19970012 Ver 1_Complete File_19970101

h
j,,w 5TH TF
1T ??
f
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
January 10, 1997
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTN.: Mr. Cliff Winefordner
Chief, South Section
Dear Sir:
Subject: Duplin County, Replacement of Bridge Nos. 22 and 34 over Goshen
Swamp on NC 403, Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-403(1), State Project
No. 8.1241501, T.I.P. No. B-2826.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above referenced
project. Bridge Nos. 22 and 34 will be replaced on new location approximately 21 meters
(70 feet) downstream of the existing structures. Bridge No. 22 will be replaced with a
bridge 40 meters (130 feet) long and 9.2 meters (30 feet) wide. Bridge No. 34 will be
replaced with a two-barrel 3.7 2.4-meter (12 x 8-foot) reinforced concrete box culvert.
Traffic will b ained on the existing structures during construction. Approximately
1.30 hectares 3.10 ores) of jurisdictional wetlands maybe affected by the construction of
the proposed ? ' t.
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical
Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.1 5(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate
requesting an individual permit, but propose t proceed under a Nationwide Permit in
accordance with 33 CFR Appendix A (11-23?. The provisions of Section 330.4 and
Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate the 401 General Certification No. 2745 (Categorical Exclusion) will apply
to this project, and are providing one copy of the CE document to the North Carolina
Department of Environmental Health and Natural Resources;, Division of Water Quality,
for their review.
0
t ?
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Ms. Alice N. Gordon
at 733-7844 Ext. 307.
Sincerely
4 H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
cc: w/attachment
Mr. Ernest Jahnke, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. D. J. Bowers, P.E., Division 3 Engineer
Ms. Michele L. James, P & E Project Planning Engineer
NC 403, Duplin County
Bridge Nos. 22 & 34
over Goshen Swamp
Federal Aid Project BRSTP-403(1)
State Project 8.1241501
T.I.P. I.D. No. B-2826
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
'aO'
at Ara.nklinVick,. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
/,/) 4 e t de ?--
Date r Nicholas Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
NC 403, Duplin County
Bridge Nos. 22 & 34
over Goshen Swamp
Federal Aid Project BRSTP-403(1)
State Project 8.1241501
T.I.P. I.D. No. B-2826
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
November, 1996
Documentation Prepared in
Planning and Environmental Branch By:
Klcae? 1?1' Ql?i?
Mi ele L. James
Project Planning Engineer
e c.e??L 4(7. ,A/
Teresa A. Hart
Project Planning Unit Head

