting substandard curves and
intersections. This classification is not applicable when the
proposed project requires acquisition of more than minor•amounts of
right-of-way or. substantial changes in access control.
4. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including
the correction or improvement of high hazard locations; elimination
of roadside obstacles; highway signing; pavement markings; traffic
control devices; railroad warning devices; and lighting. This
classification is not applicable when the proposed action requires
acquisition of more than minor amounts or right-of-way or substantial
changes in access control.
The State of North Carolina certifies that these activiLieS will not
violate Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, 307 of PL 92-')00 and 1'I. 95-217 if
conducted in accordance with the application :tnd (-Ilditior- hereinafter set
forth.
I That instream turbidity in the receiv111•,11 water,; dtw tO the projecL
activity, shall not exceed 50 `+TU in fresh watt or- wetlands, 25
NTU in saline waters, And 10 N'FI; in dcr;iy n:tl d t r"ut warer5.

Ch.+t wht•re cast -itt - place conrret i u d, r ntcrule Thal l not be
poured unless forms are comp leto Iv dewatotod - Foundation seals may
be placed under water.
?. Th,tt no oils, asp Ii aILic material or oth,,r toxic substances be
located, nor stored within 100 feet of adjacent streams or wetlands,
not he discharged into adjacent streams or wetlands.
4. That the proposed activity shall not restrict stream flow and should
be designed to accomodate at least the 25 year flood, or to pass
flood and/or tAlal waters in such manner which will not cause
flooding or greater amplitude than that which presently exists.
5. That where box culverts are used the invert will be placed at or
below the bottom of the stream.
6. That erosion control methods be implemented such as silt screens,
hay bails, siltation ponds, etc., to prevent sediment from entering
streams or wetlands.
7. That the rip-rap material be of such. size so as not able to be carried
off by wave action and consist of clean rock or masonry material free
of debris or toxic pollutants, except in trace quantities.
8. That where the rip-rap material is to be placed ,below. the mean high
water mark, the applicant will take all reasonable measpfres to
minimize adverse impacts on•water quality.
9. That placement of rip-rap material will be limited to .a maximum
shoreline length of 500 feet and extend an average distance.of not
more than 2 feet waterward of the mean high water (MHW) elevation
contour and at no point extend further waterward than 5 feet from
the MHW elevation.
10. That all fill material shall be clean and free from any toxic
pollutants, except in trace quantities.
11. That the area of classified surface waters to be filled not exceed
one-half acre.
12. That widening of roads essentially parallel to a stream will not
result in the filling of that stream.
13. That the Director of the North Carol ina Division of Environmental
Management may require submission of t formal application for
certi.fi-cation for any project of thir, tvp if it is deemed necessary
Lo assure the protection o f water ( ; n . r ) J L V ,tandards. PubI is
hearings may be held for speciIic :ipplic,ition prior to cerLificaLion
if deemed in the public',; be-it h•: the Director.

WQC#1734
4
i?
r
1
1
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Ongmal Signed Hy
FORREST R WESTALL
Robert F. Helms, iri ector

i
i
t
w;r
rr?!.

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
f 1
MEMORANDUM'
no?93D3j
Date: March 28, 1991

T
h qp?
o: Jo
n Dorney
`! 99?
Planning Branch ??,

From: James H. Gregso
Wilmington Regional Office

Through:
Dave Adkin "V1
k
r \ c? i
a 1 Office
Wilmington%
i
subject: Regional Office Review and Recommendations
Application for Permit for Excavation and/or Fill
Project # 9103-N
NCDOT / SR 1004 Bridge Nos. 99 and 101
Duplin County

