19970418 Ver 1_Complete File_19970501

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
A LT.MMAI .
- 4ia
OEM
ID E-
=-May 20, 1997
Brunswick County
DWQ Project # 970418
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification and ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to place fill
material in 0.01 acres of wetlands or waters for the purpose of NC 179 widening at Shallotte, as you described in
your application dated 8 May 1997. After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is covered
by General Water Quality Certification Number 3103. This certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit
Number 14 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. 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 except as
modified below. If you change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new
application. If total wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory
mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H.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.
Sediment and erosion control measures shall adhere to the design standards for sensitive watersheds (T 15A:04B
.0024).
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. 27611-7447. 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 telephone John Dorney at 919-733-1786.
' efr\el_ y
ston Howard, Jr.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Wilmington Field Office
Wilmington DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Domey
Central Files
970418.1tr
Division of Water Quality - Environmental Sciences Branch
Environmental 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
4 1

JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR

'*. AAif
Fy?
s7 04 1 8
ATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
'MENT OF TPANSPOKTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
8 May 1997
Water Quality Planning
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh. North Carolina 27607

ATT. Mr. John Dorney
Dear Sir:
401 ISSUED
Subject: Brunswick County, R-3 106D, 9.8032422, Widening of NC 179 from
south of Shallotte City Limits to US 17 Business.
This project involves widening from two lanes to three lanes within the Shallotte City
Limits. This will require the extension of existing small drainage pipes. There are no
culvert sized structures along the project. This will only involve minor impacts to surface
waters; no wetlands will be impacted. The total impact of the project will be less than 1/3
acre of surface waters. This project is not located within an Area of Environmental
Concern.
The U.S Army Corps of Engineers published the revised Nationwide Permits in the
Federal Register on 13 December 1996. The Corps has reissued Nationwide Permit No.
14 which authorizes fill for road crossing waters of the United States. This project
appears to comply with all the conditions of Nationwide Permit No. 14. Additionally,
Nationwide Permit No. 14 requires notification of the Corps of Engineers when the
project impacts special aquatic sites, including wetlands. Since this project impacts only
surface waters, no notification to the Corps will be required.
The N.C Division of Water Quality issued General 401 Water Quality Certification 3101
on 11 February 1997. The first condition of this certification requires written
concurrence from DWQ for proposed fill of wetlands or waters. The North Carolina
Department of Transportation hereby submits notification of placement of fill into
surface waters for DWQ concurrence.

If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Lindsey
Riddick at [phone].
Sincere ,
H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
Attachments
cc: Mr. Scott McLendon, COE, Wilmington
Mr. Kelly Barger, PE, Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, P.E., State Highway Engineer - Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, PE, State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. D. J. Bowers, PE, Division 03 Engineer

DEM ID: 1 CORPS ACTION ID:
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #):
T.I.P. No. R-3106D
NWP 14
PRE.- CONSTRUCT = ON NOT = F =CAT = ON AP PL =CAT = ON
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1) NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
3) COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE
FIELD OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). SEVEN
(7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
(SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). PLEASE PRINT.
1. OWNERS NAME: NC Dept. of Transportation; Planning & Environmental Branch
2. MAILING ADDRESS: Post Office Box 25201
CITY: Raleigh STATE:
SUBDIVISION NAME:
NC ZIP CODE:
27611
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT FROM
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE):
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME):
(WORK): [phone]
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL, ADDRESS,
PHONE NUMBER:
H Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS TOPOGRAPHIC
MAP OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: Brunswick NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: Shallotte
1

SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD
NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.): Widening of NC 179 from south of Shallotte
Citv Limits to US 17 Business.
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER: Unnamed tributary to Shallotte River
RIVER BASIN: Lumber
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED,AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER (SA),
HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW), WATER SUPPLY
(WS-I OR WS-II)? YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, EXPLAIN:
7b. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC)? YES [ ] NO [X]
7c. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR LIST
OF COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION?
8a. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON THIS
PROPERTY? YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF
PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY'OF 401
CERTIFICATION):
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE
FUTURE? YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
2
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND: N/A
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT SITE:
N/A
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY: N/A
FILLING:
FLOODING:
DRAINAGE:
EXCAVATION:
OTHER:
TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED:
10b. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND,"AFTER RELOCATION):
LENGTH BEFORE: See Sheet 2 of 2 FT -AFTER:
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours):
WIDTH AFTER:
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: N/A FT AFTER:
N/A
FT
FT
FT
FT
(2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: _ PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL: X
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER:
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE WATERSHED
DRAINING TO THE POND? N/A
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA?
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF MECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 1/2" X 11" DRAWINGS ONLY):
Pipe extension, road construction equipment.
3
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: Widen NC 179 to improve safety and traffic
flow
14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED OUT
IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND IMPACTS):
This is the least environmentally damaging alternative.

15. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (USFWS)
AND/OR NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS) (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET)
REGARDING THE"PRESENCE OF ANY FEDERALLY LISTED OR PROPOSED FOR LISTING
ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES OR CRITICAL HABITAT IN THE PERMIT AREA THAT
MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT. DATE CONTACTED: November 29, 1994
(ATTACH RESPONSES FROM THESE AGENCIES.)
16. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
(SHPO) (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF HISTORIC
PROPERTIES IN THE PERMIT AREA WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
DATE CONTACTED: November 16, 1994
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE OF
PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES [X] NO [] (IF NO, GO TO 18)
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY ACT?
YES [X] NO []
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES [X] NO []
4

IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
27603-8003, TELEPHONE [phone].
18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF
PROPOSED ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OR FILL MATERIAL INTO
WETLANDS: N/A
a. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL.WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES
AND PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21, 26,
AND 38). ALL STREAMS (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE PROPERTY MUST
SHOWN ON THE MAP. MAP SCALES SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS 50 FEET OR 1 INCH
EQUALS 100 FEET OR THEIR EQUIVALENT.
b. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE
IMPACTED BY PROJECT.
C. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA
SHEETS RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
d. ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED.
e. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY? Commercial and
residential development
f. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL? N/A
g. SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE U.S. MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
1) ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT (WATER QUALITY) CERTIFICATION, AND
3) (IN THE TWENTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY), A LETTER FROM THE NORTH
CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.
29,
BE
r
OWNE.'S/AGENT'S SIGNATURE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (18g.))

11
DATE
i ,.

!!•, n. : ;'p.<? ti,,:;, . i:l'J X1::7

3;? i1L'c Via„

j'a?y Uo y. .. j

?
T r
END?
'
PROJECT

?C•` icy :\:::'
f-
'?
?
y,
11.l.L
of

SHAIIOTTE
ror, 6so
Ir Lull
SITE 1

;SITE 2

`?
?•','.", N
?.?'".,fir
,
^
,1

,?i I,,t•
BEGIN
PROJECT
SITE MAP
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
BRUNSWICK COUNTY
PROJECT: 9.8032422
(R-3106D)
NC 179 from North of
SR 115,11 to US 17 Business
SHEET I OF Z

Site Station Structure Fill in Surface Water
1 55 +98 -L- 900 RCP 0.002 ha
2 67 + 81 -L- 1350 RCP 0.003 ha
TOTAL. 0.005 ha
Site 1 has a total channel length of 49.2 ft (15 m)
Site 2 has a total channel length of 65.6 ft (20 m)
Channel lengths refer to that portion of the existing channel which
will now be under the proposed fill. There is no channel relocation
involved with this project.
NORTH CAROLINA STATE C C6 U
06 DEPARTMENT OF AD MINIS ON
116 NEST JONES STREE
RALEIGH NORTH CAROLI A 27603-80,03
SEP 2 8 1994
Z?2 DIVISION OF
G?
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT , HIGHWAYS
RON
MAILED TO: FROM:
N-C- DEPT- OF TRANSPORTATION MS. JEANETTE FURNEY
H- FRANKLIN VICK ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
PLANNING E ENV. BRANCH STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
TRANSPORTATION BLDG-/INTER-OFFICE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
SCOPING - PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO NC 1799 FROM SOUTH OF
SHALLOTTE CITY LIMITS TO US 17 BUSINESSi IN BRUNSWICK COUNTY
TIP #3106D
TYPE - SCOPING
THE N-C- STATE CLEARINGHOUSE HAS RECEIVED THE ABOVE PROJECT FOR
INTERGOVERNMENTACftEVIEW- THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED STATE
APPLICATION NUMBER 95E42200187- PLEASE USE THIS NUMBER WITH ALL
INQUIRIES OR CORRESPONDENCE WITH THIS OFFICE-
REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT SHOULD BE COMPLETED ON OR BEFORE 12/01/94.
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE CALL [phone].

KENO ?YA
United States Department of the Ii f0
Q?
FISH AND "A ILDLIFE SERVICE a ?? o
Ecological Services
Post Office Box 33726 r r. .} I
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726 ???' ?j.
November 29, 1994 DIVISIC'4F
?HICHWAYOS
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Subject: NC 179, from south of Shallotte City Limits to US 17 Business,
Brunswick County, North Carolina, TIP No. R-3106D.
Dear Mr. Vick:
This responds to your letter of September 14, 1994 requesting information from
the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on evaluating the potential
environmental impacts of the above-referenced project. This report provides
scop.j,r information and is provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and section 7
of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
Preliminary planning by the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) calls for widening a 1.9 kilometer (1.2 mile) section of NC 179 from
two lanes to a three-lane curb and gutter facility. The project would extend
from the Shallotte City Limits northeast to US 17 Business.
The Service's review of any environmental document would be greatly
facilitated if it contained the following information:
1. A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within existing and
required additional right-of-way and any areas, such as borrow areas,
which may be affected directly or indirectly by the proposed project.
2. A list of the wetland types which will be impacted. Wetland types
should follow the wetland claasi_fication scheme of the National Wetlands
Inventory. This list should also give the acreage of each wetland type
to be affected by the project as determined by the Federal Manual for
Identifvincr and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands.
3. Engineering techniques which will be employed for designing and
constructing any wetland crossings and/or relocated stream channels
along with the linear feet of any water courses to be relocated.
4. The cover types of upland areas and the acreage of each type which would
be impacted by the proposed project.
5. Mitigation measures which will be employed to avoid, eliminate, reduce,
or compensate for upland and wetlands habitat impacts associated with
the project. These measures should include plans for replacing
unavoidable wetland losses.
7
01
6. The environmental impacts which are likely to occur after construction
as a direct result of the proposed project (secondary impacts) and an
assessment of the extent to which the proposed project will add to
similar environmental impacts produced by other, completed projects in
the area (cumulative impacts).
The attached page identifies the Federally-listed endangered, threatened, and
candidate species which occur in Brunswick County. The section of the
environmental document regarding protected species must contain the following
information:
1. A review of the literature and other information;
2. A description of any listed species or critical habitat that may be
affected by the action;
3. An analysis of the "effect of the action", as defined by CFR 402.02, on
the species and habitat including consideration of direct, indirect,
cumulative effects, and the results of related studies;
4. A description of the manner in which the action may affect any species
or critical habitat;
5. Summary of evaluation criteria used as a; measure of potential effects;
and
6. Determination statement based on evaluation criteria.
Candidate species refer to any species being considered by the Service for
listing as endangered or threatened but not yet the subject of a proposed
rule. These species are not legally protected under the Act or subject to its
provisions, including Section 7, until formally proposed or listed as
threatened or endangered. New data could result in the formal listing of a
candidate species. This change would place the species under the full
protection of the Endangered Species Act, and necessitate a new survey if its
status in the project corridor is unknown. Therefore, it would be prudent for
the project to avoid any adverse impact to candidate species or their habitat.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted for
information on species under State protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please
continue to advise us of the progress of this project, including your official
determination of the impacts of this project. If our office can supply any
additional information or clarification, please contact Howard Hall, the
biologist reviewing this project, at 919-856-4520 (ext. 27).
SSiincerely yori, L.
K. "Mike" Gantt
Supervisor

l?-t 3 ti
5
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary William S. Price, Jr., Director
November 16, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: NC 179 from south of Shallotte city limits to US 17
Business, Brunswick County, State Project 6.231018,
TIP R-3106D, CH 95-E-4220-0187
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
We have reviewed the materials and recommend that the following two structures
be evaluated for possible National Register,eligibility:
Shallotte School, which appears to be at the southern end of the project just
south of the Shallotte town limits.
St. Mark's A.M.E. Zion Church which appears abandoned but may have
significant interiors and is located on the south side of NC 179 near
Shallotte.
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.
While we note that this project review is only for a state action, the potential for
federal permits may require further consultation with us and compliance with
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
These comments are made in accord with G.S. 121-12(a) and Executive Order
XVI. If you have any questions regarding them, please contact Renee Gledhill-
Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw /
cc: State Clearinghouse
John Parker, Division of Coastal Management
B. Church
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
-,- DATE
TRANSMITTAL SLIP
TO' REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
Ga(..,1 b
FROM: OR ROOM, BLDG.
REF.
? P
ACTION
Off: NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE. DETAILS ?FOR YOUR APPROVAL
?
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ?,
LK FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? -TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS: ".
Ma
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
February 9, 1996

FEB 15 1996
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Bill Johnson
State Roadside Environmental Engineer
Roadside Environmental Unit
FROM: Eddie Keith, Project Planning Engineerl`::::-rte L'
Planning and Environmental Branch 4?jf
SUBJECT: High Quality Water (HQW) Best Management Practices
(BMP's) for widening of NC 179 from just north of
SR 1145 to US 17 Business, Shallotte, Brunswick County,
State Project No. 6.231018, TIP No. R-3106D
The Shallotte River carries a Best Usage Classification of SC HQW, as
assigned by the Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
(DEHNR), 1993. Because of this classification, High Quality Water (HQW)
Best Management Practices (BMP's) for protection of surface waters must be
strictly adhered to. This section on HQW Best Management Practices was
omitted from the summary of project commitments, but should be considered
as the design and construction process proceeds for the subject project.
Please note the attached paragraph from the SEA/FONSI for the project and
take appropriate action. If you have any questions concerning the project,
please contact me at [phone], Ext. 214.
SEK/rfm
Attachment
cc: Eric Galamb, DEHNR - Division of Environmental Management
link
a
NC 179
From Just North of SR 1145 (Village Point Road)
to US 17 Business
Shallotte, Brunswick County
State Project No. 6.231018
TIP No. R-3106D
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
In Compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
For further information contact:
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611

APPROVED:
HAY L
ate Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
NC 179
From Just North of SR 1145 (Village Point Road)
to US 17 Business
Shallotte, Brunswick County
State Project No. 6.231018
TIP No. R-3106D
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
Samuel E. Keith r.
Project Planning Engineer
0
Linwood Stone, CPM ,
Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
`e'Q?OfllB4A!pB qV `°, ?H CARo
??FESSID,y/,bq?,r`
SEAL
W
icha B. Davis, . E. Assistant Mana a 6944
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
•°°°0?? tae ?;saes?e?a
28
The Shallotte River carries a Best Usage Classification of
SC HQW, as assigned by the North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR), 1993. By
definition, unnamed streams carry the same classification as
their collector water bodies. The classification SC designates
tidal salt waters that are suitable for aquatic life propagation
and survival, fishing, wildlife and secondary recreation. The
supplemental classification of HQW (High Quality Waters)
designates those waters which are rated as excellent based on
biological and physical /chemical characteristics. Because of
this classification, HQW Best Management Practices (BMP's) for
protection of surface waters will be strictly adhered to. The
Shallotte River is a designated HQW because it is classified and
protected as a Primary Nursery Area (PNA) by the North Carolina
Marine Fisheries Commission. Primary Nursery areas are those
areas of the estuarine system in which initial post-larval
development takes place. These areas are uniformly populated
with juveniles.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN),
assesses water quality by sampling for selected benthic
macroinvertebrate organisms. The species richness and overall
biomass are reflections of water quality. No data is available
for the stream crossed by the proposed project.
The DEM National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) report lists no permitted discharges into the stream
crossed by the proposed project.
Water Resource Impacts
Potential impacts to water resources include increased
sedimentation, decreases of dissolved oxygen, changes in
temperature and increases in toxic compounds entering the
streams.
Sedimentation is the most serious potential impact to
stream crossings. Studies have shown that during roadway
construction, there is a direct correlation between the amount
of suspended particles in the stream channel with the amount of
clearing and grubbing activity, embankment modification and
project duration. Not only is sedimentation detrimental to the
aquatic ecosystem, but changes in physical characteristics of
the stream may also result. Sedimentation of the stream channel
causes changes in flow rate and stream course, which may lead to
increased streambank scour and erosion. Sedimentation also
leads to increased turbidity of the water column.
Removal of streamside canopy and removal/burial of aquatic
vegetation result in numerous impacts. Streamside vegetation is
crucial for maintaining streambank stability, controlling
erosion and buffering water temperature. Aquatic vegetation
serves an important role in the stream ecosystem as food and
shelter, as well as contributing oxygen to the water and
stabilizing the bottom sediments.
all
sv-?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
December 7, 1995
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEHNR - Div. of Environmental Management
Water Quality Lab
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Dear Mr. Galamb:
GARLAND B. GARRETT J R.
SECRETARY
RECEIVED
DEC 12 1995
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
SUBJECT: State Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact for
NC 179, From Just North of SR 1145 (Village Point Road) to US 17
Business, Shallotte, Brunswick County, State Project No. 6.831018,
TIP No. R-3106D
Attached for your information is a copy of the approved State
Environmental Assessment/FONSI and the Natural Resources Technical Report for
the subject proposed highway improvement. This report records the
determination that implementing the proposed action will not have a
significant effect upon the quality of the human environment.
Sincerely,
41J?7 0 a
H. Franklin Vic , ., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
Attachment

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
MEMORANDUM
February 9, 1996
IN3_
rA*i *AJ
000% 00ftft 00M
?EHNR
To: Melba McGee

Through: John Dorn
From: Eric Galamb4
Subject: EA/FONSI for NC 179
Brunswick County
State Project DOT No.
DEHNR No. 96-0426,
6.831018, TIP # R-3106D
DEM No. 11146
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which impact of waters of the state including
wetlands. The document states that 0.2 acres of waters including wetlands will be
impacted. The following comments are based on a review of the EA/FONSI
document:
1) Since DOT has agreed to utilize high quality soil and erosion control measures,
DEM concurs with the proposed widening.
DOT is reminded that endorsement of an EA/FONSI by DEM would not preclude the
denial of a 401 Certification upon application if wetland or water impacts have not
been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
cc: Monica Swihart
nc179.fon
FAXED
FEB 919961
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
- 11
to ?? b
to _yd un..
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
July 24, 1995
MEMORANDUM TO : T*i=nwoo4mrS tone, Unit Head
Project Planning
ATTENTION: Eddie Keith, Project Manager
FROM: Tim W. Savidge, Environmental Biologist
Environmental Unit
t
SUBJECT: Protected Species Survey Results for
Proposed Widening of NC 179 from SR
1145 to US 17 Business, Shallotte,
Brunswick County, State Project No.
6.231018, TIP No. R-3106D
REFERENCE: April 25, 1995 Natural Resources
Technical Report for R-3106D Prepared
by Tim Savidge
The referenced report stated that two federally
Endangered species: Cooley's meadowrue (Thalictrum coolevi)
and rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia)
would need to be surveyed for to determine if the proposed
action would impact these two species. This survey was done
on June 12, 1995 by NCDOT biologist Tim Savidge in the areas
identified as suitable habitat in the referenced report.
Known populations of these two species were visited prior to
the survey, to verify that these species were in flower at
this time. Neither Cooley's meadowrue, nor rough-leaved
loosestrife were found during the survey.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
No Effect
Given the survey results it is apparent that these two
species do not occur within the project area. It can be
concluded that project construction will have no impact on
Cooley's meadowrue, or rough-leaved loosestrife.
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D, Unit Head, Environmental Unit
Hal Bain, Environmental Supervisor
File: R-3106D
File: Section 7 Issues
(9
Wir:enina of NC 179
From SR 1334 to US 17 Business
in Shallotte
Brunswick Count'
TIP No. R-3106D
State Proliect No. 6.23101S

> „
NR?liC3i ?c.'.SOUCN.S _e c i1 ? 1Ca i ,> . C, L.C.rt
R-310oD
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT
TIM SAVIDGE. ENVIRONMENTAL BIOLOGIST
APRIL. 1995 I
z
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ...........................................1
1.1 Project Description ..............................1
i.2 Purpose ..........................................1
1.3Project Area ...................................1
i. Physiography and Soils......... ................1
Methodoio`y ......................................
i (? Principle Investigator Credentials ........... ...2
2.0 Water'Resources .............:.....................& ......
1.1 graters Impacted ..................................3
3
2.1.1 Stream Characteristics...................
2.1.2 Best sage _lassification ................3
2. 1.3 Water Uuaii ? .................. -
=.2.i Recommendarlions ..........................`.
3.0 Biotic resources
_ errestriai COmmun_ties..........................
i. 1 !c?:LP.iain°Cl L`m!"iU i _S . ... . .. . . ... ..
6
?aadsid e S1ouicier.....................
3.1.1 e...ident_ai Lawns ......................
'b R
is B:L isness ?ndsca ...... ....
I.2 ...... .................5
?._.? Secondarv Bay Forest ......................9
3. 1.4 R?snneir.t Coastal FrinOe Sandni i 1 .......... 10
3.2 Aquatic Communiti% ...............................10
ynticipated Impacts: Biotic Communities .........11
?.i Terrestrial Communitl Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . I I
3.3 .2 Aciuatic Community Impacts ................1'
-.0 Special Topics... ..................................!2
Waters of the United States ................. ..12
a 1 Perm:tS .................................13
Y.1.2 NIitiaation ........ 14
.1.3 Water Quality Certification .............15
i.2 Rare and Protected Species ......................15
4.2.1 Federally Protected ...................... 15
4.2.2 Federal Candidate and
State Protected Species .................25
5.0 References ............................................ 2-
Appendix A: Glossary of Terms ........ .................. 2S
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resource Technical Report is
submitted to assist in the preparation of a State
Environmental Assessment (SEA). This report inventories the
natural resources occurring within the project area and
identifies any environmental concerns which must be addressed.
in the planning stages of this project.
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project calls for widening of the existing
two-lane shoulder roadway to a three-lane curb and gutter
facility from SR 1145 to US 17 Business in the city of-
Shallotte. Proposed right-of-way (ROW) is 18 m (60 ft).
Project length is 1.9 km.(1.2 mi).
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this document is to describe and
inventory the natural resources identified within the project
vicinity and estimate potential impacts to these resources.
Recommendations are made for measures which will minimize
resource impacts. These descriptions and estimates are
relevant only in the context of existing design concepts. If
preliminary design parameters change, additional field
investigation may be necessary.
1.3 Project Area
The project occurs in southeast Brunswick County, within
the city of Shallotte (Fig. 1) The project vicinity is
moderately developed. with business and residential
establishments interspersed among forested tracts.
1.4 Physiography and Soils
Brunswick County is located in the Outer Coastal Plain
physiographic province. The topography of the project area
is characterized as flat with broad associated floodplains.
Elevation of the project area is 12 m (40 ft) above mean sea
level.
1.5 Methodology
Prior to a site visit, published resource information
pertaining to the project area was gathered and reviewed.
Information sources include: U.S. Geodetic.Survey (USGS)
quadrangle map (Shallotte), National Wetlands Inventory Maps
(NWI), NCDOT aerial photographs of project area (1:1200).
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list of protected species
and N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NC-NHP) database of
uncommon and protected species and unique habitats.
1

(_133 5 BRUNSWICK
COUNTY
A
1346\
i
-6
P ROJECT
L.I?1ilT ?
1348 1 34
1363 FAP ,
130/ ^Fp,S B 1136
vl .•p ? •9
• / - ;;:??;:; Fqs 1 180
PROJECT '' ?.? 1206
LIMIT
rl 132 1134
nl: -. • ? 130 ?_
1800
.9 1 6 179
r ?
•3
1319 1842 FAS
C)
US 17 gusin ss ?.8 /ry'1aS=-r`?. a *=s 1135 I b
.7 1153 ShdEotte`' ''?? ND
Q 680
r. A. 1191 1 -
1153
N
1184
eon Isle Beach
Airport
Gause
2.7 Landing ?P?
1145 `? 1116
1154 N 4 1207 1 .)
w -p
a
'? ?•4 1147
1151 l i
'v n
Z1
179
Brick
H landing
h
a
1 1 Shell
Point
vi
Bowen
Point _
NORTH CAROLLNA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENMONMEN7AL
BRANCH
•: v "`• NC 179
•'+ = ' ' :y / ° FROM SOUTH OF THE `
90.4 :'': JyJ OC N ISLE BEAD SHALLOTTE CITY LIMITS
POP. 143 - TO US 17 BUSINESS
BRUNSWICK COUNTY
i. ?? R - 3106 0

General field surveys were conducted along the proposed
project alignment on January 04. 1995. by NCDOT biologists
Tim Savidge and Chris Murray. Plant communities were
identified and recorded. Wildlife was identified using a
number of observation techniques, including habitat
evaluation, active searching and recording identifying signs
of wildlife (sounds, tracks and burrows). Cursory surveys of
aquatic communities were accomplished using a hand held dip
net. Organisms captured were identified and then released.
Surveys for the red-cockaded woodpecker were conducted on
March 06-07, 1995 by Tim Savidge.
1.6 Principle Investigator Credentials
EDUCATION
Institution Major/Minor Degree
Guilford College Biology/Chemistry BS
UNC-Wilmington Bio. Oceanography/
Marine Biology
* MS degree to be completed It
EMPLOYMENT
Research Diver/Technician NOAA's NURP Program
Field/Lab Technician COE Shortnose Sturgeon Status Study
Lab Instructor UNCW Introduction to Biology
Field Technician Continential Shelf Benthic Microalgae Study
Environmental Biologist NCDOT
EXPERIENCE
Research SCUBA diving, Marine & Freshwater survey
methodologies. Benthic Community Sampaling,
Marine/Estuarine/Freshwater Ecology, Terrestrial Ecology,
Wetland Deliniation/Section 404 Agency Coordination. Section
7 Agency Coordination, Protected Species Surveys (RCW.
Protected plant species, Protected fish species, protected
mussel species survey).
CERTIFICATIONS
NCWRC Protected Species Collection Permit: Freshwater Mussels
National Highway Institute: Project Development and
Environmental Documentation Training
2.0 WATER RESOURCES
This section describes physical characteristics, Best
Usage Standards and water quality aspects of the water
resources likely to be impacted by the proposed project.
Probable impacts to these water bodies are also discussed, as
2
are means to minimize impacts.
2.1 Waters Impacted
An unnamed tributary to the Shallotte River will be
impacted by the proposed road widening. This stream arises
approximately 0.8 km (0.5 mi) southeast of project crossing
and flows in a northwest direction into the Shallotte River.
0.5 km (0.3 mi) downstream of crossing. The stream is
crossed with a 120 cm (48 in) corrugated metal pipe (CHIP).
This structure will likely be extended. The Shallotte River
is within the Lumber River Basin.
2.1.1 Stream Characteristics
The stream is highly channelized and approximately 3 m
(10 ft) below roadway grade. Channel width is approximately-
1 m (3 ft) with a depth of 15 cm (6 in). Flow rate was
sluggish during site visit. The stream is-visibly degraded.
Urban runoff (parking lot), streambank erosion and pollution
are apparent contributors to the poor stream condition.
2.1.2 Best Usage Classification
The Shallotte River carries a Best Usage Classification
of SC HQW. as assigned by the North Carolina Department of
Environment. Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR), 1993. By
definition, unnamed streams carry the same classification as
their collector water bodies. The classification SC
designates tidal salt waters that are suitable for aquatic
life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife- and
secondary recreation. The supplemental classification of HQW
(High Quality Waters) designates those waters which are rated
as excellent based on biological and physical/chemical
characteristics. The Shallotte River is a designated HQW
because it is classified and protected as a Primary Nursery
Area (PNA) by the North Carolina Marine Fisheries Commission.
Primary Nursery areas are those areas of the estuarine system
-in which initial post-larval development takes place. These
areas are uniformly populated with juveniles.
2.1.3 Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN).
assesses water quality by sampling for selected benthic
macroinvertebrate organisms. The species richness and overall
biomass are reflections of water quality. No data is
available for the stream crossed by the proposed project.
The DEM National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) report lists no permitted discharges into the stream
crossed by the proposed project.
2.2 Anticipated Impacts: Water Resources
3
Potential impacts to water resources include increased
sedimentation. decreases of dissolved oxygen, changes in
temperature and increases in toxic compounds entering the
streams.
Sedimentation is the most serious potential impact to
crossed. Studies have shown that during roadway
construction. there is a direct correlation between the
amount of suspended particles in the stream channel with the
amount of clearing and grubbing activity, embankment
modification and project duration. Not only is sedimentation
detrimental to the aquatic ecosystem (Sec. 3.3.2). but
changes in physical characteristics of the stream may.--also
result. Sedimentation of the stream channel causes changes
in flow rate and stream course, which may lead to increased
streambank scour and erosion. Sedimentation also leads to
increased :turbidity of the water column.
Removal of streamside canopy and removal/burial of
aquatic vegetation result in numerous impacts. Streamside
vegetation is crucial for maintaining streambank stability.
controlling erosion and buffering water temperature. Aquatic
vegetation serves an important role in the stream ecosystem
as food and shelter, as well as contributing oxygen to the
water and stabilizing the bottom sediments.
Numerous pollutants have been identified in highway
runoff, including various metals (lead, zinc, iron etc.),
nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus) and petroleum., The sources
of these runoff constituents range from construction and
maintenance activities, to daily vehicular use. The toxicity
of highway runoff to aquatic ecosystems is poorly understood.
Some species demonstrate little sensitivity to highway runoff
exposure, while other species are much more sensitive. The
levels of the toxins and the duration of the exposure are
major factors determining the ecosystem's response to runoff.
Pollutant concentrations of receiving waters are directly
related to traffic volume. It is apparent that highway
runoff can significantly degrade the quality of the receiving
water bodies, which in turn significantly affects the
ecosystems present. Precaution needs to be taken during
construction to reduce/eliminate pollution runoff into the
stream. Pollutant loads may increase once in operation, due
to increased impervious surface. area. reduction of vegetative
buffer (shoulder) and construction of curb & gutter facility.
2.2.1 Recommendations
Due to the limited scope of work involved with this
stream crossing, the overall magnitude of the potential
impacts described is expected to be relatively minimal.
However, because of the potential to impact the Shallotte
River. it is imperative that impacts to the stream are
4
minimized/avoided to the extent possible. These potential
impacts can be greatly reduced by implementation of the
following recommendations. which have been shown to be
efficient. and cost effective at minimizing sedimentation and
pollutant loads:
- Strict enforcement of sedimentation control Best
Management Practices (BMP's) for the protection of
surface waters during the entire life of the project
- Reduction of clearing and grubbing activity, particularly
in riparian areas
- Reduction/elimination of direct discharge into streams
- Reduction of runoff velocity
- Reestablishment of vegetation on exposed areas, with
judicious pesticide & herbicide management
- Minimization of "in-stream" activity
and
- Litter control.
The use of any number of these methods will be effective
in reducing water quality degradation resulting from project
construction.
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
This section describes the ecosystems encountered and
the relationships between vegetative and faunal components
within terrestrial, and aquatic ecosystems. Descriptions of
the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant
community classifications.
Representative animal-species which are likely to occur
in these habitats are cited, along with brief descriptions of
their respective "roles" within that community. For complete
listings of flora and fauna which occur in Brunswick County,
a composite of specific references listed in section 5.0
should be consulted. Animals that were observed during site
visit are denoted by (*) in the text. Sightings of spoor
evidence are equated with sightings of individuals. .
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable)
are used for plant and animal species described. Subsequent
references to the same organism will include the common name
only.
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
There are four distinct terrestrial communities
identified within the project area, however, there is always
some degree of overlap between communities. Community
composition is reflective of the physiography, topography and
current and prior land uses of the area. All community types
have had some degree of past, or continued human disturbance.
As a result of disturbances, changes in vegetative dominance
often occur within the community types. Some of the forested
5
areas have experienced limited recent disturbance and contain
large old growth trees, which offer ample food and shelter
resources for a variety of wildlife species.
Numerous terrestrial animals are highly adaptive and
populate a variety of habitats. therefore many of the species
mentioned may occur in any number of the different community
types described. Other animals are tolerant of a narrow
range of environmental conditions and may be limited to a
particular habitat type. These species are the most
vulnerable to habitat disturbance.
3.1.1 Maintained Communities
Maintained Communities are land parcels in which the
vegetation is kept in a low-growing, non-successional state.
These communities, which include roadside shoulders. utility
corridors, agricultural fields, residential lawns and urban
landscapes, vary greatly with regards to vegetative.
composition.
3.1.1 a Roadside Shoulder
e
The roadside shoulders of the existing roadway are
maintained in a low-growing condition by mowing. Predominant
species occurring here include crab grass (Digitaria
sanguinalis), coastal Bermuda (a don dactylon) finger grass
(Chloris petraea), henbit (Lamium amplexicaule), cow-itch
(Ca sis radicans) and wild onion (Allium canadense).
Various shrubs including: silverling (Baccharis halimifolia).
wax myrtle (Mvrica cerifera) and inkberry (Ilex glabra) occur
at the border of this community and the forested communities
present in the-project area.
Resident fauna is limited by continual habitat
disturbance and consists mainly of small animals. Species
such as eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys humulis) and
white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus) have been shown to
be more abundant in roadside ROW's than in adjacent habitats.
Insects, earthworms and other invertebrates are also abundant
in roadside habitats.
Roadsides are utilized primarily as a travel corridor
between other habitats, or as a foraging zone for species of
adjacent woodlands. Forage opportunities offered by roadside
habitats include seeds, fruits and insects, as well as,other
small animals (rodents, etc). These food sources attract a
variety of animals , particularly birds from adjacent
communities. Northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis)*.
European starling (Sturnus vulgaris)*, common grackle
(Quiscalus auiscula)*, boat-tailed grackle (_Q. major)*, brown
thrasher (Toxostoma rufum)*, grey catbird (Dumetella
carolinensis)* and Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis)*
were observed in this habitat type, most often in the shrubs
6
near the community edges.
The animals utilizing this habitat are susceptible to
roadkill. Roadkill species noted during field investigations
include yellow-shafted flicker (Colaptes auratus)*, raccoon
(Procyon lotor)*, and Virginia opossum (Didelphis
virginiana)*. Species such as turkey vulture (.Cathartes
aura)*, common crow (Corvus brachvrhvnchos)*, and domestic
dogs and cats often scavenge on carrion along roadways.
3.1.1 b Residential Lawns
Residential grass lawns 'are populated with a variety of
grasses, winter ryes (Lolium spn.), coastal Bermuda and
crabgrass. Ornamental herbs, shrubs and trees are abundant
landscape species, and many lawns have large native trees
such as live oak (Ouercus virginiana), loblolly pine (Pinus
taeda), long leaf pine (P. palustris) and red maple (Acer
rubrum) remaining from previous forested communities.
Animals occurring in nearby forested areas often forage
or even reside in lawn habitats. The presence of bird
feeders attracts many birds to these.environments. Some
common species of lawn settings which were observed include
Carolina chickadee, tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor), blue jay
(Cvanocitta stellerii)*, northern mockingbird (Mimus
polygottos)*, mourning dove (Zenaida macroura)*, Carolina
wren (Thvrothorus ludovicianus)*, northern cardinal and house
finch (Carpodaucus mexicanus)*. Mammals such as grey
squirrel, (Sciurus carolinsis)* and eastern cottontail
(Svlvilagus floridanus) are commonly observed in lawn
habitats. while others such as eastern mole (Scalopus
aauaticus) and least shrew (Crvptotis ap rva) are less
conspicuous residents of lawn settings.
3.1.1 c Business Landscape
The majority of this habitat type includes impervious
surfaces such as concrete sidewalks, paved parking lots and
structures. Vegetation found in these areas is sparse, but
may include fescue, English plantain and clover. Various
landscape ornamental shrubs and trees may also be present.
Animals occurring in the more developed areas of the
project are adapted to urban settings. The house mouse (Mus
musculus) and the Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus) are two
introduced species which thrive in these conditions. Large
mixed species flocks of herring gull (Larus argentatus)* and
ring-billed gull (L. delawarensis)* were observed in the
Brunswick Metro Square Village parking lot between NC 179 and
US 17 Business.
J.1.1 Mesic Pine Forest
This is the most abundant forested community occurring
in the project area. The dominant canopy species is loblolly
pine and occasionally water oak (Quercus nigra). Red maple
and sweetgum (Liauidambar stvraciflua) make up the sub-
canopy. Sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana), red bay (Persea
borbonia), wax myrtle (Mvrica cerifera), inkberry, and titi
(Cvrilla racemiflora) constitute the shrub component.
Herbaceous species such as heartleaf (Hexastvlis sp.),
clubmoss (Lvcopdium sp.) and partridge berry (Mitchella
repens) are abundant ground cover in some areas and sparse to
absent in others. Giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea) occurs
sporadically and vines such as green brier (Smilax ._
rotundifolia) and-poison ivy (Toxicodenron radicans) are
common but not overly dense. Privet (Ligustrum sinense) an
introduced species has escaped cultivation and is abundant in
some areas, particularly near residential borders.
The vegetation present in this community provides an
abundant array of food resources, from mast, seeds and
berries, to leaves and roots, as well as offering nesting and
sheltering habitat for a variety of-animal species. The
faunal community composition is reflective of the available
food, shelter and nesting resources available. Faunal
distribution within the community is related to the
stratification of the vegetative component.
Birds are the most conspicuous group of animals
utilizing the canopy layer of the forest however
representative species from the other terrestrial vertebrate
groups also utilize the canopy. Food in the form of pine
seeds, acorns and defoliating and wood boring insects.
attracts species such as grey tree frog (Hula chrvsoscelis,
or H. versicolor), pine woods tree frog (H. femoralis),
Carolina anole (Anolis carolinensis)*, broadhead skink
(Eumeces laticeps) black rat snake, pileated woodpecker
(Drvocopus pileatus)*, yellow-bellied sapsucker (Sphyrapicus
varius)*, brown headed nuthatch (Sitta pusilla)*, pine
warbler (Dend_rocia ip nus) pine siskin (Carduelis ip nus),
tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor)* and southern flying squirrel
(Glaucomvs volans). Most of these species will also nest
within the canopy. Species nesting in the canopy but
foraging elsewhere include screech owl (Otus asio) and grey
squirrel which feed mostly on the forest floor, red-tailed
hawk (Buteo iamacensis)* which forages in adjacent open
habitats and Virginia opossum which forages in a wide variety
of habitats.
Berry-producing shrubs are abundant in this community,
and provide a valuable summer-fall food source for many avian
species. Species such as yellow-rumped warbler (Dendroica
coronata), northern cardinal, painted bunting (Passerina
ciris) and rufous-sided towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus) are
8
expected to utilize this strata of the community.
particularly near the forest edge.
Fauna associated with the forest floor includes:
southern toad (Bufo terrestris), slimy salamander (Plethodon
glutinosus)*, ground skink (Scincella lateralis)*, smooth
earth snake (Virginia valeriae), worm snake (Carphophis
amoenus), eastern box turtle (Terrapene Carolina),
southeastern shrew (Sorer longirostris), golden mouse
(Ochrotomys nuttalli) and woodland vole (Microtus pinetorum).
Many of these species are fossorial (burrowers) and therefore
rarely seen. Earthworms and other invertebrates are
important food items of many of these species, while roots,
seeds and other plant material are consumed by others,
Various species of fungi and detritivores such as
terrestrial snails and slugs, as well as other invertebrates,
serve the role of decomposers in this community. This step
of the food chain is crucial for nutrient regeneration. The
large amount of organic material (fallen logs, leaves etc) on
the forest floor leads to a high number of decomposers.
Numerous species of fungi were observed during the site
visit. Those identified include granular jellyroll (Exidia
glandulosa), pine cone fungus (Auriscalpium vulgare), tree
ear (Auricularia auricula), powdery sulphur bolete
(Pulveroboletus ravenelii), white-egg bird's nest (Crucibulum
laeve)°and honey mushroom (Armillariella mellea).
3.1.3 Secondary Bay Forest
This community type occurs in a forested tract near the
southern end of the project, on nearly level to slightly
slop.ing.terrain.. The community grades into a jurisdictional
wetland, however wetland criteria (hydrology) is not met
within the project ROW.
Vegetative components are similar to the Secondary Mesic
Pine Forest, however species such as sweet bay and red bay
which occurred as shrubs in the former community, are
dominant canopy species here along with loblolly bay
(Gordonia lasianthus) and loblolly pine. Sweet gum. pond
pine (Pinus serotina), laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia) and
Chapman oak (Q. chapmanii) are present to a lesser extent..
Wax myrtle, inkberry, henderson wood (Ilex cassine), fetter-
bush (Lvonia lucida) and titi are prevalent shrubs.
The herbaceous component is sparse. Species such as
bracken fern (Pteridium aauilinum) occur at the community
edge near the roadway, while cinnamon fern (Osmunda
cinamonea) and seedbox (Ludwigia sp.) occur in somewhat open
areas where the community begins to grade into a wetland.
Giant cane (Arundinaria Rigantea), green brier, blaspheme
vine (S. laurifolia) and poison ivy occur throughout.
9
The faunal component of this community is expected to be
similar to the former community, with regard to.composition
and density. There were no species observed only in this
habitat.
3.1.E Remnant Coastal Fringe Sandhill
A small tract of this forested community occurs on a
small ridge at the southern terminus of the project,
extending well beyond study limits. Golf course and
residential development. have fragmented this forest. The
presence of numerous dirt roads through this area suggests
that further development will occur in the near future.
The canopy of is dominated almost solely by longleaf
pine, with a few canopy sized live oak. The open understory
includes turkey oak (Quercus laevis), Darlington oak (_Q._
hemisphaerica) and sassafras (Sassafras albidum). Prevalent
shrubs include yaupon (Ilex vomitoria), inkberry, wax myrtle
and wild olive (Osmanthus americanus). Wiregrass (Aristida
stricta) is the most dominant herbaceous species present.
Other herbs present include beakrush (Rhynochospora sp.),
broomstraw (Andropogon sp.) and ashy wild indigo (Rg, isia
cinerea). Mosses and lichens are abundant, while fungi were
found to be scarce, with the pine-cone fungus the only
species observed.
Faunal species utilizing this community type are
adaptable to dry environmental conditions. In addition to
the highly adaptive wide-ranging species such as raccoon,
Virginia opossum and grey squirrel, species such as the
eastern glass lizard (OOphisaurus ventralis) which requires
well-drained sandy soils such as those occurring here, are
likely residents of this community. Species which were
observed only in this community type include eastern fence
lizard (Sceloporus undulatus)*, eastern wood pewee (Contopus
virens)* and fox squirrel (Sciurus ni er)*. Other species
observed here include downy woodpecker, pileated woodpecker,
brown thrasher, Carolina chickadee, ground skink and Carolina
anole.
3.2 Aquatic Community
The aquatic community associated with the stream crossed
by the alignment is reflective of the urbanized condition of
the stream and it's small size, and thus species diversity
and numbers are expected to be low. Research in North
Carolina streams have shown that water quality and biota is
greatly effected by land use. Streams in urbanized settings
have comparatively lower water quality and corresponding
lower biotic diversity than streams in forested areas.
Pickeral frogs (Rana palustris)* were the only aquatic
organisims observed in this area of the stream. Cursory
10