SEAL
6944 _
Assistant Manager
P. E.
Davis
B
R ?= ?? ?FNCI E Q` '? `';
NE••J??
,
,
.
.
Planning & Environmental Branch ?'.ygiQp ""'''•OP .?'?
680111,11100
Environmental Commitments
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid and minimize
environmental impacts. Best Management Practices will be carried out during
construction.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission has indicated an instream
construction moratorium, between April 1 and September 30, will be required for the main
channel of Goshen Swamp (Bridge No. 22). No instream construction moratorium will
be required for the overflow channel (Bridge No. 34) (See Appendix A-1). The purpose
of the instream construction moratorium is for the protection of native warm water species
of fish (pickerel and sunfish) and their habitat during spawning season.
NC 403, Duplin County
Bridge Nos. 22 & 34
over Goshen Swamp
Federal Aid Project BRSTP-403(1)
State Project 8.1241501
T.I.P. I.D. No. B-2826
Bridge Nos. 22 and 34 are included in the 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement
Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are
anticipated. The project has been classified as a "categorical exclusion".
I. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge Nos. 22 and 34 will be replaced on new location as shown by Recommended
Alternate 2 in Figure 2. The recommended structure length for Bridge No. 22 is 40 meters
(130 feet) and a width of 9.2 meters (30 feet). The structure will provide a 7.2-meter
(24-foot) travelway plus 1.0-meter (3-foot) shoulders on each side. Bridge No. 34 will be
replaced with a 2 @ 3.7m x 2.4m (2 @ 12 ft. x 8 ft.) RCBC.
Traffic will be maintained on the existing structures during the construction period.
Estimated cost, based on current prices, is $1,050,000, which includes $50,000 for
Right of Way and $1,000,000 for construction. The estimated cost of the project, as shown
in the 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement Program, is $710,000.
II. ACTIONS REQUIRED BY OTHER AGENCIES
A Nationwide Section 404 permit [33 CFR 330.5 (a) (23)] from the Corps of
Engineers (COE) and a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the Division of
Environmental Management (DEM) will be required prior to project construction.
Wetland impacts are estimated to be 1.3 hectares (3.1 acres) for Alternate 2.
111. EXISTING CONDITIONS
NC 403 is classified as a major collector in the Statewide Functional Classification
System and is a Federal Aid Highway.
In the vicinity of the bridges, NC 403 has a 6.1-7.2 meter (20-24 foot) pavement with
3 to 4.6-meter (10 to 15-foot) shoulders (see Figures 3 and 3A). Bridge No. 22 is situated
5.2 meters (17 feet) above the creek bed. Bridge No. 34 is situated 4.9 meters (16 feet)
above the creek bed.
The existing bridges are approximately 100 m (320 ft.) apart on a reverse curve
horizontal alignment. The vertical alignment is flat in the project area. A vertical curve
exists south of Bridge No. 22.
2
There is an underground telephone cable along the west side of NC 403. The cable is
exposed in the vicinity of Bridge No. 22 and is visible crossing Goshen Swamp. Aerial
power lines exist along the west side of NC 403. The lines are owned by Carolina Power
and Light. There is a 6" forced main sewer line along the west side of NC 403. The sewer
line is owned by the Duplin County School System, which runs from the junior high school
to the Faison treatment plant. A man hole is located on the west shoulder between the
bridges.
The current traffic volume of 2600 VPD is expected to increase to 4400 VPD by the
year 2020. The projected volume includes 8% truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 7%
dual-tired vehicles (DT).
The existing bridges (see Figures 3 and 3A) were constructed in 1952.
The overall length of Bridge No. 22 is 26.2 meters (86 feet) and the clear roadway
width is 7.3 meters (24 feet). The posted weight limit is 22 tons for single vehicles and
32 tons for trucks with trailers. The overall length of Bridge No. 34 is 16.2 meters (53 feet)
and the clear roadway width is 7.3 meters (24 feet). The posted weight limit is 25 tons for
single vehicles and 32 tons for trucks with trailers.
Bridge Nos. 22 & 34 have sufficiency ratings of 13.5 and 47.3, respectively,
compared to a rating of 100 for new structures.
The statutory speed limit is 90 km/h (55 mph); however, an advisory speed limit
70 km/h (45 mph) is posted in the project area.
In the past three years, three accidents were reported in the vicinity of the bridge, as
indicated by the NCDOT Traffic Engineering Branch.
School buses travel across the studied bridge daily, for a total of 6 crossings per day.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Three methods of replacing Bridge Nos. 22 and 34 were studied. Each alternate has
a design speed of 100 KM/H (60 MPH). The alternates studied, shown in Figure 2, are as
follows:
Alternate 1 - would replace the bridges at their existing locations with road closure.
Traffic would be detoured along existing roads during construction, as shown in Figure 1. A
road user analysis was completed for Alternate 1. It was determined that the cost to the
traveling public would be approximately $332,000. It is reasonable to maintain traffic on-site
because the direct additional cost to the traveling public is more than the cost of an on-site
detour. This alternate was not chosen due to the necessity to maintain traffic during
construction and the additional cost to the traveling public. Approximately 152 meters
(500 feet) of approach roadway work would be necessary for this alternative.
Alternate 1 A - is identical to Alternate 1 except that during construction, traffic
would be maintained on-site with a temporary detour on the east side of the existing
structures. This alternate was not chosen because construction of a temporary on-site detour
would encroach into the surrounding wetlands without improving the existing horizontal
alignment. Approximately 236 meters (775 feet) of approach roadway work would be
necessary for this alternative.
Alternate 2 (Recommended) - will replace Bridge Nos. 22 & 34 approximately
21 meters (70 feet) east (downstream) of the existing bridges. This alternate will consist of a
bridge 40 meters (130 feet) in length and a width of 9.2 meters (30 feet) for Bridge No. 22.
Bridge No. 34 will be replaced with a 2 @ 3.7m x 2.4m (2 @ 12 ft. x 8 ft.) RCBC. Traffic
will be maintained on the existing structures during the construction period, thus alleviating
the need for an on-site detour. This alternate was selected to improve the existing horizontal
alignment and at the same time, will alleviate the need for an on-site detour. Approximately
305 meters (1000 feet) of approach roadway work will be necessary for this alternative.
The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This
is not prudent due to the traffic service provided by NC 403.
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates that
rehabilitation of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
V. ESTIMATED COST
Estimated costs of the alternatives studied are as follows:
Recommended
Alternate 1 Alternate 1 A Alternate 2
Structures $304,625 $ 304,625 $ 304,625
Roadway Approaches $320,935 $ 387,280 $ 537,935
Detour Structure & Approaches -- $ 237,655 --
Structure Removal $ 27,440 $ 27,440 $ 27,440
Engineering & Contingencies $ 97,000 $ 143,000 $ 130,000
Right-of-Way, Utilities 25,000 $ 33.000 $ 50.000
Total $775,000 $1,133,000 $1,050,000
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT
Bridge Nos. 22 and 34 will be replaced on new location as shown by Recommended
Alternate 2 in Figure 2. The recommended structure length for Bridge No. 22 is 40 meters
(130 feet) and a width of 9.2 meters (30 feet). The structure will provide a 7.2-meter
(24-foot) travelway plus 1.0-meter (3-foot) shoulders on each side. Bridge No. 34 will be
replaced with a 2 @ 3.7m x 2.4m (2 @ 12 ft. x 8 ft.) RCBC.
The horizontal alignment in the project area is poor and needs improvement. The
existing bridges are approximately 100 meters (320 feet) apart and built on a reverse curve
alignment. Recommended Alternate 2, the new alignment alternative, would flatten the
4
existing 295 meter radius (6 degree curve). The proposed alignment for Recommended
Alternate 2 contains a horizontal curve of 512 meter radius (3.5 degrees) on the southern
approach to the Bridge No. 22, while the northern approach to the proposed culvert, which
replaces Bridge No. 34, contains a horizontal curve of 585 meter radius (3 degrees),
resulting in a 100 km/h (60 mph) design speed. The advisory speed limit sign would no
longer be necessary. Although Recommended Alternate 2 will involve filling into more of
the surrounding wetlands and costs more than Alternates 1 and 1 A, the end result will be a
safer and improved horizontal alignment. In addition, Recommended Alternate 2 maintains
the large volume of traffic service provided by NC 403, a major collector, and avoids road
closure.
Based on preliminary studies, the Hydraulics Unit recommends that the proposed
elevation at the new structure locations stay the same as the existing bridges. The length and
height may be increased or decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows as
determined by further hydrological analysis and hydraulic design.
The Division Office concurs with the recommendation of Alternate 2.
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 "categorical exclusion" due to its limited scope and
insignificant environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have a substantial 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 effect on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way acquisition
will be limited.
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.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl
refuges of national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
The project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Section 106 requires that if a federally-funded, licensed, or permitted project has an effect on
a property listed on or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given the opportunity to comment.
Neither an archaeological investigation nor an architectural survey was recommended
by the State Historic Preservation Office for this bridge replacement project (See Appendix
A-2).
The structures are to be replaced east of their existing locations. Therefore, the
project is not exempt from the Farmland Protection Policy Act. Completion of the site
assessment portion of the Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form (AD-1006) produced a
total point score of 30, on a scale of 260, for Alternate 2. Consideration of other alternates
is required for proposals which score over 160 points.
Duplin County lies in the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. The topography of
Duplin County is characterized as nearly level to gently rolling. Project elevation is
approximately 30.5 m (100.0 ft).
One soil type occurs within project boundaries, and it is described in the "Soil Survey
of Duplin County" as Swamp. Swamp soils are formed from recent deposits of alluvium;
therefore, they are usually stratified without a uniform sequence of layers, or they are a
mixture of organic matter, sand, silt and clay. Swamp soils are frequently flooded and are
very poorly drained.
Soil core samples taken throughout the project area revealed soils with a sandy silt
texture. Soil colors (Munsell Soil Color Charts) revealed low chroma colors indicative of
hydric soils. Soil colors varied from 10 yr 3/1 to 10 yr 4/1, with some soil samples
containing mottles with colors of 10 yr 4/6.
Bridges No. 22 and No. 34 span Goshen Swamp which is part of the Cape Fear River
drainage basin. Goshen Swamp has its confluence with the Northeast Cape Fear River 24.3
km (15.2 mi) downstream of the project site. Bridge No. 22 spans the main channel of
Goshen Swamp, while Bridge No. 34 spans an overflow channel associated with the swamp.
The Goshen Swamp channel at Bridge No. 22 is approximately 19.8 m (65.0 ft)
wide, and 0.9 m (3.0 ft) deep. At Bridge No. 34 there is an extended pool that varies in
width from 3.0 m (10.0 ft) to 9.1 m (30.0 ft), and has an average depth of 0.8 m (2.5 ft). The
overflow channel was dry outside right-of-way limits at the time of the survey. The
substrates of both the Goshen Swamp and the overflow channel are composed of sand and
silt.
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of
Environmental Management (DEM). The classification of Goshen Swamp is "C". The "C"
classification denotes waters that are suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival,
fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture.
Neither Water Supplies (WS-1 or WS-II) nor Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1.0 mile) of project study area.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is managed by DEM and
is part of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program which addresses long term
6
trends in water quality. The program assesses water quality by sampling for selected benthic
macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites. Macroinvertebrates are sensitive to
very subtle changes in water quality; thus, the species richness and overall biomass are
reflections of water quality. No BMAN sampling stations are located on Goshen Swamp.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any discharger is
required to register for a permit. No dischargers are listed for Goshen Swamp.
From a natural resources standpoint, replacing an existing structure in the same
location with a road closure during construction is almost always preferred. It poses the
least risk to aquatic organisms and other natural resources. Bridge replacements on a new
location usually results in more severe impacts.
Project construction may result in the following impacts to surface waters:
Increased sedimentation and siltation from construction and/or erosion.
2. Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation
and vegetation removal.
Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions
to surface and ground water flow from construction.
4. Changes in water temperature due to vegetation removal.
5. Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed
areas.
6. Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff,
construction and toxic spills.
Precautions will be taken to minimize impacts to water resources in the study
area, NCDOT'S Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters and
Sedimentation Control guidelines will be strictly enforced during the construction
stage of the project. Provisions to preclude unnecessary contamination by toxic
substances during the construction interval will also be strictly enforced.
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Composition and
distribution of biotic communities throughout the project area are reflective of topography,
hydrologic influences and past and present land uses in the study area. Descriptions of the
terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community classifications.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided for each
animal and plant species described. Subsequent references to the same organism will include
the common name only. Faunal species observed during the site visit are noted with an
asterisk (*).
7
Two distinct terrestrial communities are identified in the project study area:
maintained/disturbed and gum swamp. Community boundaries within the study area are well
defined without a significant transition zone between them. Faunal species likely to occur
within the study area will exploit both communities for shelter and foraging opportunities or
as movement corridors.
The maintained/disturbed community consists of road shoulder within the project
study area. Vegetation associated with the road shoulder includes; fescue (Festuca spp.),
lady's thumb (Poly oct num pensylvanicum), common morning glory Qpomea purpurea),
ragweed (Ambrosia spp.), beggar's ticks (Bidens spp.), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans)
and gamma grass (Tripsacum dactyloides). Vegetation on the lower portions of slopes and
within the drainageway associated with NC 403 include; softstem rush (Juncus effasus),
jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), water pepper (Polygonum hydropiper), black willow (Salix
nigra) and elderberry (Sambucus canadensis).
Small mammals that commonly occur within this community are the hispid cotton
mouse (Siumodon his idus), least shrew (Cryptotis parva) and eastern mole* (Scalopus
aquaticus). The hispid cotton mouse thrives in dense vegetation. Eastern moles excavate
extensive tunnels and feed upon earthworms, insects and plant material. The Virginia
oppossum* (Didelphis vir iniana) is a very adaptive mammal which frequents this habitat for
foraging opportunities as well.
Avian species likely to utilize this habitat for refuge and foraging opportunities
include turkey vulture* (Cathartes aura), mourning dove* (Zenaida macroura) and American
robin* (Turdus mi ratorius). The red-tailed hawk* (Bueto jamaicensis) will find prey in
open road shoulders.
The Carolina anole (Anglia carolinensis) and eastern fence lizard (Sceloperus
undulatus) are common reptiles frequenting disturbed communities. These two reptiles
forage on small insects and spiders.
Gum swamps have low vegetative diversity. Blackwater cypress/gum swamps tend
to have highly variable water movement, with floods of short duration and periods of very
low flow. Frequent natural disturbances, such as inundation, affect normal succession-
related propagation and limit vegetative diversity. Dense shade and periodic inundation
preclude succession of all but the most hydrophytic species. Characteristically, these swamps
have poorly developed understories and shrub layers, although some areas of the swamp may
be dense.
Trees grow slowly in this community because inundation and acidic soils limit
growth. Water tupelo (Nvssa aauatica) dominates the canopy of this community. Other
trees scattered throughout this community include tulip poplar(Liriodendron tuli ifera), red
maple (Acer rubrum), sweet-gum (Liquuidambar styraciflua) and Carolina ash (Fraxinus
caroliniana). Bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), usually a component of this community,
was not observed during the survey. Its absence may be the result of previous logging
activities.
8
Shrubs present within this community include; tag alder (Alnus serrulata), Chinese
privet (Li strum inense), fetter-bush (Leucothoe racemosa) and winterberry (Ilex
verticillata). The herb layer is represented by lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus), arrow arum
(Peltandra vir ig nica), pickerelweed (Pontedaria chordata), cardinal flower ( obelia
cardinalis) and sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis). Vines present within the gum swamp
include; poison ivy, grape (Vt is rotundifolia) and trumpet vine ( am i radicans).
Gum swamps provide foraging and sheltering habitat for a fairly diverse assemblage
of animals. Mammals found here include marsh rabbit (Sylvila us palustrus), mink (Mustela
vison), cotton mouse (Perom, sy cus gossypinus), and golden mouse (Ochrotomys nuttalli).
Minks are semiaquatic carnivores consuming both terrestrial and aquatic species including
fish, frogs, crustaceans, birds and small mammals.
Swamp communities provide habitat for a variety of organisms adapted to moist
environments, such as the southern dusky salamander (Desmo nag thus auriculatus), dwarf
salamander (Eurycea quadridigitata), spring peeper (Hula crucifer), barking treefrog (Hula
gratiosa) and pickerel frog* (Rana allustri s). The southern dusky salamander and dwarf
salamander live beneath leaf litter or rotten logs.
Reptiles living in gum swamps may include the mud snake (Farancia a acura),
rainbow snake (Farancia gZro rA amnia) and canebrake rattlesnake (r t lu h rri us).
Rainbow snakes are very secretive and nocturnal. Canebrake rattlesnakes occur in diverse
habitats including swamps where they hide in stump holes and under various surface cover.