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: NCDOT proposes to replace Bridges 99 and
101 along an alignment 45' east and 45' west of their existing
alignment, respectively.
ADJACENT WATER BODY: Goshen Swamp
CLASSIFICATION: CSw
The project has been reviewed to determine impacts to water
quality. The following comments have been provided.
1. The project will require a 401 Water Quality Certification.
2. The project complies with the General 401 Water Quality
Certification No. 1734 for Bridge Reconstruction.
3. The proposed project should be done in such a way as to not
cause the turbidity outside the immediate construction area
to exceed 50 NTU.
4. It is recommended NCDOT mitigate the wetland loss associated
with this project by removing the old causeways and upon
completion of project replanting of the area with species
identified in the report.
This office has no objection to the project as proposed.
JHG:9103-N.MAR
cc: Wilmington Regional office Files
Central Files
J A
? I o
/1 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
/ RALEIGH 27611-5201
DIVISION Of 1 IIG iWAYS
JAMES G. MAIi I IN 13
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HAI-1131_1_SON February 15, 1991 WILLIAM G MAIiI [ Y. JR. P L
SL CHI I Al iY S I ATI I IV J 1VJ AY AHIAINIS I RA1 OR
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
Subject: Duplin County, SR 1004, Replacement of Bridge Nos. 99 and 101
over Main Run Goshen Swamp and Goshen Swamp Overflow, State
Project 8.2240801, Federal Aid Project BRS--3706(1), B-2032
Attached for your information is a copy of the project planning report for
the subject project. The project is being processed by the Federal Highway
Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with
23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an
individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in
accordance with Section 330.5(x)(23) of the Interim Final Rule for
Regulatory Programs issued July 22, 1982, by the Corps of Engineers. The
provisions of Section 330.5(b) and 330.6 of these regulations will be
followed in the construction of the project.
We do not anticipate that a permit will be required from,the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources for this project.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at
733-3141.
Sincerely,
7?a
L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
LJW/plr Planning and Environmental Branch
Attachmen t
cc: Mr. Joh n Parer, Pe rmit Coordinator, w/report
ort/
w/re
t
M
Mr. Charle"akild, Envi p
,
anagemen
ronmental
Mr. C. W./t-eggett. P. E.
Mr. J. T. Peacock, Jr., P. E.
Mr. A. L. Hankins, Jr., P. E.
Mr. D. J. Bowers, P. E.
An E?i?ril UpporlunilylAllirmalivc Aclion Firnployer