examination of this stream several hundred meters upstream of
crossing in a undisturbed forested stretch, revealed much
greater faunal diversity, as sunfish (Family Centracidae).
shiners (Notronis sn.)*, southern cricket frogs (Acris
Qrvllus)* and pickeral frogs were observed to be common.
This stream does not appear to be utilized by anadramous fish
species, nor is it classified as such. Although the stream
at the point of crossing is likely not serving as a estuarine
primary nursery area, because it flows into a designated PNA.
special precautions need to be made to avoid impacts to these
important areas (Sec 2.2.1).
3.3 Anticipated Impacts: Biotic Communities
Construction of the proposed project will have various
impacts on the biotic communities described. This section
quantifies and qualifies these probable impacts, in terms of
area impacted (cleared/modified), and ecological consequences
to the communities, during the construction and operation of
the proposed roadway.
3.3.1 Terrestrial Community Impacts
t
Portions of the four biotic community types occurring in
the project area will be cleared or altered as a result of
project construction. Estimations of acreage impacted for
each community type are given in Table 1. .
TABLE 1. Anticipated Terrestrial Community Impacts
Community
MC MPF SBF CFS.
1.1(2.8) 0.3 (0.7) 0.1 (0.2) 0.3 (0.7)
Impacts in hectares (acres) derived using entire ROW of 18 m
(60 ft). MC, MPF, SBF and CFS denote Maintained, Mesic Pine
Flatwoods, Secondary Bay Forest and Remnant Coastal Fringe
Sandhill Communities, respectively.
The plant communities found along the project alignment
serve as shelter, nesting and foraging habitat for numerous
species of wildlife. Loss of habitat initially displaces
faunal organisms from the area, forcing them to concentrate
into a smaller area, which causes over-utilization and
degradation of the habitat. This ultimately lowers the
carrying capacity of the remaining habitat and is manifested
in some species as becoming more susceptible to disease,
predation and starvation.
Individual mortalities are likely to occur to animals
closely associated with the ground (snakes, small mammals,
etc.), from construction machinery used during clearing
activities. Wildlife mortality caused by vehicles is a
11
direct consequence of project construction. once the road is
in operation. Widening of the roadway creates a greater
barrier to animal migrations and will result in increased
number of roadkills. Because of their visibility. highway
mortality of game species such as deer and rabbit is well
documented. However, reptiles and amphibians as well as
birds and small mammals are very susceptible to roadkill.
Although roadway mortality is generally not believed to
significantly effect animal populations under normal
conditions, if the population is experiencing other sources
of stress (disease, habitat degradation/elimination etc.),
then traffic-related mortality can be very significant.
3.3.2 Aquatic Community Impacts,
Impacts to the stream community can be directly
attributed to sedimentation and reduced water quality
resulting from project construction (Sec. 2.2). Although
disturbance and sedimentation may be temporary processes
during the construction phase of this project, environmental
impacts from these processes may be long-lived or
irreversible.
The aquatic environment serves as a major food source
for many terrestrial organisms such as raccoons, various
species of snakes, birds, turtles and amphibians. It also
serves as a means of predator avoidance for-'many animals.
Due to the current degraded condition of the stream crossed
by the project, construction of this project is not expected
to have significant ecological impacts on the aquatic
community found in this stream. To ensure that further
degradation of this stream does not occur, and to ensure that
PNA waters downstream are not impacted, Best Management
Practices (BMP's) for protection of surface waters, must be
strictly adhered to.
4.0 SPECIAL TOPICS
4.1 Waters of the United States
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad
category of "Waters of the United States„ as defined in 33
CFR 328.3, in accordance with provisions of Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (33 U.S. C. 1344). Project construction
will result in an estimated <0.1 ha (0.2 ac) of wetland
impacts. Wetland locations are depicted in Figure 2.
Impacts to wetland site # 2 are not anticipated,.however if
design specifications change, this wetland may receive
impacts. Surface water impacts will also occur as a result
of culvert extension.
Wetland site # 1 (Fig. 2) is associated with the
roadside communities, however because of saturated soil
12
/ BM 52
%
)n\t j 1 \\ / 11 Sox
'___4 -0 Prisbn (Ca
EIM
26 \k
It '\\
\\- \\ _ ..? tte _
130
/ I?\ \? _ - - - -- -
• l... \\ BM
if 33
II \ o _ = I f?Brun¦wic
Sch
lab
A\ ii - - _ " \\\ \\\
tz;
16-
- 40
Y ?> o
20
it A
am A
Sc Marks\?A \\ \ o
Ch Q
x
/AKI
?\ / \ ? ti \\
40 zo
\? ? - - '-?•. Sandy Branch C
---_\? -."- = - _ -' _ ,„- ??/ ??- ice'- ?` ?'• • Jd/ x? ?? ry?/ir
_ -? ?i__ ll_ / ?` \` ?; ..1 ? /% jj• It Gurgan. s II
- - - ??i - -_ _ /1-7-7 _ ?JV Cam II
?1??= - ?.G' 11 - ? / /.? ?/ µU ?••.? •?Ir • II
R i ter Cem=
' II 1'y0 & i°_. ? W°tlan:'i Locations
' R 10 60
10
?.I? /Il\/1 r 11 \;'1?/ \\ _ I Site = ? Ollr';i('? nr' Rnw
conditions and apparent periodic flooding•.-specific
hvdroph`z is vegetation such as soft rush (Juncus ettusus),
marsh seedbox (Ludwieia paustris). cinnamon fern ( Osmunda
cinnamomea) and netted chain fern (Woodwardia aerolata) are
dominant species along with blackberry (Rubus sp.) and wax
mvrt le. Wetland -# 2 is within the Secondary Bay Forest
community, in a small area that ponds water for significant
periods of time.
Potential wetland communities we're.evaluated using the
criteria specified in the 198; "Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual". For an area to be considered a
"wetland". the following three specifications must be met:
1) presence of hydric soils (low soil chroma values), 2-)
presence of hvdrophytic vegetation (Appendix A), and 3)
evidence.of hydrology, including; saturated soils. stained,
oxidized rhizospheres, matted vegetation. high water marks on
trees. buttressed tree bases and surface roots.
4.1.1 Permits
Brunswick County is one of 20 counties in North Carolina
that is under the jurisdiction of the `Coastal Area Management
Act (CAMA). which is administered by the Division of Coastal
Management (DCM). CAMA is the lead permitting agency for
projects within its jurisdiction..
CANIA directs the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) to
identify and designate Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs)
in which uncontrolled development might cause irreversible
damage to property, public health and the natural
environment. CAMA necessitates a permit if a project meets
all of the followina criteria:
it is located in a County under CAMA jurisdiction:
it is in of affects a designated AEC:
the project is considered "development" under the terms of
the act. and;
it does not qualify for an exemption identified by
CAMA. or CRC.
This oro-ect does not appear to impact any AEC. and thus
will not invol.-e CANNA, therefore the L.S. Armv Corps of
Ensineers (COE) becomes the lead permitting agency. A
\at•i..onwide - Permi t..33 CFR 330. ? (A) 14 (n,%J nor road crossings)
is anticipated for impacts to the unnamed stream.
This permit authorizes fill for roads crossing waters of
the ti.S., inc uding wetlands and aquatic sites. Standard
conditions include: (1) the width of the fill is limited to
the min mu:n necessary for the actual crossing: ( 2) fi i 1 is
Ii^ited to 0-11 ha (0.3 ac). and (3) no more than 6,i linear
meters (200 f--t) of th-- fili wild be placed in special
aau?:ic s,--es. including wetlands.
.-2 Mitizzaiion
The COE has adopted th_.. 'h the Council on En ,-4rormenzal
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
r'n'ted States. specifically wetlands. N14.tigatTon of 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
108.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance,
minimization and compensatory mitigation) must be considered
sequentially.
Avoidance
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
tecnnoloay and logistics in light of overall project
purposes. Widening asymmetrical_y to the west at wetland site
1 and to the east at site # 2 would avoid impacts to these
two systems. These options will need to be considered to
satisfy the wetland mitigation policy.
Minimization
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 proposedproject through the reduction of median widths.
ROW widths. fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths. If
impacts to the two wetland communities cannot be avoided,
then impacts to these sites should be minimized to the
fullest extent possible. Practical means to minimize impacts
to the waters crossed by the proposed project are described
in •Sect ion `2.2.1 of-this report. Ali- pract eel 'means -should
be utilized to minimize project-rel"ated'water quality
degradation. '
Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until
anticipated impacts to Waters of the U.S. have been avoided
and minimizer' to the maximum extent possible. It is
reco-2nized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and.
va.i es :nay.- not be achieved in each and every permit action.
Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is
required for unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after
all avoidance and minimization options have been explored.
Compensatory actions often include restoration, creation and
enhancement of Waters of the U. S., specifically wetlands.
Such actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent to, or
contiaucus to the impacted T-i te.
Projects authorized under Nationwide Permits usually do
not require compensatory mitigation according to the 1989
Memorandum Agreement between the Environmental Protection
Agency and the Department of the Army. _
4.1.3 Water Quality Certification
A North Carolina Division of Environmental Manaaement
(DE`A) Section 401 Water Quality. Certification is also
required. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that
the state issue, or deny water certification for any
federally permitted, or licensed activity that may result in
a discharge into waters of the Watersof the United States.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
Federal law requires that any action, which has the
potential to have a detrimental impact to the survival and
well being of any species classified as federally protected.
is subject to review by the FWS and/or the.National Marine
Fisheries Service `.'.IFS). under the provisions of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. Endangered
species receive additional protection under separate state
statutes. In North Carolina protection of plant species
falls under INI.C. General statutes (G.S.) 106-202.12 to 106-
202.19 of 1979. Wildlife protection,falls under O- S. 113-331
to 113-337 of 195-.
4.2.1 Federally Protected Species
Plants and Animals with federal classifications of
Endangered (E). Threatened (T). Proposed Endangered (PE) and
Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of
section . and section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of
19-3. as amended. As of March 2S. 1995 the Fish and Wildlife
Service.(FWS) 'Lists r:he following species for B-rur.swick'* -
County (Table _)
T a b i e 1. Federally-protected Species
or
Bru: sw ict Coun
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS
Acipenser brevirostrum shortnose sturgeon E
caretta caretta loggerhead sea turtle T
Ch_3ra.drius melodus piping n'.over T
Chelonia mydas green sea turtle T
Dez•mochelys coriacea leatherback sea turtle E
Falco peregrinus peregrine falcon E
Felis concolor couguar eastern cougar E
Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle E
vs kempi
Lepidochel kemp's Ridley sea turtle E
_
,IvCteria americana wood stork E
Picoides borealis red-cockaded woodpecker E
Trichechus manatus west Indian manatee E
Amaranthus pumilus seabeach amaranth T
Lirsimachia asperulaefoli a rough-leaved loosestrife E
Thalictrum coolevl Cooley's meadowrue E
t
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of
its range).
"T" denotes Threatened (a species that is likel;- to become
an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its ranae).
A brief description of these species' characteristics
and habitat requirements is provided below alone with a
Biolo ical Conclusion addressing the potential for project
related impacts to these species.
Acipenser brevirostrum (short-nosed sturgeon)
Status: Endangered
Family: Acipenseridae
Lister: 3/11/6'
The short-nosed sturgeon is a primitive fish ran,in_
from 43-109 cm (177-13 in) in iength and characterized-by
ha cing five rows of large. bony plates (scutes) separated by
naked skin. running the length of the body. The shortnose
sturgeon differs from t-he 'cioselv- 'related Atlahtiic sturgeon
A. oayrhynchus'). bits smaller size (Atlantic stur=eon may
reach 3 m (l1 ft) in length). short snout and the lack of
scutes-between the anal fin and the lateral row of scutes.
This species cccurs in the lower sections of lame rivers and
in coastal marine habitats. The short-nosed stur.aeon prefers
de-;) channeis with a salinity less than sea Ovate:. It feeds
benthiclll- on invertebrates and plant mat-erial anti is mcst
active at night.
The short-nosed "irRe^n :eauires lame fresh water
_:ers tha are unobstructed by dams or pol.iur.da:s to
rJnroc'..__ sy..cess:u1-1 is an anadromous sp..cies that
spawns unstre_m in the spring and spends most of its life
g --
within close proximity of the rivers Mouth. At least two
entirely freshwater populations have been recorded. in South
Carolina and Massacnusett .
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
No Effect
The water body impacted by the proposed project is too
small in size to provide habitat for this species. It can be
concluded that construction of this project will have no
impact on the shortnose sturgeon.
Caretta caretta (loggerhead sea turtle)
Status: Threatened
Familv: Cheloniidae
Listed: 71/23/775
Loaaerhead turtles can be distinguished from other sea
turtles by its unique reddish-brown color. The loggerhead is
characterized by a large head and blunt jaws. Otherwise they
have 5 or more costal plates with the first touching the
nuchal and 3 to 4 bridge scutes.
The Iog_erhead nests on suitable beaches from Ocracok°
inlet, North Carolina through Florida and on a small scale
off of the Gulf States. There are also major nesting -rounds
on the eastern coast o- Australia. It lives worldwide in
temperate to suotropicai waters. Loggerheads nest
nocturnally between Ala: and September on isolated beaches
that are characterized by fine -rained sediments. It is
mainly carnivorous feeding on small marine ani^a`s.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
No Effect
No nesting habitat (beaches) for this species occurs
within the project area, and the water body impacted is too
small (shallow) to provide foraging habitat. It can be
concluded! that :roject construction will have no impact on
the loggerhead.
Charadrius melodus (piping plover)
Status: Threatener -
Fa^:_ly: Cha=adriidae
Listed. 12/1 %S5
The piping plover is a small migratory shorebird that
resembles a sar_--piper. It can be identified ov the ora.nae
legs and black *.)and around the base of its neck. Durin3 the
winter ^e _rlo,:er loses its black band. its le-s fade to pale
vel low, and the bill fades to black. Breeding -birds are
characterized by white underparts. a single black breastband.
and a black bar across the forehead.
The piping plover breeds along the east coast. This
bird in North Carolina. nesting in flat areas with fine sand
and mixtures of shells and pebbles. They nest most commonly
where there is little or no vevetation, but some may nest in
stands of beach-^_rass. The nest is a shallow repression in
the sand that is usually lined with shells and pebbles.
The piping plover is very sensitive to huiTTan
disturbances. The presence of people can cause the lover to
a'.Jandon its nest and quit feeding.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
present in the projec. area. It can be concluded that
project coIlstruction. wi1i ha e no iITT%act on the ,)ipin°_
piover.
LtI?IJIII 3 in vrtc25 ?°_reen s•°a turtle
status. rnreatened
Fai;;i1v Cheloniidae
. S ' C! I f/ t 0
The listin-;tishing factors found in the gi en turtle are
the single clamed flippers and a single pair of elongated
scales Z:,rween the eves. It has a small head and a stron?.
serrate, lower jaw.
The green sea turtle is found in temperate and tropical
oceans and seas. Nesting in North America is imited.to-
small communities on the east coast of Florida requiring
beaches with minimal disturbances and a sloping platform for
nesting (they do not nest in NC). The Green turtle can be
found in shallow waters. They are attracted to lagoons.
reefs, bays. Mangrove swamps and inlets where an abundance of
marine grasses can be found, marine grasses are the principle
food source for the green turtle. These turtles require
beaches with minimal disturbances and a sloping platform for
nesting (they do not nest in NC).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
No nesting habitat (beaches) for this species occurs
within the project area, and the water body impacted is too
small (shallow) to provide foraging habitat. It can be
concluded that project construction will have no impact on
the green sea turtle.
L
Dermochel.-s cor'ietcezt (leatherback sea turtle)
Status: Endangered.
Family: Dermochelydae
Listed: 6/2/72
The leatherback sea turtle is the lar_^_est of the marine
turtles. Unlike other marine turtles, the leatherback has a
shell composed of tough leathery skin. The carapace has
longitudinal ridges and the plastron. has _5 ridges. The
leatherback is black to curl: brown in color and may have
white blotches on the head and limbs.
Leatherbac.k.s are distributed world-wide in tropi" i
waters of the _\tlantic. Pacific. and Indian oceans.
Leatherbacks prefer deep waters and. are often found near the
-.t T ill l'.E ?.... ...r..?c ,..._? _i ..._r t _'_-i1 at_.... t.. :i .?
a. li V 1 ? Ci t V r 1 i L ` i a 1 L V J, "` S• r 1 e J • 4i ll t• V ?. 1. v. 1 as r lL?i ii
bodies of water. Leather back nesting requirements are ver%
specific. they need sand- reaches backed with vegetation in
the proximity of deep water and generally with rough seas.
Reaches with a suitable slope and a suita'?)ie depth cf coarse
dry sane are necessarti for t':1_ le:.the!-bac`: to nest. Major
Pasting areas occur in tr^T):cal regions and the onl,%• nesting
population in t:12 t. :re^. States is round in Martin Count'.
lOr ida. _eathf:_ `sac:: P-s, 1I: ' occurs 2 ror:i A-'r i l to AuguSt.
.artificial light has been shown to cause hatchlinns to divert
away from the sea. Leatlierbacks feed mainly on jell--fish.
The are also known to feed on sea urchins. crustaceans,
fish. mollus=:s. t nicates. and floating seaweed.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
No nesting habitat (beaches) for this species occurs
within the project area. and the water body- impacted is too
small (shallow) to provide foraging habitat. It can be
concluded that project construction will have no impact on
the leatherback.
Falco pere,rinus (Peregrine falcon)
Status: Endangered
Family: Falconidae
Listed: 3/20/34
The peregrine falcon has a dark plumage along its back
and its underside is lighter. barred and spotted. It is most
easily recognized by a dark crown and a dark wedge that
extends below the eye forming a distinct helmet.
The American peregrine falcon is found throughout the
United States in areas with high cliffs and open land for
foraging. Nesting for the falcons is generally on high cliff
ledges. but they- may also nest in broken off tree tops in the
eastern deciduous forest and on skyscrapers and bridges in
urban areas. Nesting occurs from mid-March to May.
Prey for the peregrine falcon consists of small marnmals
and birds. including mammals as iarge as a woodchuck, birds
as large as a duck, and insects. The preferred prey is
medium sized birds such as pigeons.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
No Effect
Yo nesting habitat (cliffs/skyscrapers) for this species
occurs within the project area. A-1thoug7h it is possible
that an individual may forage in the project area. no impacts
to the species resuit from project construction. it can
be concluded that project construction will have no impact on
the peregrin falcon.
Felis concolor cougar (eastern cougar)
Status: Endangered
..III _ ? :: - - '- - • _
Listen. 6/-/-3
Cougars are tawny colored th _he except ian of the
muzzle. the backs Of the ears. nd the tip Of the tail. which
are blac;•:. In Yorth Carolina the cou!zar is -nought to occur
in only" a• few sCattered arias, possioiv includin'_ coastal
swamps and the southern Appalachian :tIountains. The eastern
cougar is found in large remote wilderness areas where there
0 I_ ' SOU=CC'. is"ni t ---.ail?eC
is an abundance o+: tilei 7r1iiaT--N" T,,-
deer. A cougar wi l i usual occupy a. range of 1 miles and
they are most active at night.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
`.'o large uninterrupted expanses of woodland wi l l be
impacted by the proposed project. It can be concluded that
project construction will 'nave no impact on the eastern
cougar.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (bald eagle)
Status: Endangered
Family: Accipitridae
Listed: 3/11/67
Adult bald eagles can be identified by their lame white
head and short white tail. The body plumage is dark-brown to
chocolate-brown in color. In flight bald eagles can be
identified by their flat wing soar.
Eaale nests are found in close proximity to water
(within?a half mile) with a clear flight path to the water.
in the lamest living tree in an area, and having an open
view of the surrounding land. Human disturbance can cause an
eagle to abandon otherwise suitable habitat. The breeding
season for the bald eagle begins in December or January.
Fish are the major food source for bald eagles. Other
sources include coots, herons, and wounded ducks. Food may
be live or carrion.
In
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
No Effect
No iarge water bodies are within the project area. It
can be concluded that project construction will have no
impact of the bald eazle.
Lepidochel?'s kerrlpii (hemp's ridley's sea turtle)
Status: Endangered
Family: Cheloniidae
Listed: 12/2/70
Kemp's ridley sea turtle is the smallest of :he sea
turtles that visit North Carolina's coast. These turtles
have a triangular shaped head and a hooked beak with --arae
crushinz surfaces. It has a heart-shaped carapace that is
neariv as wide as it is long Wit'- the first of five costal
turtles have «:ite or yelio:4 plastrons «it a gray anc oiive
green carapace. The head anc ..:peers are `..air
Ke:rp,'s ridIet' sea turtics _ive in shallow coastal anti
estuarine raters. in association with red mangrove trees. A
majority of this sea turtie s n::stinoc:.u_s in a ' _in ( 14.'9
mils') Stretch of beach be twee-ii B«rra del Tordo and Ustii oaI in
th_ state of Tar, aul ipas, e__ico. - his t ort. e is an
infrequent : is:tor to the Nor-.11 Caro:ina coast and usual
does not nest here. Kemp`s sea turtle can lav e2as as man-..
as three times during the April to Jane breeding season.
Kemn's ridlev sea turtles prefer beach sections that are
backed up by extensive swamps or iarge bodies of open water
havin° seasonal narrow ocean connections and a well defined
elevated dune area.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
No nesting habitat (beaches) for this species occurs
within the project area, and the water body impacted is too
small (shallow) to provide foraging habitat. It can be
concluded that project construction will have no impact on
the hemp's ridley sea turtle.
jtitvc tel'i a amei-i cana (wood stork)
Status: Endangered
Family: Ciconiidae
Listed: 2/23/84
The wood stork is the largest wading bird found in North
America. The wood storks plumage is entirely white except
for the flight and tail feathers. which are black with a
bronze sheen. During the breeding season the underwing
coverts have a pink tinge and the undertail coverts. are
eloneate-and make the bird appear white tailed in flight.
The bill is larger than the herons and cranes and downturned
at t e tip. Coiorir:g is gray with a yeli?ow fringe in the
adults. T)ae lees are gray and the feet pink.
Wood storks visit extreme southwestern Brunswick County
from June to September. after breeding has concluded. They
are found in the Twin Lakes region of Sunset Beach.. Storks
rest mainly in stands of bald cypress. but will also nest in
Manarov es and Buttonwoods. Their nests are found in swamvs.
coastal islands. and artificial impoundments. They feed in
reshwater to brackish wetisnds inc Udine. freshwater
marshes. flooded pastures. and flooded ditches. The most
attractive feeding areas are swamp or marsh depressia?s where
fish become concentrated during dry- periods. _
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
No Effect
occurrence of this tspecies Turin' l.a-K.es'•. SU-t3J.- :,°St_t:_
habitat in the form of sN+-amps. ccast4l islanr.s. or aT tificial
iFI1pCL'nC:Inerits wi 11 n0: be impz:c:ec1 b :he prohoseC, lacy-0: I1Cr
will SU=table fora`-':n^ ?Zab_t?t in the :0 O: i?rarl_iS ta?ctl.
f 1COC,CCl T?_15:LtreS. ?'_ 1oode;- J, ?hes.? It can be cc nc.U eC
that _;, :J?r?rt cons "iUr? t ion wi 1 h ave no imp ac . on the 1tiGOd
stor';.
Pico ides borealis eCt - coc L-ade C. woodper_'K. '-'r i
Status: Endan Bred
Family: Picidae
Listed: 10/13/:
The adult red-cockaded woodpec:er (r_CV) has a plumage
that is entirely black and white except for small red streal_s
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 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 (Pinus palusrris). for foraging
and nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at least
X0`1 pine. lack a thick und.erstory, and be contiguous with
other stands to be appropriate habitat for the RCW. These
birds nest exclusively in trees that are >GO 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 m (12-100 ft) above the ground and average 9.1-
15.7 m (30-50 ft) high. They can be identified by a large
incrustation. of running sap
lays its eQas in April. ",Iay.
approximately 35 days later.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
No Effect
Suitable nesting and foraging habitat occurs in the
dies i.c Pine Forest anti Remnant Sandhi 1 1 Fringe Co,;imuni t ies
('Section .., . 1) within the project area, and in similar
communities outside. but within 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of the
southern terminus of the project. These areas were surveyed
by Tim Savidge on March 06-0-, 1995. using a modificrtion of
methods described by Henry (1989)• Because of the north-
south orientation of the roadway. east-west survey transects
were followed. ailowina for shorter transect distances. but
P _ ^ n •. n ,.-i i? .. T? i •1t' ( r n r _ 'n c
c-- i f! _ n "• 1 (? t`? i... _ n..?- n r a R .?_ •_ V"
... l 'mil ? .? V . ? i l .. • 1'. _? ?J ? L! .t . • _ .i \: 1 • ? ? .. _.. ? .. _. _ _ c .. .. a _ . ? ? .. .. ...
species cbser.-ed. It can be concluded t'nat project
construction wi11 not impact the red-cockade :roodpf?c;er.
Trich-echus itvinarus (?,Gest Indian manatee.)
Status: mean=erect
Family: Trichecnidae
Listed: 3/11/6-• 6/2/-0
The manatee is a large gray or brown, barrel s:^,a_,,ed
aquatic mammal. The hindlimbs of the manatee are absen-. and
the forelimbs have been modified into flippers. The tail is
flattened horizontally. The wrinkled body.- is nearly hairless
except for stiff "whiskers" on the muzzle. In clear water
most of a manatees body is visible, however in murky waters
(like North Carolina) only a small part of the head and rose
are visible.
Manatees are found in canals. sluagish rivers. estuarine
habitats, salt water bays. and as far off shore as 3." miles.
They are found in freshwater and marine habitats at shallow
depths of 1.5 m or higher. In the winter. between October
and April, manatees concentrate in areas with warm water.
During other times of the year habitats appropriate for the
manatee are those with sufficient water depth, an adequate
food supply, and in proximity to freshwater. It is believed
that manatees require a source of freshwateT to drink.
Manatees are primarily herbivorous, feeding on any aquatic
vegetation present, but they may occasionally feed on fish.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
No Effect
The water body crossed by the proposed action is too
small (shallow) to offer suitable habitat for this species.
It can be concluded that project construction will have no
impact on the manatee.
that surroun:is the tree. The 1CW
and June: the eR-as hatch
:?maran thus pumi l us (sea-beach amaranth)
Status: Threatened
Family: Amaranthaceae
Listed: OS-1992
Flower: June.to frost
Seabeach amaranth is an annual lezuiiie that Grows in
clumps containing ; to 20 branches and are often over a foot
across. The traiIin` steiiis are f leshv and reddish-pink or
reddish in color. Seabeach amaranth has thick, fieshy leaves
that are sma11. ovate.-spatuIate. emar^inate and rounded. The
leaves are usually spinach green in color.,cluster tpwards
the end of a stem. and have winced petioles. Flowers grow in
axillary fascicles and the legume has smooth. indehsiment
fruits. Sends are doss, biaci_. Both fruits and flowers are
relativ2_ly inconspicuous and.'J.o_rn a-iona the stem.
Seabeach amaranth is endemic to the .fit lant is Coastal
Plain beaches. Habitat for seabeach amaranth is found on
barrier island reaches functioning in a relativeiv dynamic
and nat.:ral manner. Seabeach amaranth Grows well in overwash
flats at the accreting en s of islands and the lower
foredunes and sipper strands of noneroding beaches. Temi-,crary
popul t-ions often form in lllOt?G?1LS, sound-side 'beaches.
dredze spoi 1 . nd beach re n en _shment This species is ver-
intolerant to competition and is not usually found in
association with ether species. Threats to seabeach amaranth
include beach stariiization protects, ail terrain vehicles
(ATV's). herbi;or_ti by insects and animals, beach -grooming.
and beach erosion..
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
No Effect
No beach habitat will be impacted by the proposed
action. It can be concluded that project construction: will
have no impact on sea-beach amaranth.
LY-simachia asperulaefol is
Status: Endangered
Family: Primulaceae
Listed: June 13. 1957
Flower: June
(rough-leaved loosestrife)
Roueh-leaved loosestrife is a perennial herb having
slender stems and whorled leaves. This herb has show; yellow
flowers which usually occur in threes or fours. Fruits are
present from July through October.
Rough-leaved loosestrife is endemic to the coastal plain
and sandhills-of North and South Carolina. This species
occurs in the ecotones or edges between longleaf pine uplands
and pond pine pocosins (areas of dense shrub and vine growth
usually on a wet, peat, poorly drained soil). on moist to
seasonally saturated sands and on shallow organic soils

overlavin, sane. It has also been found-Lo occur or. deep
Feat in the low shrub community of large Carolina bays
(shallow, elliptical, pooriy drained depressions of unknown
origins). The areas it occurs in are fire maintained.
Rough-leaved loosestrife rarely occurs in association with
hardwood stands and prefers acidic soils.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
Unresolved
suitable habitat for this species occurs in the wetland
community = 1 (Fig. 2). Surveys for this species should take
place in durin the flowering period (June 1995).
Thalict•ruin coolevi (Cooley 's meadowrue) -
Status: Endangered
Family: Ranunculaceae
Flower: late Tune-JU V. Jest .nid Jul. i
Cooler's I?IeadOwrue is a rhizomatous perennial plant with
stems that °row to one meter in length. Steals are usual"-
,-Free: in direct sunil°ht but are ia`i and ma`.' lean on otine
plants or trail along the °_round in shade' areas. Lea`:es are
usually narrowly lanceolate and unlobeC. _i'Jmne 1,wo or t1iree
obed leaves can be seen. The flowers lack petals. Fruits
!?l•3ture from :?U_us t to .oer
Cooley's meadowrue occurs in moist to wet bogs. savannas
and savanna-_i:e openinns. sandy roadsides. rights-of-wa-,-s.
and old clearcuts. This plant is dependent on some fore of
disturbance to maintain its habitat. All known populations
are on circumneutral, poorly drained, moderately permeable
soils of the Grifton series. Cooley's meadowrue only grows
well in areas with full sunlight.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
Suitable habitat for this
=1 (Fig. '-) and alongside much
survey for this species. will be
flowering period (June 1995).
Unresolved
species occurs in wetiand site
of the existing- roadway. A
conducted during the
4.2.2 Federal Candidate Species
There are a total of twenty four federal candidate (C2)
species listed for Brunswick County (Table 4). Candidate 2
(C2) species are defined as tax a for which there is some
evidence of vulnerability, but for which there are not enough
data to warrant a listing of Endan-2ered, Threatened. Proposed
Endangered, or Proposed Threatened at this time. The North
Carolina status of these species is also listed in Table 4.
Plants or animals with state designations of Endangered (E).
Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC). are given protection by
the State Endangered Species Act and the N.C. Plant Protection and
Conservation ct of 19-9. «ciministered and enforced bI the -North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and the North Carolina
Department of Agriculture.
TABLE 3. Federal Candidate Species Brunswick County
Scientific `Same Common game Habitat N"
Az r 0t iS C":'C ! Z i py `i4 e moth No SR
Aimophila aestivalis Bachman's sparrow Yes SC
Ammodramus henslowii Hensiow*s sparrow ,. Yes SR
Amorp.ha georRiana aeor,iana Georgia ieadplanz No
E
Baiduina atronurpurea honeycomb head ';o

Calrp • loous taro _ ::lae '
savanna campy-opus
No
Uarex cnaomani i Ci?apman's Is ed .e._. '<.o C

-lassoma boe111Ke? Carolina pygmy- sunfish No :'
Fimb stviis per?).si a Harper s frinz- e rush `o
Litsea aestivaiis pondspice No C
,?':acbride_i taro l ini na Caro i ina 002minz V.O C:.
?•l rioont°I 11 um la: ur watermi i foi i
Loose No T
Oxvpoiis ternary ?
savanna cowbane Yes C
Parnassia carolinl?li&a Carolina
.arass-of-o1 r n a . ?.s No E
P l anorbel 1a maani f icum, ma`Tnif icent rams-horn No E
P antago snarsiflora pineland plantain No E
Problema bulen.za rare skipper No vR
Rhexia aristosa Awned meadowbeauty `:o T
Rhynchosoora thornei Thorne's beaked-rush No C
Rudbeclcia heiioosidis sun-facing conefiow:er Yes E
Solidaao verna spring-fiowerinz Yes E
,goldenrod
Solida2o oulchra Carolina zoldenrod No E
Sporobolus teretifolius wireleaf dropseed No T
Tofieidia alabra smooth boa asphodel No C
Trichostema sp. dune blue curls No C
NC Status: SC. C. T. E. denote Special Concern. Candidate.
Threatened. Endangered. respectively. SR denotes
Significantly Rare which is not offered State Protection.
A search of the NC-NHP data base of rare plants and
animals found no records of state protected species
occurring within the project area.
5.0 REFERENCES
Cowardin. L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979.
Classifications of wetlands and deepwater habitats of
the United States. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, U.S. Dept. of Int. Washington D.C.
Crawford. J. K. and D. R. Lenat, 1989. Effects Of Land Use
On The Water Quality And Biota Of Three Streams In The
Piedmont Province of North Carolina. Prepared for US
Geological Survey. Water-Resources Investigations
Report 89-4007. _
Daniels, R.B., H.J. Kleiss, S.W. Buol, H.J. Byrd and J.A.
Phillips, 1984. Soil Systems in North Carolina. N.C.
Agricultural Research Service, N.C. State Univ. Raleigh
N.C. Bulletin 467.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual, "Technical report Y-87-1, U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg. Miss.
Henry, G.V. 1989. Guidlines for preparation of biological
assessments and evaluations for the red-cockaded
woodpecker. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast
region, Atlanta Ga.
Hynes, H.B.N. 1970. The Ecology of Running Waters.
University of Toronto Press, 555 pp.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer,- J.R. Bailey and J.R. Harrison III.
1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and
Virginia. Chapel Hill, The Univ. N.C. Press.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1993 Classifications and Water Quality Standards
Assigned to Waters of the Lumber River Basin. Raleigh
Dept. of Environment, Health and Natural Resources.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1991. Biological Assessment of Water Quality in
North Carolina Streams: Benthic Macroinvertabrate Data
Base and Long'Term Changes in Water Quality. 1983-1990.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of
the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The Univ. N.C. Press.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the
Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The Univ. N.C. Press.
Schafale, M. P. and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classifications of
the Natural Communities of North Carolina. Third
Approximation. NC Nat. Heritage Program, Div. of Parks
and Rec., NC Dept. of Envir., Health and Nat. Resources.
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service.
17
1984.
Stanley. V.G.. F.J. Swanson. W.A McKee. and.h.W. Cummins.
1991. An Ecosystem Perspective of Riparian Zones.
BioScience 41. no. 8, 540-549.
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1984.
Soil Survey of Brunswick County, North Carolina. N.C.
Agriculture Experiment Station.
U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
1982. Wildlife Considerations in Planning and Managing
Highway Corridors Users Manual. Report No. FHWA_TS-82-
212.
U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
1981. Effects of Highways on Wildlife. Report no.
FHWA/RD-81/067.
U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
1978. Highways and Ecology: Impact Assessment and
Mitigation, Final Report. Report No. FHWA-RWE/OEP-78-2.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of
the Carolinas, Virginia and Maryland. Chapel Hill, The
Univ. N.C. Press.
APPENDIX A
Glossary of Terms
abiotic pertaining to nonliving or physical (air, water.
soil) aspects of an environment.
alluvial sediments deposited by flowing water, as in river
bed floodplain or delta.
allochthonous of foreign origin; transported into an area
from outside of area.
autochthonous formed within the place where it is found.
benthic pertaining to the bottom of a body of water; a
benthic organism lives on or in the bottom substrate.
biotic pertaining to living aspects or specific life
conditions of an environment.
canopy the uppermost layer of vegetation in a plant
community.
carnivore an organism that feeds on animals.
channel an open conduit either naturally or artifically
created which periodically or continuously contains moving
water.
carrying capacity the maximum number (or weight) of
organisims which can be sustained within a given ecosystem
detritus minute particles of decaying organic matter
disturbed community a community that is not in its natural
state. Sources of disturbance include human activity, fire
2s

t?
and wind.
ecosystem a biological community plus its abiotic (nonliving)
environment.
Endangered a taxa that is threatened with extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
fauna animals collectively, of a particular region.
flora a treatise describing the plants of a region.
fluvial produced by the action of a river or stream
food chain specific sequence of organisms, including
producer, herbivore, and carnivore, through which energy
and materials move within an ecosystem.
herbivore an animal that consumes plant material.
hydric soil soil that is wet long enough to periodically
produce anaerobic conditions,-thereby influencing-the
growth of plants.
hydrophytic vegetation plants which grow in water or on a
substrate that is at least periodically deficient in
oxygen as a result of excessive water content.
Intermittent Stream stream which is periodically dry
nocturnal animals that feed or are active at night.
omnivore an animal which feeds on both plant and animal
material.
Perennial Stream Stream which has a-continual flow for an
idefinte amount of time
photosynthesis conversion of radiant energy (sunlight) into
chemical energy (food).
piscivore an animal that feeds primarily on fish.
pocosin a flat, swampy evergreen community of the coastal
plain region in the southeastern United States
primary consumer organisms that are the second step in a
community food chain, feeding on the producers.
primary producer organisms- capable through photosynthesis to
manufacture their own food through direct capture of light
energy: producers compose the first step in a community
food chain.
Proposed Endangered a species that has been formally proposed
as Endangered; species formally proposed receive some
legal protection.
Proposed Threatened a specieslthat has been formally proposed
as Threatened; species formally proposed receive some
legal protection.
sessile an organism which permanently attaches itself to the
substrate.
spoor the track or trail of an animal, particularly a wild
animal.
succession The process of community change through time,
with an orderly sequence of seral stages, the organisims
(plants, animals) of each stage modify the environment,
making it less suitable for themselves, and more suitable
for the next. The end point or climax perpetuates itself.
Threatened a taxa that is likely to become Endangered in the
foreseeable future.
i
29
. NC 179 ' r
From Just North of SR 1145 (Village Point Road)
to US 17 Business
Shallotte, Brunswick County
State Project No. 6.831018
TIP No. R-3106D
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
In Compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
For further information contact:
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
I
a
APPROVED:
IWO H. rang Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
. NC 179
From Just North of SR 1145 (Village Point Road)
to US 17 Business
Shallotte, Brunswick County
State Project No. 6.831018
TIP No. R-3106D
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
amuel E. Keith Jr.
Project Planning Engineer
Linwood Stone, CPM '
Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
r
Kicnara u. uavis, N. L. Assistant'Ma
Planning and Environmental Branch, N
???etso!ar:ao
•.• ? ca?o, 3?
?• 0? .••••••h. ?! `tee
. Q '9r•
SEAL '
ger- 6944
DOT
.;?9R? pP••.
• SUMMARY
1. Descriation of Action
The North Carolina Department of. Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to
widen a 2.4 kilometer (1.49 mile) segment of NC 179 in Shallotte from two
lanes to a three-lane curb and gutter facility from just north of SR 1145
(Village Point Road) to US 17 Business (refer to Figures 1 and 2 for the
project location and recommended improvements). The portion of NC 179
from US 17 Business to the intersection with SR 1173 will be constructed
on new location to intersect SR 1173 north of Shallotte Middle School (see
Figure 2 for location). This relocation will provide a safer intersection
by eliminating the existing angle intersection and shifting the
intersection away from the entrance to Shallotte Middle School. The
proposed improvements will provide a 13.2-meter (44-foot) face to face
curb and gutter cross section with a center turn lane.
This project is included in the 1996-2002 North Carolina
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and is scheduled for right of way
acquisition in fiscal year 1996 and construction in fiscal year 1997. The
total estimated cost for the project is $2,756,000. This estimate
includes $1,783,000 for construction and $973,000 for right of way
acquisition.
2. Summary of Environmental Impacts
The proposed project will improve the traffic flow along NC 179 as
well as improve safety. The proposed center turn lane will accommodate
left turning traffic and will reduce the potential for rear-end type
collisions.
Approximately 0.1 hectare (0.2 acre) of wetlands will be impacted by
the project. No relocations of residents, non-profit organizations, or
businesses are anticipated to be required. Noise levels at five
residences will approach or exceed noise abatement criteria, but no
abatement measures are considered feasible for the project.
3. Alternatives Considered
Due to the nature of the project, the widening of an existing segment
of roadway, no alternative corridors were studied. However, a five-lane
curb and gutter cross-section was considered for the project. This
section would provide more traffic carrying capacity than a three-Lane
section, but it would result in higher right of way and construction costs
and would impact more properties along NC 179. The estimated cost for the
five-lane curb and gutter cross section is $3,537,200 which includes
$2,383,000 and $1,154,200 for right of way acquisition. This alternative
would involve substantially higher construction and right of way costs.
Also, this alternative would result in more adverse environmental impacts
because it would impact a wetland site on the west side of NC 179 that
will not be impacted by the recommended three-lane alternative. For these
reasons, a five-lane curb and gutter section is not recommended for this
project.
The "do nothing" alternati,,4e was'also considered, but rejected. The
proposed cross section will provide a safer travelway to accommodate the
current and projected traffic volumes.
4. Coordination
The following federal, state, and local agencies were consulted
during the preparation of this State Environmental Assessment/Finding of
No Significant Impact. An asterisk indicates that a written response was
received. Responses are included in the appendix.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Atlanta
*U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Raleigh
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Asheville
*N.C. Department of Instruction
*N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
*N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
N.C. Department of Human Resources
*N.C. State Clearinghouse
*N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
*Mayor of Shallotte
Brunswick County Commissioners
5. Summary of Special Project Commitments
a. Sidewalk Provisions
Sidewalks are proposed along the east side of the facility as
requested by the Town of Shallotte (see Section I.B.B for discussion
of sidewalk provisions).
6. Permits Required
Brunswick County is one of 20 counties in North Carolina that is
under the jurisdiction of the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA), which is
administered by the Division of Coastal Management (DCM). CAMA is the
lead permitting agency for projects within its jurisdiction.
CAMA directs the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) to identify and
designate Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC's) in which uncontrolled
development might cause irreversible damage to property, public health and
the natural environment. CAMA necessitates a permit if a project meets
all of the following criteria:
- it is located in a county under CAMA jurisdiction;
- it is in or affects a designated AEC;
- the project is considered "development" under the terms of the
act, and;
- it does not qualify for an exemption identified by CAMA, or CRC.
This project does not appear to impact any AEC, and thus will not
involve CAMA, therefore the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) becomes the
lead permitting agency. A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 14 (minor
road crossings) is anticipated for impacts to the unnamed stream.
P
This permit authorizes fill-for roads crossing waters of the United
States, including wetlands and aquatic sites. Standard conditions
include: (1) the width of the fill is limited to the minimum necessary for
the actual crossing; (2) fill is limited to 0.1 hectare (0.3 acre), and
(3) no more than 61 linear meters (200 feet) of the fill will be placed in
special aquatic sites, including wetlands.
A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section
401 Water Quality Certification is also required. Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act requires that the state issue or deny water certification for
any federally permitted, or licensed activity that may result in a
discharge into waters of the Waters of the United States.