These snakes forage on small mammals, especially rodents.
Numerous avian species frequent the swamp communities including barred owl ( rix
varia), pileated woodpecker (DUcopus ilp eatus), hairy woodpecker (Pic i s villous),
downy woodpecker, rusty blackbird (Euhagus carolinus), white-eyed vireo (Vireo g_seus),
northern parula (Parula americans) and prothonotary warbler (Protonotaria citrea). Barred
owls are common, permanent residents of this community. This owl preys on rodents,
insects, frogs and small birds. Pileated woodpeckers can tear away great slabs of bark and
deadwood in their search for wood-boring beetles and grubs. These woodpeckers may also
forage on various fruits and berries. The northern parula and prothonotary warbler are
insectivorous avian species with thin straight bills.
Other birds potentially found here include yellow-throated warbler and Carolina
wren* (T , othorus ludovicianus). American robin*, European starling ( turnus vu_1$aris)
and rusty blackbird often flock and roost in this habitat after breeding season during their
migration.
One aquatic community, Goshen Swamp, will be impacted by the proposed project.
Physical characteristics of the water body and condition of the water resource influence
faunal composition of aquatic communities. Terrestrial communities adjacent to a water
resource also greatly influence aquatic communities.
9
Streams originating in the Coastal Plain of North Carolina are blackwater streams.
This stream coloring occurs because tannin becomes soluble in low pH waters. Streams
having large dimensions and having significant amounts of vegetation usually support a
greater diversity of aquatic fauna.
Aquatic flora found in association with the Goshen Swamp channel banks and
shoreline includes; water pepper, lizard's tail and Japanese grass (Microstegium vimineum).
Small amounts of duckweed (Lemna sp.) and watermeal (Wolfia spy.,) were observed on
the surface of the channel.
Fish species likely to inhabit waters of the Goshen Swamp are golden shiner
(Notemisonus crvsoleucas), redfin pickerel (Esox americanus), chain pickerel (Esox niger),
swamp darter (Etheostoma fusiforme), yellow bullhead (I lure natalis), inland silverside
(Menidia be • lry line), eastern mosquitofish* ( ambu is affinis), banded sunfish (Enneacanthus
gloriosus), bluespotted sunfish (E. riosus) and bowfin (Amia calve). Yellow bullheads are
nocturnal fish which search out food along the stream substrate.
American eels (Anpill_a rostr ta) are common in this type of aquatic community as
well. This species is catadromous, spending a majority of its life in freshwater streams, while
migrating to the sea to spawn.
Coastal Plain streams provide excellent habitat for reptiles. Species which may thrive
in these streams include snapping turtle* (Chel,yd serpentine), spotted turtle ( lemm s
ug ttata), yellowbelly slider (turtle) (Chrysemys scripts), cottonmouth (A&strodon
piscivorous) and banded water snake (N rodia fascia a). Turtle species are omnivores. The
diet of cottonmouths includes a variety of animals, while banded water snakes forage chiefly
on fish and amphibians.
Amphibians, such as, the lesser siren (Siren intermedia) and greater siren (S.
lace in ), inhabit quiet, heavily vegetated streams. These sirens feed on crustaceans,
mollusks, worms, insects and algae. Salamanders likely found in this stream environment
include the two-lined salamander (Eurycea bi lin a ), and many-lined salamander
(Stereochilus marginatus).
Construction of the project will have various impacts on the biotic resources
described. Any construction related activities in or near these resources have the potential to
impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies impacts to the natural
resources in terms of area impacted and ecosystems affected. Temporary and permanent
impacts are considered here as well.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the relative abundance of each
community present in the study area. Project construction will result in clearing and
degradation of portions of these communities. Table 1 summarizes potential quantitative
losses to these biotic communities, resulting from project construction. Estimated impacts
are derived using the entire proposed right of way width of 24.0 m (80.0 ft). Usually, project
construction does not require the entire right of way; therefore, actual impacts may be
considerably less.
10
Table 1. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
COMMUNITY IMPACTS
ALT 1
Maintained/ Disturbed 0.04(0.01)
Gum Swamp 0.02(0.05)
TOTAL IMPACTS 0.06(0.06)
ALT 1A ALT 2
0.4(0.9) 0.4(0.9)
0.7(1.7) 1.3(3.1)
1.1(2.6) 1.7(4.0)
Note: * Values cited are in hectares (acres
* Total impacts include removal of existing bridge.
* Impacts for Alternate 2 include removal of existing bridges and roadway.
Alternate 1 contains significantly less impacts to Biotic Communities than Alternate
1 A and 2. Impacts associated with the temporary detour proposed in Alternate 1 A may be
long lasting. These impacts would include the removal of existing vegetation, soil
compaction and disturbance during construction activities.
Plant communities found within the proposed project area serve as nesting and
sheltering habitat for various wildlife. Replacing Bridge Nos. 22 and No. 34 will reduce
habitat for faunal species, thereby diminishing faunal numbers. Habitat reduction
concentrates wildlife into smaller areas of refuge, thus causing some species to become more
susceptible to disease, predation and starvation.
Areas modified by construction (but not paved) will become road shoulders and early
successional habitat. Increased traffic noise and reduced habitat will displace some wildlife
further from the roadway while attracting other wildlife by the creation of more early
successional habitat. Animals temporarily displaced by construction activities will repopulate
areas suitable for the species. This temporary displacement of animals may result in an
increase of competition for the remaining resources.
Aquatic communities are sensitive to even small changes in their environment.
Stream channelization, scouring, siltation, sedimentation and erosion from construction-
related work will affect water quality and biological constituents. Although direct impacts
may be temporary, environmental impacts from these construction processes may result in
long term or irreversible effects.
Impacts often associated with in-stream construction include increased channelization
of water and scouring of stream channels. In-stream construction alters the stream substrate
and may remove streamside vegetation at the site. Disturbances to the substrate will destroy
aquatic vegetation and produce siltation, which clogs the gills and/or feeding mechanisms of
benthic organisms (sessile filter-feeders and deposit-feeders), fish and amphibian species.
Benthic organisms can also be covered by excessive amounts of sediment. These organisms
are slow to recover or repopulate a stream. Turbidity reduces light penetration, thereby,
adversely affecting the growth of aquatic vegetation.
II
The removal of streamside vegetation and placement of fill material at the
construction site alters the terrain. Alterations of the streambank enhances the likelihood of
erosion and sedimentation. Revegetation stabilizes and holds the soil, thus mitigating these
processes. Erosion and sedimentation carry soils, toxic compounds and other materials into
aquatic communities at the construction site. These processes magnify turbidity and can
cause the formation of sandbars at the site and downstream, thereby altering water flow and
the growth of vegetation. Streamside alterations also lead to more direct sunlight
penetration and to elevations of water temperatures which may impact many species.
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United States,"
as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CRF) Part 328.3. Wetlands,
defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or
ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated
conditions. Any action that proposes to place fill into these areas falls under the jurisdiction
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1344).
Potential wetland communities were investigated (not delineated) pursuant to the
1987 "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual". The three parameter approach is
used where hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation and prescribed hydrologic characteristics
must all be present for an area to be considered a wetland.
The entire project area occupied by the gum swamp (both sides of NC 403) is
jurisdictional wetland. Soil cores taken throughout the gum swamp exhibit hydric conditions
which include low chroma colors, 10 yr 3/1 and 10 yr 4/1 with mottling (10 yr 4/6).
Hydrological criteria are satisfied by the presence of pockets of standing water, and where
surface water was not present, the water table was less than 30.5 cm (12.0 in) below the
surface. Vegetation in the gum swamp is dominated by obligate wetland vegetation.
Anticipated wetland impacts are determined by using the entire ROW width of 24.0
m (80.0 ft) for widening of the existing roadway. Usually, project construction does not
require the entire right-of-way, therefore, actual wetlands impacts may be considerably less.
Estimated impacts to jurisdictional wetlands are presented in Table 2:
Table 2. Anticipated Impacts to Wetlands
Impacts
Alternate 1 0.02(0.05)
Alternate IA 0.70(1.07)
Alternate 2 1.30(3.10)
* Values are in hectares(acres)
Alternate 1 is the replacement of the existing bridges with road closure and an off site
detour. Selection of this alternate will result in the least amount of impact to jurisdictional
wetlands. The other two alternates will impact 2.5 to 6.5 times the amount of wetland area
of Alternate 1. A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (23) is likely to be applicable for all
12
impacts to Waters of the United States from the proposed project. This permit authorizes
activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole, or part, by
another Federal agency or department where:
(1) that agency or department has determined the pursuant to the council on
environmental quality regulation for implementing the procedural
provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act;
(2) that the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from
environmental documentation because it is included within a category of
actions which neither individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect
on the human environment, and;
(3) that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the
agency's or department's application for the categorical exclusion and
concurs with that determination.
A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401 Water
Quality General Certification is required prior to the issuance of the Nationwide # 23.
Section 401 Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily impacted for the duration
of the construction or other land manipulations.
The COE has adopted through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) a
wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and
sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological
and physical integrity of Waters of the United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of
wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands),
minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and compensating for
impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance, minimization and
compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of
averting impacts to Waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE, in
determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such
measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in
terms of cost, existing technology and logistics in light of overall project purposes.
Encroachment into jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters as a result of project
construction is inevitable in order to achieve the purpose and need of the project.
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce
the adverse impacts to Waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps will be
required through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses
on decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of median widths,
ROW widths and fill slopes. Other practical mechanisms to minimize impacts to Waters of
the United States crossed by the proposed project include: strict enforcement of
sedimentation control BMP's for the protection of surface waters during the entire life of the
13
project; reduction of clearing and grubbing activity; reduction/elimination of direct discharge
into streams; reduction of runoff velocity; reestablishment of vegetation on exposed areas,
with judicious pesticide and herbicide usage, minimization of "in-stream" activity; and
litter/debris control.
Other possible means to minimize impacts to Waters of the United States include
asymmetrical widening through wetland areas and not constructing along the new location
segment of the project.
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to
Waters of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
possible. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetland" functions and values may not be
achieved in each and every permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory
mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate and
practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory actions often include restoration,
creation and enhancement of Waters of the United States. Such actions should be
undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site. Compensatory
mitigation is not usually required with a Nationwide permit # 23.
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline
either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with man. Federal law (under the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that any action,
likely to adversely effect a species classified as federally-protected, be subject to review by
the Fish and Wildlife (FWS). Other species may receive additional protection under separate
state laws.
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of April 1,
1996, the FWS lists the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) as the only federally
protected species for Duplin County. A brief description of the red-cockaded woodpecker's
characteristics and habitat follows.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) E
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 10/13/70
Distribution in N.C.: Anson, Beaufort, Bertie, Bladen, Brunswick, Camden,
Carteret, Chatham, Columbus, Craven, Cumberland, Dare, Duplin,
Forsyth, Gates, Halifax, Harnett, Hertford, Hoke, Hyde, Johnston, Jones,
Lee, Lenoir, Montgomery, Moore, Nash, New Hanover, Northhampton,
Onslow, Orange, Pamlico, Pender, Perquimans, Pitt, Richmond, Robeson,
Sampson, Scotland, Tyrrell, Wake, Wayne, Wilson.
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has a plumage that is entirely black and
white except for small red streaks on the sides of the nape in the male. The back of the
RCW is black and white with horizontal stripes. The breast and underside of this
14
woodpecker are white with streaked flanks. The RCW has a large white cheek patch
surrounded by the black cap, nape, and throat.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf pine
(Pins alp ustris), for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at least
50% pine, lack a thick understory, and be contiguous with other stands to be appropriate
habitat for the RCW. These birds nest exclusively in trees that are >60 years old and are
contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age. The foraging range of the RCW is up
to 200 hectares (500 acres). This acreage must be contiguous with suitable nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and usually in trees that are
infected with the fungus that causes red-heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies from
3.6-30.3 in (12.0-100.0 ft) above the ground and average 9.1-15.7 in (30-50 ft) high. They
can be identified by a large incrustation of running sap that surrounds the tree. The RCW
lays its eggs in April, May, and June; the eggs hatch approximately 38 days later.
There are no forested stands of greater than 50 % pine present within the project
study area. The study area is composed of gum swamp which is not suitable habitat for the
red-cockaded woodpecker. Therefore, project construction will have no erect on the red-
cockaded woodpecker.
The project is located in Duplin County, which has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR part 51 is not
applicable, because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is not
anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
This project will not substantially increase traffic volumes. Therefore, its impact on
noise levels and air quality will not be significant. 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 NCAC 2D.0520.
Duplin County currently participates in the National Flood Insurance Regular
Program, however, Goshen Swamp is not included in the detailed flood study. The
approximate 100-year floodplain in the project area is shown in Figure 4.
MJ/wp
r
er?s?
`3 4 ?F
`Y
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.G 27611-5201
16 October 1996
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
Teresa Hart, Unit Head
Project Planning
GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY
Bruce O. Ellis, Environmental Biologist
Environmental Unit
SUBJECT: Supplement: Instream Construction Moratorium for
proposed replacement of Bridges No. 22 and No. 34, on NC
403 over Goshen Swamp, Duplin County, State Project
No.8.1241501. Federal Aid No. BRSTP-403(1), TIP No.
B-2826.
ATTENTION: Michele James, Project Manager
Project Planning
REFERENCE: Memorandum: Instream Construction Moratorium, by
Bruce O. Ellis, 10 July 1996.
North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (WRC) biologist, Brad Hammers,
was contacted on 16 October 1996 to clarify questions concerning the instream
construction moratorium for the above referenced project. Mr. Hammers indicated that a
instream construction moratorium, between 01 April and 30 September, would be
required for main channel of Goshen Swamp (bridge no. 22). No instream construction
moratorium will be required for the overflow channel (bridge no. 34).
Please contact me if you have any questions or need additional information (ext.
305).
c: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Unit Head
Hal Bain, Environmental Supervisor
File: B-2826
-k- i
lr
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resou
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
December 16, 1994
Nicholas L. Graf - .
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge No. 22 and 34 on NC 403 over
Goshen Swamp, Duplin County, B-2826, ER 95-
7276
Dear Mr. Graf:
Q,?GE?V O
? DEC 2 0 1994
Division frchRe94 d OSM 2z
will, ?RON
On September 20, 1994, Robin Stancil of our staff telephoned North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) staff concerning the above project. We
reported our available information on historic architectural and archaeological
surveys and resources along with our recommendations. Based upon our review
of the photographs and the information discussed, we offer our preliminary
comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, we,are aware of no historic structures
located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic
architectural survey be conducted for this project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend
that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a
Categorical Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT
addressed our comments.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
A-2
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 Q3
Nicholas L. Graf
December 16, 1994, Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
1
C vic?Brook

Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett
flfffNAFS
NORTH CAROLINA

F 1
N
1302
1302
1333
v
(b
Q
w
Q
CAL PSO J
POP. '689
:i
G?
0
tn?
to
? tz?n
.s
T 1 -
r
z \? s I
al s
%3 DNL
u ?
Faison
4 Albertson
' s
Kornepay
? 4.
2 ' Warsaw 11 11 L
o ,
)t ?
to
key
3

?
14 s
?5 ansville
4 Pott;
i q Hill
4 eulawll '
®D U'
1 M
h P 7 I l N o
aano
i 6
/ Il
14 17 50 m 416 Lyman
/ "/ 1
? 4 t
I f' Rose Hill . .., ••'? Chinquapin Cathy
f.' 4 reenever 7 1
5 10 41
Teochey 1 ?•, I
. 1 cypress,-
41
Wall ace o Tin City Creek t 4
?
1373 1318 1306
a 137
1306 .D
6 b
73
1318 1370
c? \ 1316 +
J N
1317._,
FAS 1.0
1319
7 b
136
Q P`'
FAISON v 59
POFf.636
d
1406
t / 3
2 :FAS ' FAS 40
6 .4 .3 1.4
. v ,•:;i 1332
1332

•?
a 1.5
b
^^
1

V 1355 1356

1354
1301 T ? ,
o .7
135
5
1384 1401 1354 ?.
\..l l ?0.4
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE
}
1368
Bear Marsh i
Church
o `
1391^ 1.0 .1
lSee 1357
Qj?
?9
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL.
BRANCH
BRIDGES NOS. 22 AND 34
NC 403, REPLACE BRIDGES OVER GOSHEN SWAMP
DUPLIN COUNTY
B - 2826
0 miles 2 FIG. 1
fi
c'f)
i T-
U
N
W lll
? 1-
w Q
a
0W
w ?-
!Q
k? K

a,
rr
a

F
Iv
I?
=
U N
a w
m
m ?
0
Q ?
z F- M
2: w
z
Cr cn
a >- o Nam
N f
w 3 30N
<E LiJ
-i?-U- °z
a o Q UZZZ .
~ m
o
a z C)
a
UOOZ Z W 2
0 (!) a

OOH p
-T -
Z Z
cr
y_
a•7>a
U Lr - J m w
n
z I- p LL

¦
L AN RIW

54

yw
er
¦
BRIDGE No. 34
DUPLIN COUNTY
B- 2826
a LOOKING NORTH
E
LOOKING SOUTH
SIDE VIEW
? ?4
II]
11
„+,
403
I
Calypso
LIL1 5 ? N
1315
??i? 1318
u
1
n
n
ZONE X
ZONE A
1320 1319
100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN
er4a' ?
-Z-7-:.
BRIDGE NO. 34
BRIDGE NO. 22
1332 1301
100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN
NE X
1
ZONE X
u
1316
,F
d
403
?-
13n ;
h
n
4
n
,l
u
a
• li
1.
u
u
n
n
v?
FIGURE 4
............. .

4
P.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
09w'A
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
May 8, 1998
Duplin County
WQC 401 Project #970012
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification and Additional Conditions, WRP
Mr. David Robinson, P.E., Ph.D.
Assistant Manager - Environmental Services
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
PO Box 25201
Raleigh NC 27611-2501
Dear Mr. Robinson:
Re: Proposed Bridge Nos. 22 & 34 Replacement over Goshen Swamp on NC 403
T.I.P. No. B-2826
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those list,--.d below,
to place fill material and excavate 1.9 acres of wetlands for the purpose of replacing Bridge Nos.
22 and 34 on NC 403 over the Goshen Swamp, as you described in your application dated 10
January 1997 and 19 March 1998. After reviewing your application, we have decided that this
fill is covered by General Water Quality Certification Number 3197. This Certification allows
you to use Nationwide Permit Number 23 when it is issued by the Corps of Engineers. In
addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your
project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Coastal Stormwater, Non-
Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations. Also this approval will expire when the
accompanying 404 or CAMA permit expires unless otherwise specified in the General
Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your
application. If you change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a
new application for a new certification. Since wetland tills for this project exceed one acre,
compensatory mitigation is required as described in 15A NCAC 21-1.0506(h)(6) and (7). For this
approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification and any
additional conditions listed below.
Division of Water Quality • Environmental Sciences Branch
Enviro. Sciences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
Wetland restoration shall be implemented within the 1.83 acre footprint of the old bridges,
upon completion of the project. Since 3.8 acres of wetland mitigation is required for the
proposed work, an additional 2.0 acres of mitigation will be necessary. We understand that you
have chosen to contribute to the Wetland Restoration Program in order to compensate for this
deficit. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2R.0500, this contribution will satisfy our compensatory
mitigation requirements under 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h). According to 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h),
2.00 acres of restoration will be required. Until the Wetland Restoration Program receives and
clears your check (made payable to DENR - Wetland Restoration Program), wetland or stream
fill shall not occur. Mr. Ron Ferrell should be contacted at 919-733-5083 ext. 358 if you have
any questions concerning the Wetland Restoration Program. You have one month from the date
of this Certification to make this payment. For accounting purposes, this Certification authorizes
the till of 1.9 acres of riparian wetlands in the Cape Fear River and Subbasin and 3.8 acres (1.83
onsite plus 2.0 from the Wetland Restoration Program) of riparian restoration are required.
Please be aware that the Wetland Restoration Program rules require rounding of acreage amounts
to the nearest one-quarter acre (15A 2R .0503(b)).
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an
adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask
for a hearing, send a written petition which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina
General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C.,
276 1 1-7447. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a
hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the
Clean Water Act. If you have any questions, please contact John Dorney or Cyndi Bell at (919)
733-1786.
Si
Attachment
X_? Elf
n Howard, Jr. P.E.
951031.1tr
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Wilmington Field Office
Wilmington DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
NORTH CAROLINA - DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
SUMMARY OF PERMITTED IMPACTS AND MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0500, NCDOT, DWQ Project #970122, is authorized to
impact the surface waters of the State of North Carolina as indicated below for the purpose of
replacing Bridges 22 and 34 on NC 403 over Goshen Swamp (T.I.P. No. B-2826). All activities - -
associated with these authorized impacts must be conducted in accordance with the conditions
listed in the attached certification transmittal letter. THIS CERTIFICATION IS NOT VALID
WITHOUT THE ATTACHMENTS.
COMPENSATORY MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS FOR WETLAND
RESTORATION:
LOCATION: Replacement of Bridge Nos. 22 and 34 on NC 403
COUNTY: Duplin
BASIN/SUBBASIN: Cape Fear
As required by 15A NCAC 2H.0506, and the conditions of tl-is certification, you are required to
compensate for the above impacts through the restoration, creation, enhancement or preservation
of wetlands and surface waters as outlined below prior to conducting any activities that impact or
degrade waters of the state.
Note: Acreage requirements proposed to be mitigated through the Wetland Restoration Program
must be rounded to one-quarter increments according to 15A 212.0503(b):
2.0 acres of Class WL wetlands
2.0O acres of riparian wetlands
0.0 acres of non-riparian wetlands
0 acres of Class SWL wetlands
Olinear feet of stream channel
One of the options you have available to satisfy the compensatory mitigation requirements is
through payment of a fee to the Wetland Restoration Fund per 15A NCAC 280503. If you
choose this option, please sign this form and mail it to the Wetlands Restoration Fund at the
address listed below. An invoice for the appropriate amount of payment will be sent to you upon
receipt of this form. PLEASE NOTE, THE ABOVE IMPACTS ARE NOT AUTHORIZED
UNTIL YOU RECEIVE NOTIFICATION THAT YOUR PAYMENT HAS BEEN
PROCESSED BY THE WETLANDS RESTORATION PROGRAM.
Signature Date
WETLANDS RESTORATION PROGRAM
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
P.O. BOX 29535 -- -
RALEIGH, NC, 27626-0535
[phone] ext. 358

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALFIGI I. N.C. 27(,11-5201 E. NORRIs TOLSON
60VIRNOR SCCRF.IARY
March 19, 1998
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
ATTN.: Mr. John Dorney
Dear Sir:
Subject: Duplin County, Replacement of Bridge Nos. 22 and 34 over Goshen
Swamp on NC 403, Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-403(1), State Project
No. 8.1241501, T.I.P. No. B-2826.
This letter responds to your letter dated December 10, 1997 which stated that the NCDOT
has not responded to your February 20, 1997 letter. A response was sent on April 3, 1997
in a letter to the Corps of Engineers and Division of Water Quality (DWQ) committing to
the removal of the existing bridges and approach fills and restoration of wetlands at the
site. After receipt of your December 10, 1997 letter, a copy of the April 3, 1997 letter
was faxed to DWQ. At that time, DWQ requested a delineation of the impacts to
supplement the information reported in the Categorical Exclusion (CE) document The
delineated wetland impacts are as follows:
Fill in Surface Waters 0.13 acres
Impacts to Wetlands
Fill 1.4 acres D? ?? a 3 ?'' (N U?? ?Excavation (lateral ditch) 0.5 acres
Restoration of wetlands
from demolition of old
bridge and approaches 1.83 acres 0 i (L ' \ d
'? W
Na
2
In compliance with the DWQ revised rules [15A NCAC 02H.0506 (h)(7)] mitigation at a
2:1 ratio is required for projects less than 3 acres and greater than one acre. Based on the
above data the proposed on-site restoration almost provides a ratio of 1:1, and we propose
to contribute to the N. C. Wetland Restoration Program for the remainder of the
mitigation requirement.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Ms. Alice N. Gordon
at 733-7844 Ext. 307.
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
cc: w/attachment
Mr. Scott McLendon, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington Field Office
Mr. Whit Webb, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mr. R. L. Hill, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. D. J. Bowers, P.E., Division 3 Engineer
Ms. Michele L. James, P & E Project Planning Engineer
+,? STAN .?"'ti
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT J R. P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27(,11-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR SFOUTARY
March 19, 1998
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
ATTN.: Mr. John Dorney
Dear Sir:
Subject: Duplin County, Replacement of Bridge Nos. 22 and 34 over Goshen
Swamp on NC 403, Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-403(1), State Project
No. 8.1241501, T.I.P. No. B-2826.
This letter responds to your letter dated December 10, 1997 which stated that the NCDOT
has not responded to your February 20, 1997 letter. A response was sent on April 3, 1997
in a letter to the Corps of Engineers and Division of Water Quality (DWQ) committing to
the removal of the existing bridges and approach fills and restoration of wetlands at the
site. After receipt of your December 10, 1997 letter, a copy of the April 3, 1997 letter
was faxed to DWQ. At that time, DWQ requested a delineation of the impacts to
supplement the information reported in the Categorical Exclusion (CE) document The
delineated wetland impacts are as follows:
Fill in Surface Waters 0.13 acres
Impacts to Wetlands
Fill 1.4 acres
Excavation (lateral ditch) 0.5 acres
Restoration of wetlands
from demolition of old
bridge and approaches 1.83 acres
OIL- 01A
2
In compliance with the DWQ revised rules [15A NCAC 02H.0506 (h)(7)] mitigation at a
2:1 ratio is required for projects less than 3 acres and greater than one acre. Based on the
above data the proposed on-site restoration almost provides a ratio of 1:1, and we propose
to contribute to the N. C. Wetland Restoration Program for the remainder of the
mitigation requirement.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Ms. Alice N. Gordon
at 733-7844 Ext. 307.
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
cc: w/attachment
Mr. Scott McLendon, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington Field Office
Mr. Whit Webb, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mr. R. L. Hill, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. D. J. Bowers, P.E., Division 3 Engineer
Ms. Michele L. James, P & E Project Planning Engineer
Cyndi-B
From: Alice Gordon [AGordon0mail.dot.state.nc.usj
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 1998 12:45 PM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: GCashin0mail.dot.state.nc.us
Subject: B-2826 Duplin County
The project was delineated so we will be able to get the exact figures for you. Also it is not being
let until May1998. And there is an April 1 to September 30 instream moratorium so there should
not be any problem with getting the correct info to you before construction.
Thanks for your help.

? ? S ?S s-ca4 W ; ?- ?, l4" ? i C ? G? •?a ?,
A-1 4
?a l law?? c c9 k7H'!2 -f F 4 0 -F P-7 e
,,,?AC4 All
6ival
0°0 l
?n e h aJ -66 S o - f v .e 7?
?'?? ?-T
C ,Old ?'?e- ?- '' "1 Gil ` e T I Q.-? o? ?'n (f ?j,
0(6,e3
C_._ l Albt)
e- s4i (a

4A,9 IIZ6
? FM'?or?,I ? ?99j
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
April 3, 1997 - I?
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Mr. Scott McLendon
Regulatory Project Manager I^ ` O I
Regulatory Field Office J CE
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890 :Vq-7 G0E
Dear Mr. McLendon: be c Gv je 1 ^^???`? ` 3? I G L
v^ le-u
?? Cdr ?h i"?f ?v
Subject: Duplin County, Replacement of Bridge Nos. 22 and 34 over Goshen / e sydl I, ^ y
Swamp on NC 403, Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-403(1), State - f fOp ?,h????
Project No. 8.1241501, T.I.P. No. B-2826.
Thank you for your recent letter regarding the replacement of Bridge Nos. 22 and 34 over
Goshen Swamp in Duplin County.
In your letter you requested the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
commit to the removal of the bridges and approach fills on the existing roadway. Our
design plans for the new structure includes the demolition of the existing structure and
the restoration of the site to approximately their original contours. While a detailed
revegetation plan has not yet been developed, NCDOT will commit to replanting the area
with wetland species that result in the establishment of typical Goshen Swamp habitat.
We will work closely with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and the
Corps of Engineers to create a wetland with the correct species and cover density.
Also, as you know the NCDOT must be in compliance with 23 CFR Part 777.9,
",Mitigation of Impacts", which describe the actions that should be followed to qualify for
Federal-aid highway funding. This process is known as the Federal Highway
Administration's "Step Down" procedure and is listed below:

2
1. Consideration must be given to mitigation within the right-of-way and
should include the enhancement of existing wetlands and the creation of
new wetlands in the highway median, borrow pit areas, interchange areas
and along the roadside.
2. Where mitigation within the right-of-way does not fully offset wetland
losses, compensatory mitigation may be conducted outside the ri ht-of-
way including enhancement, creation, and preservation.
This project clearly provides an opportunity to mitigate within the right-of-way by
creating and enhancing on-site wetland systems. In addition, construct the new road as
close as possible to the existing road. We appreciate your understanding of our
commitment to the safety considerations presented in the Categorical Exclusion.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Ms. Alice N.
Gordon, Permit Specialist, at 919-733-7844, ext. 307.
Sincerely,
A
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
cc: w/attachment
Mr. Ernest Jahnke, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. D. J. Bowers, P.E., Division 3 Engineer
Mr. Keith Ashley, NCWRC _
Ms. Michele L. James, P & E Project Planning Engineer
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Mr. Franklin Vick
Planning and Environmental Branch
NC DOT
PO Box 25201
Raleigh NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
WQC Project #970012, TIPB- 2826
Duplin County
Alf?.?VA
?EHNR
December 10, 1997
On April 3, 1997 and January 10, 1997, you requested a 401 Water Quality
Certification from the Division of Water Quality for your project (replacement of bridges
22, 34 and bridge 299) located near NC 403 and SR 1404 in Duplin and Wake Counties.
We wrote to you on February 20, 1997 discussing concerns that we have regarding the
design of the project and placing it on hold until those concerns are addressed. As of
today, we have not received a response to our earlier letter. Unless we receive a written
response from you by December 19, 1997, we will consider that you have withdrawn this
application and are not interested in pursuing the project at this time.
Please call me at 919-733-1786 if you have any questions or would like to discuss this
matter.
Sincerely,
n R. Dorney
ter Quality Ce tion Program
cc: Washington DWQ Regional Office
Raleigh DWQ Regional Office
Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Central Files
4eNn4R4Pwy
970012.clr
Division of Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27626-0535 • Telephone [phone] • FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
NCDOT/PRE BRANCH Fax:[phone] Feb 3 198 15:04 P.02
STAT E OF No H CAPOLINA
DEPARTMENT OF NSPORTATION
]nMes B. HulvT JP_ DIVISION C)F HIGHWA1fS GAwAND B. GASECRETARYluurrJP-
GOVERNdit RO• B?1X 25201, KAL60H. N.C- 27611-5201
April 1997
U. S. Army Corps of 1ngineers I
i
Mr. Sc(itt McLLendon
Regulatory Project Manager
Regulatory Field Office
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1$90
Dear Mr_ McLendon:
i
Subject' Duplin County, Replac.emerntbf,Bridge Nos- 22 and 34 over Goshen
Swamp on NC, 403,1~edc'rat Aid Project No. BRSTP-403(l), State
Project No. 8.1241501, T.I.P.?No.- B-2826.
Thank you for your recent letter' regarding th? replacement of Bridge Nos. 22 and 34 over
Goshen Swamp in Duplin County,
In your letter-you requested'th:c North Carol.)na Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
commit to the reriioval of the bridges and•approach fills on the existing roadway: Our
design plans for the new structure includes.the demolition of the existing.structure and
the restoration of the site to appiaximatel t err original contours, While a detailed
revegetation plan. has not yet been developed, NipDOT will commit to replanting the area
with wetland species-that. result in the establ'shment of typical Goshca Swamp habitat.
We will work closely with the North Caroli' a Wildlife Resources Commission and the
Corps of Engineers to create a wetland with the correct species and coyer density.
Also, as you,know the NCDQT-must be in'corn.pliance with 23 CFR Part 777.9,
"litigation of Impacts which describe theI actions that should be followed to qualify for
Federal-aid highway funding'::This-process.-is known as the Federal Highway
Administration's "Step Down": procedure a?d is listed below:.
I
9
e-
NCDOT/P&E BRANCH Fax:[phone] Feb 3 '98 1504 P.03
1. :.Consideration riiust be given to mitigation within the right-of--way surd
should include the enhancemer}t of existing wetlands and the creation of
new wetlands in'ihe highway median, borrow pit areas, interchange areas
and along the roadside.
2. Where mitigation ,within the right-of-way does not fully offset wetland
losses, com,'Pensz tort' mitigati,6 may be conducted outside the right-of
way including enhancement, crl ation, and preservation.
This project clearly provides an-opportunity Fd mitigate within the right-of-way by
creating and eiihancing,on-site wetland systen s. In addition, construct the new road as
close as possible to the existing road. We appreciate your understanding of our
commitment to the safety considerations.preseiEtted in the Categorical Exclusion.
If you have any questions or need additional it ,formation please call Ms. Alice N.
Gordon, Permit Specialist, at 919.733-7844, eat. 307.
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, F.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Planning II
HFV/plr
cc. w/attacbment
Mr. Ernest Jaluttce, Corps of Enmineers, Wilmington Field Office
Me. John Domey, NCDET-1NR,. Division of Water Quality
Mt. Don Morton, P.E., Hijhway Desi "
A Branch
91
Mr. D. J. Bowers, P.E., Division 3 Eagiheee
Mr. Keith Ashley, TICWIZC
Ms. Michclc L. James, P & E Project 1'l naing Engineer
i
I
,I
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Govemor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
F= F1
February 20, 1997
Mr. Franklin Vick
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Subject: Compensatory Wetland Mitigation
Dear Mr. Vick:
The Environmental Management Commission revised the Division of Water Quality's (DWQ)
Certification rules late last year. On January 1, 1997 specific mitigation requirements became
effective (15A NCAC 02H.0506 (h) (7)). The rule reads, in part, "For linear projects which impact
less than 3 acres of wetlands the ratio shall be 2:1 regardless of the distance from surface waters.
The above ratios apply only to restoration." Another rule states that mitigation will not be required
for impacts less than one acre (effective October 1, 1996). These rules take precedence over the
conditions that are in the General Certifications for any projects received in our office after the
effective date of these rules. The DWQ brings this to your attention because we have received
applications for DOT projects that have impacts over one acre. These projects have been processed
under NW Permit 23.
DWQ believes that mitigation is required on the following projects:
pr Tip No. County Wetland Impact (ac)
Br id 299 on SR 1404 B-3055 Wake 1.5
Bridges 22 & 34 on NC 403 B-2826 Duplin 3.10
The DWQ would like to meet with you to discuss the options that may be available to DOT for
mitigation until the Wetland Restoration Program is staffed and operating. These include (1)
developing mitigation plans acceptable to DWQ, (2) crediting existing, nearby DOT mitigation efforts
or (3) contributing to the Wetland Restoration program at a set amount to be determined by the EMC.
Please contact Mr. John Domey (733-1786) with your mitigation proposals for the above projects or
to set up the meeting.
The DWQ continues its commitment to work with DOT so that highways can be constructed with
reduced impact on the environment. Thank you-for your cooperation and assistance in this manner.
Sincerely,
Steve W. Tedder, Chief
Water Quality Section
SWT/EG/gh
FV/DOT
cc: Jimmie Overton
John Domey
Wilmington COE
Preston Howard
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch
February 5, 1997

Ft .Y " 1997
. 41/jo/y40n /p` ,
NCy "tivL'tS
ACTION ID. 199704078 and Nationwide Permit No. 23 (Categorical Exclusion).
Replace Bridge No. 22 and 34 over Goshen Swamp, Duplin County, North Carolina.
TIP B-2826, State Project No. 8.1241501 /
Mr. Frank Vick, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
State of North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
Reference your project planning report received January 13, 1997,
regarding the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposal to
replace Bridge No. 22 and 34 over Goshen Swamp on NC 403 (State Project
No. 8.127071 and T.I.P. No. B-2919).
According to information provided in the planning report, NCDOT proposes
to replace Bridge 22 and 34 approximately 70 feet downstream of their current
location. Bridge 22 will be replaced with a 130-foot bridge span while bridge
34 will be replaced with a two barrel 12 x 8-foot reinforced concrete box
culvert. Approximately 3.1 acres of forested wetlands will be adversely
impacted by the proposed project.
The proposed discharge has been evaluated to determine whether the
activity complies with the terms and conditions of Nationwide Permit (NWP) #23
for activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or
financed, in whole, or in part, by another Federal agency or department, where
that agency or department has determined, pursuant to the Council on
Environmental Quality Regulation for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of
the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR Part 1500 et seq.) that the
activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included in a category of actions which
individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment.
We are primarily concerned that no commitment to the removal of causway
fill and bridge spans were made in the report. As you are aware, Nationwide
Permit(s) general condition #4 (Section 404 only) states that discharges of
dredged or fill material into waters of the United Sates must be minimized or
avoided to the maximum extent practicable at the project site (i.e., on-site)
unless the District Engineer approves a compensation plan that the District
Engineer determines is more beneficial to the environment than on-site
minimization or avoidance measures.
Accordingly, we would urge NCDOT to commit to, (1), the removal of the
bridges and approach fills on the existing roadway, and, (2), construct the
new road as close as possible to the existing road while not compromising the
safety considerations that were discussed in the document.
If these commitments are not made, we would expect that an individual
Department of the Army permit will be required prior to the commencement of
work in wetlands on this project.
i
-2-
Questions or comments may be addressed to me in the Wilmington Regulatory
Field office at [phone].
Sincerely,
Scott McLendon
Regulatory Project Manager
Copies Furnished:
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Mr. Keith Ashley
North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission
102 Hillcrest Drive
Elizabethtown, North Carolina 28337
Cyndl-B
From: Alice Gordon [[e-mail]. state. nc.us]
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 1998 5:58 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: B-2826 Duplin County -Reply
Thanks Cyndi,
I have a letter in the mill right now providing the info. Will try to fax it to you today if I get a
signature - or at least a draft thereof with the data.
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLID DATE
' -(o-,9-5
TOE
gle (oALAM & REF. No. OR Roo". .OLDS.

?
VC- di -
FROMS REF. NO. OR ROOM. 46D6.
F
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REGU[ST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR TOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MV SIGNATURE. (SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION
i ? INVESTIGATE ANp REPORT --
COMMLNTSi
i

RECEIVED
^a STAT(a
?....,,.? ',SAN 1 2 1995
ENVIRONMENTAL 9CIENCF$
STATE OF NORTH I CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES I?. HUN E. )R. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I
GO VI iNm P.O. BOX 25201, RAITIGI1, N.C. 27611-5201 SWRI:VARY
January 5, 1995
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: Michele L. James
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge Nos. 22 and 34 on NC 403 over
Goshen Swamp, Duplin County, State Project 8.1241501,
F. A. Project BRSTP-403(1), B-2826
A scoping meeting for the subject project was held on September 20, 1994
at 2:00 PM in Room 434 of the Planning and Environmental Branch.
The following people were in attendance:
Brian Williford
Bill Bunting
Roger Thomas
Ned Chapman
Tom Tarleton
Joe Blair
Eric Galamb
David Cox
Michele James
Hydraulics Unit
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Structure Design
Location and Surveys
Division 3
DEM
NCWRC
Planning & Environmental
Attached are the revised scoping sheets which include additional
information provided at the scoping meeting.
Eric Galamb of DEM commented that Goshen Swamp is classified as Class C
Swamp Water. Implementation of standard erosion control measures was
suggested.
Robin Stancil of the SHPO commented that no archaeological or
architectural survey would be needed.
Tom Tarleton of Location and Surveys reported that there is an
underground telephone cable along the west side of NC 403. The cable is
exposed in the vicinity of Bridge No. 22 and is visible crossing Goshen
Swamp. Aerial power lines exist along the west side of NC 403. The lines
are owned by Carolina Power and Light. There is a 6" forced main sewer
9
January 5, 1995
Page 2
line along the west side of NC 403. The sewer line is owned by Duplin County
School System which runs from the junior high school to the Faison treatment
plant. A man hole is located on the west shoulder between the bridges.
The junior high school is located approximately one mile north of the
project.
The horizontal alignment is poor. Bridge No. 34 is built in a reverse
curvature alignment. A vertical curve exists before (south to north) Bridge
No. 22.
The Hydraulics Unit recommends that if both bridges are replaced in
their existing locations, Bridge No. 22 should be replaced with a 115 ft.
bridge and Bridge No. 34 replaced with a 2 @ 12 ft. by 8 ft. reinforced
concrete box culvert.
The Division Office prefers the relocation alternate.
A list of alternatives to be studied are as follows:
Alternate 1 - Replace the bridges on existing location. Traffic will
be detoured along existing secondary roads during
construction.
Alternate lA - Replace the bridges on existing location with a temporary
on-site detour to the east.
Alternate 2 - Replace the bridges to the east (downstream) of the
existing locations. Maintain traffic on the existing
structures during construction.
Based on available information, it appears that Alternate 1 is the
preferred alternate; however, strong consideration is being given to
Alternate 2.
MJ/wp
Attachment
13R Lllt-I
PROJIR;'I' SCOP I N(:,
DATE _ -7---2H-94.. _
REVISTON DATE 1-5-9;
PROD I?(;:I' DEVELOPNIENT STAGh'--
PROGRAMM L NG
PI.ANN LNG _---
DESIGN
TIP PRO.E.,?,CT
'I'A'I'I:: i'RUJEC'I' t3. 124 L.50 I -- - ---
F . A _ PROD F,CT - BRSTP-40 3 ( t). D.IV ISTON _. __... - - _..3 - -- -....
COUNTY
ROUTI: ___--
PURPOSE OF PRO.TE(;`1': REPLACE OBSOLETE BRII)GE
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Ni:' X31-7 Ai?i'> 34,
C [-II' r I N COUNTY
RF':PLA(:' , PR"f.0(.iE UVE-,' G("""PEN S"IAMP.
METHOD OF RE:PIACEMENT:
1. EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE
2. EXISTING LOCA'T'ION - ONSITE DETOUR
3- RELOCATION ? - 4- OTHER WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO
IF YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT : ($)
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOI'ING SH1 ET
TRAFFIC: CURRENT .19f,U(} VPD; DESIGN YEAR. _440().._ VPD
TT,S'r r3__J4 ))'r - -''- --;?
TYPICAL ROADWAY SEC'}'I.ON : .r + k 9132I PGF, NO - ? r.
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH .__26-2 METERS: WIDTH .=1ME'TRRS
PROPOSED STRUCTURE:
MF,rF,r",; : W I D'I'H 9.2 MF"1'ER i
J." li. FFFT 30
OR
X }• E H'}'
Of:.'I'OL, ft S`rf3UC'IT)Ri ;
BR I X31E - LENGTH METERS
PIPE - S) i:F' M [ [J., IMI.:E.'ERIC),
INCHES
CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND
CONTINGENCIES) --------------------- -$ 700,0(;0
RIGI-IT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION, UTILITIES,
AND ACC,2UISITION)------------------- ? ;:_?,OUO - 411
FORCE ACCOUNT I'i'EMS----------------------------------
TOTAL COST --------------------------------------- $ 72'.2,000
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST-------------------------------- s 5J5,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST-------------------------------- $ 2',000
SUB TO'TAL--------------------------------------- $ 55'7,0(-.)0
PRIOR YEARS COST-------------------------------- $
TIP TOTAL COST ----------------------------------- $ 557,000
B R 1 DGE
PROJE CT .?CON7 SIG 51.114J'l'
TRAFFIC: CURKEN'.1' 2200 V1'1): DESIGN YE AR 4400 _ VPD

TYP I CA I . ROADWAY SECTION: :k .:? Rj I!j , ? N4-_._ 3 ! K ?'+
Iti){ 1.ST:F(V(x STRUG711ME:: I:,ENCTH MNMI'ftc : W I.DTH _'(_,;3 METLIA-tS
FEET
PROPOSED S'I'f2UC AME:
)3Ki ll(:rf?, - I,I;V(;'.1'H __ MI?'L'E?Rv: WI

OR
METERS
X_8 FFET
DI .TOUR STRUCTURE
BRIDGE - LE'NG'TH METER-3): W II!YCH METERS
-- - - FEET --- -- FEET
CR
PIPE. S I. zh m I I:,1:.1_MI E'TERS
.1 NGMES
CONS'T'RUCTION COS'T' ( INCI:1)I)IN(Y KNGLUEEMING AND
CONT-INGENCCES)--------------------- _G 00.000
Et.IClii":' OU WAY COST ( I-N(- ,U1)IN(i (2ELOCA'C CQIV , fTC IL C'F'I I:S .
AN!) A(MUCSIVION)------------------- =f, 22.1:wo
FORGE ACCOUNT !'1'1.MS---------------------------------- 'S
TOTAL COST --------------------------------------- $ 7 24.000
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST-------------------------------- s '535,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST-------------------------------- $ 2:=:,000
SUB TOTAL --------------------------------------- $ 557,000
PRIOR YEARS COST-------------------------------- $
TIP TOTAL COST ----------------------------------- $ 557,000
BHLDGH
I'ROJ}-:C,,T ' COPING .SEEFV
ADDI'VIONAT, COMMMIS: USt;c: QUAD SHEET: WAIR?,AW NO-7TH,
14Y I
DATE:
L
JAMES B. HUNT, JR.
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLI NA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGI IWAYS
P.O. ROX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
R. SAMUI.L. I IUNT III
SE('N IARY
August 8, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Mr. Eric Galamb
OEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Review of Scoping Sheets for Replacing Bridge Nos. 22
and 34 on NC 403 over Goshen Swamp, Duplin County,
B-2826
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting
of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for September 20, 1994 at 2:00 P. M. in the Planning
and Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 434). You may provide us
with your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part
If there are any questions about the meeting or
call Michele James, Project Planning Engineer, of our planning process.
the scoping sheets, please
at 733-7842.
MJ/pl r Q 6306 Z2- 7?
Attachment
a°,i
HRI ix3p,
11ROJ l-:CT ISCOVINGi SHEET
DA'Z'E
REVISION DATE,
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT ::STAGE
PROGIL"M I NG
PLANNING
DESIGN
'1' IP PRWEIC'I' _ .. - F3 _t3lE? ... --
S'CAT']? PRO H(;'1' (', , :124 L 50 __
I -A _ E'RUJ EiI;T _ l3fZ;a'[.'f' _4.U;1( 1
1)1V.[ S 1. ON
- -;.3 -
COUN'T'Y
ItOUTI: NC _ 4M3 I'1112! 10,; 1.: O1? 1 ROd E:CI:' : ita?L'L.ACl: OE3SOL.:F'TE II UDGE'
DESCRIPTION OI'
Nll•°l'f!+:)!) l)!?' Ell:i'1,f1C:i?s?1f?:N'!'
1 _ HX 1 c;T! N(:; 1. CAT I ON - ROAD CI,0SURE
1':X ) '"I' l Ni, l .0CAT 1 ON - ONSITE I)KA)UR
i U l-:l ,OCAT ! ON
_ 0,1111.:it
W1.1.1, '1'111 :1 t1 Hi", FUNDING I'A12'I'ICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
1)1?V}?L,OI'!:RS . 0H OTHERS", YES NO
J. F YES, HY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT : M M
--
lilt [tcK
I'ROJEC'1' f;C;OPLNG SHEI,:1'
TRAFFIC: C(JRRI N'I' . Y,?,0.(1 VPI); 1)1?h1GN YF:AU 4400 VPI)
TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION: EXISTING STRUCTURE- 1,F:N(3T11 16_7 M1 71'ERS; W 1 I)TH V-13
MF:'1'l;f: i
ti;i FEET
PROPOSED STRUCTURE :
BRI.IX;E - LEINGTH MKJ'ER )
F El•"I'
OR
C01LVFM1, MVI'FRS
X VXV1'
I)ETOUR STRUC'I`URJ? :
BRI IX3P: - 1,HN(,TH
OR
PIPE - SIZE.
m-hmozs
'r F ET
W 1 0111 tP, 2._ M1 YERS
40 F1?E'1'

MILLIMETERS)
- 1:N(:IIES
CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING I-.NG [NP*EHING AND
CONTINGKNCII:))---------------------- -fi
RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUD.I:NG' RI?J.OCATION _ UT L 1, I'1' I11:S,
AND ACWUIS['PION)--------- ..----- ---
FORCE ACCOUNT ITEMS ------------------------------__-._ G
TOTAL COS'.1- --------.._..----
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST--------- ------ -------- $
.1..
TIP RIGHT' OF WAY COS'1'--------------------_..--_...-__..__-Y? 00U
SUB TO'TAL -----------------------------------s; `r.uC?r>
PRIOR YEARS COS'-i--------------------------------- s
TIP TOTAL COST ---------------..- 1; ;,Oi>O
IiR. F DGE
PROJECT SCOPING SFIF?L".1'
'CRA}•'I? F('_ CURRENT VPD; DESIGN YEAR 44.OQ_._ VP1)
DT --- 1---%
TYY I ('AI. ROADWAY SECTI-ON. :t:;+:;+. 3RD J(ak:. NC)__
{?X ! "TI M', 3'f'Ft(J(;'i'URh:; METERS; W f DT1i _ Y,3 METERS)
}'Ilt7L?O;;I?li S'I'I?UC'I'URE-
BR I I G L: - I I-MGI'H MhTERS ; W I I YI'} 1 _ _ 1 1, 2 _ M p:'I'I-:R ;
40 1.1%H111
OR
METERS
x. FEPrT
1)}•:'110(}}1 ;PIMCT'URF11-
IaR METER:} ; W I ?)'I'f I T't!':'i'}:R
FEF.'I'
OR
PIPE - SIZE MILLIMETERS
INCHES
CON'STR'UCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND
CONTINGENCI.ES)____________________.
RIGHT OF WAY COST' (INCLUDING RELOCATION, UTII:.,IT1 F:,s,
AND ACQUISITION) -------------..-----
I'ORCL: ACCOUN'T' ---------------------------------- $
TOTAL COS':I' - - - - - - - - :6
11I' ('ONS`I'KUC"ION COST ------------------------ _______-- ?,,5
TIP RIGHT O{. WAY COS'T' - - - - - - - - - - - 9? ':? , !.?U .
SUB TOTAL -------------------------------------._ T `:i,'7,UC)O
t-
PRI:OR YEARS COST --------------------------------g;
TIP TOTAL COST ------------------------------3; ?)57,UC)0

A1)I) I T I ONAi, COMMh,'.N T'.;- . ,.,i -- UlAk'""A'W tIt_??,"TH.
NI (' 4
I'MITAPI-A) Hy

NORTH CAROLINA
Mourn - ;-

;)-?•? aly s Deet
II
Fuson Albertso '

I Iforneaay
" tt
eD ) 11 ,
1

Warsaw L-
II II .
t, +
3 g'n
" 10
2/
ley ? a
unsvl le t
S
1 Poll
I R Hill
4 eulavill
® D UI
/ M
l P r. I I N °
.ano
i 6
I 117 l
11 17 50 cn
/lb Lyman
l / 1 1
I Rose Hill Chinquapin Cathr
y / menever 7 1
10 41
Teachey.. t '
1 i Cypress
41 I/ n
Wal aca Ti ity Creek I

l"JUZ I•V
"
.. 1373
1306
. 1318
a
1371

U-
<G
' 1306 9
-- _ / .
t b Fps
CALY PSO
POP. 689
1318 1.370_
1 1316
+
o J `?
1 7 A
13 ._ FAS 10
r 1320 131 9 't? w d
0- ,
_ b
1369
? fr
1302
FP
ry' 1333
h 4
"BRIDGE NO. 22 cP 1 368
FAISON I (?
v
\

POP.636
- -

d

/
- ..:..
;...,.•.•. ..
.: Bear Marsh
`Q t_aob Church
AS / S 403 o `
2 :F FA
.6 .4 .'• .3 A 14 1304
1332 1391^ 1.0 •1
1332
1.5 n -

S?
1357
?a
b
Q

V 1355 1356 ?9

54
13
,
1301 - ?•2 - NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT Ole'
- - " X TRANSPORTATION
'O .7 v11 1355 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
1 384 1354 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
11401" )•I BRANCH
?Oti
\ BRIDGES NOS. 22 AND 34
1 NC 403, REPLACE BRIDGES OVER GOSHEN SWAMP
DUPUN COUNTY
B - 2826
FIG. 1