Duplin County, SR 1004
Bridge Nos. 101 & 99
Over Main Run Goshen Swamp and Goshen Swamp Overflow
State Project 8.2240801
Federal-Aid Project BRS-3706(1)
B-2032
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
D to L. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
C ?-
Date ?? Nicholas ra P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
Duplin County, SR 1004
Bridge Nos. 101 & 99
Over Main Run Goshen Swamp and Goshen Swamp Overflow
State Project 8.2240801
Federal-Aid Project BRS-3706(1)
B-2032
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
January, 1991
Documentation Prepared in
Planning and Environmental Branch By:
Qdu_??. jpuxn?
Jul' A. Hunkins
Pr Pct Planning Engineer
CARp(
;•?0 N9•:
Wayne Elliott
Bridge Project Planning Engineer Unit Head t SEAL
s 1154 '
'•?, NKLIN
H. r kl in Vick, P. E. Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Duplin County, SR 1004
Bridge Nos. 101 & 99
Over Main Run Goshen Swamp and Goshen Swamp Overflow
State Project 8.2240801
Federal-Aid Project BRS-3706(1)
B-2032
Bridge No. 101 over Main Run Goshen Swamp and Bridge No. 99 over
Goshen Swamp Overflow are included in the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement
Program. The project location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial
environmental impacts are anticipated. The project has been classified as
a Federal "categorical exclusion".
I. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge Nos. 101 and 99 are to be replaced on new locations along an
alignment 45 feet east and 45 feet west of their existing locations,
respectively (see Figure 2). A 24-foot pavement will be provided
throughout the project with 8-foot graded shoulders on the approaches.
Bridge No. 101 (Main Run) will have 3-foot shoulders across the structure
while Bridge No. 99 (Overflow) will have a 3-foot shoulder on the outside
and a 9-foot shoulder on the inside to accommodate curve widening across
the structure. The design speed is 50 MPH.
The recommended replacement structure for Bridge No. 101 (Main Run) is
a bridge 220 feet long and 30 feet wide. The replacement structure for
Bridge No. 99 (Overflow) consists of a 130-foot bridge having a width of
36 feet. The elevations of the new structures are to be approximately the
same as the elevations of the existing structures.
Traffic will be maintained on the existing structures during the
construction period.
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid and
minimize environmental impacts. Approximately 2.4 acres of wetlands will
be impacted by implementation of this project. The causeway, which is to
be replaced by the proposed new alignment, will be removed and restored to
promote regeneration of the wetland functions in these areas. Best
Management Practices will also be utilized to minimize impacts.
Estimated cost, based on current prices, is S 1,571,400. The cost of
the project, as contained in the 1991-1997 Transportation Improvement
Program, is S 1,035,000.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1004 is classified as a rural major collector in the Statewide
Functional Classification System and is part of the Federal-Aid System
(FAS-3706). The route traverses Goshen Swamp in a rural, wooded area of
Duplin County.
2
In the vicinity of the bridges, SR 1004 has a 21-foot pavement with
12-foot to 18-foot shoulders. The two structures are located about 650
feet apart. The vertical alignment is flat. The horizontal alignment is
poor in the vicinity of these two structures. A seven-degree curve is
located on the south approach to Bridge No. 101 over Main Run Goshen Swamp.
The horizontal alignment is tangent from Bridge No. 101 (Main) northward to
about 200 feet south of Bridge No. 99 (Overflow). Bridge No. 99 is located
on a 12-degree curve which extends from 200 feet south of the structure to
250 north of Bridge No. 99.
The current traffic volume of 1300 VPD is expected to increase to
approximately 2200 VPD by the year 2010. The projected volume includes 1%
truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 2% dual-tired vehicles (OTT). The
speed limit is statutory 55 MPH.
Bridge No. 101 crosses Main Run Goshen Swamp (see Figure 6) while
Bridge No. 99 serves as the overflow structure (see Figure 7). The two
studied bridges are located about 650 feet apart. Both bridge structures
have a steel plank deck on steel girders supported by end bents (bulkhead
abutments) and interior bents with timber caps on timber piles. Charac-
teristics of the bridges are as follows:
Bridge
No. 101
Length (feet) 141
Clear Roadway Width (feet) 24.2
Year Constructed 1948
Year Reconstructed 1972
Weight Limit (tons)
SV 17
TTST 24
Sufficiency Rating 35.7
One school bus crosses the studied bridges daily.
Bridge
No. 99
71
24.2
1948
1972
17
24
36.6
Seven accidents have been reported in the vicinity of Bridge No. 101
and Bridge No. 99 during a period from January, 1986 to November, 1989.
Most of these accidents are attributed to the poor horizontal curvature of
the roadway, especially at Bridge No. 99 which is located on a 12-degree
curve.
III. ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES
Three alternative methods for replacing Bridge Nos. 101 and 99 were
studied.
In each alternate, it was assumed that traffic must be maintained
on-site since no reasonable detour routes are available.
Bridge No. 101 (Main Run) is to be replaced with a structure 220 feet
long and 30 feet wide; this width will accommodate a 24-foot travelway with
three feet of lateral clearance on each side across the structure. Bridge
No. 99 (Overflow) is to be replaced with a structure 130 feet long and
36 feet wide. This structure width will provide a 24-foot travelway across
the bridge with a 3-foot shoulder on the outside and a 9-foot shoulder on
the inside; this additional structure width is needed for sight distance on
the curve. A 24-foot pavement with 8-foot graded shoulders will be
provided on the approaches.
Alternate 1 - Bridge Nos. 101 and 99 would be replaced in their
existing locations. The design speed for this
alternate is 40 MPH and maintains the existing
curvature of the roadway. Traffic would be
maintained on-site by constructing temporary
detours for each structure. The detour structure
for Bridge No. 101 (Main) would be located
approximately 45 feet east of the existing
structure and would be about 110 feet in length.
The temporary detour for Bridge No. 99 (Overflow)
would require a structure 90 feet long and would
be located 45 feet west of the existing location
(see Figure 3).
Alternate 2 (Recommended) - Bridge No. 101 (Main) would be
replaced approximately 45 feet east of its present
location while Bridge No. 99 (Overflow) would be
replaced about 45 feet west of its existing
location. Approximately 1500 feet of new approach
roadway would improve the horizontal alignment and
provide a design speed of about 50 MPH. Traffic
would be maintained on the existing structures
during the construction period (see Figure 4).
Alternate 3 - Bridge No. 101 (Main) would be placed on new
location about 60 feet east of its present
location, and Bridge No. 99 (Overflow) would be
replaced about 45 feet west of its existing
location. Approximately 2000 feet of new approach
roadway would provide a design speed of 60 MPH.
Traffic would be maintained on the existing
structures during the construction period (see
Figure 5).
In addition to the alternative alignments that were studied,
consideration was given to the "do-nothing" and the "rehabilitation"
alternatives.
The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate closure of
the bridges. This is not prudent due to the traffic service provided by
SR 1004. "Rehabilitation" of the old bridges is not feasible due to their
age and deteriorated condition.
4
IV. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs of the studied alternates are as follows:
Recommended
Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Alternate 3
Structures
No. 101 (Main) $ 380,200 $ 380,200 $ 380,200
No. 99 (Overflow) 271,400 271,400 271,400
Roadway Approaches 215,700 643,500 993,500
Temporary Detours
No. 101 (Main) 346,800 --
No. 99 (Overflow) 180,000 -- --
Structure Removal
No. 101 (Main) 20,400 20,400 20,400
No. 99 (Overflow) 10,300 10,300 10,300
Engineering &
Contingencies 207,000 192,000 244,000
Right of Way 38,700 53,600 41,100
TOTAL $1,670,500 $1,571,400 $1,960,900
V. COMPARISON OF STUDIED ALTERNATIVES
A comparison of alternatives is as follows:
Alternate 1
Cost
Design Speed
$ 1,670,500
40 MPH
Recommended
Alternate 2
$ 1,571,400
50 MPH
Alternate 3
$ 1,960,900
60 MPH
The recommended Alternate 2 is considered to be the most feasible
location for the replacement bridges. This alternate provides an improved
horizontal alignment and a design speed of 50 MPH. An analysis of the
accidents reported in the vicinity of the project indicates the need for an
improvement in the roadway alignment, especially at Bridge No. 99 over
Goshen Swamp Overflow. In addition, Alternate 2 costs the least of the
three alternatives studied. Alternate 2 is preferred over Alternate 3
because Alternate 2 will provide an improved alignment with the least
environmental impact to Goshen Swamp.
5
VI. DISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge Nos. 101 and 99 should be replaced on new location along an
alignment which relocates them 45 feet east and 45 feet west, respectively,
of their present locations. Approximately 1500 feet of new approach roadway
will provide an improved alignment and a design speed of 50 MPH. A 24-foot
pavement with 8-foot graded should be provided on the approach roadway.
Bridge No. 101 (Main Run) over Goshen Swamp should be replaced
approximately 45 feet east of its present location as shown in Figure 4.
The new structure will have a length of 220 feet and a clear roadway width
of 30 feet. The width will accommodate a 24-foot pavement and three feet
of lateral clearance on each side of the travelway.
Bridge No. 99 (Overflow) over Goshen Swamp overflow should be replaced
approximately 45 feet west of its existing location with a structure 130
feet in length and 36 feet wide. The new structure will accommodate a
24-foot pavement with a 3-foot shoulder on the outside and a 9-foot
shoulder on the inside; this bridge width is needed to provide curve