TABU OF 'CONTENTS
PAGE
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION .............................. 1
A. General Description.. ...... ............................ 1
B. Summary of Proposed Improvements ........................... 1
1. Cross Section.. ......................... ......... 1
2. Right of Way Width .................................... 1
3. Access Control ........................................ 1
4. Drainage Structures.. . ............................. 2
5. Design Speed and Speed Zones .......................... 2
6. Railroads ............................................. 2
7. Parking ............................................... 2
8. Sidewalks.. ...................................... 2
9. Bicycle Provisions .................................... 2
10. Utilities ............................................. 2
11. Cost Estimate ......................................... 3
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION .................................... 3
A. Existing Roadway Inventory ................................. 3
1. Cross Section ......................................... 3
2. Right of Way.. .... ... ........................... 3
3. Type of Roadside Development .......................... 3
4. Structures.. ....................................... 3
5. Access Control ........................................ 3
6. Speed Zones.. .................................... 3
7. Intersecting Roads .................................... 3
8. Railroad Crossings .................................... 4
9. Sidewalks ............................................. 4
10. Bicycle Provisions .................................... 4
11. Utilities.. ......................................... 4
12. Geodetic Markers ...................................... 4
13. School Buses .......................................... 4
B. Functional Classification and Thoroughfare Plan............ 4
C. Traffic Volumes and Capacity Analysis ...................... 4
1. Signalized Intersections .............................. 5
2. Unsignalized Intersections ............................ 5
D. Accident History ........................................... 6
III. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ............................. 6
A. Recommended Improvements.... 6
B. Other Alternatives Considered .............................. 7
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
PAGE
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ........................................... 7
A. Social Environment ......................................... 7
1. Neighborhood Characteristics .......................... 7
2. Public and Private Facilities ......................... 7
3. Cultural Resources .................................... 7
a. Architectural Resources .......................... 7
b. Archaeological Resources ......................... 8
4. Relocation Impacts .................................... 8
B. Economic Environment ....................................... 8
C. Land Use ................................................... 8
1. Scope and Status of Planning .......................... 8
2. Existing Land Use ..................................... 9
3. Future Land Use ....................................... 9
4. Farmland .............................................. 9
D. Natural Environment ........................................ 9
1. Ecological Resources .................................. 9
a. Terrestrial Communities .......................... 10
b. Aquatic Communities.... . .... ......... 15
C. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities ........ 15
2. Protected Species ..................................... 17
a. Federally Protected Species.. .. . 17
b. Federal Candidate and State Protected Species .... 25
3. Physical Resources .................................... 26
a. Geology, Topography, and Soils ................... 26
b. Water Resources..... .......................... 27
C. Floodplain Involvement ........................... 29
d. Wetlands ......................................... 30
4. Air Quality ........................................... 30
5. Traffic Noise ......................................... 33
E. Contaminated Properties .................................... 38
F. Construction Impacts ....................................... 38
G. Permits .................................................... 39
H. Mitigation ................................................. 40
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
PAGE
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ....................................... 41
A. Comments Received .......................................... 41
C. Public Response ............................................ 42
B. Public Hearing ............................................. 42
VI. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ................................ 42
FIGURES
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - Aerial Mosaic
Figure 3a - 1994 Projected Traffic Volumes
Figure 3b - 2017 Projected Traffic Volumes
Figure 4a - Proposed Intersection Treatments at US 17 Business
Figure 4b - Proposed Intersection Treatments at SR 1173
Figure 5 - Roadway Typical Section
APPENDIX
Appendix A - Agency Comments
Appendix B - Air Quality and Traffic Noise Data
NC 179
From Just North of SR 1145 (Village Point Road)
to US 17 Business
Shallotte, Brunswick County
State Project No. 6.831018
TIP No. R-3106D
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. General Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to
widen a 2.4 kilometer (1.49 mile) segment of NC 179 in Shallotte from two
lanes to a three-lane curb and gutter facility from just north of SR 1145
(Village Point Road) to US 17 Business (refer to Figures 1 and 2 for the
project location and recommended improvements). The portion of NC 179
from US 17 Business to the intersection with SR 1173 will be relocated on
new location to intersect SR 1173 north of Shallotte Middle School (see
Figure 2 for location). The proposed improvements will provide a 13.2
meter (44-foot) curb and gutter cross section with a center left turn
lane. This project is included in the 1995-2001 North Carolina
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and is scheduled for right of way
acquisition in fiscal year 1996 and construction in fiscal year 1997. The
total estimated cost for the project is $2,756,000. This estimate
includes $1,783,000 for construction and $973,000 for right of way
acquisition.
No significant adverse environmental impacts are anticipated from the
proposed improvements. The project has been coordinated with the
appropriate state and regional review agencies, federal permit agencies,
and local government officials.
B. Summary of Proposed Improvements
1. Cross-Section
The proposed cross-section provides a three-lane 13.2-meter
(44-foot) curb and gutter section with 4.2-meter (14-foot) travel
lanes and a 3.6-meter (12-foot) center turn lane (refer to Figure 5
for a sketch of the proposed cross-section). Sidewalks are proposed
on the east side of the facility.
2. Right of Way
Most of the improvements will be contained within the existing
18.3-meter (60-foot) right of way except in the area between US 17
Business and SR 1173. Additional right of way and easements will be
necessary in this area to accommodate the relocation of NC 179 on new
location. Temporary construction easements will be necessary at most
locations along the project in addition to the existing right of way.
3. Access Control
No control of access is recommended for the proposed project.
4. Drainage Structures
There are no major drainage structures located along the
proposed project.
5. Design Speed and Speed Zones
The proposed design speed along the portion of NC 179 from
SR 1145 (Village Point Road) to SR 1234 (Sellers Street) is 80
kilometers per hour (km/h) (50 miles per hour (mph)), and the
anticipated speed limit is 70 km/h (45 mph). The proposed design
speed along the portion of NC 179 from SR 1234 (Sellers Street) to
US 17 Business is 60 km/h (40 mph) and the anticipated speed limit is
50 km/h (35 mph).
6. Railroads
This project does not affect a railroad or a rail corridor.
7. Parkin
Parking is presently not permitted and will not be provided for
or permitted along the project.
8. Sidewalks
Although the Town of Shallotte has requested that sidewalks be
constructed on both sides of the project (see letter dated August 2,
1995 in the Appendix), sidewalks are only proposed on the east side
of the project. The sidewalks are estimated to cost $83,000. NCDOT
will participate in 80 percent ($66,400) of the sidewalk cost, and
the Town of Shallotte will be responsible for the remaining 20
percent ($16,600), as outlined in the NCDOT Pedestrian Policy
Guidelines. A municipal agreement between the Town of Shallotte and
NCDOT will include the details of this provision.
9. Bicycle Provisions
The cross section proposed
4.2-meter (14-foot) wide outside
accommodations. This portion of
Carolina Bicycling Highway System
Call".
for the project will provide
lanes for "share the road" bicycle
NC 179 is a part of the North
designated route, NC-3 "Ports of
10. Utilities
Telephone, water, and sewer lines exist underground along the
project. Overhead power lines also exist along the project. The
project will likely require the relocation of some utilities, and the
severity of the conflicts is considered to be moderate.
3
11. Cost Estimate
Construction $ 1,783,000
Right of Way $ 973,000
Total Cost $ 2,756,000
II. NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION
A.
Existing Roadway Inventory
1. Cross-Section
The existing roadway consists of a two-lane, 22-foot, shoulder
section.
2. Right of Way
The existing right of way width is 18.3 meters (60 feet).
3. Type of Roadside Development
The facility is characterized by both commercial and residential
development. Types of development along NC 179 include a shopping
center, a church and Shallotte Middle School (see Figure 2 for aerial
mosaic showing the locations of this development).
4. Structures
There are no major drainage structures located along the
proposed project.
5. Access Control
There is no control of access along this portion of NC 179.
6. Speed Zones
The posted speed limit along the project is 70 km/h (45 mph)
from SR 1145 (Village Point Road) to SR 1234 (Sellers Street) and 50
km/h (35 mph) from SR 1234 (Sellers Street) to US 17 Business.
7. Intersecting Roads
The following eight roadways intersect NC 179:
1. SR 1145 (Village Point Road)
2. Brierwood Street
3. Hickory Street
4. Pender Street
5. SR 1234 (Sellers Street)
6. SR 1173
7. Powell Street
8. US 17 Business
4
All of these intersections intersect NC 179 (Village Road) at
grade. The intersection at US 17 Business is signalized. The other
intersections along the project are stop sign controlled.
8. Railroad Crossings
There are no railroad crossings in the project area.
9. Sidewalks
There is an existing sidewalk on the east side of NC 179 in
front of Shallotte Middle School.
10. Bicycle Provisions
This portion of NC 179 is a part of the North Carolina Bicycling
Highway System designated route, NC-3 "Ports of Call" Currently
there are no bicycle provisions along this portion of NC 179.
11. Utilities
Telephone, water, and sewer exist underground along the project.
Overhead power lines also exist along the project.
12. Geodetic Markers
Seven geodetic survey markers are located within the project
area. The N.C. Geodetic Survey will be contacted prior construction
regarding the location of the survey markers. Intentional
destruction of a geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General
Statute 102-4.
13. School Buses
Nine school buses make two trips per day for a daily total of
eighteen bus trips along the project.
B. Functional Classification and Thoroughfare Plan
NC 179 is currently designated as a minor thoroughfare on the
mutually adopted Brunswick County Thoroughfare Plan and is classified as a
rural major collector.
C. Traffic Volumes and Capacity Analysis
The existing (1994) average daily traffic (ADT) volumes along NC 179
range from 4,540 vehicles per day (vpd) south of US 17 Business to 10,600
vpd south of SR 1234 (Sellers Street). Projected design year (2017)
traffic volumes are expected to increase to 10,200 vpd and 23,000 vpd in
the same locations. These estimates of the daily traffic include one
percent truck-tractor semi-trailers, two percent dual tired vehicles, and
a design hour volume of ten percent.
5
The traffic carrying capacity of a roadway is described by levels of
service (LOS) which range from A to F. Level of service A, the highest
level of service, is characterized by very low delay in which most
vehicles do not stop at all. Typically, drivers are unrestricted and
turns are made freely. With level of service B, traffic operation is
stable but more vehicles stop and cause higher levels of delay. Level of
service C is characterized by stable operation, with drivers occasionally
waiting through more than one cycle at a traffic signal. At level of
service D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Delay for
approaching vehicles may be substantial during short periods of the peak
hour. Level of service E is considered to be the limit of acceptable
delay and represents the theoretical capacity of the facility. Level of
service F represents oversaturated or jammed conditions which are
considered unacceptable to most drivers.
1. Signalized Intersections
The intersection with US 17 Business is a signalized intersection.
Intersection capacity was calculated for current year (1994) traffic,
construction year (1997) traffic, and design year (2017) traffic. The
results of the analysis are shown in Table 1.
Table 1
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
LEVELS OF SERVICE (LOS)
"No Build"
Alternative
Proposed Widening
Alternative
1994 2017 1994 2017
Location LOS LOS LOS LOS
US 17 Business A F A D
Due to the large projected volume of right turning traffic on NC 179
(northbound), an exclusive right turn lane will be provided on this
approach. Also, an exclusive right turn lane will be provided on
southbound US 17 Business to separate the decelerating traffic from the
higher speed through traffic to reduce the potential for accidents (see
Figure 4a for a sketch of these improvements).
2. Unsignalized Intersections
A capacity analysis was performed at six of the unsignalized
intersections along the project for the "do nothing" and proposed widening
alternatives using existing and projected traffic volumes. The results of
the analysis represent the levels of service for left turns from NC 179
and all movements from intersecting roads. These results are shown in
Table 2.
All of these intersections will operate at or exceed capacity (LOS E)
in the design year (2017) with the proposed widening. Without the
proposed widening, the majority of the intersections will operate at
6
LOS F. In the future, these intersections will be reviewed by the NCDOT
Area Traffic Engineer to determine if they meet traffic signalization
warrants.
D. Accident History
A total of 70 accidents were reported along the studied portion of
NC 179 between September 1, 1990 and August 31, 1993. The primary types
of accidents were rear-end collisions (38.6%) and accidents involving left
turn movements (25.7%). These two types of accidents combine to account
for 64.3 percent of all accidents on this portion of NC 179. Forty one
percent of the accidents occurred at the intersection with US 17 Business,
and 20 percent at the intersection with Sellers Street. Sixty one percent
of the accidents along this portion of NC 179 occurred at these two
intersections.
The total accident rate along the studied section of NC 179 is 660.4
accidents per 100 million vehicle miles (acc/100mvm) compared to the state
average of 251.4 acc/100mvm for similar routes. This accident rate is
substantially higher than the statewide average for similar routes. The
proposed widening improvements will reduce the potential for the types of
accidents which presently occur along the road. The proposed project will
improve sight distance at the major accident locations, provide a center
turn lane which will accommodate left turning traffic, and will reduce the
potential for rear-end type collisions. The proposed project will improve
the overall safety and convenience for motorists using NC 179.
III. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Recommended Improvements
It is recommended that the existing roadway be widened symmetrically
to a 13.2 meter (44-foot) curb and gutter cross section between US 17
Business and SR 1145 (Village Point Road). The 13.2-meter (44-foot) wide
section will accommodate two 4.2-meter (14-foot) lanes, one per direction
of travel and a 3.6-meter (12-foot) center turn lane. A shoulder section
was considered for the project but was determined not to be feasible
because of the urban development in the project area. In addition,
sidewalks which cannot be accommodated in a desirable manner by a
shoulder-section, are recommended along the east side of the project. The
widening will be symmetric about the centerline of the existing roadway.
The portion of NC 179 from US 17 Business to the intersection with SR 1173
will be relocated on new location to intersect SR 1173 north of Shallotte
Middle School (see Figure 2 for location). This relocation will provide a
safer intersection by eliminating the existing angle intersection and
shifting the intersection away from the entrance to Shallotte Middle
School. Additional right of way acquisition will be necessary along this
portion of the project. A double drive will not be constructed on the
north side of Shallotte Middle School as requested by the Brunswick County
Schools Maintenance Department because it would conflict with the
relocated intersection of NC 179 and SR 1173. An exclusive right turn
lane will be provided along NC 179 at both entrances to the school. The
recommended improvements along the remainder of the project will be
contained within the existing 18-meter (60-foot) right of way. Temporary
construction easements will be necessary at most locations in addition to
the proposed right of way.
B. Other Alternatives Considered
Due to the nature of the project, the widening of an existing segment
of roadway, no alternative corridors were studied. However, a five-lane
curb and gutter cross-section was considered for the project. This
section would provide more traffic carrying capacity than a three-lane
section, but it would result in higher right of way and construction costs
and would impact more properties along NC 179. The estimated cost for the
five-lane curb and gutter cross section is $3,537,200 which includes
$2,383,000 and $1,154,200 for right of way acquisition. This alternative
would involve substantially higher construction and right of way costs.
Also, this alternative would result in more adverse environmental impacts
because it would impact a wetland site on the west side of NC 179 that
will not be impacted by the recommended three-lane alternative. For these
reasons, a five-lane curb and gutter section is not recommended for this
project.
The "do nothing" alternative was also considered, but rejected. The
proposed cross section will provide a safer travelway to accommodate the
current and projected traffic volumes.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Social Environment
1. Neighborhood Characteristics
Brunswick County is located in the southeastern section of North
Carolina and is bounded by the Atlantic Ocean, the Cape Fear River,
and Columbus, Pender, and New Hanover Counties. According to 1990
census data, Brunswick County has a total population of 50,985 and a
population density (number of persons per square mile) of 59.64.
Shallotte has a population of 965. The project area is characterized
by commercial, institutional, and residential development. The
proposed action will not disrupt community cohesion, nor will it
interfere with the operation of existing facilities and services.
2. Public and Private Facilities
Public and Private facilities in the project area include a
shopping center, Brierwood Golf Club, Calvary Baptist Church, and
Shallotte Middle School. None of these facilities will be adversely
impacted by the proposed action. The project will improve the
accessibility and visibility of these facilities.
3. Cultural Resources
a. Architectural Resources
This project is subject to compliance with North Carolina
General Statute 121-12(a) which requires that if a state action
will have an adverse effect upon a property listed on the
National Register of Historic Places, the North Carolina
Historic Commission will be given an opportunity to comment.
8
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), in a letter
dated November 16, 1994 (see letter in appendix), recommended
that an architectural historian from the Department of
Transportation evaluate two structures, Sunny Side 1915
Shallotte School and St. Mark's A.M.E Church, for possible
National Register eligibility. The area of potential effect
(APE) of the subject project was reviewed in the field by a
NCDOT staff architectural historian. No properties over 50 years
of age are located in the APE. The two structures (Sunny Side
1915 Shallotte School and St. Marks A.M.E. Church) which the
SHPO requested information on, are located outside the APE.
SHPO concurs with the findings of the NCDOT architectural
historian (refer to the Concurrence Form in Appendix A). Since
there are no properties either listed on or eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places within the APE, no further
compliance with GS 121-12(a) is required.
b. Archaeological Resources
There are no known archaeological sites within the project
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 proposed construction.
The SHPO has reviewed the project scope and recommends that no
archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with
this project (see letter dated November 16, 1994 in Appendix A).
4. Relocation Impacts
The proposed project will result in no relocations of residents,
non-profit organizations, or businesses.
B. Economic Environment
The North Carolina Preliminary Civilian Labor Force Estimates
indicate that during the month of May 1995, Brunswick County had a labor
force of 27,720. Of this number, 25,640 persons were employed and 2,080
(7.5 percent) were unemployed.
C. Land Use
1. Scope and Status of Planning
The proposed improvement is located in the jurisdiction of the
Town of Shallotte. The Town maintains a planning program based on
its Land Use Plan, which is updated every five years. The most
recent update was updated in 1994. The Town also enforces a zoning
ordinance and subdivision regulations.
2. Existing Land Use
The project area supports a mix of land uses, including
residential and commercial uses scattered among vacant, undeveloped
parcels. Most of the commercial uses are located near the US 17
Business intersection. US 17 Business is the commercial center of
the town.
3. Future Land Use
The Town of Shallotte has grown over 57 percent between 1980 and
1990. Much of this growth is due to the development of Brierwood
Estates, a retirement and golfing residential development. The Town
believes that residential development oriented to retirement and
second-home construction will continue within its planning
jurisdiction, consistent with trends throughout the region.
According to the Land Classification Map within the Town's Land
Use Plan, most of the project area is classified as developed.
Slightly less than half of the project area, including land on the
southeastern side of NC 179 is designated as Urban Transition. This
area is either undergoing growth, or is expected to experience
development during the five to ten years following the Plan's
development.
4. Farmland
North Carolina Executive Order Number 96, Conservation of Prime
Agricultural and Forest Lands, requires that state agencies consider
the impact of land acquisition and public investments on prime
farmland soils designated by the US Soil Conservation Service. The
proposed improvement is located in an area where urban development is
occurring at a rapid pace. The project involves widening an existing
roadway and relocating a short section of roadway on new location.
Therefore, any impacts to prime agricultural land will be minimal.
D. Natural Environment
1. Ecological Resources
The project occurs in southeast Brunswick County, within the
Town of Shallotte. The project vicinity is moderately developed,
with business and residential establishments interspersed among
forested tracts.
Prior to a site visit, published resource information pertaining
to the project area was gathered and reviewed. Information sources
include; U.S. Geodetic Survey (USGS) quadrangle map (Shallotte),
National Wetlands Inventory Maps (NWI), NCDOT aerial photographs of
project area, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list of protected
species and N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NC-NHP) database of
uncommon and protected species and unique habitats.
10
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed project
alignment on January 4, 1995. Plant communities were identified and
recorded. Wildlife was identified using a number of observation
techniques, including habitat evaluation, active searching and
recording identifying signs of wildlife (sounds, tracks and burrows).
Cursory surveys of aquatic communities were accomplished using a hand
held dip net. Organisms captured were identified and then released.
Surveys for the red-cockaded woodpecker were conducted on March 6
and 7, 1995.
Biotic Resources
This section describes the ecosystems encountered and the
relationships between vegetative and faunal components within
terrestrial, and aquatic ecosystems. Descriptions of the terrestrial
systems are presented in the context of plant community
classifications.
Representative animal species which are likely to occur
in these habitats are cited, along with brief descriptions of their
respective "roles" within that community. Animals that were observed
during the site visit are denoted by (*) in the text. Sightings of
spoor evidence are equated with sightings of individuals. Scientific
nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are used for plant
and animal species described. Subsequent references to the same
organism will include the common name only.
a. Terrestrial Communities
There are four distinct terrestrial communities identified
within the project area, however, there is always some degree of
overlap between communities. Community composition is
reflective of the physiography, topography and current and prior
land uses of the area. All community types have had some degree
of past, or continued human disturbance. As a result of
disturbances, changes in vegetative dominance often occur within
the community types. Some of the forested areas have experienced
limited recent disturbance and contain large old growth trees,
which offer ample food and shelter resources for a variety of
wildlife species.
Numerous terrestrial animals are highly adaptive and
populate a variety of habitats, therefore many of the species
mentioned may occur in any number of the different community
types described. Other animals are tolerant of a narrow range of
environmental conditions and may be limited to a particular
habitat type. These species are the most vulnerable to habitat
disturbance.
Maintained Communities
Maintained Communities are land parcels in which the
vegetation is kept in a low-growing, non-successional state.
These communities, which include roadside shoulders, utility
corridors, agricultural fields, residential lawns and urban
landscapes, vary greatly with regards to vegetative composition.
11
Roadside Shoulder Community
The roadside shoulders of the existing roadway are
maintained in a low-growing condition by mowing. Predominant
species occurring here include crab grass (Digitaria
sanquinalis), coastal bermuda (Cynodon dactylon) finger grass
(Chloris etraea), henbit (Lamium aam?lex_i_caule), cow-itch
(Campsis radicans) and wild onion (Al il'um canaaense). Various
shrubs including: silverling (Baccharis halimifolia), wax myrtle
(Myri-c-a cerifera) and inkberry (Ilex lg abra) occur at the border
of this community and the forested communities present in the
project area.
Resident fauna is limited by continual habitat disturbance
and consists mainly of small animals. Species such as eastern
harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys humulis) and white-footed mouse
(Perom scu-s leuco us) have been shown to be more abundant in
roadside ROWs than in adjacent habitats. Insects, earthworms
and other invertebrates are also abundant in roadside habitats.
Roadsides are utilized primarily as a travel corridor
between other habitats, or as a foraging zone for species of
adjacent woodlands. Forage opportunities offered by roadside
habitats include seeds, fruits and insects, as well as other
small animals (rodents, etc). These food sources attract a
variety of animals , particularly birds from adjacent
communities. Northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis)*,
European starling (Sturnus vulgaris)*, common grackle ( uiscalus
quiscula)*, boat-tailed grackle (Q. major)*, brown thrasher
(Toxostoma rufum)*, grey catbird (Dumetella carolinensis)* and
Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis)* were observed in this
habitat type, most often in the shrubs near the community edges.
Residential Lawns
Residential grass lawns are populated with a variety of
grasses, winter ryes (Lolium spp.), coastal bermuda and
crabgrass. Ornamental herbs, shrubs and trees are abundant
landscape species, and many lawns have large native trees such
as live oak ( uercus virginiana), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda),
long leaf pine (P. aallust?ris) and red maple (Acer rubrum
remaining from previous opted communities.
Animals occurring in nearby forested areas often forage or
even reside in lawn habitats. The presence of bird feeders
attracts many birds to these environments. Some common species
of lawn settings which were observed include Carolina chickadee,
tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor), blue jay (Cyanocitta
stellerii)*, northern mockingbird (Mimus polygottos)*, mourning
dove Zenaida macroura)*, Carolina wren (Th rothorus
ludovicianus *, northern cardinal and house finch Carpodaucus
mexicanus)*. Mammals such as grey squirrel (Sciurus
caroms nensis)* and eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus)
12
are commonly observed in lawn habitats, while others such as
eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus) and least shrew (Cryptotis
arva) are less conspicuous residents of lawn settings.
Business Landscape
The majority of this habitat type includes impervious
surfaces such as concrete sidewalks, paved parking lots and
structures. Vegetation found in these areas is sparse, but may
include fescue, English plantain and clover. Various landscape
ornamental shrubs and trees may also be present.
Animals occurring in the more developed areas of the
project are adapted to urban settings. The house mouse (Mus
musculus) and the Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus) are two
introduced species which thrive in these conditions. Large
mixed species flocks of herring gull (Larus argentatus)* and
ring-billed gull (L. delawarensis)* were observed in the
Brunswick Metro Square Village parking lot between NC 179 and
US 17 Business.
Mesic Pine Forest
This is the most abundant forested community occurring in
the project area. The dominant canopy species is loblolly pine
and occasionally water oak (uercus ni ra). Red maple and
sweetgum (Li uidambar styraci if ua) map the sub-canopy.
Sweet bay (Ma no iia vir iniana), red bay (Persea borbonia), wax
myrtle (M ric-Y ifera inkberry, and tits C ry i a
racemiflora) constit- u? to the shrub component. Herbaceous species
such as heartleaf (He?xastylis p..), clubmoss (Lycopdium sp.) and
partridge berry (Mitchella repens) are abundant ground cover in
some areas and sparse to absent in others. Giant cane
(Arundinaria gigantea) occurs sporadically and vines such as
green brier (Smilax rotundifolia) and poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans) are common but not overly dense. Privet (Ligustrum
sinense) an introduced species has escaped cultivation and is
abundant in some areas, particularly near residential borders.
The vegetation present in this community provides an
abundant array of food resources, from mast, seeds and berries,
to leaves and roots, as well as offering nesting and sheltering
habitat for a variety of animal species. The faunal community
composition is reflective of the available food, shelter and
nesting resources available. Faunal distribution within the
community is related to the stratification of the vegetative
component.
Birds are the most conspicuous group of animals utilizing
the canopy layer of the forest however representative species
from the other terrestrial vertebrate groups also utilize the
canopy. Food in the form of pine seeds, acorns and defoliating
and.wood boring insects, attracts species such as grey tree frog
13
(H_yla chrysoscelis, or H. versicolor), pine woods tree frog (H.
femoralis), Carolina anole (Anolis carolinensis)*, broadhead
skink (Eumeces laticeps) black rat snake, pileated woodpecker
(Dryocopus pileatus)*, yellow-bellied sapsucker (Sphyrapicus
varius)*, brown headed nuthatch (Sitta usilla)*, pine warbler
(Dendrocia inus) pine siskin (Carduelis pinus), tufted titmouse
(Parus bicolor)* and southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys
volans). Most of these species will also nest within the
canopy. Species nestfng in the canopy but foraging elsewhere
include screech owl (Otus asio) and grey squirrel which feed
mostly on the forest floor, red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis)*
which forages in adjacent open habitats and Virginia opossum
which forages in a wide variety of habitats.
Berry-producing shrubs are abundant in this community, and
provide a valuable summer-fall food source for many avian
species. Species such as yellow-rumped warbler (Dendroica
coronata), northern cardinal, painted bunting (Passerina ciris)
and rufous-sided towhee (Pipilo er_ythrophthalmus) are expected
to utilize this strata of the community, particularly near the
forest edge.
Fauna associated with the forest floor includes: southern
toad (Bufo terrestris), slimy salamander (Plethodon
glutinosus *, ground skink (Scincella lateralis)*, smooth earth
snake (Vir iniai valeriae), worm snake (Carphophis amoenus),
eastern box tort eT (Terrapene carolina), southeastern shrew
(Sorex longirostris), golden mouse Ochrotomys nuttalli) and
woodland vole (Microtus pinetorum). Many of these species are
fossorial (burrowers) and therefore rarely seen. Earthworms and
other invertebrates are important food items of many of these
species, while roots, seeds and other plant material are
consumed by others.
Various species of fungi and detritivores such as
terrestrial snails and slugs, as well as other invertebrates,
serve the role of decomposers in this community. This step of
the food chain is crucial for nutrient regeneration. The large
amount of organic material (fallen logs, leaves etc) on the
forest floor leads to a high number of decomposers. Numerous
species of fungi were observed during the site visit. Those
identified include granular jellyroll (Exidia landulosa), pine
cone fungus (Auriscalpium vul are), tree ear (Auricularia
auricula), powdery sulphur bolete (Pulveroboletus ravenelii),
white-egg bird's nest (Crucibulum laeve) and honey mushroom
(Armillariella mellea).
Secondary Bay Forest
This community type occurs in a forested tract near the
southern end of the project, on nearly level to slightly sloping
terrain. The community grades into a jurisdictional wetland,
however wetland criteria (hydrology) is not met within the
project ROW.
14
Vegetative components are similar to the Secondary Mesic
Pine Forest, however species such as sweet bay and red bay which
occurred as shrubs in the former community, are dominant canopy
species here along with loblolly bay (Gordonia lasianthus) and
loblolly pine. Sweet gum, pond pine (Pinus serotina), laurel
oak ( uercus laurifolia) and chapman oak (Q_ chapmanii) are
present to a lesser extent. Wax myrtle, inkberry, henderson
wood (Ilex cassine), fetter-bush (Lyonia lucida) and titi are
prevalent shrubs.
The herbaceous component is sparse. Species such as
bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum) occur at the community edge
near the roadway, while cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea) and
seedbox (Ludwi is sp.) occur in somewhat open areas where the
community begins to grade into a wetland. Giant cane
(Arundinaria gigantea), green brier, blaspheme vine
(S. Taurifolia) and poison ivy occur throughout.
The faunal component of this community is expected to be
similar to the former community, with regard to composition and
density. There were no species observed only in this habitat.
Remnant Coastal Fringe Sandhill
A small tract of this forested community occurs on a small
ridge at the southern terminus of the project, extending well
beyond study limits. Golf course and residential development
have fragmented this forest. The presence of numerous dirt
roads through this area suggests that further development will
occur in the near future.
The canopy is dominated almost solely by longleaf pine,
with a few canopy sized live oak. The open understory includes
turkey oak ( uercus laevis), Darlington oak (Q_ hemis haerica)
and sassafras Sassafras albidum). Prevalent shrubs include
yaupon (Ilex vomitoria), inkberry, wax myrtle and wild olive
(Osmanthus americanus). Wiregrass (Aristida stricta) is the
most dominant herbaceous species present. Other herbs present
include beakrush (Rh nochos ora E..), broomstraw (Andropogon
sp.) and ashy wild indigo (Ba tisia cinerea). Mosses and
lichens are abundant, while fungi were found to be scarce, with
the pine-cone fungus the only species observed.
Faunal species utilizing this community type are adaptable
to dry environmental conditions. In addition to the highly
adaptive wide-ranging species such as raccoon, Virginia opossum
and grey squirrel, species such as the eastern glass lizard
(Ophisaurus ventralis) which requires well-drained sandy soils
such as those occurring here, are likely residents of this
community. Species which were observed only in this community
type include eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus)*,
eastern wood pewee (Contopus virens)* and fox squirre Sciurus
niger)*. Other species observed here include downy woodpecker,
pileated woodpecker, brown thrasher, Carolina chickadee, ground
skink and Carolina anole.
15
b. Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community associated with the stream crossed by
the alignment is reflective of the urbanized condition of the
stream and it's small size, and thus species diversity and
numbers are expected to be low. Research in North Carolina
streams have shown that water quality and biota is greatly
effected by land use. Streams in urbanized settings have
comparatively lower water quality and corresponding lower biotic
diversity than streams in forested areas.
Pickeral frogs (Rana palustris)* were the only aquatic
organisms observed in this area of the stream. Cursory
examination of this stream several hundred meters upstream of
the crossing in an undisturbed forested stretch, revealed much
greater faunal diversity, as sunfish (Family Centracidae),
shiners (Notropis sp.)*, southern cricket frogs (Acris rg yllus)*
and pickeral frogs were observed to be common. This stream does
not appear to be utilized by anadromous fish species, nor is it
classified as such. Although the stream at the point of
crossing is likely not serving as a estuarine primary nursery
area. Because it flows into a designated PNA, Best Management
Practices (BMP's) for protection of surface waters will be
strictly adhered to.
C. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Construction of the proposed project will have various
impacts on the biotic communities described. This section
quantifies and qualifies these probable impacts, in terms of
area impacted (cleared/modified), and ecological consequences to
the communities, during the construction and operation of the
proposed roadway.
Terrestrial Community Impacts
Portions of the four biotic community types occurring in
the project area will be cleared or altered as a result of
project construction. Estimations of acreage impacted for each
community type are given in Table 3.
TABLE 3 Anticipated Terrestrial Community Impacts Community
MC MPF SBF US
1.1 (2.8) 0.3 (0.7) 0.1 (0.2) 0.3 (0.7)
Impacts in hectares (acres) derived using entire ROW of 18 m
(60 ft). MC, MPF, SBF and US denote Maintained, Mesic Pine
Flatwoods, Secondary Bay Forest and Remnant Coastal Fringe
Sandhill Communities, respectively.
16
The plant communities found along the project alignment
serve as shelter, nesting and foraging habitat for numerous
species of wildlife. Loss of habitat initially displaces faunal
organisms from the area, forcing them to concentrate into a
smaller area, which causes over-utilization and degradation of
the habitat. This ultimately lowers the carrying capacity of the
remaining habitat and is manifested in some species as becoming
more susceptible to disease, predation and starvation.
Individual mortalities are likely to occur to animals
closely associated with the ground (snakes, small mammals,
etc.), from construction machinery used during clearing
activities. Wildlife mortality caused by vehicles is a direct
consequence of project construction, once the road is in
operation. Widening of the roadway creates a greater barrier to
animal migrations and will result in increased number of highway
mortalities. Because of their visibility, highway mortality of
game species such as deer and rabbit is well documented.
However, reptiles and amphibians as well as birds and small
mammals are very susceptible to roadkill. Although roadway
mortality is generally not believed to significantly effect
animal populations under normal conditions, if-the population is
experiencing other sources of stress (disease, habitat
degradation/elimination etc.), then traffic-related mortality
can be very significant.
Aquatic Community Impacts
Impacts to the stream community can be directly attributed
to sedimentation and reduced water quality resulting from
project construction. Although disturbance and sedimentation
may be temporary processes during the construction phase of this
project, environmental impacts from these processes may be
long-lived or irreversible.
The aquatic environment serves as a major food source for
many terrestrial organisms such as raccoons, various species of
snakes, birds, turtles and amphibians. It also serves as a means
of predator avoidance for many animals. Due to the current
degraded condition of the stream crossed by the project,
construction of this project is not expected to have significant
ecological impacts on the aquatic community found in this
stream. There will be no stream relocation as a result of this
project. To ensure that further degradation of this stream does
not occur, and to ensure that PNA waters downstream are not
impacted, Best Management Practices (BMP's) for protection of
surface waters, will be strictly adhered to. Compliance with
section 15A NCAC 2H.1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) will be
covered under the existing Best Management Practices (BMP's) for
protection of surface waters.
17
2. Protected Species
Federal law requires that any action, which has the potential to
have a detrimental impact to the survival and well being of any
species classified as federally protected, is subject to review by
the FWS and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), under
the provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as
amended. Endangered species receive additional protection under
separate state statutes. In North Carolina protection of plant
species falls under N.C. General statutes (G.S.) 106-202.12 to
106-202.19 of 1979. Wildlife protection falls under G.S. 113-331 to
113-337 of 1987.
a. Federally Protected Species
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 March 28, 1995 the Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) lists the following species for Brunswick County
(Table 4):
Table 4
Federally-Protected Species for Brunswick County
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Acipenser brevirostrum
Caretta caretta
Charadrius melodus
Chelonia mydas
Dermochelys coriacea
Falco peregrinus
Felis concolor couguar
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Lepidochelys kempi
Mycteria americana
Picoides borealis
Trichechus manatus
Amaranthus pumilus
Lysimachia asperulaefolia
Thalictrum cooleyi
CON" NAME STATUS
shortnose sturgeon E
loggerhead sea turtle T
piping plover T
green sea turtle T
leatherback sea turtle E
peregrine falcon E
eastern cougar E
bald eagle E
Kemp's Ridley sea turtle E
wood stork E
red-cockaded woodpecker E
west Indian manatee E
seabeach amaranth T
rough-leaved loosestrife E
Cooley's meadowrue E
"E" denotes Endangered (a
extinction throughout all
range).
species that is threatened with
or a significant portion of its
"T" denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become an
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all
or a significant portion of its range).
18
A brief description of these species' characteristics and
habitat requirements is provided below along with a Biological
Conclusion addressing the potential for project related impacts
to these species.
Acipenser brevirostrum (short-nosed sturgeon)
The short-nosed sturgeon is a primitive fish ranging from
43-109 cm (17-43 in) in length and characterized by having five
rows of large, bony plates (scutes) separated by naked skin,
running the length of the body. The shortnose sturgeon differs
from the closely related Atlantic sturgeon ( A. oxyrhynchus ),
by its smaller size (Atlantic sturgeon may reach 4.3 m (14 ft)
in length), short snout and the lack of scutes between the anal
fin and the lateral row of scutes. This species occurs in the
lower sections of large rivers and in coastal marine habitats.
The short-nosed sturgeon prefers deep channels with a salinity
less than sea water. It feeds benthiclly on invertebrates and
plant material and is most active at night.
The short-nosed sturgeon requires large fresh water rivers
that are unobstructed by dams or pollutants to reproduce
successfully. It is an anadromous species that spawns upstream
in the spring and spends most of its life within close proximity
of the rivers mouth. At least two entirely freshwater
populations have been recorded, in South Carolina and
Massachusetts.
The water body impacted by the proposed project is too
small in size to provide habitat for this species. It can be
concluded that construction of this project will have no impact
on the shortnose sturgeon.
Caretta caretta (loggerhead sea turtle)
Loggerhead turtles can be distinguished from other sea
turtles by its unique reddish-brown color. The loggerhead is
characterized by a large head and blunt jaws. Otherwise they
have 5 or more costal plates with the first touching the nuchal
and 3 to 4 bridge scutes.
The loggerhead nests on suitable beaches from Ocracoke
inlet, North Carolina through Florida and on a small scale off
of the Gulf States. There are also major nesting grounds on the
eastern coast of Australia. It lives worldwide in temperate to
subtropical waters. Loggerheads nest nocturnally between May
and September on isolated beaches that are characterized by fine
grained sediments. It is mainly carnivorous feeding on small
marine animals.
No nesting habitat (beaches) for this species occurs within
the project area, and the water body impacted is too small
(shallow) to provide foraging habitat. It can be concluded that
project construction will have no impact on the loggerhead.
19
Charadrius melodus (piping plover)
The piping plover is a small migratory shorebird that
resembles a sandpiper. It can be identified by the orange legs
and black band around the base of its neck. During the winter
the plover loses its black band, its legs fade to pale yellow,
and the bill fades to black. Breeding birds are characterized
by white underparts, a single black breastband, and a black bar
across the forehead.
The piping plover breeds along the east coast. This bird
is found in North Carolina, nesting in flat areas with fine sand
and mixtures of shells and pebbles. They nest most commonly
where there is little or no vegetation, but some may nest in
stands of beachgrass. The nest is a shallow depression in the
sand that is usually lined with shells and pebbles.
The piping plover is very sensitive to human disturbances.
The presence of people can cause the plover to abandon its nest
and quit feeding.
No nesting, or foraging habitat (beaches/dunes) is present
in the project area. It can be concluded that project
construction will have no impact on the piping plover.
Chelonia mydas (green sea turtle)
The distinguishing factors found in the green turtle are
the single clawed flippers and a single pair of elongated scales
between the eyes. It has a small head and a strong, serrate,
lower jaw.
The green sea turtle is found in temperate and tropical
oceans and seas. Nesting in North America is limited to small
communities on the east coast of Florida requiring beaches with
minimal disturbances and a sloping platform for nesting (they do
not nest in NC). The green turtle can be found in shallow
waters. They are attracted to lagoons, reefs, bays, Mangrove
swamps and inlets where an abundance of marine grasses can be
found. Marine grasses are the principle food source for the
green turtle. These turtles require beaches with minimal
disturbances and a sloping platform for nesting.
No nesting habitat (beaches) for this species occurs within
the project area, and the water body impacted is too small
(shallow) to provide foraging habitat. It can be concluded that
project construction will have no impact on the green sea
turtle.
Dermochelys coriacea (leatherback sea turtle)
The leatherback sea turtle is the largest of the marine
turtles. Unlike other marine turtles, the leatherback has a
shell composed of tough leathery skin. The carapace has 7
20
longitudinal ridges and the plastron has 5 ridges. The
leatherback is black to dark brown in color and may have white
blotches on the head and limbs.
Leatherbacks are distributed world-wide in tropical waters
of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans. Leatherbacks
prefer deep waters and are often found near the edge of the
continental shelf. In northern waters they are reported to
enter into bays, estuaries, and other inland bodies of water.
Leather back nesting requirements are very specific, they need
sandy beaches backed with vegetation in the proximity of deep
water and generally with rough seas. Beaches with a suitable
slope and a suitable depth of coarse dry sand are necessary for
the leatherback to nest. Major nesting areas occur in tropical
regions and the only nesting population in the United States is
found in Martin County, Florida. Leatherback nesting occurs
from April to August. Artificial light has been shown to cause
hatchlings to divert away from the sea. Leatherbacks feed
mainly on jellyfish. They are also known to feed on sea
urchins, crustaceans, fish, mollusks, tunicates, and floating
seaweed.
No nesting habitat (beaches) for this species occurs within
the project area, and the water body impacted is too small
(shallow) to provide foraging habitat. It can be concluded that
project construction will have no impact on the leatherback.
Falco peregrinus (Peregrine falcon)
The peregrine falcon has a dark plumage along its back and
its underside is lighter, barred and spotted. It is most easily
recognized by a dark crown and a dark wedge that extends below
the eye forming a distinct helmet.
The American peregrine falcon is found throughout the
United States in areas with high cliffs and open land for
foraging. Nesting for the falcons is generally on high cliff
ledges, but they may also nest in broken off tree tops in the
eastern deciduous forest and on skyscrapers and bridges in urban
areas. Nesting occurs from mid-March to May.
Prey for the peregrine falcon consists of small mammals and
birds, including mammals as large as a woodchuck, birds as large
as a duck, and insects. The preferred prey is medium sized
birds such as pigeons.
No nesting habitat (cliffs/skyscrapers) for this species
occurs within the project area. Although it is possible that an
individual may forage in the project area, no impacts to the
species will result from project construction. It can be
concluded that project construction will have no impact on the
peregrin falcon.
21
Felis concolor cougar (eastern cougar)
Cougars are tawny colored with the exception of the muzzle,
the backs of the ears, and the tip of the tail, which are black.
In North Carolina the cougar is thought to occur in only a few
scattered areas, possibly including coastal swamps and the
southern Appalachian mountains. The eastern cougar is found in
large remote wilderness areas where there is an abundance of
their primary food source, white-tailed deer. A cougar will
usually occupy a range of 25 miles and they are most active at
night.
No large uninterrupted expanses of woodland will be
impacted by the proposed project. It can be concluded that
project construction will have no impact on the eastern cougar.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (bald eagle)
Adult bald eagles can be identified by their large white
head and short white tail. The body plumage is dark-brown to
chocolate-brown in color. In flight, bald eagles can be
identified by their flat wing soar.
Eagle nests are found in close proximity to water (within a
half mile) with a clear flight path to the water, in the largest
living tree in an area, and having an open view of the
surrounding land. Human disturbance can cause an eagle to
abandon otherwise suitable habitat. The breeding season for the
bald eagle begins in December or January. Fish are the major
food source for bald eagles. Other sources include coots,
herons, and wounded ducks. Food may be live or carrion.
No large water bodies are within the project area. It can
be concluded that project construction will have no impact of
the bald eagle.
Lepidochelys kempii (Kemp's ridley's sea turtle)
Kemp's ridley sea turtle is the smallest of the sea turtles
that visit North Carolina's coast. These turtles have a
triangular shaped head and a hooked beak with large crushing
surfaces. It has a heart-shaped carapace that is nearly as wide
as it is long with the first of five costal plates touching the
nuchal plates. Adult Kemp's ridley sea turtles have white or
yellow plastrons with a gray and olive green carapace. The head
and flippers are gray.
Kemp's ridley sea turtles live in shallow coastal and
estuarine waters, in association with red mangrove trees. A
majority of this sea turtle's nesting occurs in a 24 km (14.9
mile) stretch of beach between Barra del Tordo and Ostioal in
the state of Tamaulipas, Mexico. This turtle is an infrequent
visitor to the North Carolina coast and usually does not nest
here. Kemp's sea turtle can lay eggs as many as three times
22
during the April to June breeding season. Kemp's ridley sea
turtles prefer beach sections that are backed up by extensive
swamps or large bodies of open water having seasonal narrow
ocean connections and a well defined elevated dune area.
No nesting habitat (beaches) for this species occurs within
the project area, and the water body impacted is too small
(shallow) to provide foraging habitat. It can be concluded that
project construction will have no impact on the Kemp's ridley
sea turtle.
Mycteria americana (wood stork)
The wood stork is the largest wading bird found in North
America. The wood storks plumage is entirely white except for
the flight and tail feathers, which are black with a bronze
sheen. During the breeding season the underwing coverts have a
pink tinge and the undertail coverts are elongate and make the
bird appear white tailed in flight. The bill is larger than the
herons and cranes and downturned at the tip. Coloring is gray
with a yellow fringe in the adults. The legs are gray and the
feet pink.
Wood storks visit extreme southwestern Brunswick County
from June to September, after breeding has concluded. They are
found in the Twin Lakes region of Sunset Beach. Storks nest
mainly in stands of bald cypress, but will also nest in
Mangroves and Buttonwoods. Their nests are found in swamps,
coastal islands, and artificial impoundments. They feed in
freshwater to brackish wetlands including, freshwater marshes,
flooded pastures, and flooded ditches. The most attractive
feeding areas are swamp or marsh depressions where fish become
concentrated during dry periods.
The proposed project does not occur near the known
occurrence of this species (Twin Lakes). Suitable nesting
habitat in the form of swamps, coastal islands, or artificial
impoundments will not be impacted by the proposed action, nor
will suitable foraging habitat in the form of brackish marsh,
flooded pastures, or flooded ditches. It can be concluded that
project construction will have no impact on the wood stork.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker)
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
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 (Pious palustris), for foraging and
nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at least 50%
pine, lack a thick understory, and be contiguous with other
23
stands to be appropriate habitat for the RCW. These birds nest
exclusively in trees that are at least 60 years old or older 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 m (12-100 ft) above the ground and average 9.1-15.7 m
(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.
Suitable nesting and foraging habitat occurs in the Mesic
Pine Forest and Remnant Sandhill Fringe Communities (Section
3.1) within the project area, and in similar communities
outside, but within 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of the southern terminus of
the project. These areas were surveyed by Tim Savidge on March
06-07, 1995, using a modification of methods described by Henry
(1989). Because of the north-south orientation of the roadway,
east-west survey transects were followed, allowing for shorter
transect distances, but still providing 100% coverage. No
evidence of RCW (cavities, start holes etc.) was found, nor were
any individuals of this species observed. It can be concluded
that project construction will not impact the red-cockaded
woodpecker.
Trichechus manatus (West Indian manatee)
The manatee is a large, gray or brown, barrel shaped,
aquatic mammal. The hindlimbs of the manatee are absent, and
the forelimbs have been modified into flippers. The tail is
flattened horizontally. The wrinkled body is nearly hairless
except for stiff "whiskers" on the muzzle. In clear water most
of a manatees body is visible, however in murky waters (like
North Carolina) only a small part of the head and nose are
visible.
Manatees are found in canals, sluggish rivers, estuarine
habitats, salt water bays, and as far off shore as 3.7 miles.
They are found in freshwater and marine habitats at shallow
depths of 1.5 m or higher. In the winter, between October and
April, manatees concentrate in areas with warm water. During
other times of the year habitats appropriate for the manatee are
those with sufficient water depth, an adequate food supply, and
in proximity to freshwater. It is believed that manatees
require a source of freshwater to drink. Manatees are primarily
herbivorous, feeding on any aquatic vegetation present, but they
may occasionally feed on fish.
The water body crossed by the proposed action is too small
(shallow) to offer suitable habitat for this species. It can be
concluded that project construction will have no impact on the
manatee.
24
Amaranthus pumilus (sea-beach amaranth)
Seabeach amaranth is an annual legume that grows in clumps
containing 5 to 20 branches and are often over a foot across.
The trailing stems are fleshy and reddish-pink or reddish in
color. Seabeach amaranth has thick, fleshy leaves that are
small, ovate-spatulate, emarginate and rounded. The leaves are
usually spinach green in color, cluster towards the end of a
stem, and have winged petioles. Flowers grow in auxiliary
fascicles and the legume has smooth, indehsicent fruits. Seeds
are glossy black. Both fruits and flowers are relatively
inconspicuous and born along the stem.
Seabeach amaranth is endemic to the Atlantic Coastal Plain
beaches. Habitat for seabeach amaranth is found on barrier
island beaches functioning in a relatively dynamic and natural
manner. Seabeach amaranth grows well in overwash flats at the
accreting ends of islands and the lower foredunes and upper
strands of noneroding beaches. Temporary populations often form
in blowouts, sound-side beaches, dredge spoil, and beach
replenishment. This species is very intolerant to competition
and is not usually found in association with other species.
Threats to seabeach amaranth include beach stabilization
projects, all terrain vehicles (ATV's), herbivory by insects and
animals, beach grooming, and beach erosion.
No beach habitat will be impacted by the proposed action.
It can be concluded that project construction will have no
impact on sea-beach amaranth.
Lysimachia asperulaefolia (rough-leaved loosestrife)
Rough-leaved loosestrife is
stems and whorled leaves. This
which usually occur in threes or
July through October.
a perennial herb having slender
herb has showy yellow flowers
fours. Fruits are present from
Rough-leaved loosestrife is endemic to the coastal plain
and sandhills of North and South Carolina. This species occurs
in the ecotones or edges between longleaf pine uplands and pond
pine pocosins (areas of dense shrub and vine growth usually on a
wet, peat, poorly drained soil), on moist to seasonally
saturated sands and on shallow organic soils overlaying sand.
It has also been found to occur on deep peat in the low shrub
community of large Carolina bays (shallow, elliptical, poorly
drained depressions of unknown origins). The areas it occurs in
are fire maintained. Rough-leaved loosestrife rarely occurs in
association with hardwood stands and prefers acidic soils.
A survey was conducted on June 12, 1995 in the areas
identified as suitable habitat for this species to determine if
any rough-leaved loosestrife exists in the project area. Known
populations of this species were visited prior to the survey, to
25
verify that this species was in flower at this time. No
rough-leaved loosestrife was found during the survey. It can be
concluded that project construction will have no impact on
rough-leaved loosestrife.
Thalictrum cooleyi (Cooley's meadowrue)
Cooley's meadowrue is a rhizomatous perennial plant with
stems that grow to one meter in length. Stems are usually erect
in direct sunlight but are lax and may lean on other plants or
trail along the ground in shady areas. Leaves are usually
narrowly lanceolate and unlobed, some two or three lobed leaves
can be seen. The flowers lack petals. Fruits mature from
August to September.
Cooley's meadowrue occurs in moist to wet bogs, savannas
and savanna-like openings, sandy roadsides, rights-of-ways, and
old clearcuts. This plant is dependent on some form of
disturbance to maintain its habitat. All known populations are
on circumneutral, poorly drained, moderately permeable soils of
the Grifton series. Cooley's meadowrue only grows well in areas
with full sunlight.
A survey was conducted on June 12, 1995 in the areas
identified as suitable habitat for this species to determine if
any Cooley's meadowrue exists in the project area. Known
populations of this species were visited prior to the survey, to
verify that this species was in flower at this time. No
Cooley's meadowrue was found during the survey. It can be
concluded that project construction will have no impact on
Cooley's meadowrue.
b. Federal Candidate Species
There are a total of twenty four federal candidate (C2)
species listed for Brunswick County (Table 5). Candidate 2 (C2)
species are defined as taxa for which there is some evidence of
vulnerability, but for which there are not enough data to
warrant a listing of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered, or Proposed Threatened at this time. The North
Carolina status of these species is also listed in Table 4.
Plants or animals with state designations of Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC), are given protection by
the State Endangered Species Act and the N.C. Plant Protection
and Conservation Act of 1979, administered and enforced by the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and the North
Carolina Department of Agriculture.
26
Table 5
Federal Candidate Saecies for Brunswick Count
Agrotis buchholzi pyxie moth No SR
Aimophila aestivalis Bachman's sparrow Yes SC
Ammodramus henslowii Henslow's sparrow Yes SR
Amorpha georgiana georgiana Georgia leadplant No E
Balduina atro ur urea honeycomb head No C
Campylopus Caro inae savanna campylopus No C
Carex chapmanii Chapman's sedge No C
Dionaea muscipula Venus flytrap Yes C-SC
Elassoma boehlkei Carolina pygmy sunfish No T
Fimbistylis peter usi?lla Harper's fringe rush No T
Litsea aestiva il's pondspice No C
Macbrideaea caroTi-niana Carolina bogmint No C
Myri phyy lum axum Loose watermilfoil No T
Oxypolis ternata savanna cowbane Yes C
Parnassia caroliniana Carolina
grass-of-parnassus No E
Planorbella ma nificum magnificent rams-horn No E
Planta o s arsif ora pineland plantain No E
Pro ema bu enta rare skipper No SR
Rhexia aristosa Awned meadowbeauty No T
Fos ora thornei Thorne's beaked-rush No C
Rudbeccia elioT sdis sun-facing coneflower Yes E
Solidago verna spring-flowering Yes E
goldenrod
Soliida o_ up lchra Carolina goldenrod No E
Sporobolus teretifolius wireleaf dropseed No T
Tofieldia lg a ra smooth bog asphodel No C
Trichostema sp. dune blue curls No C
NC Status: SC, C, T, E, denote Special Concern, Candidate,
Threatened, Endangered, respectively. SR denotes Significantly Rare
which is not offered State Protection.
A search of the NC-NHP data base of rare plants and animals found
no records of state protected species occurring within the project
area.
3. Physical Resources
a. Geology, Topography, and Soils
The study corridor lies in the Coastal Plain Physiographic
Province. It is characterized by nearly level to sloping relief
and ranges in elevation from sea level to 15 feet. All the
soils in the county formed in coastal plain sediment or sediment
deposited by streams flowing through the county. In the project
27
corridor, the relief is largely the result of the dissection of
the original, nearly level coastal plains by the Shallotte and
Calabash Rivers and their tributaries. The degree of dissection
of the landscape affects the formation of the soils by
influencing the depth of the water table and by affecting the
rate of natural erosion of soil material. Drainage in the area
ranges from poorly drained soils to excessively drained soils.
The soils on the edge of the intercoastal waterway are
excessively drained, while along the Shallotte River, drainage
is moderately well. The part of the corridor that is inland and
away from the river is very poorly drained.
The geology in the project area includes sedimentary rock
of Tertiary age. The major geologic formatiorr is the Waccamaw
Formation. The Waccamaw Formation is characterized by
bluish-gray to tan, loosely consolidated fossiliferous sand
containing silts and clays.
The soils along the project corridor have been classified
as soils of the Kureb-Wando, Baymeade-Blanton-Norfolk, and
Leon-Murville-Mandarin Associations. The Kureb-Wando soils are
found on nearly level to sloping terrain on the uplands. They
are described as having dark brown to gray fine sand surface
soils and brown to light gray fine sand subsoils. The
Baymeade-Blanton-Norfolk soils are found on nearly level to
gently sloping terrain on the uplands. They have dark
grayish-brown fine sand surface soils and light gray fine sand
subsoils. The Leon-Murville-Mandarin soils are found on nearly
level slopes of the uplands and are described as having gray to
black mucky fine sand surface soils and black to light gray to
white fine sand subsoils.
b. Water Resources
This section describes physical characteristics, Best Usage
Standards and water quality aspects of the water resources
likely to be impacted by the proposed project. Probable impacts
to these water bodies are also discussed, as are means to
minimize impacts.
An unnamed tributary to the Shallotte River will be
impacted by the proposed road widening. This stream arises
approximately 0.8 km (0.5 mi) southeast of project crossing and
flows in a northwest direction into the Shallotte River, 0.5 km
(0.3 mi) downstream of crossing. The stream is crossed with a
120 cm (48 in) corrugated metal pipe (CMP). The Shallotte River
is within the Lumber River Basin.
The stream is highly channelized and approximately 3 m
(10 ft) below roadway grade. Channel width is approximately 1 m
(3 ft) with a depth of 15 cm (6 in). The stream is visibly
degraded. Urban runoff (parking lot), streambank erosion and
pollution are apparent contributors to the poor stream
condition.
28
The Shallotte River carries a Best Usage Classification of
SC HQW, as assigned by the North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR), 1993. By
definition, unnamed streams carry the same classification as
their collector water bodies. The classification SC designates
tidal salt waters that are suitable for aquatic life propagation
and survival, fishing, wildlife and secondary recreation. The
supplemental classification of HQW (High Quality Waters)
designates those waters which are rated as excellent based on
biological and physical /chemical characteristics. Because of
this classification, HQW Best Management Practices (BMP's) for
protection of surface waters will be strictly adhered to. The
Shallotte River is a designated HQW because it is classified and
protected as a Primary Nursery Area (PNA) by the North Carolina
Marine Fisheries Commission. Primary Nursery areas are those
areas of the estuarine system in which initial post-larval
development takes place. These areas are uniformly populated
with juveniles.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN),
assesses water quality by sampling for selected benthic
macroinvertebrate organisms. The species richness and overall
biomass are reflections of water quality. No data is available
for the stream crossed by the proposed project.
The DEM National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) report lists no permitted discharges into the stream
crossed by the proposed project.
Water Resource Impacts
Potential impacts to water resources include increased
sedimentation, decreases of dissolved oxygen, changes in
temperature and increases in toxic compounds entering the
streams.
Sedimentation is the most serious potential impact to
stream crossings. Studies have shown that during roadway
construction, there is a direct correlation between the amount
of suspended particles in the stream channel with the amount of
clearing and grubbing activity, embankment modification and
project duration. Not only is sedimentation detrimental to the
aquatic ecosystem, but changes in physical characteristics of
the stream may also result. Sedimentation of the stream channel
causes changes in flow rate and stream course, which may lead to
increased streambank scour and erosion. Sedimentation also
leads to increased turbidity of the water column.
Removal of streamside canopy and removal/burial of aquatic
vegetation result in numerous impacts. Streamside vegetation is
crucial for maintaining streambank stability, controlling
erosion and buffering water temperature. Aquatic vegetation
serves an important role in the stream ecosystem as food and
shelter, as well as contributing oxygen to the water and
stabilizing the bottom sediments.
29
Numerous pollutants have been identified in highway runoff,
including various metals (lead, zinc, iron etc.), nutrients
(nitrogen, phosphorus) and petroleum. The sources of these
runoff constituents range from construction and maintenance
activities, to daily vehicular use. The toxicity of highway
runoff to aquatic ecosystems is poorly understood. Some species
demonstrate little sensitivity to highway runoff exposure, while
other species are much more sensitive. The levels of the toxins
and the duration of the exposure are major factors determining
the ecosystem's response to runoff. Pollutant concentrations of
receiving waters are directly related to traffic volume. It is
apparent that highway runoff can significantly degrade the
quality of the receiving water bodies, which in turn
significantly affects the ecosystems present. Precaution will
be taken during construction to reduce/eliminate pollution
runoff into the stream. Pollutant loads may increase once in
operation, due to increased impervious surface area, reduction
of vegetative buffer (shoulder) and construction of curb &
gutter facility.
Recommendations
Due to the limited scope of work involved with this stream
crossing, the overall magnitude of the potential impacts
described is expected to be relatively minimal. However,
because of the potential to impact the Shallotte River, it is
imperative that impacts to the stream are avoided/minimized to
the extent possible. These potential impacts will be greatly
reduced by implementation of the following recommendations,
which have been shown to be efficient and cost effective at
minimizing sedimentation and pollutant loads:
Strict enforcement of sedimentation control Best Management
Practices (BMP's) for the protection of surface waters during
the entire life of the project
Reduction of clearing and grubbing activity, particularly in
riparian areas
- Reduction/elimination of direct discharge into streams
Reduction of runoff velocity
Reestablishment of vegetation on exposed areas, with judicious
pesticide & herbicide management
Minimization of "in-stream" activity
- Litter control.
C. Floodplain Involvement
The Town of Shallotte is a participant in the National
Flood Insurance Regular Program; however the project does not
involve any designated flood hazard areas.
30
d. Wetlands
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category
of "Waters of the United States" as defined in 33 CFR 328.3, in
accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1344). Project construction will result in an less
than 0.1 ha (0.2 ac) of wetland impacts.
. Wetland site number one is associated with the roadside
communities because of saturated soil conditions and apparent
periodic flooding. Specific hydrophytic vegetation such as soft
rush (Juncus effusus), marsh seedbox (Ludwigia palustris),
cinnamon-( Osmunda cinnamomea) and netted chain fern
(Woodwardia aerolata) are dominant species along with blackberry
(Rubus sp.) and wax myrtle. Wetland site number 2 is within the
Secondary Bay Forest community, in a small area that ponds water
for significant periods of time.
Potential wetland communities were evaluated using the
criteria specified in the 1987 "Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual". For an area to be considered a "wetland",
the following three specifications must be met; 1) presence of
hydric soils (low soil chroma values), 2) presence of
hydrophytic vegetation (Appendix A), and 3) evidence of
hydrology, including; saturated soils, stained, oxidized
rhizospheres, matted vegetation, high water marks on trees,
buttressed tree bases and surface roots.
4. Air Quality
Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions from
industrial and internal combustion engines are the most prevalent
sources. Other origins of common outdoor air pollution are solid
waste disposal and any form of fire. The impact resulting from
highway construction ranges from intensifying existing air pollution
problems to improving the ambient air conditions. The traffic is the
center of concern when determining the impact of a new highway
facility or the improvement of an old highway facility. Motor
vehicles emit carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO), hydrocarbons
(HC), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (SO ), and lead (Pb) (listed
in order of decreasing emission rate). Autoitiobiles are considered to
be the major source of CO in the project area. For this reason, most
of the analysis presented is concerned with determining expected
carbon monoxide levels in the vicinity of the project due to traffic
flow.
In order to determine the ambient CO concentration for the
receptor closest to the highway project, two concentration components
must be used: local and background. The local concentration is
defined as the CO emissions from cars operating on highways in the
near vicinity (i.e., distances within 100 meters) of the receptor
location. The background concentration is defined by the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources as
31
"the concentration of
emissions outside the
the upwind edge of the
a pollutant at a point that is the result of
local vicinity; that is, the concentration at
local sources."
In this study, the local concentration was determined by the
NCDOT traffic Noise/Air Quality Staff using line source computer
modeling and the background concentration was obtained from the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
(NCDEHNR). Once the two concentration components were resolved, they
were added together to determine the ambient CO concentration for the
receptor in question and to compare .to the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS).
Automobiles are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons and nitrogen
oxides. Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides emitted from cars are
carried into the atmosphere where they react with sunlight to form
ozone and nitrogen dioxide. Area-wide automotive emissions of HC and
NO are expected to decrease in the future due to the continued
installation and maintenance of pollution control devices on new
cars. Hence, the ambient ozone and nitrogen dioxide levels in the
atmosphere should continue to decrease as a result of the
improvements on automobile emissions.
The photochemical reactions that form ozone and nitrogen dioxide
require several hours to occur. For this reason, the peak levels-of
ozone generally occur 10 to 20 kilometers downwind of the source of
hydrocarbon emissions. Urban areas as a whole are regarded as
sources of hydrocarbons, not individual streets and highways. The
emissions of all sources in an urban area mix together in the
atmosphere, and in the presence of sunlight, the mixture reacts to
form ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and other photochemical oxidants. The
best example of this type of air pollution is the smog which forms in
Los Angeles, California.
Automobiles are not regarded as significant sources of
particulate matter and sulfur dioxide. Nationwide, highway sources
account for less than 7 percent of particulate matter emissions and
less than 2 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions. Particulate matter
and sulfur dioxide emissions are predominantly the result of
non-highway sources (e.g., industrial, commercial, and agricultural).
Because emissions of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide from
automobiles are very low, there is no reason to suspect that traffic
on the project will cause air quality standards for particulate
matter and sulfur dioxide to be exceeded.
Automobiles without catalytic converters can burn regular
gasoline. The burning of regular gasoline emits lead as a result of
regular gasoline containing tetraethyl lead which is added by
refineries to increase the octane rating of the fuel. Newer cars
with catalytic converters burn unleaded gasoline eliminating lead
emissions. Also, the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has required the reduction in the lead content of leaded
gasolines. The overall average lead content of gasoline in 1974 was
32
0.53 grams per liter. By 1989, this composite average had dropped to
0.0035 grams per liter. In the future, lead emissions are expected
to decrease as more cars use unleaded fuels and as the lead content
of leaded gasoline is reduced. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
make the sale, supply, or transport of leaded gasoline or lead
additives unlawful after December 31, 1995. Because of these
reasons, it is not expected that traffic on the proposed project will
cause the NAAQS for lead to be exceeded.
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine
future CO concentrations resulting from the proposed highway
improvements. "CAL3QHC -A Modeling Methodology For Predicting
Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadway Intersections" was used to
predict the CO concentration at the nearest sensitive receptor to the
project.
Inputs into the mathematical model to estimate hourly CO
concentrations consisted of a level roadway under normal conditions
with predicted traffic volumes, vehicle emission factors, and
worst-case meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes are based
on the annual average daily traffic projections. The traffic volume
used for the CAL3QHC model was the highest volume within any
alternative. Carbon monoxide vehicle emission factors were calculated
for the completion year of 2000 and the design year of 2020 using the
EPA publication "Mobile Source Emission Factors" and the MOBILE 5A
mobile source emissions computer model.
The background CO concentration for the project area was
estimated to be 1.8 parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the
Air Quality Section, Division of Environmental Management, North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
indicated that an ambient CO concentration of 1.8 ppm is suitable for
most suburban/rural areas.
The worst-case air quality receptor was determined to be
receptor number 40 at a distance of 14 meters from the proposed
centerline of the median. The "build" and "no-build" one-hour CO
concentrations for the nearest sensitive receptor for the years of
2000 and 2020 are shown in the following table.
One Hour CO Concentrations (PPM)
Nearest
Sensitive Build No-Build
Receptor
2000 2020 2000 2020
R-40 2.8 3.3 3.3 5.3
33
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS
maximum permitted for 1-hour averaging period = 35 ppm; 8-hour
averaging period = 9 ppm) indicates no violation of these standards.
Since the results of the worst-case 1-hour CO analysis is less than 9
ppm, it can be concluded that the 8-hour CO level does not exceed the
standard. See Tables Al through A4 for input data and output.
The project is located in Brunswick County, which has been
determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. 40 CFR, Parts 51 is not applicable, because the proposed
project is located in an attainment area. This project is not
anticipated to create any adverse effect on the air quality of this
attainment area.
During construction of the proposed project, all materials
resulting from clearing and grubbing, demolition or other operations
will be removed from the project, burned or otherwise disposed of by
the contractor. Any burning will be done in accordance with
applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of the North
Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
Care will be taken to insure that burning will be done at the
greatest practical distance from dwellings and not when atmospheric
conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning
will only be utilized under constant surveillance. Also during
construction, measures will be taken to reduce the dust generated by
construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection
and comfort of motorists or area residents. This evaluation
completes the assessment requirements for air quality of the 1990
Clean Air Act Amendments and the NEPA process, and no additional
reports are necessary.
5. Traffic Noise
This analysis was performed to determine the effect of the
proposed widening of NC 179 from SR 1145 to US 17 Business in
Brunswick County on noise levels in the immediate project area
(Figure N1). This investigation includes an inventory of existing
noise sensitive land uses and a field survey of ambient (existing)
noise levels in the study area. It also includes a comparison of the
predicted noise levels and the ambient noise levels to determine if
traffic noise impacts can be expected resulting from the proposed
project. Traffic noise impacts are determined from the current
procedures for the abatement of highway traffic noise and
construction noise, appearing as Part 772 of Title 23 of the Code of
Federal Regulations. If traffic noise impacts are predicted,
examination and evaluation of alternative noise abatement measures
for reducing or eliminating the noise impacts must be considered.
Noise is basically defined as unwanted sound. It is emitted
from many sources including airplanes, factories, railroads, power
generation plants, and highway vehicles. Highway noise, or traffic
noise, is usually a composite of noises from engine exhaust, drive
train, and tire-roadway interaction.
34
The magnitude of noise is usually described by its sound
pressure. Since the range of sound pressure varies greatly, a
logarithmic scale is used to relate sound pressures to some common
reference level, usually the decibel (dB). Sound pressures described
in decibels are called sound pressure levels and are often defined in
terms of frequency weighted scales (A, B, C, or D).
The weighted-A decibel scale is used almost exclusively in
vehicle noise measurements because it places the most emphasis on the
frequency range to which the human ear is most sensitive (1,000-6,000
Hertz). Sound levels measured using a weighted-A decibel scale are
often expressed as dBA. Throughout this report, all noise levels
will be expressed in dBA's. Several examples of noise pressure
levels in dBA are listed in Table N1.
Review of Table N1 indicates that most individuals in urbanized
areas are exposed to fairly high noise levels from many sources as
they go about their daily activities. The degree of disturbance or
annoyance of unwanted sound depends essentially on three things: 1)
the amount and nature of the intruding noise, 2.) the relationship
between the background noise and the including intruding noise, and
3) the type of activity occurring when the noise is heard.
Over time, particularly if the noises occur at predicted
intervals and are expected, individuals tend to accept the noises
which intrude into their lives. Attempts have been made to regulate
many of these types of noises including airplane noise, factory
noise, railroad noise, and highway traffic noise. In relation to
highway traffic noise, methods of analysis and control have developed
rapidly over the past few years.
In order to determine whether highway noise levels are or are
not compatible with various land uses, the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) has developed noise abatement criteria (NAC)
and procedures to be used in the planning and design of highways.
These abatement criteria and procedures are set forth in the
aforementioned Federal reference (Title 23 CFR Part 772). A summary
of the noise abatement criteria for various land uses is presented in
Table N2. The Leq, or equivalent sound level, is the level of
constant sound which in a given situation and time period has the
same energy as does time varying sound. In other words, the
fluctuating sound levels of traffic noise are represented in terms of
a steady noise level with the same energy content.
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the
project to determine the existing background noise levels. The
purpose of this noise level information was to quantify the existing
acoustic environment and to provide a base for assessing the impact
of noise level increases. From SR 1145 to SR 1234, the existing Leq
noise level was determined to be 67.1 dBA. North of SR 1234, the
noise level measured 63.8 dBA. Both measurements were taken at 15
meters from the roadway. The ambient measurement sites are presented
in Figure N1. The existing roadway and traffic conditions were used
with the most current traffic noise prediction model in order to
35
calculate existing noise levels for comparison with noise levels
actually measured. The calculated existing noise levels were within
2.1 dBA of the measured noise levels for the locations where noise
measurements were obtained. Differences in dBA levels can be
attributed to "bunching" of vehicles, low traffic volumes, and actual
vehicle speeds versus the computer's "evenly-spaced" vehicles and
single vehicular speed.
In general, the traffic situation is composed of a large number
of variables which describe different cars driving at different
speeds through a continual changing highway configuration and
surrounding terrain. Due to the complexity of the problem, certain
assumptions and simplifications must be made to predict highway
traffic noise.
The procedure used to predict future noise levels in this study
was the Noise Barrier Cost Reduction Procedure, STAMINA 2.0 and
OPTIMA (revised March, 1983). The BCR (Barrier Cost Reduction)
procedure is based upon the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction
Model (FHWA-RD-77-108). The BCR traffic noise prediction model uses
the number and type of vehicles on the planned roadway, their speeds,
the physical characteristics of the road (curves, hills, depressed,
elevated, etc.), receptor location and height, and, if applicable,
barrier type, barrier ground elevation, and barrier top elevation.
In this regard, it is to be noted that only preliminary
alignment was available for use in this noise analysis. The project
proposes to widen the existing two-lane shoulder section of NC 179 to
a three-lane curb and gutter section. Only those existing natural or
man-made barriers were included in setting up the model. The roadway
sections and proposed intersections were assumed to be flat and
at-grade. Thus, this analysis represents the "worst-case"
topographical conditions. The noise predictions made in this report
are highway-related noise predictions for the traffic conditions
during the year being analyzed.
Peak hour design and level-of-service (LOS) C volumes were
compared, and the volumes resulting in the noisiest conditions were
used with the proposed posted speed limits. Hence, during all other
time periods, the noise levels will be no greater than those
indicated in this report.
The STAMINA 2.0 computer model was utilized in order to
determine the number of land uses (by type) which would be impacted
during the peak hour of the design year 2020. A land use is
considered to be impacted when exposed to noise levels approaching or
exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria and/or predicted to
sustain a substantial noise increase. The basic approach was to
select receptor locations such as 7.5, 15, 30, 60, 120, 240, and 480
meters from the center of the near traffic lane (adaptable to both
sides of the roadway). The location of these receptors were
determined by the changes in projected traffic volumes and/or the
posted speed limits along the proposed project. The result of this
procedure was a grid of receptor points along the project. Using
this grid, noise levels were calculated for each identified receptor.
36
The maximum number of receptors in each activity category that
are predicted to become impacted by future traffic noise is shown in
Table N3. These are noted in terms of those receptors expected to
experience traffic noise impacts by approaching or exceeding the FHWA
NAC or by a substantial increase in exterior noise levels. Other
information included in Table N3 is the maximum extent of the 72 and
67 dBA noise level contours. This information should assist local
authorities in exercising land use control over the remaining
undeveloped lands adjacent to the roadway within local jurisdiction.
For example, with the proper information on noise, the local
authorities can prevent further development of incompatible
activities and land uses with the predicted noise levels of an
adjacent highway.
Table N4 indicates the exterior traffic noise level increases
for the identified receptors in each roadway section. Predicted
noise level increases for this project range from +2 to +9 dBA. When
real-life noises are heard, it is possible to barely detect noise
level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5 dBA change is more readily noticeable.
A 10 dBA change is judged by most people as a doubling or a halving
of the loudness of the sound.
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise
levels either: 1) approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement
criteria (with "approach" meaning within 1 dBA of the Table N2
value), or 2) substantially exceed the existing noise levels. The
NCDOT definition of substantial increase is shown in the lower
portion of Table N2. Consideration for noise abatement measures must
be given to receptors which fall in either category.
Highway alignment selection involves the horizontal or vertical
orientation of the proposed improvements in such a way as to minimize
impacts and costs. The selection of alternative alignments for noise
abatement purposes must consider the balance between noise impacts
and other engineering and environmental parameters. For noise
abatement, horizontal alignment selection is primarily a matter of
siting the roadway at a sufficient distance from noise sensitive
areas. Changing the highway alignment is not a viable alternative
for noise abatement.
Traffic management measures which limit vehicle type, speed,
volume and time of operations are often effective noise abatement
measures. For this project, traffic management measures are not
considered appropriate for noise abatement due to their effect on the
capacity and level-of-service on the proposed roadway.
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels can
often be applied with a measurable degree of success by the
application of solid mass, attenuable measures to effectively
diffract, absorb, and reflect highway traffic noise emissions. Solid
mass, attenuable measures may include earth berms or artificial
abatement walls.
37
The project will maintain only limited control of access,
meaning most commercial establishments and residences will have
direct access connections to the proposed roadway, and all
intersections will adjoin the project at grade.
For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction it
must be high enough and long enough to shield the receptor from
significant sections of the highway. Access openings in the barrier
severely reduce the noise reduction provided by the barrier. It then
becomes economically unreasonable to construct a barrier for a small
noise reduction. Safety at access openings (driveways, crossing
streets, etc.) due to restricted sight distance is also a concern.
Furthermore, to provide a sufficient reduction, a barrier's length
would normally be 8 times the distance from the barrier to the
receptor. For example, a receptor located 15 meters from the barrier
would normally require a barrier 120 meters long. An access opening
of 12 meters (10 percent of the area) would limit its noise reduction
to approximately 4 dBA (FUNDAMENTAL AND ABATEMENT OF HIGHWAY TRAFFIC
NOISE, Report No. FHWA-HHI-HEV-73-7976-1, USDOT, chapter 5, section
3.2, page 5-27).
In addition, businesses, churches, and other related
establishments located along a particular highway normally require
accessibility and high visibility. Solid mass, attenuable measures
for traffic noise abatement would tend to disallow these two
qualities, and thus, would not be acceptable abatement measures in
this case.
The traffic noise impacts for the "do nothing" or "no-build"
alternative were also considered. If the proposed widening did not
occur, 4 residential receptors would experience traffic noise impact
by approaching or exceeding the FHWA's NAC. Also, the receptors
could anticipate experiencing an increase in exterior noise levels in
the range of +0 to +8 dBA. As previously noted, it is barely
possible to detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5 dBA change in
noise levels is more readily noticed.
The major construction elements of this project are expected to
be earth removal, hauling, grading, and paving. General construction
noise impacts, such as temporary speech interference for passers-by
and those individuals living or working near the project, can be
expected particularly from paving operations and from the earth
moving equipment during grading operations. However, considering the
relatively short-term nature of construction noise and the limitation
of construction to daytime hours, these impacts are not expected to
be substantial. The transmission loss characteristics of nearby
natural elements and man-made structures are believed to be
sufficient to moderate the effects of intrusive construction noise.
Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is
not recommended, and no noise abatement measures are proposed. This
evaluation completes the highway traffic noise requirements of Title
23 CFR Part 772, and unless a major project change develops, no
additional noise reports will be submitted for this project.
38
E. Contaminated Properties
A field reconnaissance survey along the project corridor identified
one potential site for underground storage tanks (UST's). This site is a
non-operational facility. In addition to the field survey, a records
search of all appropriate environmental agencies was conducted in order to
identify any potential problem sites. Based on these records, there are
no potential environmental problem sites that will affect this project
corridor.
The Shallotte Volunteer Rescue Department is located at the corner of
NC 179 and SR 1173. There is one approximately 1000 gallon gasoline UST
and a gasoline dispenser located on site. The UST and dispenser are
located approximately 46 feet from the centerline of NC 179. The proposed
improvements will not encroach on this UST site.
The Geotechnical Unit recommends that additional right of way
acquisition should not be allowed to encroach upon the UST within the
project corridor. The purchase of property containing UST's creates the
liability for any leakage that may occur and the possibility for long
term, costly remediation.
F. Construction Impacts
There are some environmental impacts normally associated with highway
construction. These are generally of short term duration and measures
will be taken to minimize these impacts.
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting
from clearing and grubbing, demolition, and other operations will be
removed from the project, burned, or otherwise disposed of by the
contractor. Any burning done will be in accordance with the applicable
laws, ordinances, and regulations of the North Carolina State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for Air Quality in compliance with 15 NCAC
2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure burning will be done at the
greatest distance practicable from dwellings and not when atmospheric
conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning will be
done under constant surveillance.
Measures will be taken to allay the dust generated by construction
when the control of dust is necessary for protection and comfort of
motorists or area residents.
The general requirements concerning erosion and siltation are covered
in Article 107-3 of Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures,
which is entitled "Control of Erosion, Si tat?on, awn - Pollution The
N.C. Division of Highways has also developed an Erosion and Sedimentation
Control Program which has been approved by the N.C. Sedimentation Control
Commission. This program consists of the rigorous requirements to
minimize erosion and sedimentation contained in the Standard
Specifications together with the policies of the Division of Highways
regarding the control of accelerated erosion on work performed by State
Forces.
39
Waste and debris will be disposed of in areas outside of the right of
way and provided by the contractor, unless otherwise required by the plans
or special provisions, or unless disposal within the right of way is
permitted by the Engineer. Disposal of waste and debris in active public
waste or disposal areas will not be approved without prior approval by the
Engineer. Such approval will not be permitted when, in the opinion of the
Engineer, it will result in excessive siltation or pollution.
Borrow pits and all ditches will be drained to alleviate breeding
areas for mosquitoes. In addition, care will be taken not to block
existing drainage ditches.
The construction of the project is not expected to cause any serious
disruptions in the services of any of the utilities serving the area.
Prior to construction, a determination will be made regarding the need to
relocate or adjust any existing utilities in the project area. A
determination of whether the NCDOT the utility owner will be responsible
for this will be made at this time. In all cases, the contractor is
required to notify the owner of the utility in advance as to when this
work will occur. In addition, the contractor is responsible for any
damage to water lines incurred during the construction process. This
procedure will insure that water lines, as well as other utilities, are
relocated with a minimum of disruption to the community.
Traffic service in the immediate area may be subjected to brief
disruption during construction of the project. Every effort will be made
to insure the transportation needs of the public are met both during and
after construction.
General construction noise impacts such as temporary speech
interference for passers-by and those individuals living or working near
the project can be expected, particularly from paving operations and from
earth moving equipment during grading operations. However, considering
the relatively short term nature of construction noise, these impacts are
not expected to be significant. The transmission loss characteristics of
nearby structures will moderate the effects of intrusive construction
noise.
G. Permits
Brunswick County is one of 20 counties in North Carolina that is
under the jurisdiction of the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA), which is
administered by the Division of Coastal Management (DCM). CAMA is the
lead permitting agency for projects within its jurisdiction.
CAMA directs the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) to identify and
designate Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC's) in which uncontrolled
development might cause irreversible damage to property, public health and
the natural environment. CAMA necessitates a permit if a project meets
all of the following criteria:
- it is located in a county under CAMA jurisdiction;
- it is in or affects a designated AEC;
40
the project is considered "development" under the terms of the act,
and;
it does not qualify for an exemption identified by CAMA, or CRC.
This project does not appear to impact any AEC, and thus will not
involve CAMA, therefore the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) becomes the
lead permitting agency. A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 14 (minor
road crossings) is anticipated for impacts to the unnamed stream.
This permit authorizes fill for roads crossing waters of the United
States, including wetlands and aquatic sites. Standard conditions
include: (1) the width of the fill is limited to the minimum necessary for
the actual crossing; (2) fill is limited to 0.1 ha (0.3 ac), and (3) no
more than 61 linear meters (200 feet) of the fill will be placed in
special aquatic sites, including wetlands.
A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section
401 Water Quality Certification is also required. Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act requires that the state issue or deny water certification for
any federally permitted, or licensed activity that may result in a
discharge into waters of the Waters of the United States.
H. Mitigation
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 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
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.
To avoid wetlands at site 1, the roadway would need to be widened
asymmetrically to the west. Widening entirely on the west side would
involve relocating several large concrete power poles along the west side
of NC 179. This utility conflict would be very costly and time consuming.
Symmetric widening is proposed along the entire project and will be
contained mostly within the existing (60-foot) right of way. Although
41
this alignment impacts
avoids relocating the
conflicts. Wetlands at
symmetric widening.
Minimization
less than 0.1 hectare (0.2 acre) of wetlands, it
concrete power poles and resulting utility
site 2 will not be affected by the proposed
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, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths. If
impacts to the two wetland communities cannot be avoided, then impacts to
these sites should be minimized to the fullest extent possible. Practical
means to minimize impacts to the waters crossed by the proposed project
are described in Section IV.D.3.b of this document. All practical means
should be utilized to minimize project-related water quality degradation.
Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated
impacts to Waters of the U.S. have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands"
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 avoidance and
minimization options have been explored. Compensatory actions often
include restoration, creation and enhancement of Waters of the United
States, specifically wetlands. Such actions should be undertaken in areas
adjacent to, or contiguous to the impacted site.
Projects authorized under Nationwide Permits usually do not require
compensatory mitigation according to the 1989 Memorandum Agreement between
the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Army.
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Comments Received
Comments on the proposed improvements to NC 179 were requested from
the following federal, state, and local agencies. An asterisk indicates
that a written response was received. Responses are included in the
appendix.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Atlanta
*U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Raleigh
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Asheville
*N.C. Department of Public Instruction
*N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
*N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
N.C. Department of Human Resources
42
*N.C. State Clearinghouse
*N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
*Mayor of Shallotte
Brunswick County Commissioners
B. Public Resaonse
A Citizen's Informational Workshop was held on May 9, 1995 at the
Town of Shallotte Town Hall to discuss the proposed improvements. The
NCDOT Citizens' Participation Unit advertised the workshop in the major
local media prior to its being held. Approximately 10 people (not
including NCDOT representatives) attended the informational workshop.
All of the people who attended the informational workshop live or
work along the project. Although concern was expressed over the project's
impacts to their properties, the project was strongly supported. Both
residents and business owners in the project area favored the symmetric
widening alternative.
C. Public Hearing
A public hearing will be held following the circulation of this
document. The public hearing will provide more detailed information to
the public about the proposed improvements. The public will be invited to
make additional comments or voice concerns regarding the proposed project.
VI. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based upon a study of the proposed project as documented in this
report, and upon comments received from state and local agencies, it is
the finding of the N.C. Department of Transportation that this project
will not have a significant impact upon the human or natural environment.
The proposed.action will not have a significant adverse impact on air,
noise, or water quality in Brunswick County. The proposed project is
consistent with plans and goals that have been adopted by the Town of
Shallotte, Brunswick County, and the State of North Carolina. Therefore,
an environmental impact statement or further environmental analysis will
not be required.
EK/wp
FIGURES
v
S ?
N
11332
O
1335 BRUNSWICK
COUNTY
FAS