widening on the structure.
The recommended alternate will provide an improved horizontal
alignment by reducing the 12-degree curve over Bridge No. 99 to about four
degrees. Even though this new degree of curvature would provide a design
speed of about 60 MPH, the sight distance over the bridge on the curve
restricts the design speed to 50 MPH. A design exception during the design
phase will be required for the 50 MPH design speed. An analysis of
accident data during the period from January, 1986 to November, 1989
indicates a need for an improvement in the horizontal alignment, especially
in the vicinity of Bridge No. 99 (Overflow).
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact.
Replacement of an inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic
operations.
The project is considered to be a Federal "categorical exclusion" due
to its limited scope and insignificant environmental consequences.
These bridge replacements will not have an adverse effect on the
quality of the human or natural environment with the use of current NCDOT
standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or
zoning regulation. No change in land use is expected to result from
construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated.
Right-of-way acquisition will be limited.
6
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The
project is not expected to adversely affect social, economic, or religious
opportunities in the area.
The project does not involve any Section 4(f) properties. There are no
publicly owned parks, historic sites, recreational facilities, or wildlife
and waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local significance in the
vicinity of the project.
There appear to be no properties in the vicinity of the project that
are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.
The structures themselves are not historically significant. The State
Historic Preservation Officer will be given an opportunity to review both
the architecture and the archaeological aspects of the project to determine
whether an intensive survey should be undertaken. If necessary, the survey
will be accomplished prior to construction.
This project has been coordinated with the Soil Conservation Service
as required by the Farmland Protection Policy Act. No prime farmland will
be affected by the proposed project and, therefore, is exempt from the
Farmland Protection Policy Act.
The existing roadway and its associated fill slopes and shoulders
represent the only non-natural feature in the project area; the existing
roadway was constructed as a causeway across the swamp. The roadside
shoulders and fill slopes are stabilized with plantings of common Bermuda
grass (C ny odon dactylon) interspersed with various weedy plants.
Upland communities encountered along the proposed alignment are mostly
fringe areas of wetland forests and unmaintained roadside shoulder areas,
including the fill-slope zones. These communities are so highly disturbed
or are the result of disturbances that they can only be given an
unclassified community designation.
This unclassified community, located at the edges of the maintained
shoulder and slope areas, consists almost totally of herbaceous flora,
although a few seedling trees are seen in the shoulder slope zones.
Commonly observed plants include poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans),
cow-itch vine (Campsis radicans), greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia),
muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia), Carolina jasmine (Gelsemium
sempervirens), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and blackberry (Rubus spp.). Less
commonly seen plants include St. Andrew's cross (Hypericum hypericoides),
wild ginger (Hexastylis arifolia), ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia),
richardia (Richardia brasiliensis), English plantain (Plantago lanceolata),
and Spanish moss (Tillandsia usneoides).
The proposed action will result in an increase in the size of this
fringe community by removing forested zones where new approachways are to
be built. In some areas, the existing fringe vegetation is not likely to
be eliminated, even though abandoned causeway sections are to be removed.
This increases habitat opportunities for numerous species.
The wetland community expected to be impacted by the recommended
alternate is classified as a Coastal Plain levee forest-blackwater subtype
(Schafale and Weakley, 1990). Almost all of the adjacent forested areas are
wetlands. These palustrine communities lie within the floodplains of Goshen
Swamp and are seasonally to intermittently flooded. These blackwater areas
tend to experience highly variable flow regimes with floods of short
duration and periods of very low flow. The major canopy trees in this
forest community include sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), tupelo (Nyssa
aquatica), red maple Acer rubrum water oak ( uercus nigra), ironwood
Car inus caroliniana), red bay (Persea borbonia), pumpkin ash (Fraxinus
profunda), overcup oak uercus 1 rata laurel oak (Q. laurifolia), winged
elm Ulmus alata), and bald cypress (Taxodium distichum). Subcanopy species
include false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), titi (C ry illa racemiflora),
sweet say (Magnolia virginiana), Virginia chain fern (Woodwardia
virginiana), giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), lizard's tail (Saururus
cernuus), alligator weed (Alternanthera philoxeroides), elderberry
(Sambucus canadensis), and doghobble (Leucothoe axillaris).
Impacts to this community are likely to be experienced with the
implementation of this project, regardless of the alternative selected.
Acreages of wetland impacts associated with the temporary detours and
replacement structures for the three alternates studied are as follows:
Temporary Replacement
Alternate Detour Structures
1 2.4 0
2 (Recommended) 0 2.4
3 0 3.2
These estimated wetland impacts are based upon anticipated roadway fill
width of approximately 76 feet.
The most obvious impact will be the destruction of existing wetland by
clearing and grubbing, grading, and fill activities associated with the
construction of new approachway segments, either for proposed detour or for
replacement structures. After removal of the vegetation and hydric
substrate, nonnative fill soils will be placed in wetlands. Fill soils are
usually placed in six-inch lifts to achieve optimum compaction. This
compaction in the lower profiles of the fill is likely to alter subsurface
hydrology in the subsoil, potentially affecting wetland characteristics in
adjacent areas. The loss of wetland and the modification of adjacent areas
is likely to impact faunal biomass and diversity in the immediate area.
The density of animal populations tends to respond to availability of
forage and refuge. Both functions may be reduced by the proposed action.
The existing causeway sections are to be removed following construction of
the new approach roadway, thus enabling surface to flows to be restored in
these areas.
a
The study area serves as refuge to numerous animal species. The
abundance of water and water-logged habitat along the Goshen Swamp
floodplain serves some animal groups better than others. The interfaces
between uplands (roadway fill) and wetlands and between aquatic and
terrestrial habitats are ecotones which provide special foraging, nesting
and refuge needs of numerous animals. It is anticipated that the abundance
of habitat in the area serves a rich fauna. Such mammals as beaver (Castor
canadensis), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), cotton mouse (Peromyscus
gossypinus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus),
southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris), star-nosed mole (Condylura
cristata), marsh rabbit (Sylvilagus palustris), black bear (Ursus
americanus), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and occasional
opossum (Didelphis virginiana) are likely to be common inhabitants of the
area. Amphibians common to the area include lesser siren (Siren
intermedia), greater siren (Siren lacertina), eastern newt (Notophthalmas
viridescens), dwarf mudpuppy (Necturus punctatus), as well as, southern
cricket frog (Acris rg yllus), green tree frog (Hyla cinerea) and bullfrog
Rana catesbeiana). Likely reptiles would include snapping turtle
(Chelydra serpentina), eastern mud turtle (Kinosternun subrubrum), as well
as mud snake (Farancia abacura), green water snake (Nerodia cyclopion) and
cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorous). Common birds in the vicinity of the
project would include wood duck (Aix sponsa), great blue heron (Ardea
herodias), belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon) and red-tailed hawk (Buteo
jamaicensis).
The Goshen Swamp aquatic ecosystems and the juxtaposition of an
extensive, wet terrestrial ecosystem creates a unique setting for wildlife.
While the proposed action does not pose any threat to the terrestrial
fauna, it is likely to have some temporary affects on the aquatic
environment. Demolition activities are likely to place sediment into the
water column, as will pier/end bent installation activities. Sediment-
loading of the swamp channel by such activities could affect local
populations of aquatic organisms, including sport fish such as bass and
bream, as well as invertebrates such as molluscs, crustacea and insect
larvae, important parts of the aquatic food chain; however, these impacts
are temporary and will be minimized by the use of standard sedimentation
and erosion control measures.
Based upon information obtained from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, two federally protected species have been reported in Duplin
County: the red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis and the American
alligator (Alligator mississippiensis). Field investigations confirmed
that suitable habitat was not available for the federally Endangered
red-cockaded woodpecker, which requires forested stands of pine or
pine-hardwood where 30 year old pines constitute more than 50% of the
forest. Historical records of American alligator sightings in the county