l
1318
:0 1319
•3 ?US V Business 1.s
.7 1153 i? RIVI
1153
' 1184
Ocean Isle Beach
Airport
Gause
^ 2.7 Landing
PROJECT
LIMIT
1348 135
?t
6;
1363 FAl
130 j tr FPS 1136

9
9 FAS D
1180
Q
PROJECT
41??`?' 9
lr l
? ?120

LIMIT N3 ?
1 134 8
FP fi}: b •. .?? Cf 130
?
9 1 6 ' 179 j:..'::
g
`. 1191 ?
.?
., 1800

?a
FPS
1 C
l
•v'

1842-3
???::?!?f w ??
R?
1135 I b
'
` 0
i3?r ~•f
Shallotte
w
?Ph ?? POP. 4
a 680
1145 1146 1191
N
1154 •4 1207 1 1146
'?• 7 4 1147

1151 •8 1145 a
1 Shell
0
N W Point

Bowen
Point _
79r
Brick
HLanding
904;: OCEKWN-I?LE BEACH
?' - POP. 143 ;
h 1
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
91BRANCH
Mrb- N N
NC 179
FROM JUST NORTH OF SR 1145
TO US 17 BUSINESS
BRUNSWICK COUNTY
R-3106D
0 Milo 1
FIGURE 1
tr
?l
NIP
G 71\0
?r
\f? ,? ?' O`ff'
age
230 ??\\° ??.,, NC 179 WIDENING
0 0, 1460 66 ° SR 1145 TO US 17 BUSINESS
5 IV?p ,, • $70 BRUNSWICK COUNTY
11
e+ ? ISO ?A R-3106D
3R 1173
. 3
r?
O?
8 4
? O
L N
\4a
e
?O
A`
/P
4020 67\0
w o
q
w
? o
04 0
10/10
tJ g
°1 710 a /Y
?a it -? to
8 41.01
ee° sso
a e ,os20? 400 FENDER ST.
SELLERS ST.
(SR 1234) so
S
q ?Y
S 12 ?0tY
41.01
so
70 HICKORY ST.
,os\o
40
° o I'Y
q O
JULY 28, 1995
ESTIMATED 1994 ADT
LEGEND
0000 vpd
DHV DESIGN HOUR VOLUME (%)
D DIRECTIONAL FLOW
AM/PM AM OR PM PEAK
-? DIRECTION OF D
(5,1) DUAL TRUCKS. TTST (%)
pm
55
(2.1) 9
DHV D
NOT TO SCALE
NOTES: DHV AND D IF NOT
SHOWN ARE THE SAME FOR
THE OPPOSING LEG
a « e 1t -? 115
(1.01
1400
\200
17oo BRIERWOOD ST.
\oo
8
8
25ao
7000
k
ry
o?
+4
0
NC 179
SR 1145
FIGURE 3a
O Q ? 44
13 b?,
A
J .p
a?
q, zss
Ise
•
Q? 454
W `z ?? o•o• 3443
^
n-`S 0a
Vv PO iN
4,1
JS
PD uu
5?.
Q?
NC 179 WIDENING
SR 1145 TO US 17 BUSINESS
BRUNSWICK COUNTY
R-3106D
SR 1173
.a 10
lq e
i o
e N
sss
B
0
L
/P
11991
4408
4
n
N
0
N
1193
n731
0
`4 ?? o 1576 r? t
8 11.01
e'? ss9
4e 6
SELLERS ST. a 10571 PENDER ST.
(SR 1234) _ 190
N
n PY
g 1a -? as
11.01
ss
2070: 11 HICKORY ST.
i3
?Y
a M w 10 ?, iS
ESTIMATED 2017 ADT
LEGEND
0000 vpd
DHV DESIGN HOUR VOLUME (%)
D DIRECTIONAL FLOW
AM/PM AM OR PM PEAK
---? DIRECTION OF D
(5,1) DUAL TRUCKS, TTST (%)
P 9
55 (2,1)
DHV D
NOT TO SCALE
NOTES: DHV AND D IF NOT
SHOWN ARE THE SAME FOR
THE OPPOSING LEG
0.01
? 13.5
+•+ss Was BRIERWOOD 3T.
994
f
4971
1s7ss ?
ri
o,
319 @
0 00
NC 179
SR 1145
FIGURE 3b
PROPOSE} INTERSECTION GEOMETRICS
AT US 17 BUSINESS
I
1
I
I
I
1
? I
I
,1 I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
c
co)
y
w
C
co)
m
co)
co)

------------
r-
Figure 4a

PROPOSED INTERSECTION GEOMETRICS AT SR 1173
__A

i
I
1
1
1
I
1
1
I
I
1
i
I
I
1
N
J
y
W
n
y
t?
C
r
m
m
0
n
v
Figure 4b
w
m
m
E
It
N
m
m
w
m
m
M
E
O
T
m
m
w
a
v
m
E
N
N
T
a
m
m
E
14
N
m^
mm
?m
01-1.1
?v
W
m
m
E
N
.i
m
m
E
m
ej
A- 'Oft,
M
E`
N
a
E --
o v
O
Z
O
V
??WLJ?
v/
W
V
Z
a
V
W
Z
I
M
LA
W
0
M
APPENDIX

FM206
NORTH CAROLINA STATE C
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINIS
116 WEST JONES STREE
RALEIGH NORTH CAROLI A
?A
ON
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT
MAILED TO:
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
H. FRANKLIN VICK
PLANNING E ENV. BRANCH
TRANSPORTATION BLDG./INTER-OFFICE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
FROM:

27603-8003
SEP 2 8 1994 z
DIVISION OF `
HIGHWAYS
SZ?ZIRONNIE?
MS. JEANETTE FURNEY
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
SCOPING - PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO NC 1799 FROM SOUTH OF
SHALLOTTE CITY LIMITS TO US 17 BUSINESSs IN BRUNSWICK COUNTY
TIP #3106D
TYPE - SCOPING
THE N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE HAS RECEIVED THE ABOVE PROJECT FOR
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW. THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED STATE
APPLICATION NUMBER 95£42200187. PLEASE USE THIS NUMBER WITH ALL
INQUIRIES OR CORRESPONDENCE WITH THIS OFFICE.
REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT SHOULD BE COMPLETED ON OR BEFORE 12/01/94.
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE CALL [phone].
? ?? t s4
North Carolina
Department of Administration
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
October 31, 1994
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
N.C. Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
Transportation Building
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Vick:
G
-,DEC o ? 1994
kl?o
pIVIS1Gt\' OF
H1G A' AYS
RE: SCH File #95-E-4220-0187; Scoping - Proposed Improvements
to NC 179 from South of Shallotte City Limits to US 17
Business in Brunswick County (TIP #3106D)
The above referenced environmental impact information has been
reviewed through the State Clearinghouse under the provisions of
the North Carolina Environmental Policv Act.
Attached to this letter are comments made by agencies reviewing
this document which identify issues to be addressed in the
environmental review document. For compliance with the North
Carolina Environmental Policy Act the appropriate document
should be forwarded to the State Clearinghouse for environmental.
review. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate
to call me at 733-7232.
Sincerely,

Ms. Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse
Attachments
cc: Region O
116 West Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 • Telephone [phone]
State Courier 51-01-00
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer

?.-
rt
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
November 16, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State Historic' Preservation Officer
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
SUBJECT: NC 179 from south of Shallotte city limits to US 17
Business, Brunswick County, State Project 6.231018,
TIP R-3106D, CH 95-E-4220-0187
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
We have reviewed the materials and recommend that the following two structures
be evaluated for possible National Register eligibility:
Shallotte School, which appears to be at the southern end of the project just
south of the Shallotte town limits.
St. Mark's A.M.E. Zion Church which appears abandoned but may have
significant interiors and is located on the south side of NC 179 near
Shallotte.
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.
While we note that this project review is only for a state action, the potential for
federal permits may require further consultation with us and compliance with
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
These comments are made in accord with G.S. 121-12(a) and Executive Order
XVI. If you have any questions regarding them, please contact Renee Gledhill-
Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw /
cc: State Clearinghouse
John Parker, Division
B. Church
of Coastal Management
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
-01
Tip # (?- 3 (u C? D - Aid # (? . 2 310 19 County RUNS w ( l -
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Pro'ect Description
m-1 t4 C, 1-7 of 1T-6q 2
On
?23 /q?' representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA) , Nco?" FEDE(R_Rt~
.North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project at
A scoping meeting
Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
All part' present agreed
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as are
considered not eligible or the ational Register and no further evaluation o them is necessary.
there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:
23 Q
Representative, NCDOT Date
FHwA, foi the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Henry M. Lancaster II, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee tiV11-1
Project Review Coordinator
AS=% AOOM%
DEHNR
RE: 95-0187 - Scoping Improvements to NC 179, Brunswick
County
DATE: November 1, 1994
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has reviewed the proposed scoping notice. The attached comments
list and describe information that is necessary for our divisions
to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the project.
More specific comments will be provided during the environmental
review.
Thank
encouraged
assistance
you for the opportunity to respond. The applicant is
to notify our commenting divisions if additional
is needed.
attachments
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50°k recycled/ 1 0°k post-consumer paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources •
Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
pEHNFR
Henry M. Lancaster II, Director
Memorandum
TO: Eddie Keith
FROM: Melba McGee
RE: Preliminary EA/FONSI for NC 179, Brunswick County
DATE: October 11, 1995
The proposed project was circulated to the Division of Environmental Management and the N.C.
Wildlife Resources Commission for review.
Particular attention needs to be given to the comments made by the Division of Environmental
Management. The department suggest that you notify Eric Galamb directly prior to responding to
his comments in the FONSI.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
Attachments
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
;VLWKL,hCF,rHLLS LHKE TEL:[phone] Oct 25'94 14:14 No.004 P.06
Ez North. Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission KE
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 276044188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Policy Development, DEHNR
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coor ator '/ /
Habitat Conservation Program ?
DATE: October 25, 1994
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) regarding fish and
wildlife concerns for NC 179, from south of the
Shallotte City Limits to US 17 Business, Brunswick
County, North Carolina, TIP No. R-3106D, SCH
Project No. 95-0187.
This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. H.
Franklin Vick of the NCDOT for our concerns regarding
impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from the
subject project. Staff biologists of the N. C. Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the proposed
project, and our comments are provided in accordance with
provisions of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
(G.S. 113A-1 st seq., as amended; 1 NCAC 25).
The proposed project involves widening a 1.2 mile
section of existing NC 179 from two lanes to a three lane
curb and gutter facility.
At this time, we have no specific concerns or
recommendations regarding the subject project. However, to
help facilitate document preparation, our general
informational needs are outlined below:
1. Description of fishery and wildlife resources
within the project area, including a listing of
federally or state designated threatened,
endangered, or special concern species. Potential
NCWRC;HCP,FHLLS LRKE TEL:[phone]
Memo Page 2
borrow areas ',-)'be used for
should be inc.-. -::.ded in the i
of designated plant species
through consultation with:
Oct 25'94 14:15 No.004 P.07
October 25, 1994
project construction
,aventories. A listing
can be developed
The Natural Heritage Program
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
and,
Cecil C. Frost, Coordinator
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. 0. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by
_ the project. The need for channelizing or
relocating portions of streams crossed and the
extent of such activities.
3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted
by the project. Wetland acreages should include
all project-related areas that may undergo
hydrologic change as a result of ditching, other
drainage, or filling for project construction.
Wetland identification may be accomplished through
coordination with the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE). If the COE is not consulted, the
person delineating wetlands should be identified
and criteria listed.
4. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland
wildlife habitat impacted by the proposed project.
Potential borrow sites should be included.
5. The extent to which the project will result in
loss, degradation, or fragmentation of wildlife
habitat (wetlands or uplands).
6. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or
compensating for direct and indirect degradation
in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses.
7. A cumulative impact assessment section which
analyzes the environmental effects of highway
construction and quantifies the contribution of
this individual project to environmental
degradation.
?v?wr. • n,„r , r nL- L-. L- nr.L. LL • >1 -•JLL'- JV? I uL 6 1,10 . ? U4 r . Uo
Memo Page 3 October 25, 1994
8. A discussion of the probable impacts on natural
resources which will result from secondary
development facilitated by the improved road
access.
9. If construction of this facility is to be
coordinated with other state, municipal, or
private development projects, a description of
these projects should be included in the
environmental document, and all project sponsors
should be identified.
't'hank you for the opportunity to provide input in the
early planning stages for this project. If I can further
assist your office, please contact me at [phone].
CC: Thomas Padgett, District 4 Wildlife Biologist
Keith Ashley, District 4 Fisheries Biologist
Randy Wilson, Nongame/Endangered Species Section Mgr.

NCWRC.HCP.FRLLS LRKE
TEL:[phone]
Oct 10'95
7:49 No.002 P.09
Um North Carolina WAMe Resources Commission 121
512 N. Salisbury Sweet, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188,919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office ofLegislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project C for
Habitat Conservation Program -h/
DATE: October 9, 1995 TT
SUBJECT: North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Environmental
Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Si fieant Impact (FONSI) for
NC 179 improvements, from SR 1145 {Village Point Road) to US 17
Business in Shallotte, Brunswick County, North Carolina TIP No.
R-3106D.
Staff biologists of the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have
reviewed the subject EA/FONSI and are familiar with habitat values in the project area.
The purpose of this review was to assess project impacts to fish and wildlife resources.
Our comments are provided in accordance with certain provisions of the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A-1 et seq., as amended; 1 NCAC 25).
The proposed project involves widening a 1.49 mile segment of existing NC 179
in Shallotte from two-lanes to a three-lane curb and gutter section. The project will
impact approximately 0.2 acres of jurisdictional wetlands.
The EA adequately describes wildlife and fishery resources within the project
area. Due to the limited scope of the project and minimal projected impacts, we will
concur with the EA/FONSI. However, NCDOT should continue efforts to reduce
wetland impacts and ensure strict adherence to NCDOT Best Management practiccs.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this EA/FONSI. If we can be of
any further assistance please call me at [phone].
NC DEM WO ENVSCI Fax:919-7"-?959
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
MEMORANDUM
October 2, 1995
TO. Melba McGee
Through: John Domey
r
From: Eric Galamb
I
,
Subject:. Preliminary EA/FONSI
Brunswick County
State Project DOT No.
DEM No. 11067
?N
for NC 179
Oct 2 '95 16:35 P.04/04
9'
I
1 •
ID EH
6:831018, TIP # R-3106D
The subject document has. been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which impact of waters of the state including
wetlands. The document states that.0.2.acres of waters including wetlands will be
Impacted. The following comments are based on a review of the preliminary
EA/FONSI document:
AY DEM requests that DOT utilize high quality soil and erosion control measures
since the Shallote River and its' tributaries have a high quality water (HOW)
classification. DOT should not use weep holes in bridges where practicable to
protect the existing uses.
B) The existing road is a two lane shoulder section. DOT Is proposing a three
lane curb and gutter section. The current accident rate is three timer., higher for
this road segment compared to the state average for similar routes. DOT is
:proposing improvements that should lower the total accident rate for the road
but wIR the improvements be much lower than the state average? Curb and
gutter quickly transmit water and contaminants from the road to the nearest
stream.. Due to the HOW classification, the high accident rate, and the curb
and gutter. DEM requests that qOT reconsider the typical section to be a three
-lane shoulder section. This should assist in treating stormwater and capturing
spills before they enter a body I f water.
C} "The final document should discuss whether there will be any stream relocation.
i
DOT is reminded that endorsement of kn EA/FONSI by DEM would not preclude the
-de. =I -of a 401. -Certification upon application if wetland or water impacts have not
beefs avoided and minimized to the mdximum extent practicable.
I
ofx Monica Swihart
nc#79:com
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626.0635 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 5x96 recycled/ 1096 poet-consmer paper

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Ckmmor PROJECT REVIEW COMMENTS
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
Project Number: -0
County:
Project Name:
Geodetic Survey
1/?This project will impact 7 geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic ;
Survey should be contacted prior'to construction at P.O. Box* 27687,
.Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
Reviewer_ Date
Erosion and Sedimentation•Control
I .
. • No comment
This projecit will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land =disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at [phone].
Reviewer Date
P.O. Box 27687 - Melgh, N.C. 27611-7687 a Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity AfBrmadve Action Employer
State of North Carolina Reviewing Office:
C Dariment of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources m t
z?o
•/ INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMcNTS Project Number: Due Date.
to-,)094
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same I Normal Process
iipninnal nffirP_ r:..,.
C
C
C
L
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
. C
. C
C
C
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS Istatutory time
limit)
Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
facilities, sewer system extensions, & sewer construction contracts On-site inspection. Post-application
systems not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual (90 days)
NPDES, - permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection. 90.120 days
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities Pre-application conference usual. Additionally. obtain permit to
discharging into state surface waters. construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPDES. Reply (NIA)
time, 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichever is later.
30 days
Water Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary
(N/A)
7 days
Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued
prior to the installation of a well.
(15 days)
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property 55 days
Dredge and Fill Permit owner. On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of 190 days)
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement 60 days
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21H.06 NIA 190 days)
y open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 2D.0520.
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15A 60 days
NCAC 2D.0525 which requires notification and removal NIA
prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group
919.733.0820. (90 days)
Complex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 213.0800.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & sedimentatio
control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Sect.) at least 30 20 days
days before be innin activity. A fee of $30 for the first acre and $20.00 for each additional acre or art must accompany the plan (30 tla sl
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance: (30 days)
On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR. Bond amount
Mining Permit varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any area 30 days
mined greater than one acre must be permited. The appropriate bond 160 days)
must be received before the permit can be issued.
North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit 1 day
exceeds 4 days (NIA)
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22 On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required "if more 1 day
1 counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections
" (NIA)
should be requested at least ten days before actual burn is planned.
90.120 days
1 Oil Refining Facilities NIA (NIA)
If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction.
Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans. 30 days
Dam Safety Permit inspect construction, certify construction is according to EHNR approv-
ed plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. And (60 days)
a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers. An inspection of site is neces-
sary to verify Hazard Classification. A minimum fee of $200.00 must ac-
company the application. An additional processing fee based on a
percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion.
Ph 105
l,onunueo on reverse
Norm+?alTime ;7s]
ProcC
C
C
(statutory time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS limit)
File surety bond of $5,000 with EHNR running to State of N.C. 10 days
Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well conditional that any well opened by drill operator shall, upon (NIA)
abandonment, be plugged according to EHNR rules and regulations.
Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with EHNR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit 10 days
Application by letter. No standard application form. (NIA)
State Lakes Construction Permit Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must include 15.20 days
' descriptions & drawings of structure & proof of ownership (NIA)
of riparian property.
60 days
401 Water Quality Certification NIA (130 days)
55 days
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development 5250.00 fee must accompany application (150 days)
22 days
CAMA Permit for MINOR development $50.00 fee must accompany application (25 days)
Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monuments need to be moved or destroyed, please notify:
N.C. Geodetic Survey. Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Abandonment of any wells, if required, must be in accordance with Title 15A, Subchapter 2C.0100.
Notification of the proper regional office is requested if "orphan" underground storage tanks (LISTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H.1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required.
T
45 days
(N/A)
Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority):
t
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
: 0 Asheville Regional Office _ 0 Fayetteville Regional Office
t
59 Woodfin Place Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Asheville, NC 28801 Fayetteville, INC 28301
[phone] [phone]
0 Mooresville Regional Office 0 Raleigh Regional Office
919 North Main Street, P.O. Box 950 3800 Barrett Drive, Suite 101
Mooresville, NC 28115 Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone] [phone]
0 Washington Regional Office ' 0 Wilmington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue 127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Washington, INC 27889 Wilmington, NC 28405
[phone] [phone]
0 Winston-Salem Regjonai Office
8025 North Point Blvd.
Suite 100
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
[phone]
State bf North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Roger N. Schecter, Director
A74r
-tow
All=% 0W% Nova
?EHNF?
TO: Melba McGee, NC Office of Policy Development
FROM: Steve Benton, NC Division of Coastal Management
SUBJECT: Review of SCH # cfS- p/F? DATE: /?3/jcc?
_ Please Forward Agency Comments
L- R Viewer Comments Attached
Review Comments:
This document is being reviewed for consistency with the NC Coastal Management Program.
Agency comments received by SCH are needed to develope the State's consistency position.
A CAMA Permit _is or may be required for this project. Applicant should contact
in , phone # for information.
_? A Consistency Determination JLOis or ?may be required for this project. Applicant should
contact Steve Benton or Caroline Bellis in Raleigh, phone # [phone], for information.
Proposal is in draft form, a consistency response is inappropriate. A Consistency
Determination should be included in the final document.
A _ CAMA Permit or - consistency response _ has already been issued, or
_ is currently being reviewed under separate circulation.
Permit/Consistency No. Date issued
Proposal involves < 20 Acres or a structure < 60,000 Sq. Feet and no AEC's or Land Use Plan
Problems.
Proposal is not in the Coastal Area and will have no significant impacts on Coastal Resources.
Proposal is exempt from CAMA by statue _AeOther (see attached)
Consistency Position:
The proposal is consistent with the NC Coastal Management Program provided that all state
authorization and/or permit requirements are met prior to implementation of the project.
- A Consistency position will be developed based on our review on or before
- The proposal is inconsistent with the NC Coastal Management Program.
jL Not Applicable _ Other (see attached)
P.O. Box 27687, Weigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 60% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
?EHI?IR
October 19, 1994
TO: Melba McGee, Legislative Affairs
FROM: Monica Swihartr,' Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #95-0187; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Proposed Improvements to NC 179, TIP No. R-3106D
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project.
The stream classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated,
it is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be
revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary)
to be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested
from DEM.
P.O. Box 29535, Rdeigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Melba McGee
October 19, 1994
Page 2
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable) ?
J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same
watershed is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Please note that a 401 Water Quality Certification cannot be
issued until the conditions of NCAC 15A: 01C.0402 (Limitations on
Actions During NCEPA Process) are met. This regulation prevents
DEM from issuing the 401 Certification until a FONSI or Record of
Decision (ROD) has been issued by the Department requiring the
document. If the 401 Certification application is submitted for
review prior to issuance of the FONSI or ROD, it is recommended
that the applicant state that the 401 will not be issued until
the applicant informs DEM that the FONSI or ROD has been signed
by the Department.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may
be required for this project. Applications requesting coverage
under our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will
require written concurrence. Please be aware that 401
Certification may be denied if wetland impacts have not been
avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
10747er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 4 •
Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary EDE?HNFZ-
Henry M. Lancaster II, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee V-011 -
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 95-0278, 95-0187,95-0198
DATE: November 23, 1994
The attached comments were received by this office after the
response due date. These comments should be forwarded to the
applicant and made a part of our previous comment package.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
MM:bb
Attachment
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
.. _ ?? a?-
r. ,?...,?1 1?•! )f' {'t??V{.{.\t.'!?\!\'{{'.I\I { .?!.. i.{?'.,\! !!'1 -......__._ ....._. _-_---_
• .. t. it l.'v
. ? it ? •
fin er-7?geney Project Review 1•.csponsc ?j.*vr?SZJ,
roj?CCz Nan, /1/G l ype of Project l •? w,c?eM?
t--=-? The applic;i«t should •be advised that plans and specifications for all water system
t I improvemencs must be approved by the Divlslon of Environmental Health prior to:the•aw•ard
of a contract or the lnlElal'lOn of ConscrudlOli (as requ:.ed by 15A NCAC 18C .0300 et. seq.).
For information, contact the Public Water Supply Seccion, [phone].
-? This-project will be classified as a non-community puclic water supply and muss: comply with
?- -? state and federal drinking water monitoring requirerne-n Es. For more information the applicant
should contact the Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
r--? If this project i.s constructed as proposed, we will recc_nmend closure of feet of adjacent
t--? waters to the harvest of shellfish. For information regardin% the •shellfis?i sanitation progra.
m, the applicant should contact the Shellfish Sanitation Branch at [phone].
r---? The spoil-disposal area(s) proposed roor this project rna produce a mosquito breeding-problem.
?--? For information concerning appropriate mosquito control measures, the applicant -should.
contact the Public Health Pest Management. Section at (919) 726=8976.
i -, The applicant: should be advised that Prior to the removal or demolition of dilapidated.:
?--? structures, an extensive rodent control program rrla be necessary in order-to-prevent: the
mioracion of the rodents tc adiacent areas. The : _formauon.concerning rodent--control,
contact the local Health department. or Elie Public Health Pest Managen-ienc.Sectlorl:.at (919)
733-6407.
--? T[e applicant should be advised to contact. the local health department regarding their
' requirements for septic tank installat*, S (as 1equ. :under 15A NCAC 18-x..1900 et. see.!:
For inforrnacion concerning septic tank and other o3:-SItf' waSte d1SDOSa1 mCthods, contact the
On-Site Waste'vvaEer Section at-(9191 733-2$95. .
J-? The applicant should be zdvised to conlrlct the local Health departnienc regarding; the sanitary
t•-._.-? facilities rcquired for this project
?- t if existing water lints ??iil be relocate:; cluring the CO11SVUCr.1011, Mans for the ?wat:e . 11M
!- relocatior? must be submitted to the Division of Ln:!ronmental .'i.-leach, Public Watel Sclg:pi'
,,h r1. " c) 733-:?46.1`:
Section, Plan review Branch, 1330 St. lv(ary s Strert. i?.ale!n.., North .r Minx., (.1
_?:. .yy:??...,:a ' • :.. S ctian/Bra,ncli. `t.1i_ - ate'
.14 l'. .,.µ.:6;,q K ?'?•,•'{rs :tivn.: -:N.e:'G?^.. ... ..
.ate ?e4)?J.?i??q?"??..'1'30 ;....:w•.-._r-e?y?%., ..
Pty NT OF ryFA
? w 9
ARCH 3 CBs
United States Department of the Irk
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ecological Services
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
November 29, 1994
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611

,.DIVISION OF
ell It" :HIGHWAYS
Subject: NC 179, from south of Shallotte City Limits to US 17 Business,
Brunswick County, North Carolina, TIP No. R-3106D.
Dear Mr. Vick:
This responds to your letter of September 14, 1994 requesting information from
the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on evaluating the potential
environmental impacts of the above-referenced project. This report provides
scoping information and is provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7
of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
Preliminary planning by the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) calls for widening a 1.9 kilometer (1.2 mile) section of NC 179 from
two lanes to a three-lane curb and gutter facility. The project would extend
from the Shallotte City Limits northeast to US 17 Business.
The Service's review of any environmental document would be greatly
facilitated if it contained the following information:
1. A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within existing and
required additional right-of-way and any areas, such as borrow areas,
which may be affected directly or indirectly by the proposed project.
2. A list of the wetland types which will be impacted. Wetland types
should follow the wetland claasification scheme of the National Wetlands
Inventory. This list should also give. the acreage of each wetland type
to be affected by the project as determined by the Federal Manual for
Identifying and Delineatina Jurisdictional Wetlands.
3. Engineering techniques which will be employed for designing and
constructing any wetland crossings and/or relocated stream channels
along with the linear feet of any water courses to be relocated.
4. The cover types of upland areas and the acreage of each type which would
be impacted by the proposed project.
1
1
5. Mitigation measures which will be employed to avoid, eliminate, reduce,
or compensate for upland and wetlands habitat impacts associated with
the project. These measures should include plans for replacing
unavoidable wetland losses.
6. The environmental impacts which are likely to occur after construction
as a direct result of the proposed project (secondary impacts) and an
assessment of the extent to which the proposed project will add to
similar environmental impacts produced by other, completed projects in
the area (cumulative impacts).
The attached page identifies the Federally-listed endangered, threatened, and
candidate species which occur in Brunswick County. The section of the
environmental document regarding protected species must contain the following
information:
1. A review of the literature and other information;
2. A description of any listed species or critical habitat that may be
affected by the action;
3. An analysis of the "effect of the action", as defined by CFR 402.02, on
the species and habitat including consideration of direct, indirect,
cumulative effects, and the results of related studies;
4. A description of the manner in which the action may affect any species
or critical habitat;
5. Summary of evaluation criteria used as a measure of potential effects;
and
6. Determination statement based on evaluation criteria.
Candidate species refer to any species being considered by the Service for
listing as endangered or threatened but not yet the subject of a proposed
rule. These species are not legally protected under the Act or subject to its
provisions, including Section 7, until formally proposed or listed as
threatened or endangered. New data could result in the formal listing of a
candidate species. This change would place the species under the full
protection of the Endangered Species Act, and necessitate a new survey if its
status in the project corridor is unknown. Therefore, it would be prudent for
the project to avoid any adverse impact to candidate species or their habitat.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted for
information on species under State protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please
continue to advise us of the progress of this"project, including your official
determination of the impacts of this project. If our office can supply any
additional information or clarification, please contact Howard Hall, the
biologist reviewing this project, at 919-856-4520 (ext. 27).
Sincerely your
it L.K. `
"Mike" Gantt
Supervisor
REVISED SEPTEMBER 26, 1994
2 PAGES
Brunswick County
Shortnose sturgeon (Acivenser brevirostrum) - E
Eastern cougar ( 1 s concolor couguar) - E
Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus) - E
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocenhalus) - E
Piping plover (Charadrius melodus) - T
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - E
Arctic peregrine falcon (Falco perearinus tundrius) - T
Wood stork (Mvcteria americana) - E
Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) - T
Green sea turtle (Chelonia mvdas) - T
Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelvs coriacea) - E
Kemp's (Atlantic) ridley sea turtle (Levidochelvs kemnii) - E
American alligator (Alligator mississi=iensis - T S/A+
Rough-leaved loosestrife (Lvsimachia asverulaefolia) - E
Cooley's meadowrue (Thalictrum oole ) - E
Seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus u s) - T
Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew (Sorex lonairostris s e ) - T
Sea turtles when "in the water" and the shortnose
jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries
contacted concerning your agency's responsibilities
Endangered species Act. Their address is:
National Marine Fisheries Service
U.S. Department of commerce
9450 Roger Boulevard
Duval Building
St. Petersburg, Florida 33702
sturgeon are under the
Service and should be
s under Section 7 of the
Brunswick County (cont'd)
REVISED SEPTEMBER 26, 1994
There are species which, although not now listed or officially proposed for
listing as endangered or threatened, are under status review by the Service.
These "Candidate" (C1 and C2) species are not legally protected under the
Act, and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7,
until they are formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. We
are providing the below list of candidate species which may occur within the
project area for the purpose of giving you advance notification. These
species may be listed in the future, at which time they will be protected
under the Act. In the meantime, we would appreciate anything you might do
for them.
Henslow's sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii) -C2
Bachman's sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis) - C2
Carolina pygmy sunfish (Elassoma boehlkei) - C2
Carolina crawfish frog (Rana areolata ca to) - C2
Magnificent ramshorn snail (Planorbella macnifica)
Cape Fear three tooth (Tridopsis soelneri) - C2
Rare skipper (Problems u enta) - C2
Pyxis moth (Aarotis buchholzi) - C2*
Chapman's sedge (Carex chavmanii) - C2
Carolina grass-of-parnassus (Parnassia caroliniana)
Awned meadowbeauty (Rhexia aristosa) - C2
Sun-facing coneflower (Rudbeckia heliopsidis) - C2
Carolina goldenrod (Solidaao vulchra) - C2
Spring-flowering goldenrod (Solidavo verna) - C2
Wireleaf dropseed (Sporobolus teretifolius) - C2
Savanna leadplant (Amo a oeoraiana n usa) - C2
Savanna campylopus (Camnylopus carolinae) - C2*
Harper's fringe rush (Fimbristylis peryusilla) - C2
Pondspice (Litsea aestivalis) - C2
Carolina bogmint (Macbridea caroliniana) - C2
Loose watermilfoil (Myriophvllum laxum - C2
Savanna cowbans (Oxvoolis ternata - C2
Pineland plantain (Plantaco sparsiflora) -.C2
Dune blue curls (Trichostema sp.) - C2
Venus flytrap (Dionaea muscipula) - C2
Honeycomb head (Balduina atropurourea) - C2
Carolina asphodel (Tofieldia alabra) - C2
Thorne's beaked-rush (Rvhnchospora h me ) - C2
C2
- C2
+Threatened/Similarity of Appearance
*Indicates no specimen in at least 20 years from this county.
k
"
"'-
Q,
NORTH CAROLINA
•??• DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
301 North Wilmington Street, Education Building
Raleigh, NC 27601-2825
January 24, 1995
BOB E'THERIDGE
State Superintendent
r

MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
FROM: Charles H. Weaver
Assistant State Superintendent
Auxiliary Services
c?,y yt
RE: NC 179, from south of the Shallotte City Limits to US 17 Business,
Brunswick County, State Project No. 6.231018, TIP No. R-3106D
Please find attached communication from Dennis Carr, Director of Maintenance for
Brunswick County Schools, relative to subject project.
mrl
Enclosure
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer
Brunswick County Schools
Maintenance Department
199 Sessions Drive
Bolivia, North Carolina 28422
JM24M
January 20,1995
Dr. Charles H. Weaver
Assistant State Superintendent
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction
301 North Wilmington Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2825
Dear Dr. Weaver:
In response to your request dated September 23, 1994, I would like to make the following
request. We would like preparations made to establish a double drive on the north side of the
school property. We were in touch with the Department of Transportation at the request of the
principal of Shallotte Middle school before we received your request. We met with Mrs.
Robinson, principal; Sarah Tripp, mayor of Shallotte; a lady from Department of
Transportation; Odell Benton and myself to discuss the relocation of a drive to prevent some
traffic flow problems. We were instructed at that meeting by a Department of Transporation
person to contact North Carolina DOT engineers in Wilmington. We made contact on
November 28, 1994, and was informed they would be in touch after the first of the year. Mr.
Odell Benton was contacted by Wilmington regional office on January 20,1995, and told to
contact this State DOT. Hopefully this letter will serve as that contact.
Dr. Weaver I do apologize for the delay of this response. I realize it is past the requested
due date. It was caught up in the confusion of paperwork in my office. If I could be of any
further assistance to you please do not hesitate to contact me. I promise a prompt response if
you need me.
Sincerely,
0 `44A.
Dennis B. Carr
Director of Maintenance
c: Dr. Ralph J. Johnston, Superintendent
[phone] [phone] [phone] fax
`'v yam( .•? Y'? -. }? ?4.?.-ice

August 2, 1995
Tobnri. ofjaiotte
°Sp6 t iris Paradim"
P.O. BOX 27 I SHALLOTTE,.NC 28459
Mr. Eddie Keith, Project Engineer
NC Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
124 Division Street
Wilmington NC- 28401
Dear Mr. Keith;
This letter is. to advise you that we have reviewed the need
for sidewalks along NC 179. We request that the State include
sidewalks along both sides of the highway. It is our
understanding that the Town's cost will be 20% of the project.
If there are any further details that need to be worked out,
please advise.
Sincerely,
' t? ?-
, V.P
Sarah L. Tripp
Mayor
ROADWAY DESIGN
RECEIVED FILE
AUG 1 4 1995

-NOAR

' TAl'L;. r:
^.tC
DN -PL1RYEAr,
RED'-Y Foil
.
S11GiVA1 i1RE

s
F.Y.I. ..
E S1.
TABLE Al
PAGE 1
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
RUN: NC 179, Year 2000, Build
JOB: R-3106D: NC179, Brunswick Co.
DATE: 06/07/95 TIME: 15:40
SITE i METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
------------------------------
VS - 0.0 CM/S VD - 0.0 CM/S ZO - 108. CM
U - 1.0 M/8 CLAS - 5 (E) ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXH - 1000. M Am - 1.8 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M)._ * LENGTH BRG TYPE VPS EF H W WC QUEUE
* X1 Y1 X2 Y2 • (M) (DEG) .(G/MI) (M) (M)
------------- _---•---------- ------------------------------ •___----'------------------------------------------- ------
1. Far Lane Link * 7.2 -805.0 7.2 805.0 * 1610. 360. AG 683. 17.9 0.0 9.6
2. Near Lane Link * 0.0 805.0 0.0 -805.0 * 1610. 180. AG 683. 17.9 0.0 9.6
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
• COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR • X Y Z •
-----------------------•----------------------- -----------------
1. R40, 14.0 m LCL BUS * -10.4 0.0 1.8 *
JOB: R-3106D: NC179, Brunswick Co. RUN: NC 179, Year 2000, Build
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with sane maximum
concentrations, is indicated a8-maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1
MAX * 2.8
DEGR. * 2

THE gIGHBST CONCENTRATION IS 2.80 PPM AT 2 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
TABLE A2
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: R-3106D: NC179, Brunswick Co. RUN: NC 179, Year 2020, Build
DATE: 06/07/95 TIME: 15:40
SITE i METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS - 0.0 CM/3 VD - 0.0 CM/S 20 - 108. CM
U = 1.0 WS CLAS : 5 (E) ATIM = 60. MINUTES
LINK VARIABLES
--°--__------
MIXH - 1000. M AM - 1.6 PPM
PAGE 2
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK 00MINATES (M) ! LENGTH BRG TYPE VPB EF H W V/C QUEUE
* X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * (M) (DEC) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
------ -------------- ----*-------------------------- ------------- !_-_--7--------- '----- ---------- --- -------- __------_------
1. Par Lane Link * 7.2 -805.0 7.2 805.0 * 1610. 360. AG 1150. 14.9 0.0 9.6
2. Neer Lane Link * 0.0 805.0 0.0 -605.0 * 1610. 180. AG 1150. 14.9 0.0 9.6
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
! COORDINATES (M) !
RECEPTOR * X Y Z "
------------------------- !-------------------------------- ---_!
1. R40, 14.0 m LCL BUS * -10.4 0.0 1.8 *
JOB: R-3106D: NC179, Brunswick Co. RUN: NC 179, Year 2020, Build
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION .
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* MCI
------ !-_ _--
MAX * 3.3
DEGR. * 5
TM HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 3.30 PPM AT 5 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
TABLE A3
CAL3Q6C: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992 PAGE 3
JOB: R-3106D: NC179, Brunswick Co. RUN: NC 179, Yr-2000, No-BUild
DATE: 06/07/95 TIME: 15:39
SITE i METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
--
--------------------
VS - 0.0 CM/S ---------
VD - 0.0 CM/S 20 - 108. CM
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 5 (E) ATIM - 60. MINUTES M IRE - 1000. M AMB - 1.8 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
LINK DESCRIPTION
* LINK COORDINATES (M) "
LENGTH BRG TYPE
VPH EF .
H
W V/C QUEUE
* X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
-------------------- ----"---------------------------- '----------- "_- ---'----------------------------- -----------------------
1. Far Lane Link * 3.6 -805.0 3.6 805.0 * 1610. 360. AG 683. 25.3 0.0 9.6
2. Near Lane Link * 0.0 805.0 0.0 -805.0 * 1610. 180. AG 683. 25.3 0.0 9.6
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y 2 "
------------------------- "-------------------------------------*
1. R40, 14.0 m LCL BUS * -12.2 0.0 1.8 *
JOB: R-3106D: NC179, Brunswick Co. RUN: NC 179, Yr-2000, NO-Build
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1
MAX • 3.3
DEGR. * 6
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 3.30 PPM AT 6 DECREES FROM REC1 .
TABLE A4
CRL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: R-310GD: NC179, Brunswick Co. RUN: NC 179, Yr-2020, No-Build
DATE: 06/07/95 TIME: 15:39
SITE i METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS - 0.0 CM/S VD - 0.0 CM/S
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 5 (E)
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
20 - 106. CM
ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXH - 1000. M AMB - 1.8 PPM
PAGE 4
LINK DESCRIPTION * -_' LINK COORDINATES (M) " LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H N WC QUEUE
* X1 Y1 X2 ' Y2 * (M) (DEC) NMI) (M) (M) (VEH)
------------------------ "---------------------------------------- "-- ------------------- -------------------------------------
1. Far Lane Link * 3.6 -805.0 3.6 605.0 * 1610. 360. AG 1150. 34.9 0.0 9.6
2. Near Lane Link * 0.0 805.0 0.0 -805.0 * 1610. 180. AG 1150. 34.9 0.0 9.6
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y Z "
-------------------------f------------------------------------!
1. R40, 14.0 m LCL BUS * -12.2 0.0 1.8 *
JOB: R-3106D: NC179, Brunswick Co.
MODEL RESULTS
RUN: NC 179, Yr-2020, No-Build
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE. 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REM
MAX * 5.3
DEGR. * 7
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION 15 5.30 PPM AT 7 DEGREES FROM REC1 .

11
FIGURE - N1
PROJECT LOCATION & AMBIENT MEASUREMENT SITES
NC 179
From SR 1145 to US-17 Business in Shallotte
Brunswick County
TIPr R-3106D State Projectr 6.33101S
4
6 ws 1
'w _ Ju: f ' uet='
4
Jat
17st G
l!
am
r?s
no 1
im 1.3
d7l?
Jut 1171 ?
170 ?` _ :Ny?e -
l' J #'.Sw l .1 2t UU
Ile u •7 \ '1111
l .y END ao i UK
UM
'•? J!? v
1 ? 47
'! 1.1 Ili 1V A41. UM
-RIVER UM 4 • yin
b ' KW. ,
BEGIN _ ?4" ?
Jut " ?' Un ,. uu
U" LM 1 118
y UK Qj
1111 y JJi 4
lair
1
1J ? ,!
T aM
Mldt
tbaiq iawl
Et1r iste w"a g
rol. w z
xr T C ^ _ _

TABLE N1
HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY
140 Shotgun blast, jet 30 m away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chamber HUNAN BAR PAIN THRESHOLD
130
Firecrackers
120 Severe thunder, pneumatic jackhammer
Hockey crowd
Amplified rack music UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD
110
Textile looms
100 Subway train, elevated train, farm tractor
- Power lawn mower, newspaper press
Heavy city traffic, noisy factory LOUD
90
D Diesel truck 65 kmph 15 IN away
E 80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
I Passenger car 80 kmph 15 m away MODERATELY LAUD
B 70
g Quiet typewriter
L 60 singing birds, window air-conditioner
g Quiet automobile
Normal conversation, average office QUIET
50
Household refrigerator
Quiet office VERY QUIET
40
Average hams
30 Dripping faucet
Whisper 1.5 m away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVBRAGE PERsm,s THRESHOLD OF BEARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE
10
0 THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
Sources: World Book, Band McNally Mies Of the Human Body,
Encyclopedia Americana, "Industrial Noise and Hearing
Conversation" by J. B. Olishifski and E. R. Harford
(Researched by N. Jane Hunt and published in the Chicago
Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tam Heinz.)
TABLE N2
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Activity
Category Leq(h) Description of Activity Category
A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public
(Exterior) need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to
serve its intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels,
(Exterior) hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B above.
(Exterior)
D -- Undeveloped lands
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting roams, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and
(Interior) auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration
DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
Sourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Existing Noise Level increase in dBA from Existing Noise
in Laq(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
<50 > 15
> 50 > 10
t
s
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Guidelines-
Description
1. From Beginning to Brierwood Road
2. From Brierwood Road to SR 1234
3. From SR 1234 to SR 1173
4. From SR 1173 to End of Project
TABLE N3
FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
NC 179, From SR 1145 to US-17 Business, Brunswick County
TIP i R-3106D State Project 4 6.231018
Maximum Predicted Contour
Leq Noise Levels Distances
dBA (Maximum)
15 m 30 m 60 m 72 dBA 67 dBA
69 64 59 <ll.lm 23.4m
69 65 59 <11.1m 25.1m
72 67 62 17.Om 35.1m
68 64 58 <11. lie 21.3m
TOTALS
Approximate Number of Impacted
Receptors According to
Title 23 CFR Part 772
A B C D fi
0 0 0 0 0
0 4 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 5 0 0 0
NOTES - 1. 15m, 30m, and 60m distances are measured from center of nearest travel lane.
2. 72 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from center of proposed roadway.
I
Section
1. Beginning to Brierwood Rd
2. Brierwood Road to SR 1234
3. SR 1234 to SR 1173
4. SR 1173 to End of Project
TOTALS
TABLE N4
TRAFFIC NOISE LEM INCREASE SUMMARY
NC 179, From SR 1145 to US-17 Business, Brunswick County
TIP i R-3106D State Project i 6.231018
RECEPTOR ERTSRIOR NOISE LEVEL INCREASES
C.0 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 >- 25

0 6 0 0 0 0 0
0 28 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 2 0 0 0 0
0 1 4 0 0 0 0
0 35 6 0 0 0 0
Substantial Impacts Due
Noise Level to Both
Increases(1) Criteria(2)
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0

(1) As defined by only a substantial increase (See bottom of Table N2).
(2) As defined by both criteria in Table N2
a? ww mm's
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
January 22, 1996
GARLAND B. GARRETT J R.
SECRETARY
RECeVED
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEHNR - Div. of Environmental Management
Water Quality Lab
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Dear Mr. Galamb:
JAN 2 4 1996
2NVRONMENTALS,GrEI? ;
SUBJECT: State Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact for
NC 179, From Just North of SR 1145 (Village Point Road) to US 17
Business, Shallotte, Brunswick County, State Project No. 6.231018,
TIP No. R-3106D
Attached for your information are the signed cover sheets and the first
page of the subject proposed highway improvement. The pages in the State
Environmental Assessment/FONSI distributed on December 7, 1995 showed an
incorrect state project number. The corrected pages show the correct state
project number 6.231018. Please discard the incorrect pages and insert these
pages. If you have any questions concerning the project, please call Eddie
Keith, Project Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone], Ext. 214.
Sincerely,
1
H. Franklin Vic P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
Attachment
¦r
E
NC 179
From Just North of SR 1145 (Village Point Road)
to US 17 Business
Shallotte, Brunswick County
State Project No. 6.231018
TIP No. R-3106D
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
In Compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
For further information contact:
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
APPROVED:
atW Franklin Vick, P- E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
i
NC 179
From Just North of SR 1145 (Village Point Road)
to US 17 Business
Shallotte, Brunswick County
State Project No. 6.231018
TIP No. R-3106D
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:

Samuel E. Keith T.
Project Planning Engineer
Linwood Stone, CPM
Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
?.o`ng?H CAROB
SSldz-.I
?? SEAL
6944 r
icha B. avis, E. Assistant na e
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT % c•••FNG(ryE.?
! y ?
NC 179
From Just North of SR 1145 (Village Point Road)
to US 17 Business
Shallotte, Brunswick County
State Project No. 6.231018
TIP No. R-3106D
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. General Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to
widen a 2.4 kilometer (1.49 mile) segment of NC 179 in Shallotte from two
lanes to a three-lane curb and gutter facility from just north of SR 1145
(Village Point Road) to US 17 Business (refer to Figures 1 and 2 for the
project location and recommended improvements). The portion of NC 179
from US 17 Business to the intersection with SR 1173 will be relocated on
new location to intersect SR 1173 north of Shallotte Middle School (see
Figure 2 for location). The proposed improvements will provide a 13.2
meter (44-foot) curb and gutter cross section with a center left turn
lane. This project is included in the 1995-2001 North Carolina
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and is scheduled for right of way
acquisition in fiscal year 1996 and construction in fiscal year 1997. The
total estimated cost for the project is $2,756,000 This estimate
includes $1,783,000 for construction and $973,000 for right of way
acquisition.
No significant adverse environmental impacts are anticipated from the
proposed improvements. The project has been coordinated with the
appropriate state and regional review agencies, federal permit agencies,
and local government officials.
B. Summary of Proposed Improvements
1. Cross-Section
The proposed cross-section provides a three-lane 13.2-meter
(44-foot) curb and gutter section with 4.2-meter (14-foot) travel
lanes and a 3.6-meter (12-foot) center turn lane (refer to Figure 5
for a sketch of the proposed cross-section). Sidewalks are proposed
on the east side of the facility.
2. Right of Way
Most of the improvements will be contained within the existing
18.3-meter (60-foot) right of way except in the area between US 17
Business and SR 1173. Additional right of way and easements will be
necessary in this area to accommodate the relocation of NC 179 on new
location. Temporary construction easements will be necessary at most
locations along the project in addition to the existing right of way.
3. Access Control
No control of access is recommended for the proposed project.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
MEMORANDUM
October 2, 1995
To: Melba McGee S
Through: John Dorney
From: Eric Galamb
Subject:
Preliminary EA/FONSI for NC 179
AMINO
ED FE F1
Brunswick County
State Project DOT No. 6.831018, TIP # R-3106D
DEM No. 11067

-\v
w
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which impact of waters of the state including
wetlands. The document states that 0.2 acres of waters including wetlands will be
impacted. The following comments are based on a review of the preliminary
EA/FONSI document:
A) DEM requests that DOT utilize high quality soil and erosion control measures
since the Shallote River and its tributaries have a high quality water (HQW)
classification. DOT should not use weep holes in bridges where practicable to
protect the existing uses.
B) The existing road is a two lane shoulder section. DOT is proposing a three \
lane curb and gutter section. The current accident rate is three times higher for
this road segment compared to the state average for similar routes. DOT is
proposing improvements that should lower the total accident rate for the road
but will the improvements be much lower than the state average? Curb and
gutter quickly transmit water and contaminants from the road to the nearest
stream. Due to the HQW classification, the high accident rate, and the curb
and gutter, DEM requests that DOT reconsider the typical section to be a three
lane shoulder section. This should assist in treating stormwater and capturing
spills before they enter a body of water.
C) The final document should discuss whether there will be any stream relocation-)
DOT is reminded that endorsement of an EA/FONSI by DEM would not preclude the
denial of a 401 Certification upon application if wetland or water impacts have not
been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. FAXED
cc: Monica Swihart
OCT 0 2 1995
nc179.com
0
C
n

r

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
RECEIVECt
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resourc UP
S Z 71995 El Project located in 7th floor library
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs AP
Project Review Form ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES ` v
??n gar
Project Number: County: Date: Date Response Due (firm deadline):

This oroiect is being reviewed as indicated below: I i /IJ?M?f/?N I ?? ! 1
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ? All RIO Areas ? Soil and Water ? Marine Fisheries
El Air ? Coastal Management El Water Planning
El Fayetteville
? Water
? Water Resources ? Environmental Health
?Mooresville ?Groundwater Wildlife ?Solid Waste Management
? Raleigh ? Land Quality Engineer Forest Resources ? Radiation Protection
n
hi
t
? W ? Recreational Consultant ? Land Resources ? David Foster
ng
o
as ? Coastal Management Consultant ? Parks and Recreation ? Other (specify)
? Wilmington ? Others Environmental Management
Monica Swihart
? Winston-Salem PWS
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager
? No objection to project as proposed
? No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommeodations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attachedlauthority(ies) cited)
In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
? Applicant has been contacted
? Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
? Other (specify and attach comments)
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
PS-104
NC 179
From SR 1145 (Village Point Road)
to US 17 Business
Shallotte, Brunswick County
rR 12- NELr
M06INARY
SUBJECT
TO CHANGE
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
In Compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
For further information contact:
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 2761.
APPROVED:
Date H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
IV
NC 179
From SR 1145 (Village Point Road)
to US 17 Business
Shallotte, Brunswick County
State Project No. 6.831013
TIP No. R-3106D
STATE ENVIRONMEiv"TAL ASSESSMENT/FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
Samuel E. Keith Jr.
Project Planning Engineer
f
Linwood Stone, CPM
` Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
0-
)
i
Richard B. Davis, P. E. Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
SUMMARY
r
r
1. Description of Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to
widen a 2.4 kilometer (1.49 mile) segment of NC 179 in Shallotte from two
lanes to a three-lane curb and gutter facility between SR 1145 (Village
Point Road) and US 17 Business (refer to Figures 1 and 2 for the project
location and recommended improvements). The portion of NC 179 from US 17
Business to the intersection with SR 1173 will be constructed on new
location to intersect SR 1173 north of Shallotte Middle School (see Figure 2
for location). This relocation will provide a safer intersection by
eliminating the existing angle intersection and shifting the intersection
away from the entrance to Shallotte Middle School. The proposed
improvements will provide a 13.2 meter (44-foot) curb and gutter cross
section with a center turn lane.
This project is included in the 1996-2002 North Carolina Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) and is scheduled for right of way acquisition in
fiscal year 1996 and construction in fiscal year 1997. The total estimated
cost for the project is $ This estimate includes $1,700.000 for
construction and $ for right of way acquisition.
2. Summary of Environmental Impacts
The proposed project will improve the traffic flow along NC 179 as well
as improve safety. The proposed center turn lane will accommodate left
turning traffic and will reduce the potential for rear-end type collisions.
Approximately 0.1 hectare (0.2 acre) of wetlands will be impacted by
the project. No relocations of residents, non-profit organizations. or
businesses are anticipated tp be required. Noise levels at five residences
will approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria, but no abatement
measures are considered feasible for the project.
3. Alternatives Considered
Due to the nature of the project, the widening of an existing segment
of roadway, no alternative corridors were studied.F However, a five-lane
curb and gutter cross-section was considered for the project. This section
would provide more traffic carrying capacity than a' three-lane section, but
it would result in higher right of way and construction costs and would
impact more properties along NC 179. The estimated cost for the five-lane
curb and gutter cross section is $ which includes $2,300,000
and $ for right of way acquisition. This alternative would
involve substantially higher construction and right of way costs. Also, this
alternative would result in more adverse environmental impacts because it
would impact a wetland site on the west side of NC 179 that will not be
impacted by the recommended three-lane alternative. For these reasons, a
five-lane curb and gutter section is not recommended for this project. y
The "do nothing" alternative was also considered, but rejected. The
proposed cross section will provide a safer travelway to accommodate the
current and projected traffic volumes.
W
4. Coordination
The following federal, state, and local agencies were consulted during
the preparation of this categorical exclusion. An asterisk indicates that a
written response was received. Responses are included in the appendix.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Atlanta
*U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Raleigh
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Asheville
*N.C. Department of Instruction
*N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
*N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
N.C. Department of Human Resources
*N.C. State Clearinghouse
*N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Mayor of Shallotte
Brunswick County Commissioners
5. Summary of Special Project Commitments
a. Sidewalk Provisions
Sidewalks are proposed along the east side of the facility as
requested by the Town of Shallotte (see Section I.B.8 for discussion of
sidewalk provisions).
6. Summary of Environmental Commitments
a. The Shallotte Volunteer Rescue Department is located at the corner
of NC 179 (Village Road) and SR 1173. There is one approximately
1,000 gallon underground storage tank (UST) and a gasoline
dispenser located on site. The UST and dispenser is located
approximately 46 feet from the centerline of NC 179. The
recommended alternative will not require the acquisition of right
of way in the area of the UST.
7. Permits Required
Brunswick County is one of 20 counties in North Carolina that is under
the jurisdiction of the Coastal Area Management Act (CAAMA), which is
administered by the Division of Coastal Management (DCM). CAMA is the lead
permitting agency for projects within its jurisdiction.
CAMA directs the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) to identify and
designate Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC's) in which uncontrolled
development might cause irreversible damage to property, public health and
the natural environment. CAMA necessitates a permit if a project meets all
of the following criteria:
- it is located in a county under CAMA jurisdiction;
- it is in or affects a designated AEC;
- the project is considered "development" under the terms of the act, and;
- it does not qualify for an exemption identified by CAMA, or CRC.
This project does not appear to impact any AEC, and thus will not
involve CAMA, therefore the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) becomes the
lead permitting agency. A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 14 (minor road
crossings) is anticipated for impacts to the unnamed stream.
This permit authorizes fill for roads crossing waters of the United
States, including wetlands and aquatic sites. Standard conditions include:
(1) the width of the fill is limited to the minimum necessary for the actual
crossing; (2) fill is limited to 0.1 hectare (0.3 acre), and (3) no more
than 61 linear meters (200 feet) of the fill will be placed in special
aquatic sites, including wetlands.
A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401
Water Quality Certification is also required. Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act requires that the state issue or deny water certification for any
federally permitted, or licensed activity that may result in a discharge
into waters of the Waters of the United States.
4
g
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION .............................. 1
A. General Description ........................................ 1
B. Summary of Proposed Improvements ........................... 1
1. Cross Section ........................................ 1
2. Right of Way Width ................................... 1
3. Access Control ....................................... 1
4. Drainage Structures .................................. 2
5. Design Speed and Speed Zones ......................... 2
6. Railroads ............................................ 2
7. Parking .............................................. 2
8. Sidewalks ............................................ 2
9. Bicycle Provisions ................................... 2
10. Utilities ............................................ 2
11. Cost Estimate ........................................ 3
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION .................................... 3
A. Existing Roadway Inventory.. .............................. 3
1. Cross Section .......................................... 3
2. Right of Way ........................................... 3
3. Type of Roadside Development ........................... 3
4. Structures ............................................. 3
5. Access Control ......................................... 3
6. Speed Zones .................. ...... ................ 3
7. Intersecting Roads ..................................... 3
3. Railroad Crossings ..................................... 4
9. Sidewalks .............................................. 4
10. Bicycle Provisions ..................................... 4
11. Utilities .............................................. 4
12. Geodetic Markers .................................. .. 4
13. School Buses ....................................... 4

B. C
Functional Classification and Thoroughfare Plan .............
4
C. Traffic Volumes and Capacity Analysis... ? ................... 4
1. Signalized Intersections...... ....................... 5
2. Unsignalized Intersections ............................. 5
D. Accident History ............................................ 7
III. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION .............................. 7
A. Recommended Improvements .................................... 7
B. Other Alternatives Considered ............................... 7
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ............................................ 8
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
PAGE
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ........................................ 41
A. Comments Received ........................................... 41
C. Public Response ............................................. 41
B. Public Hearing .............................................. 42
VI. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ................................. 42
FIGURES
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - Aerial Mosaic
Figure 3a - 1994 Projected Traffic Volumes
Figure 3b - 2017 Projected Traffic Volumes
Figure 4a - Proposed Intersection Treatments at US 17 Business
Figure 4b - Proposed Intersection Treatments at SR 1173
Figure 5 - Roadway Typical Section
APPENDIX
Appendix A - Agency Comments
Appendix B - Air Quality and Traffic Noise Data

r

NC 119
From SR 1145 (Village Point Road)
to US 17 Business
Shallotte, Brunswick County
State Project No. 6.831018
TIP No. R-3106D
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. General Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to
widen a 2.4 kilometer (1.49 mile) segment of NC 179 in Shallotte from two
lanes to a three-lane curb and gutter facility between SR 1145 (Village
Point Road) and US 17 Business (refer to Figures 1 and 2 for the project
location and recommended improvements). The portion of NC 179 from US 17
Business to the intersection with SR 1173 will be relocated on new location
to intersect SR 1173 north of Shallotte Middle School (see Figure 2 for
location). The proposed improvements will provide a 13.2 meter (44-foot)
curb and gutter cross section with a center left turn lane. This project is
included in the 1995-2001 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) and is scheduled for right of way acquisition in fiscal year 1996 and
construction in fiscal year 1997. The total estimated cost for the project
is $ This estimate includes $1,700,000 for construction and
$ for right of way acquisition.
No significant adverse environmental impacts are anticipated from the
proposed improvements. The project has been coordinated with the
appropriate state and regional review agencies, federal permit agencies, and
local government officials.
B. Summary of Proposed Improvements
1. Cross-Section
The proposed cross-section provides a three-lane 13.2-meter (44-
foot) curb and gutter section with 4.2-meter (14-foot) travel lanes and
a 3.6-meter (12-foot) center turn lane (refer(to Figure 5 for a sketch
of the proposed cross-section). Sidewalks are proposed on the east
side of the facility. `
2. Right of Wav
The proposed right of way width along the project is 15.3 meters
(60 feet). Temporary construction easements may be necessary at some
locations in addition to the proposed right of way.
3. Access Control
s
No control of access is recommended for the proposed project.
2
4. Drainage Structures
W
There are no major drainage structures located along the proposed
project.
5. Design Speed and Speed Zones
The proposed design speed along the portion of INC 179 from SR 1145
(Village Point Road) to SR 1234 (Sellers Street) is 80 kilometers per
hour (km/h) (50 miles per hour (mph)), and the proposed speed limit
is 70 km/h (45 mph). The proposed design speed along the portion of
NC 179 from SR 1234 (Sellers Street) to US 17 Business is 60 km/h (40
mph) and the proposed speed limit is 50 km/h (35 mph).
6. Railroads
This project does not affect a railroad or a rail corridor.
7. Parking
Parking is presently not permitted and will not be provided for or
permitted along the project.
8. Sidewalks
The Town of Shallotte has requested that sidewalks be constructed
on the east side of the project (see letter dated in the
Appendix). Sidewalks are proposed on the east side of the project as
requested by the City of Shallotte. The sidewalks are estimated to
cost $83,000. NCDOT will participate in 80 percent ($66,400) of the
sidewalk cost, and the Town of Shallotte will be responsible for the
remaining 20 percent ($16,600), as outlined in the NCDOT Pedestrian
Policv Guidelines. A municipal agreement between the Town of Shallotte
and NCDOT will include the details of this provision.
9. Bicycle Provisions
C
The cross section proposed for
(14-foot) wide outside lanes for "s]
accommodations. This portion of NC
Bicycling Highway System designated
the
Zare
179
rou
project will provide 4.2-meter
the read" bicycle
is a part of the North Carolina
te, NC-3 "Ports of Call".
10. Utilities
Telephone, water, and sewer lines exist underground along the
project. Overhead power lines also exist along the project. The
project will likely require the relocation of some utilities, and the
severity of the conflicts is considered to be moderate.