suggest that most occurrences were probably of transient individuals,
attempting to expand their territories from their southern ranges. Duplin
County is not known to have resident populations of the alligator. It is
considered unlikely that the proposed action will impact this species based
upon sparse occurrences of the species in Duplin County waters. A review
of the N. C. Natural Heritage files on July 3, 1990, revealed that no
protected plant or animal species are known to occur in the study area of
the proposed action.
9
The site lies within the Wicomico terrace, the largest of the terrace
plains in Duplin County. Some of the soils likely to be disturbed in this
project are fill soils, introduced during original roadway construction.
Native soils in the entire floodplain are mapped as Muckalee Loam. These
soils are generally poorly drained, lying in nearly level floodplains that
have loamy and sandy underlying material. These soils are hydric.
Goshen Swamp, including numerous tributary streams, is assigned a
"best usage" classification of C Sw. The "Class C" designation is
described as best suited for aquatic life propagation and survival,
fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. The supplemental
classification "Sw" can be described as swamp waters which have often have
a low pH, exhibit low velocities, and are vulnerable to point and non-point
discharges of pollutants and nutrient loads. Waters in Coastal Plain levee
forest communities tend to be very acidic, low in mineral sediment, low in
nutrients and colored by tannins, but relatively transparent to light.
Both detour and replacement approachways can also be viewed as impacts
related to this project. Modifications to the subsoil and subsurface
hydrology may occur as a result of compaction activities during their
construction. These impacts will be lessened by mitigative measures prior
to project completion.
Approximately 2.4 acres of forested wetlands will be impacted with the
implementation of the recommended alternate; therefore, it is important to
consider compensatory mitigation. One mitigation opportunity lies in the
prospective removal of replaced causeway sections and restoration of sites
to promote regeneration of wetland functions in these areas.
Conflicts with any natural resource component or system are not
anticipated with the implementation of this project. The Goshen Swamp area
is relatively undisturbed; however, attempts to minimize impacts by placing
emphasis on responsible implementation of "Best Management Practices" will
result in a desirable product with minimal environmental impacts. Strict
erosion and sediment control measures should be practiced to avoid
excessive siltation and disturbance of aquatic communities. Vegetation
removal along the chosen corridor should be restricted, and rapid
revegetation is encouraged.
The project is located within the Southern Coastal Plain Air Quality
Region. The ambient air quality for Duplin County has been determined to
be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Since
this project is located in an area where the State Implementation Plan
(SIP) does not contain any transportation control measures, the conformity
procedures of 23 CFR 770 do not apply to this project.
This project will not substantially increase traffic volumes.
Therefore, its impact on noise levels and air quality will be
insignificant. Noise levels could increase during construction but will be
temporary. If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be
done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the North
Carolina State Implementation Plans for air quality in compliance with 15
10
NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the noise and air quality
assessment requirements of FHPM 7-7-3 and no additional reports are
required.
Duplin County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance
Emergency Program. The approximate 100-year floodplain in the project area
is shown in Figure 8. The project site lies within the floodplain zone.
An individual permit will not be required from the Corps of Engineers
since the Nationwide Section 404 permit provisions are applicable, and the
provisions of 330.5(b) and 330.6 will be followed.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no serious
adverse environmental effects will result from implementation of the
project.
JH/plr
/ ?1Moun;./r•;
/ I Olirt 7// r.:l??
i
1 Dull,
1
N rui..li. \
J w,? D•f V( P L I N I
/ 15 `0 ? ? tr+n•n
\ I Fofr 11/? CMnpu•Wn Caln
/ ? \,\ runt rtl '
r
e• r ,
t l a ri Crty C .. *
? l
1361 1004
1508 / , 'SJ9 I
Rooty b / s
, 1509 9 o
Branch II
51r a
Ch. Summerlins 50C
y
1306 Crossrtadf 6
e o,
23 1 306 ?
?f 3r 1 507
® 1359 _ 1360 4 t
S 1
Red Hill
-? 104 1.1 1511 n
W /
V
1307 BRIDGE NO. 99, /
l
BRIDGE NO. 101
357 1307 Crv ? h - PROJECT SITE,
Westbrook
Smith Crossroad
Chapel f .a
a
b o \?? 1300
r ?
1387
Pears
?\ 6 Chap
1381 1004 i
1 .5 .4
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND RESEARCH BRANCH
DUPLIN COUNTY, SR 1004
BRIDGE NO 101 AND BRIDGE NO 99
OVER MAIN RUN GOSHEN SWAMP
AND GOSHEN SWAMP OVERFLOW
B-2032
0 Mlle 1 FIG 1
L I I
r =
w
r
r ?
o'o
m
0