3

11. Cost Estimate
Construction $1,700,000
Right of Way $
Total Cost $
II. NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION
A. Existing Roadway Inventory
1. Cross-Section
The existing roadway consists of a two-lane, 22-foot, shoulder
section.
2. Right of Way
The existing right of way width is 13.3 meters (60 feet).
3. TvAe of Roadside Development
The facility is characterized by both commercial and residential
development. Types of development along NC 179 include a shopping
center, a church and Shallotte Middle School (see Figure 2 for aerial
mosaic showing the locations of this development).
4. Structures
There are no major drainage structures located along the proposed
project.
5. Access Control
There is no control of access along this portion of NC 179.
6. Speed Zones
The posted speed limit along the project is 70 km/h (45 mph) from
SR 1145 (Village Point Road) to SR 1234 (Sellers Street) and 50 km/h
(35 mph) from SR 1234 (Sellers Street) to US 17 Business.
7. Intersecting Roads
The following eight roadways intersect NC 179:
1. SR 1145 (Village Point Road)
2. Brierwood Street
3. Hickory Street
4. Pender Street
5. SR 1234 (Sellers Street)
f
E
{
1
4
6. SR 1173
7. Powell Street
8. US 17 Business

All of these intersections intersect NC 179 (Village Road) at
grade. The intersection at US 17 Business is signalized. The other
intersections along the project are stop sign controlled.
8. Railroad Crossings
There are no railroad crossings in the project area.
9. Sidewalks
There is an existing sidewalk on the east side of NC 179 in front
of Shallotte Middle School.
10. Bicvcle Provisions
This portion of NC 179 is a part of the North Carolina Bicycling
Highway System designated route, NC-3 "Ports of Call". Currently there
are no bicycle provisions along this portion of NC 179.
il. Utilities
Telephone, water, and sewer exist underground along the project.
Overhead power lines also exist along the project.
12. Geodetic Markers
Seven geodetic survey markers are located within the project area.
The N.C. Geodetic Survey will be contacted prior construction regarding
the location of the survey markers. Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
13. School Buses
Nine school buses make two trips per day for a daily total of
eighteen bus trips along the project.
r
B. Functional Classification and Thoroughfare Plan
NC 179 is currently designated as a minor thoroughfare on the mutually
adopted Brunswick County Thoroughfare Plan and is classified as a rural
major collector.
C. Traffic Volumes and Capacitv Analysis
The existing (1994) average daily traffic (ADT) volumes along NC 179
range from 4,540 vehicles per day (vpd) south of US 17 Business to 10,600 y
vpd south of SR 1234 (Sellers Street). Projected design year (2017) traffic
volumes are expected to increase to 10,200 vpd and 23,000 vpd in the same
locations. These estimates of the daily traffic include one percent truck-
tractor semi-trailers, two percent dual tired vehicles, and a design hour
5
volume of ten percent.
The traffic carrying capacity of a roadway is described by levels of
service (LOS) which range from A to F. Level of service A, the highest
level of service, is characterized by very low delay in which most vehicles
do not stop at all. Typically, drivers are unrestricted and turns are made
freely. With level of service B, traffic operation is stable but more
vehicles stop and cause higher levels of delay. Level of service C is
characterized by stable operation, with drivers occasionally waiting through
more than one cycle at a traffic signal. At level of service D, the
influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Delay for approaching
vehicles may be substantial during short periods of the peak hour. Level of
service E is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay and represents
the theoretical capacity of the facility. Level of service F represents
oversaturated or jammed conditions which are considered unacceptable to most
drivers.
1. Signalized Intersections
The intersection with US 17 Business is a signalized intersection.
Intersection capacity was calculated for current year (1994) traffic,
construction year (1997) traffic, and design year (2017) traffic. The
results of the analysis are shown in Table 1.
Table 1
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
LEVELS OF SERVICE (LOS)
"No Build"
Alternative
Proposed Widening
Alternative
1994 2017 1994 2017
Location (LOS) LOS (LOS) LOS
US 17 Business A F A D
r
Due to the large projected volume of right turning traffic on NC 179
(northbound), an exclusive right turn lane should lie provided on this
approach. Also, an exclusive right turn lane will be provided on southbound
US 17 Business to seperate the decelerating traffic from the higher speed
r through traffic to reduce the potential for accidents (see Figure 3a for a
sketch of these improvements).
2. Unsignalized Intersections
A capacity analysis was performed at six of the unsignalized
intersections along the project for the "do nothing" and proposed widening
alternatives using existing and projected traffic volumes. The results of
the analysis represent the levels of service for left turns from NC 179 and
all movements from intersecting roads. These results are shown in Table 2.
All of these intersections will operate at or exceed capacity (LOS E)
in the design year (2017). Additional lane improvements are proposed at the
6
intersections with SR 1173, Brierwood Road, and SR 1145. An exclusive left
and right turn lane w ill be provided on each of these roads at their
" intersection with NC 179. In the future, these intersections will be
.
- reviewed by the NCDOT Area Traffic Engineer to determine if they meet
traffic signalization warrants.
Table 2
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
LEVELS OF SERVICE (LOS)

"No Build" Proposed Widening
Alternative Alternative
1994 2017 2017
Location LOS LOS LOS
SR 1173
North/South
Approaches A D D
East Approach C F F
SR 1234
North/South
Approaches A C C
East Approach D F E
Pender Street
North/South
Approaches A B B
West Approach E E E
Hickory Street
t North/South
Approaches A B B.
West Approach E E E

Brierwood Street
North/South
Approaches A C C
West Approach D F E
SR 1145
North/South
Approaches A C C
West Approach B F E

7
Ir
D. Accident History
A total of 70 accidents were reported along the studied portion of NC
179 between September 1, 1990 and August 31, 1993. The primary types of
accidents were rear-end collisions (38.61/) and accidents involving left turn
movements (25.7%). These two types of accidents combine to account for 64.3
percent of all accidents on this portion of NC 179. Forty one percent of
the accidents occurred at the intersection with US 17 Business, and 20
percent at the intersection with Sellers Street. Sixty one percent of the
accidents along this portion of NC 179 occurred at these two intersections.
The total accident rate along the studied section of NC 179 is 660.4
accidents per 100 million vehicle miles (acc/100mvm) compared to the state
average of 251.4 acc/100mvm for similar routes. This accident rate is
substantially higher than the statewide average for similar routes. The
proposed widening improvements will reduce the potential for the types of
accidents which presently occur along the road. The proposed project will
improve sight distance at the major accident locations, provide a center
turn lane which will accommodate left turning traffic, and will reduce the
potential for rear-end type collisions. The proposed project will improve
the overall safety and convenience for motorists using NC 179.
III. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Recommended Improvements

It is recommended that the existing roadway be widened symmetrically to
a 13.2 meter (44-foot) curb and gutter cross section between US 17 Business
and SR 1145 (Village Point Road). The 13.2-meter (44-foot) wide section
will accommodate two 4.2-meter (14-foot) lanes, one per direction of travel
and a 3.6-meter (12-foot) center turn lane. The widening will be symmetric
about the centerline of the existing roadway. The portion of NC 179 from
US 17 Business to the intersection with SR 1173 will be relocated on new
location to intersect SR 1173 north of Shallotte Middle School (see Figure 2
for location). This relocation will provide a safer intersection by
eliminating the existing angle intersection and shifting the intersection
away from the entrance to Shallotte Middle School.{ Additional right of way
acquisition will be necessary along this portion of;the project. A double
drive will not be constructed on the north side of §hallotte Middle School
as requested by the Brunswick County Schools Maintennance Department, but an
exclusive right turn lane will be provided along NC 179 at the north
entrance to the school. The recommended improvements along the remainder of
the project will be contained within the existing 18-meter (60-foot) right
of way. Temporary construction easements may be necessary at some locations
in addition to the proposed right of way.
B. Other Alternatives Considered
Due to the nature of the project, the widening of an existing segment
of roadway, no alternative corridors were studied. However, a five-lane
curb and gutter cross-section was considered for the project. This section
would provide more traffic carrying capacity than a three-lane section, but
r
it would result in higher right of way and construction costs and would
impact more properties along NC 179. The estimated cost for the five-lane
curb and gutter cross section is $ which includes $2,300,000
and $ for right of way acquisition. This alternative would
involve substantially higher construction and right of way costs. Also, this
alternative would result in more adverse environmental impacts because it
would impact a wetland site on the west side of NC 179 that will not be
impacted by the recommended three-lane alternative. For these reasons, a
five-lane curb and gutter section is not recommended for this project.
The "do nothing" alternative was also considered, but rejected. The
proposed cross section will provide a safer travelway to accommodate the
current and projected traffic volumes.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Social Environment
1. Neighborhood Characteristics
Brunswick County is located in the southeastern section of North
Carolina and is bounded by the Atlantic Ocean, the Cape Fear River, and
Columbus, Pender, and New Hanover Counties. According to 1990 census
data, Brunswick County has a total population of 50,985 and a
population density (number of persons per square mile) of 59.64.
Shallotte has a population of 965. The project area is characterized
by commercial, institutional, and residential development. The
proposed action will not disrupt community cohesion, nor will it
interfere with the operation of existing facilities and services.
2. Public and Private Facilities
Public and Private facilities in the project area include a
shopping center, Brierwood Golf Club, Calvary Baptist Church, and
Shallotte Middle School. None of these facilities will be adversely
impacted by the proposed action. The project will improve the
r accessibility and visibility of these facilities.
3. Cultural Resources i
i
a. Architectural Resources
This project is subject to compliance with North Carolina
General Statute 121-12(a) which requires that if a state action
will have an adverse effect upon a property listed on the National
Register of Historic Places, the North Carolina Historic
Commission will be given an opportunity to comment.
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), in a letter
dated November 16, 1994 (see letter in appendix), recommended that
an architectural historian from the Department of Transportation
evaluate two structures, Sunny Side 1915 Shallotte School and St.
Mark's A.M.E Church, for possible National Register eligibility.
The area of potential effect (APE) of the subject project was
9
reviewed in the field by a NCDOT staff architectural historian.
No properties over 50 years of age are located in the APE. The
two structures (Sunny Side 1915 Shallotte School and St. Marks
A.M.E. Church) which the SHPO requested information on, are
located outside the APE.
SHPO concurs with the findings of the NCDOT architectural
historian (refer to the Concurrence Form in Appendix A). Since
there are no properties either listed on or eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places within the APE, no further
compliance with GS 121-12(a) is required.
b. Archaeological Resources
There are no known archaeological sites within the project
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 proposed construction. The SHPO
has reviewed the project scope and recommends that no
archaeological nvestigation be conducted in connection with this
project (see letter dated November 16, 1994 in Appendix A).
4. Relocation Impacts
The proposed project will result in no relocations of residents,
non-profit organizations, or busineses.
B. Economic Enviroment
The North Carolina Preliminary Civilian Labor Force Estimates indicate
that during the month of May 1995, Brunswick County had a labor force of
27,720. Of this number, 25,640 persons were employed and 2,080 (7.5
percent) were unemployed.
C. Land Use
1. Scope and Status of Planning
The proposed improvement is located in the jurisdiction of the
Town of Shallotte. The Town maintains a planning program based on its
Land Use Plan, which is updated every five years. The most recent
update was updated in 1994. The Town also enforces a zoning ordinance
and subdivision regulations.
2. Existing Land Use
The project area supports a mix of land uses, including
residential and commercial uses scattered among vacant, undeveloped
parcels. Most of the commercial uses are located near the US 17,
Business intersection. US 17 Business is the commercial center of the
town.
r
10
3. Future Land Use
?ft
The Town of Shallotte has grown over 57 percent between 1980 and
1990. Much of this growth is due to the development of Brierwood
Estates, a retirement and golfing residential development. The Town
believes that residential development oriented to retirement and
second-home construction will continue within its planning
jurisdiction, consistent with trends throughout the region.
According to the Land Classification Map within the Town's Land
Use Plan, most of the project area is classified as developed.
Slightly less than half of the project area, including land on the
southeastern side of NC 179 is designated as Urban Transition. This
area is either undergoing growth, or is expected to experience
development during the five to ten years following the Plan's
development.
4. Farmland
North Carolina Executive Order Number 96, Conservation of Prime
Agricultural and Forest Lands, requires that state agencies consider
the impact of land acquisition and public investments on prime farmland
soils designated by the US Soil Conservation Service. The proposed
improvement is located in an area where urban development is occurring
at a rapid pace. The project involves widening an existing roadway and
relocating a short section of roadway on new location. Therefore, any
impacts to prime agricultural land will be minimal.
D. Natural Environment
1. Ecological Resources
The project occurs in southeast Brunswick County, within the Town.
of Shallotte. The project vicinity is moderately developed, with
business and residential establishments interspersed among forested
tracts.
Prior to a site visit, published resource information pertaining
to the project area was gathered and reviewed. Information sources
include; U.S. Geodetic Survey (USGS) quadrangle map (Shallotte),
National Wetlands Inventory Maps (NWI), NCDOT aerial photographs of
project area, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list of protected
species and N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NC-NHP) database of uncommon
and protected species and unique habitats.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed project
alignment on January 4, 1995. Plant communities were identified and
recorded. Wildlife was identified using a number of observation
techniques, including habitat evaluation, active searching and
recording identifying signs of wildlife (sounds, tracks and burrows).
Cursory surveys of aquatic communities were accomplished using a hand
held dip.net. Organisms captured were identified and then released.
Surveys for the red-cockaded woodpecker were conducted on March 6 and
7, 1995.
11
Biotic Resources

This section describes the ecosystems encountered and the
relationships between vegetative and faunal components within
terrestrial, and aquatic ecosystems. Descriptions of the terrestrial
systems are presented in the context of plant community
classifications.
Representative animal species which are likely to occur
in these habitats are cited, along with brief descriptions of their
respective "roles" within that community. Animals that were. observed
during the site visit are denoted by (*) in the text. Sightings of
spoor evidence are equated with sightings of individuals. Scientific
nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are used for plant and
animal species described. Subsequent references to the same organism
will include the common name only.
a. Terrestrial Communities
There are four distinct terrestrial communities identified
within the project area, however, there is always some degree of
overlap between communities. Community composition is reflective
of the physiography, topography and current and prior land uses of
the area. All community types have had some degree of past, or
continued human disturbance. As a result of disturbances, changes
in vegetative dominance often occur within the community types.
Some of the forested areas have experienced limited recent
disturbance and contain large old growth trees, which offer ample
food and shelter resources for a variety of wildlife species.
Numerous terrestrial animals are highly adaptive and populate
a variety of habitats, therefore many of the species mentioned may
occur in any number of the different community types described.
Other animals are tolerant of a narrow range of environmental
conditions and may be limited to a particular habitat type. These
species are the most vulnerable to habitat disturbance.
Maintained Communities `
Maintained Communities are land parcels in which the
vegetation is kept in a low-growing, non-successional state.
These communities, which include roadside shoulders, utility
corridors, agricultural fields, residential lawns and urban
landscapes, vary greatly with regards to vegetative composition.
` Roadside Shoulder Community
The roadside shoulders of the existing roadway are maintained
in a low-growing condition by mowing. Predominant species
occurring here include crab grass (Digitaria sanguinalis), coastal
Bermuda (Cynodon dactvlon) finger grass (Chloris petraea), henbit r
(Lami.um amplexicaule), cow-itch (Campsis radicans) and wild onion
(Allium canadense). Various shrubs including: silverling
(Baccharis halimifolia), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera) and inkberry
12
(Ilex l abra) occur at the border of this community and the
forested communities present in the project area.
Resident fauna is limited by continual habitat disturbance
and consists mainly of small animals. Species such as eastern
harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys humulis) and white-footed mouse
(Peromyscus leucopus) have been shown to be more abundant in
roadside ROW's than in adjacent habitats. Insects, earthworms and
other invertebrates are also abundant in roadside habitats.
Roadsides are utilized primarily as a travel corridor between
other habitats, or as a foraging zone for species of adjacent
woodlands. Forage opportunities offered by roadside habitats
include seeds, fruits and insects, as well as other small animals
(rodents, etc). These food sources attract a variety of animals ,
particularly birds from adjacent communities. Northern cardinal
(Cardinalis cardinalis)*, European starling (Sturnus vulgaris)*,
common grackle (Quiscalus guiscula)*, boat-tailed grackle (g
major)*, brown thrasher (Toxostoma rufum)*, grey catbird
(Dumetella carolinensis)* and Carolina chickadee (Parus
carolinensis)* were observed in this habitat type, most often in
the shrubs near the community edges.
Residential Lawns
Residential grass lawns are populated with a variety of
grasses, winter ryes (Lolium spp.), coastal Bermuda and crabgrass.
Ornamental herbs, shrubs and trees are abundant landscape species,
and many lawns have large native trees such as live oak ( uercus
virginiana), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), long leaf pine (P.
palustris) and red maple (Acer rubrum) remaining from previous
forested communities.
Animals occurring in nearby forested areas often forage or
even reside in lawn habitats. The presence of bird feeders
attracts many birds to these environments. Some common species of
lawn settings which were observed include Carolina chickadee,
`. tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor), blue jay (Cyanocitta `
stellerii)*, northern mockingbird (MimusLPolygottos)*, mourning
dove (Zenaida macroura)*, Carolina wren (Thyrothorus
ludovicianus)*, northern cardinal and house finch (Carpodaucus
mexicanus)*. Mammals such as grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinsis)*
or and eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus) are commonly
observed in lawn habitats, while others such as eastern mole
(Scalopus aquaticus) and least shrew (Cryptotis area) are less
conspicuous residents of lawn settings.
Business Landscape
The majority of this habitat type includes impervious
.r
surfaces such as concrete sidewalks, paved parking lots and
structures. Vegetation found in these areas is sparse, but may
include fescue, English plantain and clover. Various landscape
ornamental shrubs and trees may also be present.
13
W
Animals occurring in the more developed areas of the project
are adapted to urban settings. The house mouse (Mus musculus) and
the Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus) are two introduced species
which thrive in these conditions. Large mixed species flocks of
herring gull (Larus argentatus)* and ring-billed gull (L.
delawarensis)* were observed in the Brunswick Metro Square Village
parking lot between NC 179 and US 17 Business.
Mesic Pine Forest

This is the most abundant forested community occurring in the
project area. The dominant canopy species is loblolly pine and
occasionally water oak ( uercus nigra). Red maple and sweetgum
(Liauidambar styraciflua) make up the sub-canopy. Sweet bay
(Magnolia virginiana), red bay (Persea borbonia), wax myrtle
(Myrica cerifer.a), inkberry, and titi (Cyri.lla racemiflora)
constitute the shrub component. Herbaceous species such as
heartleaf (Hexastylis sp.), clubmoss (Lycopdium sp.) and partridge
berry (Mitchella repens) are abundant ground cover in some areas
and sparse to absent in others. Giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea}
occurs sporadically and vines such as green brier (Smilax
rotundifolia) and poison ivy (Toxicodenron radicans) are common
but not overly dense. Privet (Ligustrum sinense) an introduced
species has escaped cultivation and is abundant in some areas,
particularly near residential borders.
The vegetation present in this community provides an abundant
array of food resources, from mast, seeds and berries, to leaves
and roots, as well as offering nesting and sheltering habitat for
a variety of animal species. The faunal community composition is
reflective of the available food, shelter and nesting resources
available. Faunal distribution within the community is related to
the stratification of the vegetative component.
Birds are the most conspicuous group of animals utilizing the
canopy layer of the forest however representative species from the
other terrestrial vertebrate groups also utilize the canopy. Food
in the form of pine seeds, acorns and defoliating and wood boring
insects, attracts species such as grey tree frog (Hyla
chrysoscelis, or H. versicolor), pine woods tree frog (H.
femoralis), Carolina anole (Anolis carolinensis)*, broadhead skink
(Eumeces laticeps) black rat snake, pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus
pileatus)*, yellow-bellied sapsucker (Sphyrapicus varius)*, brown
headed nuthatch (Sitta pusilla)*, pine warbler (Dendrocia ip nus)
pine siskin (Carduelis ip nus), tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor)*
and southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys volans). Most of these
species will also nest within the canopy. Species nesting in the
canopy but foraging elsewhere include screech owl (Otus asio) and
grey squirrel which feed mostly on the forest floor, red-tailed
hawk (Buteo .iamacensis)* which forages in adjacent open habitats
and Virginia opossum which forages in a wide variety of habitats.
Berry-producing shrubs are abundant in this community, and
14
• provide a valuable summer-fall food source for marly avian species.
Species such as yellow-rumped warbler (Dendroica coronata),
northern cardinal, painted bunting (Passerina ciris) and rufous-
sided towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus) are expected to utilize
this strata of the community, particularly near the forest edge.
Fauna associated with the forest floor includes: southern
toad (Bufo terrestris), slimy salamander (Plethodon glutinosus)*,
ground skink (Scincella lateralis)*, smooth earth snake (Virginia
valeriae), worm snake (Carphophis amoenus), eastern box turtle
(Terrapene carolina), southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris),
golden mouse (Ochrotomys nuttalli) and woodland vole (Microtus
pinetorum). Many of these species are fossorial (burrowers) and
therefore rarely seen. Earthworms and other invertebrates are
important food items of many of these species, while roots, seeds
and other plant material are consumed by others.
Various species of fungi and detritivores such as terrestrial
snails and slugs, as well as other invertebrates, serve the role
of decomposers in this community. This step of the food chain is
crucial for nutrient regeneration. The large amount of organic
material (fallen logs, leaves etc) on the forest floor leads to a
high number of decomposers. Numerous species of fungi were
observed during the site visit. Those identified include granular
jellyroll (Exidia glandulosa), pine cone fungus (Auriscalpium
vulgare), tree ear (Auricularia auricula), powdery sulphur bolete
(Pulveroboletus ravenelii), white-egg bird's nest (Crucibulum
laeve) and honey mushroom (Armillariella mellea).
Secondary Bay Forest
This community type occurs in a forested tract near the
southern end of the project, on nearly level to slightly sloping
terrain. The community grades into a jurisdictional wetland,
however wetland criteria (hydrology) is not met within the project
ROW.
Vegetative components are similar to.the Secondary Mesic Pine
Forest, however species such as sweet bay(and red bay which
occurred as shrubs in the former community, are dominant canopy
species here along with loblolly bay (Gordonia lasianthus) and
loblolly pine. Sweet gum, pond pine (Pinus serotina), laurel oak
( uercus laurifolia) and chapman oak (Q chapmanii) are present
to a lesser extent. Wax myrtle, inkberry, henderson wood (Ilex
cassine), fetter-bush (Lyonia lucida) and titi are prevalent
shrubs.
The herbaceous component is sparse. Species such as bracken
r
fern (Pteridium aguilinum) occur at the community edge near the
roadway, while cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinamonea) and seedbox
(Ludwigia sp.) occur in somewhat open areas where the community
begins to grade into a wetland. Giant cane (Arundinaria
15
gigantea), green brier, blaspheme vine (S. lauriTolia) and poison
ivy occur throughout.
The faunal component of this community is expected to be
similar to the former community, with regard to composition and
density. There were no species observed only in this habitat.
Remnant Coastal Fringe Sandhill
A small tract of this forested community occurs on a small
ridge at the southern terminus of the project, extending well
beyond study limits. Golf course and residential development have
fragmented this forest. The presence of numerous dirt roads
through this area suggests that further development will occur in
the near future.
The canopy is dominated almost solely by longleaf pine, with
a few canopy sized live oak. The open understory includes turkey
oak ( uercus laevis), Darlington oak (Q.. hemisphaerica) and
sassafras (Sassafras albidum). Prevalent shrubs include yaupon
(Ilex vomitoria), inkberry, wax myrtle and wild olive (Osmanthus
americanus). Wiregrass (Aristida stricta) is the most dominant
herbaceous species present. Other herbs present include beakrush
(Rhynochospora sp.), broomstraw (Andropogon sp.) and ashy wild
indigo (Baptisia cinerea). Mosses and lichens are abundant, while
fungi were found to be scarce, with the pine-cone fungus the only
species observed.
Faunal species utilizing this community type are adaptable to
dry environmental conditions. In addition to the highly adaptive
wide-ranging species such as raccoon, Virginia opossum and grey
squirrel, species such as the eastern glass lizard (Ophisaurus
ventralis) which requires well-drained sandy soils such as those
occurring here, are likely residents of this community. Species
which were observed only in this community type include eastern
fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus)*, eastern wood pewee (Contopus
virens)* and fox squirrel (Sciurus niger)*. Other species
observed here include downy woodpecker, pileated woodpecker, brown
thrasher, Carolina chickadee, ground skiVk and Carolina anole.
b. Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community associated with the stream crossed by
the alignment is reflective of the urbanized condition of the
stream and it's small size, and thus species diversity and numbers
are expected to be low. Research in North Carolina streams have
shown that water quality and biota is greatly effected by land
use. Streams in urbanized settings have comparatively lower water
quality and corresponding lower biotic diversity than streams in
forested areas.
J
Pickeral frogs (Rana palustris)* were the only aquatic
organisims observed in this area of the stream. Cursory
examination of this stream several hundred meters upstream of the
16
crossing in an undisturbed forested stretch, reveXled much greater
faunal diversity, as sunfish (Family Centracidae), shiners
(Notropis sp.)*, southern cricket frogs (Acris nryllus)* and
pickeral frogs were observed to be common. This stream does not
appear to be utilized by anadramous fish species, nor is it
classified as such. Although the stream at the point of crossing
is likely not serving as a estuarine primary nursery area, because
it flows into a designated PNA, special precautions need to be
made to avoid impacts to these important areas.
C. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Construction of the proposed project will have various
impacts on the biotic communities described. This section
quantifies and qualifies these probable impacts, in terms of area
impacted (cleared/modified), and ecological consequences to the
communities, during the construction and operation of the proposed
roadway.
Terrestrial Community Impacts
Portions of the four biotic community types occurring in the
project area will be cleared or altered as a result of project
construction. Estimations of acreage impacted for each community
type are given in Table 1.
TABLE _ Anticipated Terrestrial Community Impacts Community
e
MC MPF SBF CFS
1.1 (2.8) 0.3 (0.7) 0.1 (0.2) 0.3 (0.7)
Impacts in hectares (acres) derived using entire ROW of 18 m (60
ft). MC, MPF, SBF and CFS denote Maintained, Mesic Pine
Flatwoods, Secondary Bay Forest and Remnant Coastal Fringe
Sandhill Communities, respectively.
The plant communities found along the project alignment serve
as shelter, nesting and foraging habitat ftr numerous species of
wildlife. Loss of habitat initially displaces faunal organisms
from the area, forcing them to concentrat6 into a smaller area,
which causes over-utilization and degradation of the habitat.
This ultimately lowers the carrying capacity of the remaining
habitat and is manifested in some species as becoming more
susceptible to disease, predation and starvation.
Individual mortalities are likely to occur to animals closely
associated with the ground (snakes, small mammals, etc.), from
construction machinery used during clearing activities. Wildlife
mortality caused by vehicles is a direct consequence of project
construction, once the road is in operation. Widening of the
roadway creates a greater barrier to animal migrations and will
result in increased number of highway mortalities. Because of
their visibility, highway mortality of game species such as deer
17
and rabbit is well documented. However, reptiles and amphibians
r as well as birds and small mammals are very susceptible to
roadkill. Although roadway mortality is generally not believed to
significantly effect animal populations under normal conditions,
if the population is experiencing other sources of stress
(disease, habitat degradation/elimination etc.), then traffic-
related mortality can be very significant.
Aquatic Community Impacts
Impacts to the stream community can be directly attributed to
sedimentation and reduced water quality resulting from project
construction. Although disturbance and sedimentation may be
temporary processes during the construction phase of this project,
environmental impacts from these processes may be long-lived or
irreversible.
The aquatic environment serves as a major food source for
many terrestrial organisms such as raccoons, various species of
snakes, birds, turtles and amphibians. It also serves as a means
of predator avoidance for many animals. Due to the current
degraded condition of the stream crossed by the project,
construction of this project is not expected to have significant
ecological impacts on the aquatic community found in this stream.
To ensure that further degradation of this stream does not occur,
and to ensure that PNA waters downstream are not impacted, Best
Management Practices (BMP's) for protection of surface waters,
must be strictly adhered to. Compliance with section 15A NCAC
2H.1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) will be covered under the
existing Best Management Practices (BMP's) for protection of
surface waters.
2. Protected Species
Federal law requires that any action, which has the potential to
have a detrimental impact to the survival and well being of any species
classified as federally protected, is subject to review by the FWS
and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), under the`
provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESAJ of 1973, as amended.
Endangered species receive additional protection under separate state
statutes. In North Carolina protection of plaht species falls under
N.C. General statutes (G.S.) 106-202.12 to 106-202.19 of 1979.
Wildlife protection falls under G.S. 113-331 to 113-337 of 1987.
a. Federally Protected Species
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 March 28, 1995 the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) lists the
following species for Brunswick County (Table 3):
18
Table 3 "
Federally-Protected Species for Brunswick County
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Acipenser brevirostrum
Caretta caretta
Charadrius melodus
Chelonia mydas
Dermochelys coriacea
Falco peregrinus
Felis concolor couguar
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Lepidochelys kempi
Mycteria americana
Picoides borealis
Trichechus manatus
Amaranthus pumilus
Lysimachia asperulaefolia
Thalictrum cooleyi
COMMON NAME
shortnose sturgeon
loggerhead sea turtle
piping plover
green sea turtle
leatherback sea turtle
peregrine falcon
eastern cougar
bald eagle
Kemp's Ridley sea turtle
wood stork
red-cockaded woodpecker
west Indian manatee
seabeach amaranth
rough-leaved loosestrife
Cooley's meadowrue
STATUS
E
T
T
T
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
T
E
E
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
"T" denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become an
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or
a significant portion of its range).
A brief description of these species' characteristics and
habitat requirements is provided below along with a Biological
Conclusion addressing the potential for project related impacts to
these species.
Acipenser brevirostrum (short-nosed sturgeon)
The short-nosed sturgeon is a primitive fish ranging from 43-
109 cm (17-43 in) in length and characterized by having five rows
of large, bony plates (scutes) separated by naked skin, running
the length of the body. The shortnose sturgeon differs from the
closely related Atlantic sturgeon ( A. 0 yrhynchus ), by'its
smaller size (Atlantic sturgeon may reach 4.3 m (14 ft) in
length), short snout and the lack of scutes between the anal fin
and the lateral row of scutes. This species occurs in the lower
sections of large rivers and in coastal marine habitats. The
short-nosed sturgeon prefers deep channels with a salinity less
than sea water. It feeds benthiclly on invertebrates and plant
material and is most active at night.
The short-nosed sturgeon requires large fresh water rivers
that are unobstructed by dams or pollutants to reproduce
successfully. It is an anadromous species that spawns upstream in
the spring and spends most of its life within close proximity of
the rivers mouth. At least two entirely freshwater populations
have been recorded, in South Carolina and Massachusetts.
19
The water body impacted by the proposed projffct is too small
in size to provide habitat for this species. It can be concluded
that construction of this project will have no impact on the
• shortnose sturgeon.
Caretta caretta (loggerhead sea turtle)
Loggerhead turtles can be distinguished from other sea
turtles by its unique reddish-brown color. The loggerhead is
characterized by a large head and blunt jaws. Otherwise they have
5 or more costal plates with the first touching the nuchal and 3
to 4 bridge scutes.
The loggerhead nests on suitable beaches from Ocracoke inlet,
North Carolina through Florida and on a small scale off of the
Gulf States. There are also major nesting grounds on the eastern
coast of Australia. It lives worldwide in temperate to
subtropical waters. Loggerheads nest nocturnally between May and
September on isolated beaches that are characterized by fine
grained sediments. It is mainly carnivorous feeding on small
marine animals.
No nesting habitat (beaches) for this species occurs within
the project area, and the water body impacted is too small
(shallow) to provide foraging habitat. It can be concluded that
project construction will have no impact on the loggerhead.
Charadrius melodus (piping plover)
The piping plover is a small migratory shorebird that
resembles a sandpiper. It can be identified by the orange legs
and black band around the base of its neck. During the winter the
plover loses its black band, its legs fade to pale yellow, and the
bill fades to black. Breeding birds are characterized by white
underparts, a single black breastband, and a black bar across the
forehead.
The piping plover breeds along the east coast. This bird is
found in North Carolina, nesting in flat4areas with fine sand and
mixtures of shells and pebbles. They nest most commonly where
there is little or no vegetation, but some may nest in stands of
beachgrass. The nest is a shallow depression in the sand that is
s usually lined with shells and pebbles.
The piping plover is very sensitive to human disturbances.
The presence of people can cause the plover to abandon its nest
and quit feeding.
No nesting, or foraging habitat (beaches/dunes) is present in
the project area. It can be concluded that project construction
will have no impact on the piping plover.
20
Chelonia mydas (green sea turtle)
The distinguishing factors found in the green turtle are the
single clawed flippers and a single pair of elongated scales
between the eyes. It has a small head and a strong, serrate,
lower jaw.
The green sea turtle is found in temperate and tropical
oceans and seas. Nesting in North America is limited to small
communities on the east coast of Florida requiring beaches with
minimal disturbances and a sloping platform for nesting (they do
not nest in NC). The green turtle can be found in shallow waters.
They are attracted to lagoons, reefs, bays, Mangrove. swamps and
inlets where an abundance of marine grasses can be found. Marine
grasses are the principle food source for the green turtle. These
turtles require beaches with minimal disturbances and a sloping
platform for nesting.
No nesting habitat (beaches) for this species occurs within
the project area, and the water body impacted is too small
(shallow) to provide foraging habitat. It can be concluded that
project construction will have no impact on the green sea turtle.
Dermochelys coriacea (leatherback sea turtle)
The leatherback sea turtle is the largest of the marine
turtles. Unlike other marine turtles, the leatherback has a shell
composed of tough leathery skin. The carapace has 7 longitudinal
ridges and the plastron has 5 ridges. The leatherback is black to
dark brown in color and may have white blotches on the head and
limbs.
Leatherbacks are distributed world-wide in tropical waters of
the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans. Leatherbacks prefer
deep waters and are often found near the edge of the continental
shelf. In northern waters they are reported to enter into bays,
estuaries, and other inland bodies of water. Leather back nesting
requirements are very specific, they need sandy beaches backed
with vegetation in the proximity of deep water and generally with
rough seas. Beaches with a suitable sloe and a suitable depth of
coarse dry sand are necessary for the leatherback to nest. Major
nesting areas occur in tropical regions and the only nesting
r population in the United States is found in Martin County,
Florida. Leatherback nesting occurs from April to August.
Artificial light has been shown to cause hatchlings to divert away
from the sea. Leatherbacks feed mainly on jellyfish. They are
also known to feed on sea urchins, crustaceans, fish, mollusks,
tunicates, and floating seaweed.
No nesting habitat (beaches) for this species occurs within
the project area, and the water body impacted is too small
(shallow) to provide foraging habitat. It can be concluded that
project construction will have no impact on the leatherback.
.r
21
Falco peregrinus (Peregrine falcon)
The peregrine falcon has a dark plumage along its back and
its underside is lighter, barred and spotted. It is most easily
recognized by a dark crown and a dark wedge that extends below the
eye forming a distinct helmet.
The American peregrine falcon is found throughout the United
States in areas with high cliffs and open land for foraging.
Nesting for the falcons is generally on high cliff ledges, but
they may also nest in broken off tree tops in the eastern
deciduous forest and on skyscrapers and bridges in urban areas.
Nesting occurs from mid-March to May.
Prey for the peregrine falcon consists of small mammals and
birds, including mammals as large as a woodchuck, birds as large
as a duck, and insects. The preferred prey is medium sized birds
such as pigeons.
No nesting habitat (cliffs/skyscrapers) for this species
occurs within the project area. Although it is possible that an
individual may forage in the project area, no impacts to the
species will result from project construction. It can be
concluded that project construction will have no impact on the
peregrin falcon.
Felis concolor cougar (eastern cougar)
Cougars are tawny colored with the exception of the muzzle,
the backs of the ears, and the tip of the tail, which are black.
In North Carolina the cougar is thought to occur in only a few
scattered areas, possibly including coastal swamps and the
southern Appalachian mountains. The eastern cougar is found in
large remote wilderness areas where there is an abundance of their
primary food source, white-tailed deer. A cougar will usually
occupy a range of 25 miles and they are most active at night.
No large uninterrupted expanses of woodland will be impacted
by the proposed project. It can be conc uded that project
construction will have no impact on the astern cougar.
r
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (bald eagle) ,
Adult bald eagles can be identified by their large white head
and short white tail. The body plumage is dark-brown to chocolate-
brown in color. In flight, bald eagles can be identified by their
flat wing soar.
Eagle nests are found in close proximity to water (within a
half mile) with a clear flight path to the water, in the largest
living tree in an area, and having an open view of the surrounding
land. Human disturbance can cause an eagle to abandon otherwise
suitable habitat. The breeding season for the bald eagle begins
in December or January. Fish are the major food source for bald
22
eagles. Other sources include coots, herons, andvwounded ducks.
Food may be live or carrion.
No large water bodies are within the project area. It can be
concluded that project construction will have no impact of the
bald eagle.
Lepidochelys kempii (Kemp's ridley's sea turtle)
Kemp's ridley sea turtle is the smallest of the sea turtles
that visit North Carolina's coast. These turtles have a
triangular shaped head and a hooked beak with large crushing
surfaces. It has a heart-shaped carapace that is nearly as wide
as it is long with the first of five costal plates touching the
nuchal plates. Adult Kemp's ridley sea turtles have white or
yellow plastrons with a gray and olive green carapace. The head
and flippers are gray.
Kemp's ridley sea turtles live in shallow coastal and
estuarine waters, in association with red mangrove trees. A
majority of this sea turtle's nesting occurs in a 24 km (14.9
mile) stretch of beach between Barra del Tordo and Ostioal in the
state of Tamaulipas, Mexico. This turtle is an infrequent visitor
to the North Carolina coast and usually does not nest here.
Kemp's sea turlte can lay eggs as many as three times during the
April to June breeding season. Kemp's ridley sea turtles prefer
beach sections that are backed up by extensive swamps or large
bodies of open water having seasonal narrow ocean connections and
a well defined elevated dune area.
No nesting habitat (beaches) for this species occurs within
the project area, and the water body impacted is too small
(shallow) to provide foraging habitat. It can be concluded that
project construction will have no impact on the Kemp's ridley sea
turtle.
Mycteria americana (wood stork)
The wood stork is the largest wadin bird found in North
America. The wood storks plumage is entrely white except for the
flight and tail feathers, which are black; with a bronze sheen.
During the breeding season the underwing coverts have a pink tinge
and the undertail coverts are elongate and make the bird appear
white tailed in flight. The bill is larger than the herons and
cranes and downturned at the tip. Coloring is gray with a yellow
fringe in the adults. The legs are gray and the feet pink.
Wood storks visit extreme southwestern Brunswick County from
June to September, after breeding has concluded. They are found
in the Twin Lakes region of Sunset Beach. Storks nest mainly in
stands of bald cypress, but will also nest in Mangroves and
Buttonwoods. Their nests are found in swamps, coastal islands,
and artificial impoundments. They feed in freshwater to brackish
wetlands including, freshwater marshes, flooded pastures, and
23
flooded ditches. The most attractive feeding areas are swamp or
marsh depressions where fish become concentrated during dry
periods.
The proposed project does not occur near the known occurrence
of this species (Twin Lakes). Suitable nesting habitat in the
form of swamps, coastal islands, or artificial impoundments will
not be impacted by the proposed action, nor will suitable foraging
habitat in the form of brackish marsh, flooded pastures, or
flooded ditches. It can be concluded that project construction
will have no impact on the wood stork.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker)
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
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 (Pinus palustris), 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 at least 60 years old or older 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 m (12-100 ft) above the ground and average 9.1-15.7 m (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.
Suitable nesting and foraging habitat occurs in the Mesic
Pine Forest and Remnant Sandhill Fringe Communities (Section 3.1)
within the project area, and in similar communities outside, but
within 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of the southern terminus of the project.
These areas were surveyed by Tim Savidge on March 06-07, 1995,
using a modification of methods described by Henry (1989).
Because of the north-south orientation of the roadway, east-west
survey transects were followed, allowing for shorter transect
distances, but still providing 100% coverage. No evidence of RCW
(cavities, start holes etc.) was found, nor were any individuals
of this species observed. It can be concluded that project
construction will not impact the red-cockaded woodpecker.
24
Trichechus manatus (West Indian manatee) ir
The manatee is a large, gray or brown, barrel shaped, aquatic
mammal. The hindlimbs of the manatee are absent, and the
forelimbs have been modified into flippers. The tail is flattened
horizontally. The wrinkled body is nearly hairless except for
stiff "whiskers" on the muzzle. In clear water most of a manatees
body is visible, however in murky waters (like North Carolina)
only a small part of the head and nose are visible.
Manatees are found in canals, sluggish rivers, estuarine
habitats, salt water bays, and as far off shore as 3.7 miles.
They are found in freshwater and marine habitats at shallow depths
of 1.5 m or higher. In the winter, between October and April,
manatees concentrate in areas with warm water. During other times
of the year habitats appropriate for the manatee are those with
sufficient water depth, an adequate food supply, and in proximity
to freshwater. It is believed that manatees require a source of
freshwater to drink. Manatees are primarily herbivorous, feeding
on any aquatic vegetation present, but they may occasionally feed
on fish.
The water body crossed by the proposed action is too small
(shallow) to offer suitable habitat for this species. It can be
concluded that project construction will have no impact on the
manatee.
Amaranthus pumilus (sea-beach amaranth)
Seabeach amaranth is an annual legume that grows in clumps
containing 5 to 20 branches and are often over a foot across. The
trailing stems are fleshy and reddish-pink or reddish in color.
Seabeach amaranth has thick, fleshy leaves that are small, ovate-
spatulate, emarginate and rounded. The leaves are usually spinach
green in color, cluster towards the end of a stem, and have winged
petioles. Flowers grow in axillary fascicles and the legume has
smooth, indehsicent fruits. Seeds are glossy black. Both fruits
and flowers are relatively inconspicuous and born along the stem.
Seabeach amaranth is endemic to the?Atlantic Coastal Plain
beaches. Habitat for seabeach amaranth is found on barrier island
beaches functioning in a relatively dynamic and natural manner.
r Seabeach amaranth grows well in overwash flats at the accreting
ends of islands and the lower foredunes and upper strands of
noneroding beaches. Temporary populations often form in blowouts,
F sound-side beaches, dredge spoil, and beach replenishment. This
species is very intolerant to competition and is not usually found
in association with other species. Threats to seabeach amaranth
include beach stabilization projects, all terrain vehicles
(ATV's), herbivory by insects and animals, beach grooming, and
beach erosion.
No beach habitat will be impacted by the proposed action. It
can be concluded that project construction will have no impact on
25
sea-beach amaranth.
V
Lysimachia asperulaefolia (rough-leaved loosestrife)
Rough-leaved loosestrife is a perennial herb having slender
stems and whorled leaves. This herb has showy yellow flowers
which usually occur in threes or fours. Fruits are present from
July through October.
Rough-leaved loosestrife is endemic to the coastal plain and
sandhills of North and South Carolina. This species occurs in the
ecotones or edges between longleaf pine uplands and pond pine
pocosins (areas of dense shrub and vine growth usually on a wet,
peat, poorly drained soil), on moist to seasonally saturated sands
and on shallow organic soils overlaying sand. It has also been
found to occur on deep peat in the low shrub community of large
Carolina bays (shallow, elliptical, poorly drained depressions of
unknown origins). The areas it occurs in are fire maintained.
Rough-leaved loosestrife rarely occurs in association with
hardwood stands and prefers acidic soils.
A survey was conducted on June 12, 1995 in the areas
identified as suitable habitat for this species to determine if
any rough-leaved loosestrife exists in the project area. Known
populations of this species were visited prior to the survey, to
verify that this species was in flower at this time. No rough-
leaved loosestrife was found during the survey. It can be
concluded that project construction will have no impact on rough-
leaved loosestrife.
Thalictrum cooleyi (Cooley's meadowrue)
Cooley's meadowrue is a rhizomatous perennial plant with
stems that grow to one meter in length. Stems are usually erect
in direct sunlight but are lax and may lean on other plants or
trail along the ground in shady areas. Leaves are usually
narrowly lanceolate and unlobed, some two or three lobed leaves
can be seen. The flowers lack petals. Fruits mature from August
to September. L
Cooley's meadowrue occurs in moist tp wet bogs, savannas and
savanna-like openings, sandy roadsides, rights-of-ways, and old
f clearcuts. This plant is dependent on some form of disturbance
to maintain its habitat. All known populations are on
circumneutral, poorly drained, moderately permeable soils of the
Grifton series. Cooley's meadowrue only grows well in areas with
full sunlight.
A survey was conducted on June 12, 1995 in the areas
identified as suitable habitat for this species to determine if
any Cooley's meadowrue exists in the project area. Known y
populations of this species were visited prior to the survey, to
verify that this species was in flower at this time. No Cooley's
meadowrue was found during the survey. It can be concluded that
26
project construction will have no impact on Cooler's meadowrue.
b. Federal Candidate Species
There are a total of twenty four federal candidate (C2)
species listed for Brunswick County (Table 4). Candidate 2
(C2) species are defined as taxa for which there is some
evidence of vulnerability, but for which there are not enough
data to warrant a listing of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered, or Proposed Threatened at this time. The North
Carolina status of these species is also listed in Table 4.
Plants or animals with state designations of Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC), are given protection
by the State Endangered Species Act and the N.C. Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 1979, administered and
enforced by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
and the North Carolina Department of Agriculture.
Table 4
Federal Candidate Species for Brunswick County
Agrotis buchholzi pyxie moth No SR
Aimophila aestivalis Bachman's sparrow Yes SC
Ammodramus henslowii Henslow's sparrow Yes SR
Amorpha georgiana georgiana Georgia leadplant No E
Balduina atropurpurea honeycomb head No C
Campylopus carolinae savanna campylopus No C
Carex chapmanii Chapman's sedge No C
Dionaea muscipula Venus flytrap Yes C-SC
Elassoma boehlkei Carolina pygmy sunfish No T
Fimbistylis perpusilla Harper's fringe rush No T
Litsea aestivalis pondspice No C
Macbridea caroliniana Carolina bogmint No C
Myriophvllum laxum Loose watermilfoil No T
OxyPolis ternata savanna cowbane Yes C
Parnassia caroliniana Carolina
grass-of-parnassus No E
Planorbella magnificum magnificent rams-horn No E
Plantago sparsiflora pineland plantain No E
Problema bulenta rare skipper F No SR
Rhexia aristosa Awned meadowbeapty No T
Rhynchospora thornei Thorne's beaked-rush No C
Rudbeckia heliopsidis sun-facing coneflower Yes E
Solidago verna spring-flowering Yes E
goldenrod
Solidago pulchra Carolina goldenrod No E
Sporobolus teretifolius wireleaf dropseed No T
Tofieldia lg abra smooth bog asphodel No C
Trichostema sp. dune blue curls No C
NC Status: SC, C, T, E, denote Special Concern, Candidate, Threatened,
Endangered, respectively. SR denotes Significantly Rare which is not
offered State Protection.
27
" A search of the NC-NHP data base of rare plants and animals found
no records of state protected species occurring within the project
area.
3. Physical Resources
a. Geology, Topography, and Soils
The study corridor lies in the Coastal Plain Physiographic
Province. It is characterized by nearly level to sloping relief
and ranges in elevation from sea level to 15 feet. All the soils
in the county formed in coastal plain sediment or sediment
deposited by streams flowing through the county. In the project
corridor, the relief is largely the result of the dissection of
the original, nearly level coastal plains by the Shallotte and
Calabash Rivers and their tributaries. The degree of dissection
of the landscape affects the formation of the soils by influencing
the depth of the water table and by affecting the rate of natural
erosion of soil material. Drainage in the area ranges from poorly
drained soils to excessively drained soils. The soils on the edge
of the intercoastal waterway are excessively drained, while along
the Shallotte River, drainage is moderately well. The part of the
corridor that is inland and away from the river is very poorly
drained.
The geology in the project area includes sedimentary rock of
Tertiary age. The major geologic formation is the Waccamaw
Formation. The Waccamaw Formation is characterized by bluish-gray
to tan, loosely consolidated fossiliferous sand containing silts
and clays.
The soils along the project corridor have been classified as
soils of the Kureb-Wando, Baymeade-Blanton-Norfolk, and Leon-
Murville-Mandarin Associations. The Kureb-Wando soils are found
on nearly level to sloping terrain on the uplands. They are
described as having dark brown to gray fine sand surface soils and
brown to light gray fine sand subsoils. The Baymeade-Blanton-
Norfolk soils are found on nearly level to gently sloping, terrain
on the uplands. They have dark grayish- rown fine sand surface
soils and light gray fine sand subsoils. The Leon-Murville-.
Mandarin soils are found on nearly level Slopes of the uplands and
are described as having gray to black mucky fine sand surface
soils and black to light gray to white fine sand subsoils.
b. Water Resources
This section describes physical characteristics, Best Usage
Standards and water quality aspects of the water resources likely
to be impacted by the proposed project. Probable impacts to these
water bodies are also discussed, as are means to minimize impacts.
An unnamed tributary to the Shallotte River will be impacted
by the proposed road widening. This stream arises approximately
0.8 km (0.5 mi) southeast of project crossing and flows in a
28
northwest direction into the Shallotte River, 0.5-wkm (0.3 mi)
downstream of crossing. The stream is crossed with a 120 cm (48
in) corrugated metal pipe (CMP). The Shallotte River is within
the Lumber River Basin.
The stream is highly channelized and approximately 3 m (10
ft) below roadway grade. Channel width is approximately 1 m (3
ft) with a depth of 15 cm (6 in). The stream is visibly degraded.
Urban runoff (parking lot), streambank erosion and pollution are
apparent contributors to the poor stream condition.
The Shallotte River carries a Best Usage Classification of SC
HQW, as assigned by the North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR), 1993. By definition,
unnamed streams carry the same classification as their collector
water bodies. The classification SC designates tidal salt waters
that are suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival,
fishing, wildlife and secondary recreation. The supplemental
classification of HQW (High Quality Waters) designates those
waters which are rated as excellent based on biological and
physical/chemical characteristics. The Shallotte River is a
designated HQW because it is classified and protected as a Primary
Nursery Area (PNA) by the North Carolina Marine Fisheries
Commission. Primary Nursery areas are those areas of the
estuarine system in which initial post-larval development takes
place. These areas are uniformly populated with juveniles.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN),
assesses water quality by sampling for selected benthic
macroinvertebrate organisms. The species richness and overall
biomass are reflections of water quality. No data is available
for the stream crossed by the proposed project.
The DEM National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(N'PDES) report lists no permitted discharges into the stream
crossed by the proposed project.
Water Resource Impacts tt
Potential impacts to water resource$ include increased
sedimentation, decreases of dissolved oxygen, changes in
temperature and increases in toxic compounds entering the streams.
Sedimentation is the most serious potential impact to stream
crossings. Studies have shown that during roadway construction,
there is a direct correlation between the amount of suspended
particles in the stream channel with the amount of clearing and
grubbing activity, embankment modification and project duration.
Not only is sedimentation detrimental to the aquatic ecosystem,
but changes in physical characteristics of the stream may also
result. Sedimentation of the stream channel causes changes in
flow rate and stream course, which may lead to increased
streambank scour and erosion. Sedimentation also leads to
increased turbidity of the water column.
29
Removal of streamside canopy and removal/burial of aquatic
vegetation result in numerous impacts. Streamside vegetation is
crucial for maintaining streambank stability, controlling erosion
and buffering water temperature. Aquatic vegetation serves an
important role in the stream ecosystem as food and shelter, as
well as contributing oxygen to the water and stabilizing the
bottom sediments.
Numerous pollutants have been identified in highway runoff,
including various metals (lead, zinc, iron etc.), nutrients
(nitrogen, phosphorus) and petroleum. The sources of these runoff
constituents range from construction and maintenance activities,
to daily vehicular use. The toxicity of highway runoff to aquatic
ecosystems is poorly understood. Some species demonstrate little
sensitivity to highway runoff exposure, while other species are
much more sensitive. The levels of the toxins and the duration of
the exposure are major factors determining the ecosystem's
response to runoff. Pollutant concentrations of receiving waters
are directly related to traffic volume. It is apparent that
highway runoff can significantly degrade the quality of the
receiving water bodies, which in turn significantly affects the
ecosystems present. Precaution needs to be taken during
construction to reduce/eliminate pollution runoff into the stream.
Pollutant loads may increase once in operation, due to increased
impervious surface area, reduction of vegetative buffer (shoulder)
and construction of curb & gutter facility.
Recommendations
Due to the limited scope of work involved with this stream
crossing, the overall magnitude of the potential impacts described
is expected to be relatively minimal. However, because of the
potential to impact the Shallotte River, it is imperative that
impacts to the stream are avoided/minimized to the extent
possible. These potential impacts can be greatly reduced by
implementation of the following recommendations, which have been
shown to be efficient and cost effective at minimizing
sedimentation and pollutant loads: t
- Strict enforcement of sedimentation control Best Management
Practices (BMP's) for the protection of surface waters during
the entire life of the project
- Reduction of clearing and grubbing activity, particularly in
riparian areas
- Reduction/elimination of direct discharge into streams
- Reduction of runoff velocity
- Reestablishment of vegetation on exposed areas, with
judicious pesticide & herbicide management
- Minimization of "in-stream" activity
- Litter control.