j
?r
?r J
lam?
1• f
i'
? t
n
v ?
0
a
0
n
O
W
'I.
0

W
N ?-
d
z ?
x
N
a
a >. ? x
I W
H a° Fn o
n a•
V ? c?i -xC
II 1. O O O
j 4 4 4
ty O O
4 a. FW-
0
0
:z7
o -%
--i CJ

wn. .,gwn?oo ?o iuiid?n?q un?nwr.?
W
O
W
Q
? p
H O
f
3

'I-
J
/ ?l f
IF4? l S I:
1
a
1
W
W

x ?•

a` ? s cv

? cr o f..
,,: F
r• x r
u
c, ?
..3

0 0
w
f
? ? L
c
v ? a x
L L

CZ ca
zN
cw w
?F
W
0
0
C ?

w
.-7
a:
v ? F- 0: n
? ? ?I U W w
o "? Ii ? O o
W F _
f' r :y (1.
U
IOU
Lam...
l
7
W
u
n
a
1

L.:
G J
O 'r
?J
fl
•..... ..awnjoa ?o Iu ,d-I4 unu--

ail
..:?. ?11z'IQ
?;, , 11;:111
I?.Ilk
th '_ O

W
=

m V

z
cc
o
w
Q
_
>
'
, W !r
W
f Q

.. wO

0j.

Lij
`J U)
0
Gr z
m W
2
/
?
O V/
O
I Q

0
Z
LL
LLJ

Y
;. E
A .i h

X22
• 4 ?t -
4 rte. ?X. ?- O
02
i
W
IrW
;4 m Z
<3z
a:?..
r = Z
'O
j (p W
•? Z
y; - O
Y
"O
0
1
?V
.p
O (D
o(-) LL
N Z
m J
M
0

CCC
! O
<
r Z U1
W z
W
.
k , r
m
0
OZ
D
1 cr.

Z
O
Q

Z
O
O
?
W
LL'
O I-
zU)

Z
Y
O
O

y"«°r.°TRp?aryyRvrw.. y'. i"3 yet/ ? -,' ?
r ' 4` Fi
F
i
SIDE VIfiW OF
BRIDGE NO. 99
OVERFLOW (ABOVE)
I
I
LOOKING NORTH
AT BRIDGE NO. 99
(LEFT-)
I I
{
} 1
LOOKING SOUTH
AT BRIDGE NO. 99

%=
s
ixr
ISIII
100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN
J; ZONE X
?? 11
U
i
7
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
ONE A zooo 0 2000
\ \

ZONE
1A U
PROJECT SITE `
0
coSH fN
SWAMP.
ZONE A
\ / FIGURE 8