30
C. Floodplain Involvement
The Town of Shallotte is a participant in the National Flood
Insurance Regular Program; however the project does not involve
any designated flood hazard areas.
d. Wetlands
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of
"Waters of the United States" as defined in 33 CFR 328..3, in -
accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1344). Project construction will result in an less
than 0.1 ha (0.2 ac) of wetland impacts.
Wetland site number one is associated with the roadside
communities because of saturated soil conditions and apparent
periodic flooding. Specific hydrophytic vegetation such as soft
rush (Juncus effusus), marsh seedbox (Ludwigia palustris),
cinnamon fern ( Osmunda cinnamomea) and netted chain fern
(Woodwardia aerolata) are dominant species along with blackberry
(Rubus sp.) and wax myrtle. Wetland site number 2 is within the
Secondary Bay Forest community, in a small area that ponds water
for significant periods of time.
Potential wetland communities were evaluated using the
criteria specified in the 1987 "Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual". For an area to be considered a "wetland",
the following three specifications must be met; 1) presence of
hydric soils (low soil chroma values), 2) presence of hydrophytic
vegetation (Appendix A), and 3) evidence of hydrology, including;
saturated soils, stained, oxidized rhizospheres, matted
vegetation, high water marks on trees, buttressed tree bases and
surface roots.
4. Air Quality
Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions from
industrial and internal combustion engines ar$ the most prevalent
sources. Other origins of common outdoor air pollution are solid waste
disposal and any form of fire. The impact resulting from highway
construction ranges from intensifying existing air pollution problems
to improving the ambient air conditions. The traffic is the center of
concern when determining the impact of a new highway facility or the
improvement of an old highway facility. Motor vehicles emit carbon
monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO), hydrocarbons (HC), particulate
matter, sulfur dioxide (S02), and lead (Pb) (listed in order of
decreasing emission rate). Automobiles are considered to be the major
source of CO in the project area. For this reason, most of the
analysis presented is concerned with determining expected carbon
monoxide levels in the vicinity of the project due to traffic flow.
In order to determine the ambient CO concentration for the
receptor closest to the highway project, two concentration components
31
must be used: local and background. The local concentration is defined
as the CO emissions from cars operating on highways in the near
vicinity (i.e., distances within 100 meters) of the receptor location.
` The background concentration is defined by the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources as "the
concentration of a pollutant at a point that is the result of emissions
outside the local vicinity; that is, the concentration at the upwind
edge of the local sources."
In this study, the local concentration was determined by the NCDOT
Traffic Noise/Air Quality Staff using line source computer modeling and
the background concentration was obtained from the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR).
Once the two concentration components were resolved, they were added
together to determine the ambient CO concentration for the receptor in
question and to compare to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS).
Automobiles are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons and nitrogen
oxides. Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides emitted from cars are carried
into the atmosphere where they react with sunlight to form ozone and
nitrogen dioxide. Area-wide automotive emissions of HC and NO are
expected to decrease in the future due to the continued installation
and maintenance of pollution control devices on new cars. Hence, the
ambient ozone and nitrogen dioxide levels in the atmosphere should
continue to decrease as a result of the improvements on automobile
emissions.
The photochemical reactions that form ozone and nitrogen dioxide
require several hours to occur. For this reason, the peak levels of
ozone generally occur 10 to 20 kilometers downwind of the source of
hydrocarbon emissions. Urban areas as a whole are regarded as sources
of hydrocarbons, not individual streets and highways. The emissions of
all sources in an urban area mix together in the atmosphere, and in the
presence of sunlight, the mixture reacts to form ozone, nitrogen
dioxide, and other photochemical oxidants. The best example of this
type of air pollution is the smog which forms in Los Angeles,
California.
F
Automobiles are not regarded as significant sources of particulate
matter and sulfur dioxide. Nationwide, highway sources account for
less than 7 percent of particulate matter emissions and less than 2
r percent of sulfur dioxide emissions. Particulate matter and sulfur
dioxide emissions are predominantly the result of non-highway sources
(e.g., industrial, commercial, and agricultural). Because emissions of
particulate matter and sulfur dioxide from automobiles are very low,
there is no reason to suspect that traffic on the project will cause
air quality standards for particulate matter and sulfur dioxide to be
exceeded.
Automobiles without catalytic converters can burn regular
gasoline. The burning of regular gasoline emits lead as a result of
regular gasoline containing tetraethyl lead which is added by
refineries to increase the octane rating of the fuel. Newer cars with
32
catalytic converters burn unleaded gasoline eliminating lead emissions.
Also, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
required the reduction in the lead content of leaded gasolines. The
overall average lead content of gasoline in 1974 was 0.53 grams per
liter. By 1989, this composite average had dropped to 0.0035 grams per
liter. In the future, lead emissions are expected to decrease as more
cars use unleaded fuels and as the lead content of leaded gasoline is
reduced. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 make the sale, supply,
or transport of leaded gasoline or lead additives unlawful after
December 31, 1995. Because of these reasons, it is not expected that
traffic on the proposed project will cause the NAAQS for lead to be
exceeded.
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine
future CO concentrations resulting from the proposed highway
improvements. "CAL3QHC -A Modeling Methodology For Predicting
Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadway Intersections" was used to
predict the CO concentration at the nearest sensitive receptor to the
project.
Inputs into the mathematical model to estimate hourly CO
concentrations consisted of a level roadway under normal conditions
with predicted traffic volumes, vehicle emission factors, and worst-
case meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes are based on the
annual average daily traffic projections. The traffic volume used for
the CAL3QHC model was the highest volume within any alternative.
Carbon monoxide vehicle emission factors were calculated for the
completion year of 2000 and the design year of 2020 using the EPA
publication "Mobile Source Emission Factors" and the MOBILE 5A mobile
source emissions computer model.
The background CO concentration for the project area was estimated
to be 1.8 parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the Air Quality
Section, Division of Environmental Management, North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources indicated that
an ambient CO concentration of 1.8 ppm is suitable for most
suburban/rural areas.
The worst-case air quality receptor was determined to be receptor
number 40 at a distance of 14 meters from the proposed centerline of
the median. The "build" and "no-build" one-hour CO concentrations for
the nearest sensitive receptor for the years of 2000 and 2020 are shown
in the following table.
One Hour CO Concentrations (PPM)
r
Nearest
Sensitive Build No-Build
Receptor
2000 2020 2000 2020
d
R-40 2.8 3.3 3.3 5.3
33
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS
maximum permitted for 1-hour averaging period = 35 ppm; 8-hour
• averaging period = 9 ppm) indicates no violation of these standards.
Since the results of the worst-case 1-hour CO analysis is less than 9
ppm, it can be concluded that the 8-hour CO level does not exceed the
standard. See Tables Al through A4 for input data and output.
The project is located in Brunswick County, which has been
determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. 40 CFR, Parts 51 is not applicable, because the proposed
project is located in an attainment area. This project is not
anticipated to create any adverse effect on the air quality of this
attainment area.
During construction of the proposed project, all materials
resulting from clearing and grubbing, demolition or other operations
will be removed from the project, burned or otherwise disposed of by
the contractor. Any burning will be done in accordance with applicable
local laws and ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for
air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to
insure that burning will be done at the greatest practical distance
from dwellings and not when atmospheric conditions are such as to
create a hazard to the public. Burning will only be utilized under
constant surveillance. Also during construction, measures will be
taken to reduce the dust generated by construction when the control of
dust is necessary for the protection and comfort of motorists or area
residents. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for
air quality of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the NEPA process,
and no additional reports are necessary.
5. Traffic Noise
This analysis was performed to determine the effect of the
proposed widening of NC 179 from SR 1145 to US 17 Business in Brunswick
County on noise levels in the immediate project area (Figure N1). This
investigation includes an inventory of existing noise sensitive land
uses and a field survey of ambient (existing) noise levels in the study
area. It also includes a comparison of the p edicted noise levels and
the ambient noise levels to determine if traffic noise impacts can be
expected resulting from the proposed project. Traffic noise impacts
are determined from the current procedures for the abatement of highway
traffic noise and construction noise, appearing as Part 772 of Title 23
of the Code of Federal Regulations. If traffic noise impacts are
predicted, examination and evaluation of alternative noise abatement
measures for reducing or eliminating the noise impacts must be
considered.
Noise is basically defined as unwanted sound. It is emitted from
many sources including airplanes, factories, railroads, power
generation plants, and highway vehicles. Highway noise, or traffic '
noise, is usually a composite of noises from engine exhaust, drive
train, and tire-roadway interaction.
34
The magnitude of noise is usually described by its sound
pressure. Since the range of sound pressure varies greatly, a
logarithmic scale is used to relate sound pressures to some common
reference level, usually the decibel (dB). Sound pressures described
in decibels are called sound pressure levels and are often defined in
terms of frequency weighted scales (A, B, C, or D).
The weighted-A decibel scale is used almost exclusively in vehicle
noise measurements because it places the most emphasis on the frequency
range to which the human ear is most sensitive (1,000-6,000 Hertz).
Sound levels measured using a weighted-A decibel scale are often
expressed as dBA. Throughout this report, all noise levels will be
expressed in dBA's. Several examples of noise pressure levels in dBA
are listed in Table N1.
Review of Table N1 indicates that most individuals in urbanized
areas are exposed to fairly high noise levels from many sources as they
go about their daily activities. The degree of disturbance or
annoyance of unwanted sound depends essentially on three things: 1) the
amount and nature of the intruding noise, 2.) the relationship between
the background noise and the including intruding noise, and 3) the type
of activity occurring when the noise is heard.
Over time, particularly if the noises occur at predicted intervals
and are expected, individuals tend to accept the noises which intrude
into their lives. Attempts have been made to regulate many of these
types of noises including airplane noise, factory noise, railroad
noise, and highway traffic noise. In relation to highway traffic
noise, methods of analysis and control have developed rapidly over the
past few years.
In order to determine whether highway noise levels are or are not
compatible with various land uses, the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) has developed noise abatement criteria (NAC) and procedures to
be used in the planning and design of highways. These abatement
criteria and procedures are set forth in the aforementioned Federal
reference (Title 23 CFR Part 772). A summary of the noise abatement
criteria for various land uses is presented irk Table N2. The Leq, or
equivalent sound level, is the level of constant sound which in a given
situation and time period has the same energy as does time varying
sound. In other words, the fluctuating sound levels of traffic noise
are represented in terms of a steady noise level with the same energy
content.
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the
project to determine the existing background noise levels. The purpose
of this noise level information was to quantify the existing acoustic
environment and to provide a base for assessing the impact of noise
level increases. From SR 1145 to SR 1234, the existing Leq noise level
was determined to be 67.1 dBA. North of SR 1234, the noise level
measured 63.8 dBA. Both measurements were taken at 15 meters from the
roadway. The ambient measurement sites are presented in Figure N1.
The existing roadway and traffic conditions were used with the most
35
current traffic noise prediction model in order to cald'ulate existing
noise levels for comparison with noise levels actually measured. The
calculated existing noise levels were within 2.1 dBA of the measured
noise levels for the locations where noise measurements were obtained.
Differences in dBA levels can be attributed to "bunching" of vehicles,
low traffic volumes, and actual vehicle speeds versus the computer's
"evenly-spaced" vehicles and single vehicular speed.
In general, the traffic situation is composed of a large number of
variables which describe different cars driving at different speeds
through a continual changing highway configuration and surrounding
terrain. Due to the complexity of the problem, certain assumptions and
simplifications must be made to predict highway traffic noise.
The procedure used to predict future noise levels in this study
was the Noise Barrier Cost Reduction Procedure, STAMINA 2.0 and OPTIMA
(revised March, 1983). The BCR (Barrier Cost Reduction) procedure is
based upon the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-
108). The BCR traffic noise prediction model uses the number and type
of vehicles on the planned roadway, their speeds, the physical
characteristics of the road (curves, hills, depressed, elevated, etc.),
receptor location and height, and, if applicable, barrier type, barrier
ground elevation, and barrier top elevation.
In this regard, it is to be noted that only preliminary
alignment was available for use in this noise analysis. The project
proposes to widen the existing two-lane shoulder section of NC 179 to a
three-lane curb and gutter section. Only those existing natural or
man-made barriers were included in setting up the model. The roadway
sections and proposed intersections were assumed to be flat and at-
grade. Thus, this analysis represents the "worst-case" topographical
conditions. The noise predictions made in this report are highway-
related noise predictions for the traffic conditions during the year
being analyzed.
Peak hour design and level-of-service (LOS) C volumes were
compared, and the volumes resulting in the noisiest conditions were
used with the proposed posted speed limits. Hence, during all`other
time periods, the noise levels will be no grelter than those indicated
in this report.
The STAMINA 2.0 computer model was utilized in order to determine
the number of land uses (by type) which would be impacted during the
peak hour of the design year 2020. A land use is considered to be
impacted when exposed to noise levels approaching or exceeding the FHWA
s noise abatement criteria and/or predicted to sustain a substantial
noise increase. The basic approach was to select receptor locations
such as 7.5, 15, 30, 601 120, 240, and 480 meters from the center of
the near traffic lane (adaptable to both sides of the roadway). The
location of these receptors were determined by the changes in projected
traffic volumes and/or the posted speed limits along the proposed
project. The result of this procedure was a grid of receptor points
along the project. Using this grid, noise levels were calculated for
each identified receptor.
36

The maximum number of receptors in each activity category that are
predicted to become impacted by future traffic noise is shown in Table
N3. These are noted in terms of those receptors expected to experience
traffic noise impacts by approaching or exceeding the FHWA NAC or by a
substantial increase in exterior noise levels. Other information
included in Table N3 is the maximum extent of the 72 and 67 dBA noise
level contours. This information should assist local authorities in
exercising land use control over the remaining undeveloped lands
adjacent to the roadway within local jurisdiction. For example, with
the proper information on noise, the local authorities can prevent
further development of incompatible activities and land uses with the
predicted noise levels of an adjacent highway.
Table N4 indicates the exterior traffic noise level increases for
the identified receptors in each roadway section. Predicted noise
level increases for this project range from +2 to +9 dBA. When real-
life noises are heard, it is possible to barely detect noise level
changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5 dBA change is more readily noticeable. A 10
dBA change is judged by most people as a doubling or a halving of the
loudness of the sound.
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise
levels either: 1) approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria
(with "approach" meaning within 1 dBA of the Table N2 value), or 2)
substantially exceed the existing noise levels. The NCDOT definition
of substantial increase is shown in the lower portion of Table N2.
Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to receptors
which fall in either category.
Highway alignment selection involves the horizontal or vertical
orientation of the proposed improvements in such a way as to minimize
impacts and costs. The selection of alternative alignments for noise
abatement purposes must consider the balance between noise impacts and
other engineering and environmental parameters. For noise abatement,
horizontal alignment selection is primarily a matter of siting`the
roadway at a sufficient distance from noise sensitive areas. Changing
the highway alignment is not a viable alternative for noise abatement.
Traffic management measures which limit vehicle type, speed,
volume and time of operations are often effective noise abatement
measures. For this project, traffic management measures are not
considered appropriate for noise abatement due to their effect on the
capacity and level-of-service on the proposed roadway.
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels can
often be applied with a measurable degree of success by the application
of solid mass, attenuable measures to effectively diffract, absorb, and
reflect highway traffic noise emissions. Solid mass, attenuable y
measures may include earth berms or artificial abatement walls.
The project will maintain only limited control of access, meaning
37
most commercial establishments and residences will have direct access
connections to the proposed roadway, and all intersections will adjoin
the project at grade.
For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction it must
be high enough and long enough to shield the receptor from significant
sections of the highway. Access openings in the barrier severely
reduce the noise reduction provided by the barrier. It then becomes
economically unreasonable to construct a barrier for a small noise
reduction. Safety at access openings (driveways, crossing streets,
etc.) due to restricted sight distance is also a concern. Furthermore.
to provide a sufficient reduction, a barrier's length would normally be
8 times the distance from the barrier to the receptor. For example, a
receptor located 15 meters from the barrier would normally require a
barrier 120 meters long. An access opening of 12 meters (10 percent of
the area) would limit its noise reduction to approximately 4 dBA
(FUNDAMENTAL AND ABATEMENT OF HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE, Report No. FHWA-
HHI-HEV-73-7976-1, USDOT, chapter 5, section 3.2, page 5-27).
In addition, businesses, churches, and other related
establishments located along a particular highway normally require
accessibility and high visibility. Solid mass, attenuable measures for
traffic noise abatement would tend to disallow these two qualities, and
thus, would not be acceptable abatement measures in this case.
The traffic noise impacts for the "do nothing" or "no-build"
alternative were also considered. If the proposed widening did not
occur, 4 residential receptors would experience traffic noise impact by
approaching or exceeding the FHWA's NAC. Also, the receptors could
anticipate experiencing an increase in exterior noise levels in the
range of +0 to +8 dBA. As previously noted, it is barely possible to
detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5 dBA change in noise levels
is more readily noticed.
The major construction elements of this project are expected to be
earth removal, hauling, grading, and paving. General construction
noise impacts, such as temporary speech interference for passers-by and
those individuals living or working near the project, can be ekpected
particularly from paving operations and from the earth moving equipment
during grading operations. However, considering the relatively short-
term nature of construction noise and the limitation of construction to
daytime hours, these impacts are not expected to be substantial. The
transmission loss characteristics of nearby natural elements and man-
made structures are believed to be sufficient to moderate the effects
of intrusive construction noise.
Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is not
recommended, and no noise abatement measures are proposed. This
evaluation completes the highway traffic noise requirements of Title 23
CFR Part 772, and unless a major project change develops, no additional
noise reports will be submitted for this project.
1
}
i
a
F
E. Contaminated Properties
38
A field reconnaissance survey along the project corridor identified one
potential site for underground storage tanks (UST's). This site is a non-
operational facility. In addition to the field survey, a records search of
all appropriate environmental agencies was conducted in order to identify
any potential problem sites. Based on these records, there are no potential
environmental problem sites that will affect this project corridor.
The Shallotte Volunteer Rescue Department is located at the corner of
NC 179 and SR 1173. There is one approximately 1000 gallon gasoline UST and
a gasoline dispenser located on site. The UST and dispenser are located
approximately 46 feet from the centerline of NC 179. The proposed
improvements will not encroach on this UST site.
The Geotechnical Unit recommends that additional right of way
acquisition should not be allowed to encroach upon the UST within the
project corridor. The purchase of property containing UST's creates the
liability for any leakage that may occur and the possibility for long term,
costly remediation.
F. Construction Impacts
There are some environmental impacts normally associated with highway
construction. These are generally of short term duration and measures will
be taken to minimize these impacts.
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting
from clearing and grubing, demolition, and other operations will be removed
from the project, burned, or otherwise disposed of by the contractor. Any
burning done will be in accordance with the applicable laws, ordinances, and
regulations of the North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Air
Quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure
burning will be done at the greatest distance practicable from dwellings and
not when atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to the
public. Burning will be done under constant surveillance.
Measures will be taken to allay the dust generated by construction when
the control of dust is necessary for protection and comfort of motorists or
area residents.
The general requirements concerning erosion and siltation are covered
in Article 107-3 of Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures, which
is entitled "Control of Erosion, Siltation, and Pollution". The N.C.
Division of Highways has also developed an Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Program which has been approved by the N.C. Sedimentation Control
Commission. This program consists of the rigorous requirements to minimize
erosion and sedimentation contained in the Standard Specifications together
with the policies of the Division of Highways regarding the control of
accelerated erosion on work performed by State Forces.
Waste and debris will be disposed of in areas outside of the right of
way and provided by the contractor, unless otherwise required by the plans
or special provisions, or unless disposal within the right of way is
permitted by the Engineer. Disposal of waste and debris in active public
waste or disposal areas will not be approved without prior approval by the
39
Engineer. Such approval will not be permitted when, in the opinion of the
Engineer, it will result in excessive siltation or pollution.
Borrow pits and all ditches will be drained to alleviate breeding areas
for mosquitoes. In addition, care will be taken not to block existing
drainage ditches.
The construction of the project is not expected to cause any serious
disruptions in the services of any of the utilities serving the area. Prior
to construction, a determination will be made regarding the need to relocate
or adjust any existing utilities in the project area. A determination of
whether the NCDOT the utility owner will be responsible for this will be
made at this time. In all cases, the contractor is required to notify the
owner of the utility in advance as to when this work will occur. In
addition, the contractor is responsible for any damage to water lines
incurred during the construction process. This procedure will insure that
water lines, as well as other utilities, are relocated with a minimum of
disruption to the community.
Traffic service in the immediate area may be subjected to brief.
disruption during construction of the project. Every effort will be made to
insure the transportation needs of the public are met both during and after
construction.
General construction noise impacts such as temporary speech
interference for passers-by and those individuals living or working near the
project can be expected, particularly from paving operations and from earth
moving equipment during grading operations. However, considering the
relatively short term nature of construction noise, these impacts are not
expected to be significant. The transmission loss characteristics of nearby
structures will moderate the effects of intrusive construction noise.
G. Permits

Brunswick County is one of 20 counties in North Carolina that is under
the jurisdiction of the Coastal Area Management Act (CAAMA), which is
administered by the Division of Coastal Management (DCM). CAMA is the lead
permitting agency for projects within its jurisdiction.
F
C.V4A directs the Coastal Resources Commission ;(CRC) to identify and
designate Areas of Environmental Concern (AFC's) in'which uncontrolled
development might cause irreversible damage to property, public health and
the natural environment. CAMA necessitates a permit if a project meets all
of the following criteria:
it is located in a county under CAMA jurisdiction:
it is in or affects a designated AEC;
the project is considered "development" under the terms of the act, and;
it does not qualify for an exemption identified by CAMA, or CRC.
This project does not appear to impact any AEC, and thus will not
involve CAMMA, therefore the L.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) becomes the
lead permitting agency. A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 14 (minor road
crossings) is anticipated for impacts to the unnamed stream.
40
This permit authorizes fill for roads crossing waters of the United
States, including wetlands and aquatic sites. Standard conditions include:
(1) the width of the fill is limited to the minimum necessary for the actual
crossing; (2) fill is limited to 0.1 ha (0.3 ac), and (3) no more than 61
linear meters (200 feet) of the fill will be placed in special aquatic
sites, including wetlands.
A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401
Water Quality Certification is also required. Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act requires that the state issue or deny water certification for: any
federally permitted, or licensed activity that may result in a discharge
into waters of the Waters of the United States.
H. Mitigation
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 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
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.
To avoid wetlands at site 1, the roadway would need to be widened
asymmetrically to the west. Widening entirely on the west side would
involve relocating several large concrete power poles along the west side of
NC 179. This utility conflict would be very costly and time consuming.
Symmetric widening is proposed along the entire project and will be
contained mostly within the existing (60-foot) right of way. Although this
• alignment impacts less than 0.1 hecatre (0.2 acre) of wetlands, it avoids
relocating the concrete power poles and resulting utility conflicts.
Wetlands at site 2 will not be affected by the proposed symmetric widening
Minimization
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, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths. If impacts to the two
41
wetland communities cannot be avoided, then impacts to thesL'sites should be
minimized to the fullest extent possible. Practical means to minimize
impacts to the waters crossed by the proposed project are described in
Section IV.D.3.b of this document. All practical means should be utilized
to minimize project-related water quality degradation.
Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated
impacts to Waters of the U.S. have been avoided and minimized to the maximum
extent possible. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" 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 avoidance and minimization options have been
explored. Compensatory actions often include restoration, creation and
enhancement of Waters of the United States, specifically wetlands. Such
actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent to, or contiguous to the
impacted site.
Projects authorized under Nationwide Permits usually do not require
compensatory mitigation according to the 1989 Memorandum Agreement between
the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Army.
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Comments Received
Comments on the proposed improvements to NC 179 were requested from the
following federal, state, and local agencies. An asterisk indicates that a
written response was received. Responses are included in the appendix.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Atlanta
*U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Raleigh
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Asheville
*N.C. Department of Public Instruction
11N.C. Department of Cultural Resources `
*N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
N.C. Department of Human Resources
*N.C. State Clearinghouse
*N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Mayor of Shallotte
Brunswick County Commissioners
B. Public Response
A Citizen's Informational Workshop was held on May 9, 1995 at the
Town of Shallotte Town Hall to discuss the proposed improvements. The NCDOT
Citizens' Participation Unit advertised the workshop in the major local
media prior to its being held. Approximately 10 people (not including NCDOT
representatives) attended the informational workshop.
All of the people who attended the informational workshop live or work
42
along the project. Although concern was expressed over the project's
impacts to their properties, the project was srongly supported.
Both residents and business owners in the project area favored the symmetric
widening alternative.
C. Public Hearing
A public hearing will be held following the circulation of this
document. The public hearing will provide more detailed information to the
public about the proposed improvements. The public will be invited to make
additional comments or voice concerns regarding the proposed project.
VI. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based upon a study of the proposed project as documented in this
report, and upon comments received from state and local agencies, it is the
finding of the N.C. Department of Transportation that this project will not
have a significant impact upon the human or natural environment. The
proposed action will not have a significant adverse impact on air, noise, or
water quality in Brunswick County. The proposed project is consistent with
plans and goals that have been adopted by the Town of Shallotte, Brunswick
County, and the State of North Carolina. Therefore, an environmental impact
statement or further environmental analysis will not be required.
1#

FIGURES
a

.` N
1346_-
I .6;
t
1,35 BRUNSWICK
COUNTY
FAS
PROJECT 1345
LIMIT
1348 135
135$.i'D 1363 FAP
130 s.{. •.? F p,S 8 1136
9 ?.
'9 Fqs 1180
C;i .1
PROJECT 'i20
13 LIMIT 1134 8
P ten, iii:. . 130
F t 6 lii' b 1800
1'8 `?. .9 'Y
179 :?;• 1 t 9 t
1842 •3
1319 ?AS
V BugiltlASS 1135 J
Vii'; RjvER ?t.:.._:? r?::•'•%'?'
1153 , iiir?'?..+Sa N ?Q
ShallotteM::-;._
Pop.
680
' 0. 1191
1145 1146 j
1 !J r
1153 1154 4 1207 ) 1146 I
? w sr ? i
141147 a
???' 1151 8 1145
o Shell
N n
f 184 V W Point
z`
sle teach 179 ? • a Bowen ? ( I
Brick Point _
Apo rt landing
?.
n
Cause
Landing NORTH COLA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
??.-•; ;;:.. y.? ? DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
NC 179
?cr
•d ;•::•'?.z? 15LE BEA0y FROM SR 1145 (VILLAGE POINT ROAD)
?f 9Q4 F,. 14 TO US 17 BUSINESS
BRUNSWICK COUNTY
1'? ~ t R-3106D
o mn• t
- _? '? FIGURE 1
0
Q+
4 ? ? 7160
mar
° ° eso
0
a 840 ?4
2560 Qll
e
Q?? 260
Y`y a\ 6290 1480
J5 's
770
JS \?
m 160
4170
QO
NC 179 WIDENING
SR 1145 TO US 17 BUSINESS
BRUNSWICK COUNTY
R-3106D
? sa 1173
t
°
'? I k
°o
Io
4
140
S
O
o ?
,a
- ??? 4020 6760
IO
0
Ai
64? ?
10140
y\ 710 ° PM
C 12 -? as
8 `ry. ? (1.01
yy0 - 760
o,OSZO` 400 PENDER ST.
SELLERS ST.
(SR 1234) ?V r 70
p v14
n
° 12 ?, E6
(,.01
- ? 70
70 HICKORY ST.
10360
s0
u Ip PN
f
y ° o t t ?', 65
I °' O
JULY 28, 1995 vV - 0.0t E
2 1400
1700 6RIERWOOD ST.
ESTIMATED 1994 ADT azo0 i I
I. ?
LEGEND ?? 700
0000 vpd
DHV DESIGN HOUR VOLUME (%}
D DIRECTIONAL FLOW i
r AM/PM AM OR PM PEAK 1
? I 2500
DIRECTION OF D 7000
(5,1) DUAL TRUCKS, TTST All
_p mm
(2.1) g tea SOS
55
0
DHV D FIGURE 3a
NOT TO SCALE NC 179
NOTES: DHV AND D IF NOT
SHOWN ARE THE SAME FOR
THE OPPOSING LEG
SR 1145
F
t
a
Q?
m 3a ? ry -
y =`G 'b
s?
'6[
'Fi 2a6 01),
0
466 3366 Q?,:, Q NC 179 WIDENING
gas`` `,900 3443 ,917 SR 1145 TO US 17 BUSINESS
1??JS ?'?• 649 BRUNSWICK COUNTY
A
R-3106D
I ?
•' 368
JJ 8680
SR 1173
o,
(n v
?o
6
643 °
O
72632
?! 8403
„o
I?
J1
1283 )
19732
Q? oyl 7376•! 12 -? 6S.
`ry• o
8 (7.0)
40ery ,e - ? ''J6
s d 203721 y Z1B PENDER ST.
SELLERS ST. I ° . . ,
(SR 1234) +6a
I?
n vM
0 68
(1.01
J 46
1 112 HICKORY ST.
c 20703 i
s6
PN 7
6 v e 10 ?0 63
-w ! •? (7.01
2383
ESTIMATED 2017 ADT 1e166=? 3136 BRIERWOOD ST.
LEGEND 674
0000 vpd e
DHV DESIGN HOUR VOLUME (%) III
10 DIRECTIONAL FLOW - 1
AM/PM AM OR PM PEAK 1111\
\ 6977
-? DIRECTION OF D +3766 I ,a
(5,1) DUAL TRUCKS. TTST (96) - '?i
pm i 319 y
55 9
?a\
DHV D
NOT TO SCALE NC 179 FIGURE 3b
T SR 1145
NOTES: DHV AND D IF --
SHOWN ARE THE SAME FOR
THE OPPOSING LEG
r
i
I
I
I
I
i
I
1
I
a . _
N
y
C
Z
m
N
I
I
l
I
I
PROPOSED INTERSECTION GEOMETRICS
AT US 17 BUSINESS

Figure 4a
---------------
PROPOSED INTERSECTION GEOMETRICS AT SR 1173
-ox

i
1
(
i
i
i
i
{
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
0??
j
W
Z
O
i
y
C
r
m
m
O
v
Figure 4b
i
i
r
N
m
c01?
N O
m m
m w
E
N T

Q
m m
m
w

m m

' L
L m
E ?
m m N
..
E (7
O (y
? N
T T.
Y
m
m m
w
Iti
I1
m
(D
Y
N T
m ?
m m
(D N
O

LU
0
!L
z
O
U
W
N
m
W
V
a
z
a
M
U
7W
C
t
I

APPENDIX

North Carolina
Department of Administration
James B. Hunt Jr., Govemor
October 31, 1994
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
N.C. Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
Transportation Building
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Vick:
?G'E 1 VFW
_
•-DES DEC- 7 1994
0,V1StG'`1 GF ?cc
,
k?40.0 HtGr1W PN ???,
RE: SCH File #95-E-4220-0187; Scoping - Proposed Improvements
to NC 179 from South of Shallotte City Limits to US 17
Business in Brunswick County (TIP #3106D)
The above referenced environmental impact information has been
reviewed through the State Clearinghouse under the provisions of
the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
Attached to this letter are comments made by agencies reviewing
this document which identify issues to be addressed in the
environmental review document. For compliance with the North
Carolina Environmental Policy Act the appropriate document
should be forwarded to the State Clearinghouse for environmental.
review. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate
to call me at 733-7232.
Sincerely,
Ms. Chrys?Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse
Attachments
cc: Region 0
116 West Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 • Telephone [phone]
State Courier 51-01.00
s
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Bet4y Ray McCain, Secretary William S. Price, Jr.. Director
November 16, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook ?: i ?, (..f ??, `•` -?.
Deputy State Historic' Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: NC 179 from south of Shallotte city limits to US 17
Business, Brunswick County, State Project 6.231018,
TIP R-3106D, CH 95-E-4220-0187
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
We have reviewed the materials and recommend that the following two structures
be evaluated for possible National Register eligibility:
Shallotte School, which appears to be at the southern end of the project just
south of the Shallotte town limits.
St. Mark's A.M.E. Zion Church which appears abandoned but may have
significant interiors and is located on the south side of NC 179 near
Shallotte.
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.
While we note that this project review is only for a state action, the potential for
federal permits may require further consultation with us and compliance with
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
= These comments are made in accord with G.S. 121-12(a) and Executive Order
XVI. If you have any questions regarding them, please contact Renee Gledhill-
Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw ,
cc: State Clearinghouse
John Parker, Division of Coastal Management
B. Church c?
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ?p
rip # ?- 2j(b?0 D Fc Aid # Lo -2-510115 County 5?L %Uj(C1c r .
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER Off' HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description
2
On? , representatives of the
t/ North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA) - Nc?-F
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed. the subject project at
A scopin, meeting
Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
All parti present agreed
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
? there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect.
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as are
considered not eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
? there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed: , ?-
;:5?km? _? -
Representative, NCDOT
z3
Date
FF,?wA, fo the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
Rep.resentative, 51-TO Date

tare Historic Preservation Officer

Date
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
r Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Henry M. Lancaster II, Director
MEMORANDUM
e?EHNR
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee L
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 95-0187 - Scoping Improvements to NC 179, Brunswick
County
DATE: November 1, 1994
The Department of Environment, Health, and
has reviewed the proposed scoping notice. The
list and describe information that is necessary
to evaluate the potential environmental impacts
More specific comments will be provided during
review.
Natural Resources
attached comments
for our divisions
of the project.
the environmental
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. The applicant is
encouraged to notify our commenting divisions if additional
assistance is needed.
F
attachments

3
3
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
.iCP,FALLS LAKE
TEL:[phone]
Oct 25'94 14:14 N-o.004 P.05
_ Ef Notfh. Carolina Wildlife Resources Con mission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Policy Development, DEI3NR
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coor atoG
Habitat Conservation Program '
DATE: October 25, 1994
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) regarding fish and
wildlife concerns for NC 179, from south of the
Shal.lotte City Limits to US 17 Business, Brunswick
County, North Carolina, TIP No. R-3106D, SCH
Project No. 95-0187.
This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. H.
Franklin Vick of the NCDOT for our concerns regarding
impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from the
subject project. Staff biologists of the N. C. Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the proposcd
project, and our comments are provided in accordance with
provisions of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
(G.S. 113A-1 et seq., as amended; 1 NCAC 25). `
The proposed project involves widening a 1.2 mile
section of existing NC 179 from two lanes to a three lane %
curb and gutter facility.
At this time, we have no specific concerns or
recommendations regarding the subject project. However, to
help facilitate document preparation, our general
informational needs are outlined below:
1. Description of fishery and wildlife resources
within the project area, including a listing of
federally or state designated threatened,
endangered, or special concern species. Potential
t
i
I
.;ACP,FALLS LAKE TEL:[phone] Oct 25'94 14:15 No-004 P.07
Memo Page 2 October 25, 1994
borrow areas to be used for project construction
should be included in the inventories..y A listing
` of designated plant species can be developed
through consultation with:
The Natural Heritage Program
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
and,
Cecil C. Frost, Coordinator
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. 0. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by
the project. The need for channelizing or
relocating portions of streams crossed and the
extent of such activities.
3. Cover type malls showing wetland acreages impacted
by the project. Wetland acreages should include
all project-related areas that may undergo
hydrologic change as a result of ditching, other
drainage, or filling for project construction.
Wetland identification may be accomplished through
coordination with the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE). If the COE is not consulted, the
person delineating wetlands should be identified
and criteria listed.
4. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland
wildlife habitat impacted by the proposed project.
Potential borrow sites should be included.
} S. The extent to which the project will result 'in
loss, degradation, or fragment4tion of wildlife
habitat (wetlands or uplands).
6. Mil:iaation for avoiding, minimizing or
compensating for direct and indirect degradation
in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses.
7. A cumulative impact assessment section which
analyzes the environmcr_tal effects of highway
construction and quantifies the contribution of
this individual project to ernvirormenta3
degradation.

.HCP,FRLLS LRKE TEL: [phone]%`19 OCt 25'94 14 :15 No.004 P.08
Memo. Page 3 October 25, 1994
8. A discussion of the probable impacts on natural {
resources which will result from secondary
development facilitated by the improver road
i
access. +
9. If construction of this facility is to be
coordinated with other state, municipal, or
private development projects, a description of
these projects should be included in the
environmental document, and all project sponsors
should be identified.
't'hank you for the opportunity to provide input in the
early planning stages for this project. If I can further
assist your office, please contact me at [phone].
CC: Thomas Padgett, District 4 Wildlife Biologist
Keith Ashley, District 4 Fisheries Biologist
Randy Wilson, Nongame/Endangered Species Section Mgr.

I
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Division of Land Resources
nes G. Martin, Governor PROJECT RSVTHW C01 4ENTS
1111am W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
Project Number: ac7 County: . I C.?
0
V
3? 19gJ
Project Name:
Geodetic Survev
(/?This project will impact 7 geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.O. Box 27687,
.Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached)
For more information _contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
-2 t_1
Reviewer Date
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
r
No comment
This proje9t will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land=disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
'=of the erosion and sedimentation control plan. `
F
If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of invironmental Management,
/ increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
t/ The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Other (comments attached)
For more /information contact the Land Quality Section at [phone].
Reviewer Date
i
i
t
z
i
.r
P.O. Box 27687 • Melgh, N.C. 27611-7687 a Telephone [phone]
An Enual O??ortunlty Affirmadve Action Employer
I
State of North Carolina Reviewing Office: 1
90riment of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources n1 t n {
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number: Due Date.
cis-
er review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in
3
t
ter for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
o--:--..i l1ti:-.? :n.ain ?turi nn }ho rnvcrnn of thu fnrm
eSt10r15 r6yaru111y 1116.7= Nc11311- Q3wu.u .... .... ............. .- ..._ .._?-- -- - ... _ _
applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same
Normal Process
gional Office. Time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory time
limit)
ermit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
cilities, sewer system extensions. & sewer construction contracts On-site inspection. Post-application
stems not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual (90 days)
PDES - permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection. 90.120 days
!rmit to operate and construct wastewater facilities Pre-application conference usual. Additionally. obtain permit to
scharging into state surface waters. construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPOES. Reply (NiA)
time. 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPOES
permit-whichever is later.
30 days
rater Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary (NiAI
7 days
fell Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued
prior to the installation of a well.
(15 days)
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property 55 days
redge and Fill Permit owner. On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling
may reo.uire Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of i90 days)
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
ermit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement 60 days
(90 daysi
acdities and/or Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21H.06 N/A
eKy' open burning associated with subject proposal
wst be in compliance with 15A NCAC 2D.0520.
)emolition or renovations of structures containing
60 days
sbestos material must be in compliance with 15A
ICAC 2D.0525 which requires notification and removal N/A
Irior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group
119.733.0820 (90 days)
:omplex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 20.0800.
'he Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be property addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & sedimentatio
:ontrol plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Sect.) at least 30 20 days
favs before beoimmna activity. A fee of S30 for the first acre and 520.00 for each additional acre or Dart must accomoanv the otan Q0 davs)
the Sedimentatiorf Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance: r (30 days)
On-site inspection usual. Surety bo?d filed with EHNR. Bond amount
Mining Permit varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any area 30 days
mined greater than one acre must be permited. The appropriate bond t60 days)
must be received before the permit can be issued.
VorttrCarolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit 1 day
exceeds a days (NIA)
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22 On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required "if more 1 day
counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections
" (N/A)
should be requested at least ten days before actual burn is planned.
90.120 days
Oil Refining Facilities N/A (N/A)
If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction.
Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans. 30 days
Dam Safety Permit inspect construction. certify construction is according to EHNR approv-
ed plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. And (60 days)
a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers. An inspection of site is neces-
sary to verify Hazard Classification. A minimum fee of 5200.00 must ac-
company the application. An additional processing fee based on a
percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion.
r
Continued an reverse
u?
Normal Process
?Tlme

(statutory time
' PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS lima)
- File surety bond of $5,000 with EHNR running to Staip of N.C. 10 days
rmit to drill exploratory oil or gas well conditional that any well opened by drill operator shall, upon (NIA)
abandonment, be plugged according to EHNR rules and regulations.
;ophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with EHNR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit 10 days
Application by letter. No standard application form. (NIA)
ate Lakes Construction Permit Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must include 15.20 days
descriptions & drawings of structure & proof of ownership (NIA)
of riparian property.
60 days
)1 Water Quality Certification NIA (130 days)
55 days
AMA Permit for MAJOR development $250.00 fee must accompany application (150 days)
22 days
AMA Permit for MINOR development $50.00 fee must accompany application (25 days)
everal geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monuments need to be moved or destroyed. please notify:
N.C. Geodetic Survey. Box 27687, Raleigh. N.C. 27611
bandonment of any wells. if required, must be in accordance with Title 15A, Subchapter 2C.0100.
otification of the proper regional office is requested if "orphan" underground storage tanks (USTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
45 days
',omoliance with 15A NCAC 2H.1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required. (NIA)
)ther comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority):
t ?
t
l
REGIONAL OFFICES
ouestions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
? Asheville Regional Office _ ? Fayetteville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Asheville. NC 28801 Fayetteville. NC 28301
[phone] [phone]
? Mooresville Regional Office
919 North Main Street, P.O. Box 950
Mooresville. NC 28115
[phone]
? Washington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue
Washington, NC 27889
[phone]
? Winston-Salem Regional Office
8025 North Point Blvd.
Suite 100
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
roio% tlQF.7nn7
? Raleigh Regional Office
3800 Barrett Drive, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone]
? Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
[phone]
State bf North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Roger N. Schecter, Director
A LT Ty WA
r*, em? 11111111111111111k
ED EHNR
TO: Melba McGee, NC Office of Policy Development -
FROM: Steve Benton, NC Division of Coastal Management
SUBJECT: Review of SCH # f57,0 1517 DATE: 151,3/yy
Please Forward Agency Comments
vReviewer Comments Attached
Review Comments:
This document is being reviewed for consistency with the NC Coastal Management Program.
Agency comments received by SCH are needed to develope the State's consistency position.
_ A CAMA Permit _is or _may be required for this project. Applicant should contact
phone # , for information.
_? A Consistency Determination JtOis or ?may be required for this project. Applicant should
contact Steve Benton or Caroline Bellis in Raleigh, phone # [phone], for information.
Proposal is in draft form, a consistency response is inappropriate. A Consistency
Determination should be included in the final document.
A - CAMA Permit or _ consistency response _ has already been issued, or
_ is currently being reviewed under separate circulation.
Permit/Consistency No. Date issued
Proposal involves < 20 Acres or a structure < 60,000 Sq. Feet and no AEC's or Land Use Plan
Problems.
Proposal is not in the Coastal Area and will have no significant impacts on Coastal`Resources.
Proposal is exempt from CAMA by statue Other (see attached)
Consistency Position:
_ The proposal is consistent with the NC Coastal Management Program provided that all state
authorization and/or permit requirements are met prior to implementation of the project.
A Consistency position will be developed based on our review on or before
The proposal is inconsistent with the NC Coastal Management Program.
fL Not Applicable _ Other (see attached)
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
1
a
t
s
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
AILTV4.KWA?EHNFi
October 19, 1994
MEM4BAM
TO: Melba McGee, Legislative Affairs
FROM: Monica Swihart1 Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #95-0187; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Proposed Improvements to NC 179, TIP No. R-3106D
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project.
The stream classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated,
it is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be
revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary)
to be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
'are not placed in wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
j 4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested
from DEM.
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
t
i
i
i

Melba McGee
-October 19, 1994
Page 2

:H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable) ?
J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same
watershed is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Please note that a 401 Water Quality Certification cannot be
issued until the conditions of NCAC 15A: 01C.0402 (Limitations on
Actions During NCEPA Process) are met. This regulation prevents
DEM from issuing the 401 Certification until a FONSI or Record of
Decision (ROD) has been issued by the Department requiring the
document. If the 401 Certification application is submitted for
review prior to issuance of the FONSI or ROD, it is recommended
that the applicant state that the 401 will not be issued until
the applicant informs DEM that the FONSI or ROD has been signed
by the Department.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quali?y Certification may
be required for this project. Applications requesting coverage
under our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will
require written concurrence. Please be aware that 401
Certification may be denied if wetland impacts have not been
avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
10747er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
State of North Caraiina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
,Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Henry M. Lancaster II, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO:- Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 95-0278, 95-0187,95-0198
DATE: November 23, 1994
IDEHNR
The attached comments were received by this office after the
response due date. These comments should be forwarded to the
applicant and made a part of our previous comment package.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
MM:bb
Attachment

;f
j`1
1 UL I
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 2761 1-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Eoucl Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer .40110 recycled/ 10110 post-consumer pcper
I
1
S
I
I

[f1teC-'1kgCney 1, !o)eCt Review 1\es}?o11sC
Man- /ICI 7`9 -

1 ypc of Project J c.?,ci7e,?,
The applicant should be advised' that plans and specifications for all water system
ilnprovenZencs rust be approved by the Divisloli of Er:vlronnie11tal Health prior co:che-award
of a contract or the iniuaclon of conscruccioli (as requ_red by 15A NCAC 1SC .0300 et. seq.).
For inforlnacion, contact the Public \X/acc:• Supply Section, [phone].
This-project will be classified as a non-community puclic water supply and must conipl:y with
state and federal dritlkillg water monitoring requlrelne ncs. Ivor more information the applicanc
should contact the Public Water Supple Section, (915) 733-232-71.
.If this project is conscl-ucted as proposed, we wil_ recommend closure of feet of adjacerit
waters to the har-!esc of shellfish. For information regarding the.shellfisE sanitation progra_
tn, the applicant should contact the Shellfish SanicaciDn Branch at [phone].
The spoil disposal area(s) proposed for chic project rna-: produces mosquito breeding-problem.
For informaclon concerning appropriate mosquito :oncrol measures, the applicant-should.
contact the Public Health Pest Maragemenc. Seetio. -c (919) 726=5970.
The applicant: should be advised chat prior to the retnow.1 or derrolltloa of dilap da_dc--
struCtureS, an extensive roderic control program rnr ==' be rieCessal?r irl Order-t0-prevene the
'
nlloratlon of dh rode^ts cc ad1aCCllt The rIOCinatlOn. COnCer.1,11b rCidCnt' COntro:;
collcact t he Local health dcpat-u-neat. Or cnc Public Healtl: Pest ??allagea:ent SeCCIO:'l.at (,919)
733-6407.
Tf e applicant should be advised to concacc the local health department regarding their
_
reduiremer?c; for septic tank lnstallatlors (as requlrea unuer 15A N"'A•"`- • 18:1 .1900 ec . see
-.d ocher on slice waste als_oosai Mcult.JdS) CO11taCt z' e-
For lnfOrni?clod Cnnrerning StOcie7 tarl an
19'
?'a t'?C?'?.te.' $Pr.tlJ11 3t'19f 7-,',-2g
0111-S, (9 95.
TI-Le applicant: Should be ,dviseci I:o CO1ILr.1cL the 1OC-ai health departnlen; regarding cne sanitary
-? facilitics required lClr tills proi<:Cc
l 3 if C'/•lSl'lCl? Wal'c. llrl(S ??UI be 1'( OCSIic:; ClLlllrl Lht7 COfISCE'LICl:1C?11, 7ia':1S 'or tile i?alacl' !iii
-J !'docaci,on !i1USC bC S1!bt11lCtCCI CO tile. }?1'%!SlOll Oj in'•'ll'011111en1'al .I?.ea?l'i1 1'LllillC Watel" Suppi-
C:?rnlina (919) 73 ?
Scction Plarl l\.evicw Branch, 1.330 SE. Mary's 'Screct: lkalei'?' North
-? y
Y`?."Kcuicdier S • scion/13rancli: `? - . - ace
United States Department of the
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ecological Services
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
November 29, 1994
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
i

y
7. i ._01V'..S.ION OF
HIGHWAYS
Subject: NC 179, from south of Shallotte City Limits to US 17 Business,
Brunswick County, North Carolina, TIP No. R-3106D.
Dear Mr. Vick:
= i
¦ s
t
This responds to your letter of September 14, 1994 requesting information from
the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on evaluating the potential
environmental impacts of the above-referenced project. This report provides
scoping information and is provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7
of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
Preliminary planning by the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) calls for widening a 1.9 kilometer (1.2 mile) section of NC 179 from
two lanes to a three-lane curb and gutter facility. The project would extend
from the Shallotte City Limits northeast to US 17 Business.
The service's review of any environmental document would be greatly
facilitated if it contained the following information:
1. A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within existing and
required additional right-of-way and any areas, such as borrow areas,
which may be affected directly or indirectly by the proposed project.
2. A list of the wetland types which will be impacted. Wetland types
should follow the wetland clan=ifi'cation scheme of the National Wetlands
Inventory. This list should also give the acreage of each wetland type
to be affected by the project as determined by the Federal Manual for
Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands.
3. Engineering techniques which will be employed for designing and
constructing any wetland crossings and/or relocated stream channels
along with the linear feet of any water courses to be relocated.
4. The cover types of upland areas and the acreage of each type which would
be impacted by the proposed project.
5. Mitigation measures which will be employed to avoid, eliminate, reduce,
or compensate for upland and wetlands habitat impacts associated with
the project. These measures should include plans for replacing
unavoidable wetland losses.
r
3
i
)
6. The environmental impacts which are likely to occur after construction
as a direct result of the proposed project (secondary imp%Lcts) and an
assessment of the extent to which the proposed project will add to
similar environmental impacts produced by other, completed projects in
the area (cumulative impacts).
The attached page identifies the Federally-listed endangered, threatened, and
candidate species which occur in Brunswick County. The section of the
environmental document regarding protected species must contain the following
information:
1. A review of the literature and other information;
2. A description of any listed species or critical habitat that may be
affected by the action;
3. An analysis of the "effect of the action", as defined by CFR 402.02, on
the species and habitat including consideration of direct, indirect,
cumulative effects, and the results of related studies;
4. - A description of the manner in which the action may affect any species
or critical habitat;
5. Summary of evaluation criteria used as a measure of potential effects;
and
6. Determination statement based on evaluation criteria.
Candidate species refer to any species being considered by the Service for
listing as endangered or threatened but not yet the subject of a proposed
rule. These species are not legally protected under the Act or subject to its
provisions, including Section 7, until formally proposed or listed as
threatened or endangered. New data could result in the formal listing of a
candidate species. This change would place the species under the full
protection of the Endangered Species Act, and necessitate a new survey if its
status in the project corridor is unknown. Therefore, it would be prudent for
the project to avoid any adverse impact to candidate species or their habitat.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted for
information on species under State protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please
continue to advise us of the progress of this project, including your official
determination of the impacts of this project. If our office can supply any
additional information or clarification, please contact Howard Hall, the
biologist reviewing this project, at 919-856-4520 (ext. 27).
Siinceielryyour
' ,
L.K. "Mike" Gantt
Supervisor
3
d
s g1
. ? l
REVISED SEPTEMBER 26, 1994
2 PAGES ' s
Brunswick County
Shortnose sturgeon (Acivenser brevirostrum) - E
Eastern cougar (Felix concolor couauar) - E
Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus) - E
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) - E
Piping plover (Charadrius-melodus) - T
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - E
Arctic peregrine falcon (Falco perearinus tundrius) - T
Wood stork (Mvcteria americana) - E
Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) - T
Green sea turtle (Chelonia mvdas) - T
Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelvs coriacea) - E
Kemp's (Atlantic) ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelvs kempii) - E
American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis - T S/A+
Rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia) - E
Cooley's meadowrue (Thalictrum coolevi) - E
Seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus gumilus) - T
Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew (Sorex lonairostris fisheri) - T
Sea turtles when "in the water" and the shortnose sturgeon are under the
jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service and should be
contacted concerning your agency's responsibilities under Section 7 of the
Endangered species Act. Their address is:
National Marine Fisheries Service
U.S. Department of commerce
9450 Roger Boulevard
Duval Building
St. Petersburg, Florida 33702

Brunswick County (cont'd)
REVISED SEPTEMBER 26, 1994
There are species which, although not now listed or officially proposed for
listing as endangered or threatened, are under status review by the Service.
These "Candidate"(Cl and C2) species are not legally protected under the
Act, and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7,
until they are formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. We
are providing the below list of candidate species which may occur within the
project area for the purpose of giving you advance notification. These
species may be listed in the future, at which time they will be protected
under the Act. In the meantime, we would appreciate anything you might do
for them.
Henslow's sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii) -C2
Bachman's sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis) - C2
Carolina pygmy sunfish (Elassoma boehlkei) - C2
Carolina crawfish frog (Rana areolata capito) - C2
Magnificent ramshorn snail (Planorbella macnifica) - C2
Cape Fear three tooth (Tridonsis soelneri) - C2
Rare skipper (Problema bulenta) - C2
Pyxis moth (Aarotis buchholzi) - C2*
Chapman's sedge (Carex chapmanii) - C2
Carolina grass-of-parnassus (Parnassia caroliniana) - C2
Awned meadowbeauty (Rhexia aristosa) - C2
Sun-facing coneflower (Rudbeckia heliopsidis) - C2
Carolina goldenrod (Solidago pulchra) - C2
Spring-flowering goldenrod (Solidaao verna) - C2
Wireleaf dropseed (Sporobolus teretifolius) - C2
Savanna leadplant (Amorpha georaiana confusa) - C2
Savanna campylopus (Campylopus carolinae) - C2*
Harper's fringe rush (Fimbristylis Perpusilla) - C2
Pondspice (Litsea aestivalis) - C2
Carolina bogmint (Macbridea caroliniana) - C2
Loose watermilfoil (Mvriophvllum laxum - C2
Savanna cowbane (Oxvpolis ternata - C2
Pineland plantain (Plantago sparsiflora) - C2
Dune blue curls (Trichostema sp.) - C2
Venus flytrap (Dionaea muscipula) - C2
Honeycomb head (Balduina atropurpurea) - C2
Carolina asphodel (Tofieldia alabra) - C2
Thorne's beaked-rush (Rvhnchospora thornei) - C2
+Threatened/Similarity of Appearance
*Indicates no specimen in at least 20 years from this pounty.
NORTH CAROLINA
-- DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
301 North Wilmington Street, Education Building BOB ETHERIDGE
Raleigh, NC 27601-2825 State Superintendent
January 24, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
FROM: Charles H. Weaver
Assistant State Superintendent
Auxiliary Services
RE: NC 179, from south of the Shallotte City Limits to US 17 Business,
Brunswick County, State Project No. 6.231018, TIP No. R-3106D
z ?d 6 199,50
? HAG S/c.
Please find attached communication from Dennis Carr, Director of Maintenance for
Brunswick County Schools, relative to subject project.
mrl }
Enclosure
t
i

An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer
t
Brunswick County Schools
Maintenance Department
199 Sessions Drive i
Bolivia, North Carolina 28422
C
January 20,1995
Dr. Charles H. Weaver
Assistant State Superintendent
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction
301 North Wilmington Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2825
Dear Dr. Weaver:
. In response to your request dated September 23,1994, 1 would like to make the following
request. We would like preparations made to establish a double drive on the north side of the
school property. We were in touch with the Department of Transportation at the request of the
principal of Shallotte Middle school before we received your request. We met with Mrs.
Robinson, principal; Sarah Tripp, mayor of Shallotte; a lady from Department of
Transportation; Odell Benton and myself to discuss the relocation of a drive to prevent some
traffic flow problems. We were instructed at that meeting by a Department of Transporation
person to contact North Carolina DOT engineers in Wilmington. We made contact on
November 28, 1994, and was informed they would be in touch after the first of the year. Mr.
Odell Benton was contacted by Wilmington regional office on January 20, 1995, and told to
contact this State DOT. Hopefully this letter will serve as that contact.
Dr. Weaver I do apologize for the delay of this response. I realize it is past the requested
due date. It was caught up in the confusion of paperwork in my office. If I could be of any
further assistance to you please do not hesitate to contact me. I promise a prompt response if
you need me.
Sincerely,
Qom:, ??.t,t.
Dennis B. Carr
Director of Maintenance
c: Dr. Ralph J. Johnston, Superintendent

[phone] [phone] [phone] fax
TABLE Al
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
R-3106D: NC179, Brunswick Co. RUN: NC 179, Year 2000, Build
06/07/95 TIME: 15:40
'E & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-----------------------------
. 0.0 CM/S VD - 0.0 CM/S
= 1.0 M/S CLAS - 5 (E)
qK VARIABLES
it
PAGE I
ZO - 108. CM
ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXH - 1000. M AMB - 1.8 PPM
------------
LINK DESCRIPTION
* LINX COORDINATES (M)
* X1 Y1 X2
* LENGTH
Y2 * (M)
-
BRG TYPE
(DEC)
----------
VPH EF
(G/MI)
--------------
H
(M)
-----
W V/C QUEUE
(M) (VEH)
------------------
Far Lane Link
Near Lane Link 7.2 805.0 7.2
* 0.0 805.0 0.0 805.0 1610.
-805.0 * 1610. 360. AG
180. AG 683. 17.9
683. 17.9 0.0
0.0 9.6
9.6
CEPTOR LOCATIONS
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y Z
•---------------------*------------------------------'-'----*
R40, 14.0 m LCL BUS * -10.4 0.0 1.8
3: A-3106D: NC179, Brunswick Co. RUN: NC 179, Year 2000, Build
ODEL RESULTS
------------
EMARXS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle,"of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum. f
tIND .LYCLE RANGE: 0.-360. 1
aNo' * CONCENTRATION
,NGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1
MAX * 2.8
DEGR. * 2
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 2.80 PPM AT 2 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
TABLE A2 y
PAGE 2
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
• Build
i: R-3106D: NC179, Brunswick Co. RUN: NC 179, Year 2020,
'E: 06/07/95 TIME: 15:40
CTE 6 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
5 = 0.0 CM/S VO = 0.0 CM/S zo = 108. CM
CLAS ° 5 (E) ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXB = 10 00. M AMB = 1.8 PPM
U = 1.0 M/S
INK VARIABLES
-------------
*
LINK COORDINATES (M) *
LENGTH
BRG TYPE
VPH EF
H
W V/C QUEUE
LINK DESCRIPTION 2 * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
*
X1 Y1 X2 Y
-
----------
------------'
* 2 805.0 7.2 805.0 *
7 1610. 360. AG 1150. 14.9 0.0 9.6
. Far Lane Link .
0 -805.0 *
0 1610. 180. AG 1150. 14.9 0.0 9.6
:. Near Lane Link * .
0.0 805.0
mcEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y Z
----------------------- *-------------------------------------*
. R40, 14.0 m LCL BUS *
-10.4 0.0 1.8
RUN: NC 179, Year 2020, Build
oB: R-3106D: NC179, Brunswick Co.
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DSGR)* REC1
------*------
MAX * 3.3
DEGR. * 5
TEE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 3.30 PPM AT 5 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
i
s
)
4
i
{
i
i

TABLE A3 y
-
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992 PAGE 3
RUN: NC 179, Yr-2000, No-Build
I: R-3106D: NC179, Brunswick Co.
tE: 06/07/95 TIME: 15:39
CTS & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
•-----------------------------
; - 0.0 CM/S VD - 0.0 CM/S
7 - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 5 (E)
INK VARIABLES
ZO = 108. 04
ATIM 60. MINUTES MIXH = 1000. M AMB = 1.8 PPM
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M) *
* X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * LENGTH
(M)
-----
-- BRG TYPE
(DEG)
---------- VPH EF
(G/MI)
-------------- H
(M)
----- W V/C QUEUE
(M) (VEH)
------------------
_
Far Lane Link
,. Near Lane Link 3.6 805.0 3.6 805.0
* 0.0 805.0 0.0 -805.0 * 7
1610.
1610. 360. AG
180. AG 683. 25.3
683. 25.3 0.0
0.0 9.6
9.6
tECEPTOR LOCATIONS
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y Z
----------------------- *-------------------------------------*
-12.2 0.0 1.8
. A40, 14.0 m LCL BUS *
DB: R-3106D: NC179, Brunswick Co. RUN: NC 179, Yr-2000, No-Build
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum `
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1
MAX * 3.3
DEGR. * 6
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 3.30 PPM AT 6 DEGREES FROM RECI .
}
TABLE A4
et
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
•
R-3106D: NC179, Brunswick Co. RUN: NC 179, Yr-2020, No-Build
06/07/95 TIME: 15:39
7E s METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
.----------°------------°--
0.0 CM/S VD - 0.0 CM/S
1.0 M/S CLAS 5 (E)
1K VARIABLES
------------
ZO - 108. CM
ATIM = 60. MINUTES
lr
PAGE 4
MIXH - 1000. M AMB - 1.8 PPM
LINK DESCRIPTION * ' LINK COORDINATES (M) * LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
* X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
--------------------- *------------------------------- --------- *-----7--------------- -------------- ------ -----------------
Far Lane Link * 3.6 -805.0 3.6 805.0 * 1610. 360. AG 1150. 34.9 0.0 9.6
Near Lane Link * 0.0 805.0 0.0 -805.0 * 1610. 180. AG 1150. 34.9 0.0 9.6
;CEPTOR LOCATIONS
'----------------
* COORDINATES (M)
RECM?PTOR * X Y Z
---------------------- *-------------------------------------*
R40, 14.0 m LCL BUS * -12.2 0.0 1.8 *
!: R-3106D: NC179, Brunswick Co.
)DEL RESULTS
------------
RUN: NC 179, Yr-2020, No-Build
EMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle;- of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
4IND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
orIND'T * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1
-----*------
MAX * 5.3
DEGR. * 7
4
1
4
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 5.30 PPM AT 7 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
}

` FIGURE - N1
PROJECT LOCATION & AMBIENT MEASUREMENT SITES
NC 179
From SR 1145 to US-17 Business in Shallotte
Brunswick County
TIP= R-3106D State Project- 6.23101S
i

us ?
f_11 UaL
ll I , u? j f.,_ , r 3
\f y 130
'tt ! ,
\ - P 1131
t? A
END I>v f Ilia
. ,ft• ?? .... ?aa ? •? Cl F
1,6 \ ? • L3!
?r r roP. ? .?
BEG I N
113
_GN
"1 -
b? Pent ('(
lenainq
OCEAN ISID 6401 ? F
POP. IAl 2
C 'l
r
a
} TABLE N1
Ic HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY
0
140 Shotgun blast, jet 30 m away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chamber HUMAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD
130
Firecrackers
120 Severe thunder, pneumatic jackhammer
Hockey crowd
Amplified rock music UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD
110
Textile loom
100 Subway train, elevated train, farm tractor
Power lawn mower, newspaper press
Heavy city traffic, noisy factory LOUD
90
D Diesel truck 65 kmph 15 m away
E 80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
I Passenger car 80 kmph 15 m away MODERATELY LOUD
B 70
E Quiet typewriter
L 60 Singing birds, window air-conditioner
S Quiet automobile
Normal conversation, average office QUIET
50
Household refrigerator
Quiet office VERY QUIET
40
Average home
30 Dripping faucet
Whisper 1.5 m away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE
10
0 THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING

Sources: World Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body,
J
Encyclopedia Americana, "Industrial Noise and Hearing
Conversation" by J. B. Olishifski and E. R. Harford
(Researched by N. Jane Hunt and published in the Chicago
Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz.)

rt
} TABLE N2
q?
NOISE ABAMENT CRITERIA
_ Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
i
Activity
Category Leq(h) Description of Activity Category
A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public
(Exterior) need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to
serve its intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels,
(Exterior) hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B above.
.(Exterior)
0 -- Undeveloped lands
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and
(Interior) auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration
DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
Hourly A-weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
1
1
Existing Noise Level Increase in dBA from Existing Noise
in Leq(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
1
< 50 > 15
> 50 > 10
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Guidelines.
V
i
j
t
F
(
TABLE N3
r
FEWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY y
i NC 179, From SR 1145 to US-17 Business, Brunswick County
TIP # R-3106D State Project # 6.231018
Maximum Predicted Contour
Leq Noise Levels Distances
dBA (Maximum)
Description 15 m 30 m 60 m 72 dBA 67 dBA
1. From Beginning to Brierwood Road 69 64 59 <ll.lm 23.4m
2. From Brierwood Road to SR 1234 69 65 59 <ll.lm 25.1m
3. From SR 1234 to SR 1173 72 67 62 17.Om 35.1m
4. From SR 1173 to End of Project 68 64 58 <11.1m 21.3m
TOTALS
NOTES - 1. 15m, 30m, and 60m distances are measured from center of nearest travel lane.
2. 72 dBA and 67. dBA contour distances are measured from center of proposed roadway
TABLE N4
TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUMMARY
NC 179, From SR 1145 to US-17 Business, Brunswick County
TIP # R-3106D State Project # 6.231018
Approximate Number of Impacted
Receptors According to
Title 23 CFR Part 772
A B C D E
0 0 0 0 0
0 4 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 5 0 0 0
RECEPTOR EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Substantial Impacts Due
Noise Revel to Both
<.0 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-2¢ >- 25 Increases(1) Criteria(2)
Section

1. Beginning to Brierwood Rd 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
t
2.'Brierwood Road to SR 1234 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
A
?
3. SR 1234 to SR 1173 0 0 2
0 0
0
0
0
0
4. SR 1173 to End of Project 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTALS 0 35 6 0 0 0 0 0 0
(1) As defined by only a substantial increase (See bo ttom of Table N2).
(2) As defined by both criteria in Table N2
F.
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
i
TRANSMITTAL'SLIP ?ATgE
TO: NO. OR
ROOOM, BLDG..
REF.
G / 1IA N
)
J?
FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
P ?C e? P?
ACTION
?. NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTEAND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MOREDETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
?NOTEAND SEE ME ABOUTTHIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY--SIGNATURE ? .SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

-; SEP 1
WETLAN
WATER UA 1994 r
DS GROUP
LITY SECTION
?.
?..
.? :,
_ ?,
,?
9 d.w°?o
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
September 14, 1994
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branc
SUBJECT: NC 179, from south of the Shallotte City Limits to US 17
Business, Brunswick County, State Project No. 6.231018,
TIP No. R-3106D
The Planning and Environmental Branch of the Division of Highways has
begun studying the proposed improvements to NC 179. The project is included
in the 1995-2001 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program and is
scheduled for right of way in fiscal year 1996 and construction in fiscal
year 1997.
The project calls for widening a 1.9 kilometer (1.2 mile) section of
NC 179 from two lanes to a three-lane curb and gutter facility. The project
is shown on the attached vicinity map.
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful
in evaluating potential environmental impacts of the project. If applicable,
please identify any permits or approvals which may be required by your
agency. Your comments will be used in the preparation of a State funded
Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact. This document
will be prepared in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act. It
is desirable that your agency respond by December 12, 1994 so that your
comments can be used in the preparation of this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Eddie
Keith, Project Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone].
HFV/plr
Attachment

a
v.
i
N
1346-
.6;
1335 BRUNSWICK
COUNTY
FAS
PROJECT 1345
LIMIT
1348 13571
?..
t
`r ? 1358;::• 1363 Al
F130 ti= :..::::ii.• FPS 1136
C9 -
•9
9 fqS 1180
1
PROJECT Iv3 120
r 13 LIMIT
'? ?n=.`•::: „ ? 1134 130
8 FP I:. b
t 1.8 .9 1 6 g' .179 1800
1318 1191 r
1319 S
U 1842 •3
17 Bustn ..... r?:.. S 6S O
1135
1153 RIVER ;?., ? ? `ShaJlotte i?,vv•?'"'Sa ^'
o Co
?P?? POP.
q 680
)TTS.
1145 1146 1191
N
1153 1154 .4 1207 ) 1146
1147 •o
1151 8 1145
?; ° Shell
1184 W Point
z
Q
Ocean Isle Beach 179 Bowen
Airport Brick ° Point
Landing t,...
Gause
2.7 Landing FPS NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
?: ' y ..• DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRON?IEiv-FAL
•••••Jr BRANCH
NC 179
•• •,•,.j [i FROM SOUTH OF THE
904 OC N ISLE BEACH .; SHALLOTTECITY LIMITS
a. 2
?-- " - POP. 143- TO US 17 BUSINESS
ti
Y - BRUNSWICK COUNTY
3106 D
E
?., T 7 0 -miles _2
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DATE
TRANSMITTAL SLIP
o- 9
?
.
T
p7
1 REF. NO. OR ROOM, LDG.
/
J/
?/
?7
/
1 L t?C (V
V11f1 4-?`?'1??
FROM
4J;t REF. O OR ROOM, SLOG.
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YO 'REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? F OUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
ao
4ao
STATE a
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
January 7, 1994
A 'MEMORANDUM TO: Scoping Meeting Participants W?S? ySEU ?°
wpT?R 13
FROM: Eddie Keith
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: NC 179 from SR 1163 to US 17 Business in Shallotte,
Brunswick County, State Project No. 6.231018, TIP
No. R-3106
A scoping meeting was held on 12-9-93 for the subject project. The
following individuals attended the meeting:
Eric Galamb HM
Jerri Parker Traffic Control
Betty Yancey Right of Way
J. A. West Right of Way
Mike Dixon Roadway Design
John Maddox Roadway Design
Ray Moore Structure Design
Abdul Rahmani Hydraulics
Jerry Snead Hydraulics
Joe Blair Division 3
Ed Rutherford Division 3
Melba McGee EHNR-Policy Division.
Robin Stancil OCR-SHPO
Keith Johnston Photogrammetry
Barry Shapiro Signals and Geometrics
Laura Rice Statewide Planning
Darin Wilder Program Development
Linwood Stone Planning and Environmental
Mark Reep Planning and Environmental
Eddie Keith Planning and Environmental
The meeting began with a brief overview of the project. The project
calls for two-lane improvements to existing NC 179 and widening to three
lanes along other sections of NC 179. The two lane improvements to NC 179
will be performed as a Division Design Construct (DDC) project. NCDOT claims
approximately 60 feet of right of way along the project corridor.

January 7, 1994
Page 2
Several design issues were addressed during the meeting. Mike Dixon,
from Roadway Design, commented that the stop condition for NC 179 at the
intersection of SR 1173 in Shallotte may be reconfigured depending on traffic
volumes and movements. Joe Blair, Division Construction Engineer, indicated
that the Division intends to widen existing NC 179 to 28 feet in all of the
areas where two-lane improvements are proposed. Mr. Blair also indicated
that this 28-foot section will be reduced, if necessary, to avoid wetlands.
It was also determined that NC 179 will be widened symmetrically to a
three-lane curb and gutter section between NC 904 and SR 1184 and between the
Shallotte city limits and US 17 Business in Shallotte. The Division 3 office
proposes to improve the curve at Bonaparte Landing, involving some new
location. The curve realignment will involve a vacant lot that is adjacent
to the existing curve at Bonaparte Landing.
Both the Hydraulics and Structure Design units mentioned the poor
sufficiency rating (a rating of 11 out of a possible 100) of Bridge 72 over
Saucepan Creek. This bridge is not included in the bridge replacement
program. There was some question about the accuracy of the sufficiency
rating of the bridge. Hydraulics indicated that they would check this
sufficiency rating and determine if it is accurate.
Prior to the scoping Meeting, Tom Norman, from the Bicycle Program,
commented on the proposed shoulder widths on the sections of NC 179 where two
lane improvements are proposed. He indicated that the Bicycle Program would
prefer that four-foot paved shoulders be provided in these areas because
NC 179 is designated as a bicycle route. It was determined at the scoping
meeting that the shoulder widths will-be based on traffic volumes in
accordance with the NCDOT paved shoulder policy.
Eric Galamb, from the Department of Environmental Management (DEM),
commented on environmental issues to be considered during the project
development. Mr. Galamb explained that wetland locations need to be
determined and avoided if possible. He indicated that it may be better to
widen entirely on one side or the other of existing NC 179 in order to avoid
wetland impacts. Mr. Galamb also provided the classifications of the stream
crossings and high quality water locations along the project corridor.
Melba McGee, from the Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources (DEHNR), provided information about marine fishery locations in the
project area. Coordination with the Division of Marine of Fisheries will be
necessary in these areas.
Robin Stancil, from the Department of Cultural Resources, commented on
the cultural resources within the project area. Ms. Stancil recommended that
an archaeological survey for the project area should be performed.
Ms. Stancil indicated that there are no National Register or State Study List
properties in the project area. She commented that two architectural sites
along the project corridor, the Shallotte School Sunny Side 1915 and the
St. Mark Revival Temple Church should be further investigated.
January 7, 1994
Page 3
The two-lane improvements are scheduled for construction in fiscal year
1995 (FY 95). The three lane improvements are scheduled for right of way
acquisition in FY 96 and for construction in FY 97. John Maddox, from
Roadway Design, indicated that functional designs and cost estimates would be
provided by April 25, 1994.
SEK/plr
Attachment

mm
z O
-4 <
O m
m
_ x
m
Z
N` O
' Z {A
`dx'I?k'yLE i ? ?
-C
HAD INLET
? - 1
C
o 3 •••.:I
O-)
orrf'? t ?.
1

O

ULLora ISLET
?y
n

tD
ao ZZ-i z
Z-1
oz a)=
Z w = z O 0
o N >
O oZ a 0
0 z
C ?
x W n N- m O z
i Z
J
m
a) 0 n y m
C z
N z co r
m
? i z
z n -+
N O
= m
m O
m
s
KWOOD FOLLY /NGLh•
O
`J
i
1
,
?I
-0
S
O
i0?

•
-to
78"75'
ter-- ? _
4
c
U

{

9
1

N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP D TE
`/ L3-93
T'
O
tic. REF. NO. OR ROOM. BL G
.
- N
REF. NO. OR ROOM. BLD

ACTION
NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FO OUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
r\

o
r F'f
30?
`t STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA LW:K
EPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT', J ? DMSION OF HIGHWAYS
OVE Y P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
November 23, 1993
Ay
l Ac MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb

DEM - DEHNR, 60 Floor
FROM:
SUBJECT:
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch

Review of Scoping Sheet for NC 179 from SR 1163 to the
Shallotte City Limits, Brunswick County, State Project
No. 6.231018, TIP No. R-3106
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 December 9, 1993 at 2:00 P. M. in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 470). 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 p
If there are any questions about the meeting
call Eddie Keith, Projec Planning Engineer,
?m 4t. v1?r? 1 ?41? 1 -Sus - ?
EK1 rI ?j
Attachment
-?u - 0

rl
OV3
art of our planning process.
or the scoping sheets, please
at 733-7842. UJ?
1C-L5
15 - IS 423(
IJ 25 7 ? ?, ?
L
15-75

R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
-P)
vd, <, 6 / ?-%
Not
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET (R-3106)
t
Date November 23, 1993
Revision Date Project
Development Stage Programming
Planning 1993
Design
TIP # R-3106
Project # 6.231018
F.A. Project #
Division
County Brunswick
Route NC 179
Functional Classification
Major Collector
Length 14.1 miles
Purpose of Project:
Provide additional.lanes to existing NC 179 in some locations and
two lane improvements along other sections of the project in order to
serve current and future traffic volumes and improve safety.
Description of project (including specific limits) and major elements
of work:
Improve existing NC 179 from SR 1163 to US 17 Business in Shallote.
The recommended improvements are as follows:
From SR 1163 to SR 1172
Widen existing pavement to 28 feet
From SR 11.72 to NC 904
Resurface existing roadway and add four foot paved shoulders
From NC 904 to SR 1184
Widen to a three lane section (44-feet face to face)
From SR 1184 to the Shallotte city limits
Widen existing pavement-kto 28 feet
Page 1
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET (R-3106)
From the Shallotte city limits to US 111. Business in Shallote
Widen to a three lane section (44-feet fa.ce'to face)
Type of environmental document to be prepared: State Environmental
Assessment(EA) followed by a Finding of No Significant Impact(FONSI)
Type of Funding: State /
Will there be special funding participation by municipality,
developers, or other? Yes No x
If yes, by whom and amount: ($)_ , or _ O
How and-when will this be paid? N/A
Type of Facility: Major Collector
Type of Access Control: Full Partial None X
Type of Roadway:
4
2-lane section from S1N 1163 to SR 1172, from SR 1172 to NC 904. and
from SR 1184 to the Shallotte city limits
k
3-lane curb and gutter section from NC_'. 904 to SR 134 and from the
Shallotte city limits to US 11, Business in Shallotte
Interchanges Grade Separations Stream Crossings 2
Typical Section of Roadway:
The proposed cross section will provide a. three lane curb section that
is 44-feet face to face and a two lane section that consists of 28-feet
of pavement including paved shoulders.
Traffic: Current An average of 6500 vpd along the entire project
Design Year
% Trucks
Design Standards Applicable: AASHTO - Y _
Design Speed: Variable 50-60 i,,iPH
Preliminary Resurfacing Design:
Preliminary Pavement Design:
3R
Page 2
PROJECT SCOP.ING SHEET (R-3106)
Current Cost Estimate:
Construction Cost (including engineering
and contingencies). . . . . . . . . .
Right of Way Cost (including rel., util.,
and acquisition) . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Force Account Items. . . . . . . . . . .
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . . . . .
Total Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TIP Cost Estimate:
Prior Years . . . .
Construction . . . .
Right of Way . . . . .
Tntnl Onct
$ 4,750,000
$ 5,000,000
$ 9,750,000
List any special features, such as railroad involvement, which could
affect cost or schedule of project:

ITEMS REQUIRED ( ) COMMENTS e-
COST
Estimated Costs of Improvements:
Pavement
X Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,689,400
X Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 76,800
Milling & Recycling . . . . . . . $
Turnouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ _
Shoulders: X Paved. . . . . . . . . . . . $ 20,050
_ Earth. . . . . . . . . . . . $
X Earthwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 652,200
Subsurface Items: . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
X Subgrade and Stabilization. . . . . . . . . $ 192,150
X Drainage (List any special items) . . . . . $ 1,185,000
Sub-Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Structures: Width x Length
Bridge Rehabilitation x _ $
New Bridge x $
Widen Bridge x $
Remove Bridge x $
New Culverts: Size Length . . . .$
Fill Ht.
Culvert Extensi..on . . . . . . . . . . $
Retaining Walls:.Type _- Ave. Ht. _ $ _
Skew
$
$

t
Page 3

PROJECT SCOPING SHEET (R-3106)
E
Noise Walls . . . . . . $
Any Other Misc. Structures. . . . . . $.
X Concrete Curb & Gutter. . . . . . . . .'. . $ 329,600
Concrete Sidewalk . . . . . . . . . . . $
X Guardrail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 12,800
Fencing: W.W. and/or C.L. . . $
X Erosion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 116,700
Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Lighting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
X Traffic Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 237,200
Signing: New. . . . . . . . . . . . $
Upgrading. . . . . . . . . . . $
Traffic Signals: New . . . . . . . . . $
X Revised . . . . . . . $ 20,000
RR Signals: New . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Revised . . . . . . . . . . $
With or Without Arms. . . . $ _
If 3R: Drainage Safety Enhancement. $ _
Roadside Safety Enhancement. $
Realignment for Safety.Upgrade $
X Pavement Markings: Paint Thermo X $ 148,800
Markers X
Delineators $ _
X Other Clearing, Grubbint„ Mobilization $ 1,532,300
CONTRACT COST (Subtotal): $ 6,213,000
Contingencies & Engineering . . . . . . . . . . $ 58%,000
PE Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Force Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ _
Subtotal: $ 6,800,000
_ Right of Way:
Will Contain within Exist Right of Way: Yes No X
Existing Right of Way Width:
New Right of Way Needed: Width Est. Cost $
Easements: Type Width Est. Cost $
Utilities: $
Right of Way Subtotal: $
Total Estimated Cost $
(Includes R/W)
Prepared By: Eddie Keith Date: November 23, 1993
Page 4

PROJECT SCOPING SHEET (R-3106)
The above scoping has been reviewed and approved* by:
Highway Design
Roadway
Structure
Design Services
Geotechnical
Hydraulics
Loc. & Surveys
Photogrammetry
Prel. Est. Engr.
Planning & Research
Right of Way
R/W Utilities
Traffic Engineering
Project Management
County Manager
City/Municipality
Others
INIT. DATE
Board of Tran. Member
Manager, Program and
Policy Branch
Asst. Highway Admin.
Secondary Roads Off.
Construction Branch
Landscape
Maintenance Branch
Bridge Maintenance
Chief Engineer
Division Engineer
Bicycle Coordinator
DEHNR
INIT. DATE
Scoping Sheets for local officials will be sent to Division Engineer
for handling.
Comments or Remarks:
*If you are not -in agreement with proposed project or scoping, note
your proposed revisions in Comments or Remarks Section and initial and
date after comments.
Page 5
i
a i
Ri 70 ?; p O -
z o
-,
n
O m
Y? X a `/f u v / 3 tot
.0 0
m z ? '? o,
L7 `%
Z ? ? I,,/fJyff ,. //i JOV •'G F/ V
D / o
co Q ?e ss wv V toss %4 \' \ N
.. 1 ?\ ? tt a -?,•\ ; \`- " ? l J•o \•\ ? '?
'P/p 78,33,
t
\ O o t?C ?-I,p, yE•ip ?,
AMD INLET ` Je ? `;•. ?
1 y b
42
Y, .
0 f-t
C a s? ,, 9 w
o x q 7.7-.1 S ? 6 y S. S• 1
' ? it SV/ P? 9t
v = 3
0 0
t
n r e? y ?.. s? t
r a .1 Q V
o ?
o e'
1 ? C J ' C
Vl t ? I,I
0 ! ? G
)'1'21• '.•? Ca `
00
s ?
I : i L J 1 ?_` j?
_ ? - -.-' ? _ :a `fi?t. • ? \ ::' - ?I
7.
? l M
c
I li N G `
.1 I
J
. 1- yAy
x 1' y ? - S ° 3
O S -
tip I• tt CF }
V" I ? ?'• d o ? u ^5\ C
y i. 1 .
100
"4 100
O ; XK'OOD"OLL •:::t a 1` ;, _ F •?
MAY
O
U1 r1a I;. .!?. ? ?r?
_ o
O z m -j 37 I- \ \ ?
c
X W n N j mpn
n -d - m C.,
37 \" ` ?a w
VI C m 0 l I ly 1 L+ `4 ) L I'Y N
Z
c
_ z
Z n "1 l 1? ?'? °as `MN °
r p ' I o?..??y 2? b
1v r S - r I=
J C \'\
m agj. 1 8 -Lt
-------------
gg h ??
1

1-
G
ra - ,
October 19, 1994
TO: Melba McGee, Legislative Affairs
FROM: Monica Swihart, Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #95-0187; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Proposed Improvements to NC 179, TIP No. R-3106D
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project.
The stream classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated,
it is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be
revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary)
to be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested
from DEM.
t -
Melba McGee
October 19, 1994
Page 2
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same
watershed is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Please note that a 401 Water Quality Certification cannot be
issued until the conditions of NCAC 15A: 01C.0402 (Limitations on
Actions During NCEPA Process) are met. This regulation prevents
DEM from issuing the 401 Certification until a FONSI or Record of
Decision (ROD) has been issued by the Department requiring the
document. If the 401 Certification application is submitted for
review prior to issuance of the FONSI or ROD, it is recommended
that the applicant state that the 401 will not be issued until
the applicant informs DEM that the FONSI or ROD has been signed
by the Department.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may
be required for this project. Applications requesting coverage
under our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will
require written concurrence. Please be aware that 401
Certification may be denied if wetland impacts have not been
avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
10747er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb