20120935 All Versions_Complete File_20070404

R-3432, Georgetown Road Extension
Project History (Rev 4/4/07)
3/10/05 Merger Meeting - Concurrence Point 1
Did not reach concurrence
10/20/05 Updated traffic forecast is completed
Shows additional traffic on proposed Georgetown Rd Extension
11/3/05 Meeting with Nick Garrett (developer)
• Gave land to adjacent developer for driveway permit
• Requesting driveway permit with NCDOT
3/29/06 Meeting with Developers
• Want NCDOT to move alignment farther north
9/18/06 Meeting with New Developers
7/17/06 Last of wetlands are delineated
• USACE has not been allowed to verify
1/07 Last revisions to design to avoid wetlands
• Alternatives 1, 2, 2A, and 3
3/14/07 Conversation with USACE - Jennifer Frye
• Is in agreement with taking project out of merger
4/4/07 Meeting with DWQ and FHWA
;? ? i ??
!?
i
? 1!
?
G ,
E

A r STAB
t? s
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
March 22, 2005
To:
From:
Subject:
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
R-3432 Merger Team Meeting Participants
Project Development Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Michael Goins 11?
March 10, 2005 NEPA1404 Merger Meeting for
TIP Project R-3432 in Brunswick County
A concurrence meeting was held for the subject project on March 10, 2005 at 3:00
p.m. in the Transportation Board Room. The following persons were in attendance:
Dave Timpy
Gary Jordan
Chris Militscher
Ron Lucas
Sarah McBride
Nicole Thomson
Steve Sollod
Don Eggert
Ron Allen
Brenda Moore
Darius Sturdivant
Tyler Bray
Regina Page
Erin Hendee
Allen Pope
Joe Blair
Tyler Stanton
Tim Gardiner
Rob Hanson
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS.
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
US Army Corps of Engineers
US Fish and Wildlife Service
US Environmental Protection Agency - Raleigh
Federal Highway Administration - Raleigh
State Historic Preservation Office
NC Division of Water Quality
NC Division of Coastal Management
Cape Fear RPO
NCDOT - Roadway Design
NCDOT - Roadway Design
NCDOT - Transportation Planning
NCDOT - Transportation Planning
NCDOT - Congestion Management
NCDOT - Congestion Management
NCDOT Division 3 Division Engineer
NCDOT Division 3 Construction Engineer
NCDOT - ONE
NCDOT-OHE
NCDOT - PDEA
TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
WEBSITE: M M.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC

Charles Cox NCDOT -PDEA
Michael Goins NCDOT - PDEA
Travis Nilson (NC Wildlife Resources Commission), Ron Sechler (National
Marine Fisheries Service) and Fritz Rohde (DENR Division of Marine Fisheries) were
invited to the meeting but were unable to attend.
The meeting was opened and everyone introduced himself or herself.
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss Concurrence Point 1, the purpose and
need for TIP Project R-3432. This project is included in the 2004-2010 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP). Right of way acquisition is scheduled for fiscal year '009
and construction is scheduled for Post Years.
Mr. Goins stated the purpose of the project, as listed in the merger packet dated
3/10/05, is to alleviate traffic congestion along NC 179, improve safety along NC 179,
and establish a more direct travel route between the towns of Shallotte and Calabash.
Mr. Goins presented the following needs to be addressed by the project:
Capacity Deficiencies
? NC 179 is a two to three lane facility. It was originally intended as a commuter route
between Shallote, Ocean Isle Beach, Sunset Beach, and Calabash.
? Ocean Isle Beach and Sunset Beach have become vacation destinations resulting in
heavy commercial development along NC 179 (See Figures 1 and 2)
? Current traffic volumes (2004) in the project area range from 8,900 to 14,000 vehicles
per day (vpd)
? Future traffic volumes (2030) in the project area range from 13,000 to 27,100 (vpd)
? Traffic volumes generated by local residents and tourists create frequent periods of
traffic congestion, especially during vacation season (See Table 1 and Appendix 2)
System Linkage
? Traveling from Calabash to Shallotte along NC 179 currently involves many
intersections and turns.
? US 17 and NC 179 provide east/west access to the area between Calabash and
Shallotte, which includes Ocean Isle Beach. NC 179 was originally intended as a
commuter route between Shallote, Ocean Isle Beach, Sunset Beach, and Calabash.
Existing NC 179 proceeds east from Calabash toward Shallotte until the intersection of
NC 904. Then, NC 179 proceeds south and east to Brick Landing Road and then to US
17 (see Appendix 1).
Safe
Safety concerns exist along existing NC 179, especially at the curved intersection of
Brick Landing Rd. (see Appendix 2, Intersection 45). This is a 90 degree turn.
Safety concerns also exist at acute intersection along existing NC 179 at Hale Swamp
Rd. (see Appendix 2, Intersection 96)
NCDOT Division 3 has made temporary efforts to improve curves at Brick Landing
Rd. and Hale Swamp Rd. However, more permanent solutions are needed.
General Discussion
Mr. Goins stated that US 17 and NC 179 serve as hurricane evacuation routes.
Questions arose as to what other routes are designated as hurricane evacuation routes.
NC 130, NC 904, NC 179 and US 17 are designated as hurricane evacuation routes.
Mr. Militscher asked if the traffic numbers were peak numbers. He asked
what were the normal hour factors. Mr. Cox and Mr. Hanson stated that the projections
are annual average daily traffic and that seasonal volumes would be even higher. Mr.
Cox stated that seasonal traffic projections have been requested.
Mrs. McBride asked how the information for traffic projections is obtained. Mr.
Sturdivant stated that it could be a combination of ways: count stations, daily counts, and
historical data. All data is combined and used to determine traffic projection numbers.
Mr. Timpy asked about Old Georgetown Rd. and Beach Dr. Level of Service (LOS).
Mr. Cox stated that Old Georgetown Rd. has a LOS of B (2004) and C (2030). Beach Dr.
has'a LOS of D (2004) and F (2030). Mr. Cox stated that the intersection LOS shown in
the packet represents the worse case for all movements.
Mrs. Thomson asked how many intersections are signalized. Mr. Goins
stated there were three signals. Mrs. Thomson asked if the LOS throughout the project
area could be improved through additional signalization or some other measures besides
new location.
Mr. Goins stated that recommendations are to redesignate Old Georgetown Rd,
including Old Georgetown Rd. extension, as NC 179 once project is complete. Mr. Pope
stated that he had questions about the accuracy of the traffic projections if NC 179 was
moved onto Old Georgetown Rd. extension. Mr. Pope wondered if the traffic projections
might be higher once Old Georgetown Rd. extension is redesignated.
Mr. Timpy asked about access control on Old Georgetown Rd. Mr. Pope stated that
there was no access control currently on Old Georgetown Rd., but access control
measures would be implemented for the new project. Mr. Eggert added that Beach Rd.
was developed before any access measures was put into place.
Mr. Timpy stated that the curve at Brick Landing Rd. and Beach Dr. is very
dangerous, especially during vacation season. Safe speed goes from 50mph to about
20mph in a matter of feet at the curve.
Mrs. Thomson asked if we could look at improving intersections along existing NC
179 instead of building a new road. She stated that, according to projections, AADT on
Beach Dr. changes from 27,100 vpd (without project) to 21,800 (vpd) (with project). In
her opinion, that is not a justification for a new road.
Mr. Militscher stated that we need to look at why there is a need to go from Calabash
to Shallotte. We already have a connector, US 17. He also stated that we need to find
out if Beach Dr. is going to fail with the project and is there a connection between
Calabash and Shallotte?
Mr. Cox stated that we are dealing with local traffic on a downtown business district.
In his opinion, traffic would be alleviated along NC 179 with an alternative route. Mrs.
Thomson stated that she did not believe that traffic management was enough to justify a
new location project.
Mr. Militscher stated that he would like to see accident data to justify a safety need
and that a new location project would not help the troublesome intersections along
existing NC 179. Mr. Cox stated that with the new location, one of the troublesome
intersections (Hale Swamp Rd. and Brick Landing Rd.) would be realigned. Also, traffic
would be eased along existing NC 179 with a new location, thus helping to reduce the
possibility of accidents at Beach Dr. and Brick Landing Rd.
Mrs. Thomson wondered if the safety issues could be addressed by small projects
instead of a merger project.
Mr. Eggert stated that the area was growing quickly. The county is putting in a sewer
system in the project area. A lot of commerce is generated due to new businesses in the
area.
Mr. Timpy stated that it might be possible to only need a nationwide permit to build
the project and in that event, the project would be kicked out of the merger process. Mr.
Sollod and Mr. Militscher questioned whether, in the event the project is kicked out of
the merger process, the purpose of the project would be served.
Mr. Hanson stated that from what he was hearing, the project was not going to get
concurrence today. So, it would be more productive to allow each person an opportunity
to request information they would like to see at the next meeting. The following list
represents the requests of the participants:
S- Expanded study area to include Calabash, Shallotte, and US 17
Safety data
Better traffic data, seasonal traffic data
? If project is built, will the traffic problem get better or worse
? Ensure traffic data incorporates future development
r 2030 LOS with the project
Ensure troublesome intersections are addressed, possibly spelled out in purpose
and need
Decisions: Concurrence was not reached. It was agreed that new information was
needed and the meeting was adjourned.
MG/mg
R-3432,Georgetown Road Extension
Project History (Rev 4/4/07)
3/10/05 Merger Meeting - Concurrence Point 1
Y Did not reach concurrence
10/20/05 Updated traffic forecast is completed
9 Shows additional traffic on proposed Georgetown Rd Extension
11/3/05 Meeting with Nick Garrett (developer)
Gave land to adjacent developer for driveway permit
® Requesting driveway permit with NCDOT
3/29/06 Meeting with Developers
Y Want NCDOT to move alignment farther north
9/18/06 Meeting with New Developers
7/17/06 Last of wetlands are delineated
• USACE has not been allowed to verify
1/07 Last revisions to design to avoid wetlands
0 Alternatives 1, 2, 2A, and 3
3/14/07 Conversation with USACE - Jennifer Frye
Y Is in agreement with taking project out of merger
4/4/07 Meeting with DWQ and FHWA
f 'p `? ?`'
I II I III ! II',
J?JT??.??-yn ,YY?
I? jV S
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
To:
From:
Subject:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
March 22, 2005
R-3432 Merger Team Meeting Participants
Michael Goins I)Ae
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Project Development Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
March 10, 2005 NEPA/404 Merger Meeting for
TIP Project R-3432 in Brunswick County
A concurrence meeting was held for the subject project on March 10, 2005 at 3:00
p.m. in the Transportation Board Room. The following persons were in attendance:
Dave Timpy
Gary Jordan
Chris Militscher
Ron Lucas
Sarah McBride
Nicole Thomson
Steve Sollod
Don Eggert
Ron Allen
Brenda Moore
Darius Sturdivant
Tyler Bray
Regina Page
Erin Hendee
Allen Pope
Joe Blair
Tyler Stanton
Tim Gardiner
Rob Hanson
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS .
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 276 9 9-1 54 8
US Army Corps of Engineers
US Fish and Wildlife Service
US Environmental Protection Agency - Raleigh
Federal Highway Administration - Raleigh
State Historic Preservation Office
NC Division of Water Quality
NC Division of Coastal Management
Cape Fear RPO
NCDOT - Roadway Design
NCDOT - Roadway Design
NCDOT - Transportation Planning
NCDOT - Transportation Planning
NCDOT - Congestion Management
NCDOT - Congestion Management
NCDOT Division 3 Division Engineer
NCDOT Division 3 Construction Engineer
NCDOT - ONE
NCDOT-OHE
NCDOT - PDEA
TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
0
Charles Cox NCDOT -PDEA
Michael Goins NCDOT - PDEA
Travis Nilson (NC Wildlife Resources Commission), Ron Sechler (National
Marine Fisheries Service) and Fritz Rohde (DENR Division of Marine Fisheries) were
invited to the meeting but were unable to attend.
The meeting was opened and everyone introduced himself or herself.
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss Concurrence Point 1, the purpose and
need for TIP Project R-3432. This project is included in the 2004-2010 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP). Right of way acquisition is scheduled for fiscal year 2009
and construction is scheduled for Post Years.
Mr. Goins stated the purpose of the project, as listed in the merger packet dated
3/10/05, is to alleviate traffic congestion along NC 179, improve safety along NC 179,
and establish a more direct travel route between the towns of Shallotte and Calabash.
Mr. Goins presented the following needs to be addressed by the project:
Capacity Deficiencies
? NC 179 is a two to three lane facility. It was originally intended as a commuter route
between Shallote, Ocean Isle Beach, Sunset Beach, and Calabash.
? Ocean Isle Beach and Sunset Beach have become vacation destinations resulting in
heavy commercial development along NC 179 (See Figures 1 and 2)
? Current traffic volumes (2004) in the project area range from 8,900 to 14,000 vehicles
per day (vpd)
? Future traffic volumes (2030) in the project area range from 13,000 to 27,100 (vpd)
? Traffic volumes generated by local residents and tourists create frequent periods of
traffic congestion, especially during vacation season (See Table 1 and Appendix 2)
System Linkage
? Traveling from Calabash to Shallotte along NC 179 currently involves many
intersections and turns.
? US 17 and NC 179 provide east/west access to the area between Calabash and
Shallotte, which includes Ocean Isle Beach. NC 179 was originally intended as a
commuter route between Shallote, Ocean Isle Beach, Sunset Beach, and Calabash.
Existing NC 179 proceeds east from Calabash toward Shallotte until the intersection of
NC 904. Then, NC 179 proceeds south and east to Brick Landing Road and then to US
17 (see Appendix 1).
Safety
Safety concerns exist along existing NC 179, especially at the curved intersection of
Brick Landing Rd. (see Appendix 2, Intersection 95). This is a 90 degree turn.
Safety concerns also exist at acute intersection along existing NC 179 at Hale Swamp
Rd. (see Appendix 2, Intersection 96)
NCDOT Division 3 has made temporary efforts to improve curves at Brick Landing
Rd. and Hale Swamp Rd. However, more permanent solutions are needed.
General Discussion
Mr. Goins stated that US 17 and NC 179 serve as hurricane evacuation routes.
Questions arose as to what other routes are designated as hurricane evacuation routes.
NC 130, NC 904, NC 179 and US 17 are designated as hurricane evacuation routes.
Mr. Militscher asked if the traffic numbers were peak numbers. He asked
what were the normal hour factors. Mr. Cox and Mr. Hanson stated that the projections
are annual average daily traffic and that seasonal volumes would be even higher. Mr.
Cox stated that seasonal traffic projections have been requested.
Mrs. McBride asked how the information for traffic projections is obtained. Mr.
Sturdivant stated that it could be a combination of ways: count stations, daily counts, and
historical data. All data is combined and used to determine traffic projection numbers.
Mr. Timpy asked about Old Georgetown Rd. and Beach Dr. Level of Service (LOS).
Mr. Cox stated that Old Georgetown Rd. has a LOS of B (2004) and C (2030). Beach Dr.
has'a LOS of D (2004) and F (2030). Mr. Cox stated that the intersection LOS shown in
the packet represents the worse case for all movements.
Mrs. Thomson asked how many intersections are signalized. Mr. Goins
stated there were three signals. Mrs. Thomson asked if the LOS throughout the project
area could be improved through additional signalization or some other measures besides
new location.
Mr. Goins stated that recommendations are to redesignate Old Georgetown Rd,
including Old Georgetown Rd. extension, as NC 179 once project is complete. Mr. Pope
stated that he had questions about the accuracy of the traffic projections if NC 179 was
moved onto Old Georgetown Rd. extension. Mr. Pope wondered if the traffic projections
might be higher once Old Georgetown Rd. extension is redesignated.
Mr. Timpy asked about access control on Old Georgetown Rd. Mr. Pope stated that
there was no access control currently on Old Georgetown Rd., but access control
measures would be implemented for the new project. Mr. Eggert added that Beach Rd.
was developed before any access measures was put into place.
Mr. Timpy stated that the curve at Brick Landing Rd. and Beach Dr. is very
dangerous, especially during ?, acation season. Safe speed goes from 50mph to about
20mph in a matter of feet at the curve.
Mrs. Thomson asked if we could look at improving intersections along existing NC
179 instead of building a new road. She stated that, according to projections, AADT on
Beach Dr. changes from 27,100 vpd (without project) to 21,800 (vpd) (with project). In
her opinion, that is not a justification for a new road.
Mr. Militscher stated that we need to look at why there is a need to go from Calabash
to Shallotte. We already have a connector, US 17. He also stated that we need to find
out if Beach Dr. is going to fail with the project and is there a connection between
Calabash and Shallotte?
Mr. Cox stated that we are dealing with local traffic on a downtown business district.
In his opinion, traffic would be alleviated along NC 179 with an alternative route. Mrs.
Thomson stated that she did not believe that traffic management was enough to justify a
new location project.
Mr. Militscher stated that he would like to see accident data to justify a safety need
and that a new location project would not help the troublesome intersections along
existing NC 179. Mr. Cox stated that with the new location, one of the troublesome
intersections (Hale Swamp Rd. and Brick Landing Rd.) would be realigned. Also, traffic
would be eased along existing NC 179 with a new location, thus helping to reduce the
possibility of accidents at Beach Dr. and Brick Landing Rd.
Mrs. Thomson wondered if the safety issues could be addressed by small projects
instead of a merger project.
Mr. Eggert stated that the area was growing quickly. The county is putting in a sewer
system in the project area. A lot of commerce is generated due to new businesses in the
area.
Mr. Timpy stated that it might be possible to only need a nationwide permit to build
the project and in that event, the project would be kicked out of the merger process. Mr.
Sollod and Mr. Militscher questioned whether, in the event the project is kicked out of
the merger process, the purpose of the project would be served.
Mr. Hanson stated that from what he was hearing, the project was not going to get
concurrence today. So, it would be more productive to allow each person an opportunity
to request information they would like to see at the next meeting. The following list
represents the requests of the participants:
S- Expanded study area to include Calabash, Shallotte, and US 17
7 Safety data
Better traffic data, seasonal traffic data
o If project is built, will the traffic problem get better or worse
Ensure traffic data incorporates future development
? 2030 LOS with the project
? Ensure troublesome intersections are addressed, possibly spelled out in purpose
and need
Decisions: Concurrence was not reached. It was agreed that new information was
needed and the meeting was adjourned.
MG/mg
R-3432, Georgetown Road Extension, Brunswick County
Subject: R-3432, Georgetown Road Extension, Brunswick County
From: Charles Cox <ccox a;dot.state.nc.us>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 08:44:05 -0400
To: DWQ-Wainwright <David.Wainwright ai;ncmail.nct>
CC: FH WA-Lucas-Ron <ron.lucas a?(hwa.dot.gov>
David: this to confirm our meeting on April 4 at 10:00 at your
office. I grant to tall: about taking this project out of the
merger process. I'll bring mapping showing our latest design and
wetland delineations.
You can reach me at 733-7844 x 301 if you can't make this
meeting.
Ron: I will need to meet with you also on this issue. if you
can meet us, let me know and you can ride over with me.
Thanks,
Charles Cox
Charles Cox <ccox(ti%dot.state. ne.us>
Project Development Unit Dead
Project Development & Environmental Analysis

I?
1 of 1 4/3/2007 1:51 PM
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
Project Number: 06-0380 County: Brunswick
Due Date: 07/24/2006
Date Received: 06/30/2006
Project Description: Proposal to construct a two-lane facility extending SR-3163 (Old Georgetown Road) from SR
1184 (Ocean Isle Beach Road) to NC 179 d No. This Project is being reviewed as indicated below:

Regional Office
Asheville
Fayetteville
Mooresville
Raleigh
Washington
Wilmington
Winston-Salem
Sign-Off/Region:
Regional Office Area
T-T Air
_1L Water
T Groundwater
I Land Quality Engineer
In-House Review
Soil & Water
T-T_ Coastal Management
Wildlife
Wildlife - DOT
T Forest Resources
Land Resources
Parks & Recreation
Water Quality
Water Quality - DOT
Air Quality
Date:
T Marine Fisheries
Water Resources
T Environmental Health
Solid Waste Mgmt
Radiation Protection
Other
Response (check all applicable)
No objection to project as proposed. No Comment
Insufficient information to complete review other (specify or attach comments)
Reviewer/Agency:
Regional Office Only:
Please log into the IBEAM system and update your comments in the DSS (Decision Support System) application,
SEPA module. If you have any questions, please contact:
Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator at [e-mail]
D @IFZ
@ D
JUL U 5 2006
wETLAMDSgh' ST08 QL' UWATER RgN

R \
X4=1

V
cP 2
?pG O
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
MEMORANDUM Richard B. Hamilton, Executive Director
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DENR
FROM: Travis Wilson, Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: July 17, 2006
SUBJECT: Response to the start of study notification from the N. C. Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) regarding fish and wildlife concerns for the
proposed extension of SR 1163 (Old Georgetown Rd) from SR 1184 to
NC 179 in Ocean Isle, Brunswick County, North Carolina. TIP No. R-
3432, SCH Project No. 06-0380.
This memorandum responds to a request from Gregory J. Thorpe of the NCDOT
for our concerns regarding impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from the
subject project. Biologists on the staff of the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) have reviewed the proposed improvements. Our comments are provided in
accordance with certain provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667d).
After review of the project study area it appears there will be potential to impact
extensive wetlands including the Sandy Branch Sand Ridge and Bay Complex, a
regionally significant natural area. At this time it is not evident, that a need has been
demonstrated for this project that will justify the probable impacts to fish and wildlife
resources. However, to help further facilitate document preparation and the review
process, our general informational needs are outlined below:
1. Description of fishery and wildlife resources within the project area,
including a listing of federally or state designated threatened, endangered,
or special concern species. Potential borrow areas to be used for project
construction should be included in the inventories. A listing of designated
plant species can be developed through consultation with:
The Natural Heritage Program
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
1615 Mail Service Center
Memo 2 July 17, 2006
Raleigh, N. C. 27699-1615
[phone]
WWW.ncsparl<s.net/nhp
and,
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. O. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the project. The need for
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.
8. A discussion of the probable impacts on natural resources which will result
from secondary development facilitated by the improved road access.
9. If construction of this facility is to be coordinated with other state, municipal,
or private development projects, a description of these projects should be
included in the environmental document, and all project sponsors should
be identified.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages for
this project. If we can further assist your office, please contact me at [phone].
Cc: Brian Wrenn, DWQ
Chris Militscher, USEPA
Steve Sollod, DCM
Gary Jordan, USFWS
Dave Timpy, USACE
Michael F. Easley, Governor
?OF W ATFR William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
O QG North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
r Division of Water Quality
> -1
o ?
July 13, 2006
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator, Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental
Affairs Q
From: Brian L. Wrenn, Transportation Permitting Unit, NCDWQ "
Subject: Request for Scoping Comments for the Proposed Extension of SR 1183 (Old Georgetown
Road) from SR 1184 (Ocean Isle Beach Road) to NC 179 in Brunswick County, TIP
Project No. R-3432, State Project No.6.231023, State Clearinghouse No. 06-0380
This office has reviewed the referenced document. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is responsible
for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities that impact Waters of the
U.S., including wetlands. Based on a preliminary review of the project study area, tributaries, wetlands
and riparian buffers associated with the following named streams could be impacted by the proposed
project:
Stream/Surface Water
Jinn 's Branch
Shallotte River
River Basin
Lumber Classification
C;Sw Stream Index No.
15-25-2-(10)
Lumber SA;H W 15-25-2-16-1-(D
DWQ has the following comments:
Project Specific Comments:
1. The Shallotte River is classified as SA; High Quality Waters (HQW) of the State. This one of the
highest classifications in the State and indicates that the waters may be suitable for shellfishing.
DWQ is very concerned with sedimentation and erosion control in this watershed. DOT should
implement sedimentation and erosion control measures that meet or exceed the requirements detailed
in Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds 15A NCAC 04B .0124. Pursuant to 15A NCAC 2H
.1006 and 15A NCAC 2B .0224, NC DOT will be required to obtain a State Stormwater Permit prior
to construction.
2. Hazardous spill catchment basins (HSCBs) may be required for any crossings of waters with a HQW
supplemental classification. HSCBs shall meet the design standards defined in the July 1996
"Guidelines for the Location and Design of Hazardous Spill Basins."
3. It appears from the maps provided that the project study area contains a large amount of wetlands.
NC DOT should design alternatives that avoid and minimize impacts to these wetlands as much as
possible.
4. Based on the amount of wetlands and the intense development in the project study area, DWQ is
uncertain whether a purpose and need for the project can be developed that would warrant the large
amount of impacts to the natural and human environment.
Are Caro a
Ntum?
Transportation Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX [phone] / Internet: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands
R-3432
July 13, 2006
Page 2
General Comments:
1. The environmental document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed
impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping. If mitigation is necessary as required
by 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h), it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan
with the environmental documentation. Appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to
issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
2. Environmental assessment alternatives should consider design criteria that reduce the impacts to
streams and wetlands from storm water runoff. These alternatives should include road designs that
allow for treatment of the storm water runoff through best management practices as detailed in the
most recent version of NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices, such as grassed swales,
buffer areas, preformed scour holes, retention basins, etc.
After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality
Certification, the NCDOT is respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the avoidance
and minimization of impacts to wetlands (and streams) to the maximum extent practical. In
accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules ( 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h)),
mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 1 acre to wetlands. In the event that mitigation
is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions and values.
The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as wetland mitigation.
4. In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules { 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h)),
mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream.
In the event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate
lost functions and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as
stream mitigation.
5. DWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project. NC
DOT should address these concerns by describing the potential impacts that may occur to the aquatic
environments and any mitigating factors that would reduce the impacts.
6. If a bridge is being replaced with a hydraulic conveyance other than another bridge, DWQ believes
the use of a Nationwide Permit may be required. Please contact the US Army Corp of Engineers to
determine the required permit(s).
7. If the old bridge is removed, no discharge of bridge material into surface waters is allowed unless
otherwise authorized by the US ACOE. Strict adherence to the Corps of Engineers guidelines for
bridge demolition will be a condition of the 401 Water Quality Certification.
8. Bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream when possible.
9. Whenever possible, the DWQ prefers spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not require
work within the stream or grubbing of the streambanks and do not require stream channel
realignment. The horizontal and vertical clearances provided by bridges allow for human and wildlife
passage beneath the structure, do not block fish passage and do not block navigation by canoeists and
boaters.
R-3432
July 13, 2006
Page 3
10. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream. Stormwater should be directed
across the bridge and pre-treated through site-appropriate means (grassed swales, pre-formed scour
holes, vegetated buffers, etc.) before entering the stream. Please refer to the most current version of
NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices.
11. If concrete is used during construction, a dry work area should be maintained to prevent direct contact
between curing concrete and stream water. Water that inadvertently contacts uncured concrete should
not be discharged to surface waters due to the potential for elevated pH and possible aquatic life and
fish kills.
12. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, the site shall be graded to its preconstruction
contours and elevations. Disturbed areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and
appropriate native woody species should be planted. When using temporary structures the area
should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other
mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact allows the area to re-vegetate
naturally and minimizes soil disturbance.
13. Placement of culverts and other structures in waters, streams, and wetlands shall be below the
elevation of the streambed by one foot for all culverts with a diameter greater than 48 inches, and 20
percent of the culvert diameter for culverts having a diameter less than 48 inches, to allow low flow
passage of water and aquatic life. Design and placement of culverts and other structures including
temporary erosion control measures shall not be conducted in a manner that may result in dis-,
equilibrium of wetlands or streambeds or banks, adjacent to or upstream and down stream of the
above structures. The applicant is required to provide evidence that the equilibrium is being
maintained if requested in writing by DWQ. If this condition is unable to be met due to bedrock or
other limiting features encountered during construction, please contact the NC DWQ for guidance on
how to proceed and to determine whether or not a permit modification will be required.
14. If multiple pipes or barrels are required, they should be designed to mimic natural stream cross
section as closely as possible including pipes or barrels at flood plain elevation and/or sills where
appropriate. Widening the stream channel should be avoided. Stream channel widening at the inlet
or outlet end of structures typically decreases water velocity causing sediment deposition that requires
increased maintenance and disrupts aquatic life passage.
15. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is
approved under General 401 Certification Number 3494/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey
Activities.
16. Sediment and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water resources must be implemented and
maintained in accordance with the most recent version of North Carolina Sediment and Erosion
Control Planning and Design Manual and the most recent version of NCS000250.
17. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area unless otherwise
approved by NC DWQ. Approved BMP measures from the most current version of NCDOT
Construction and Maintenance Activities manual such as sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams and other
diversion structures should be used to prevent excavation in flowing water.
18. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands and streams.
R-3432
July 13, 2006
Page 4
19. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practical. Impacts to wetlands in
borrow/waste areas could precipitate compensatory mitigation.
20. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, NC Coastal Region Evaluation of Wetland
Significance (NC-CREWS) maps and soil survey maps are useful tools, their inherent inaccuracies
require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior to permit approval.
21. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in order to
minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into streams. This
equipment should be inspected daily and maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from
leaking fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
22. In most cases, the DWQ prefers the replacement of the existing structure at the same location with
road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be designed and located to
avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to avoid destabilizing stream banks. If the
structure will be on a new alignment, the old structure should be removed and the approach fills
removed from the 100-year floodplain. Approach fills should be removed and restored to the natural
ground elevation. The area should be stabilized with grass and planted with native tree species. Tall
fescue should not be used in riparian areas.
23. Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed in a manner that
precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures should be properly designed,
sized and installed.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water
Quality Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality
standards are met and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require
additional information, please contact Brian Wrenn at 919-733-5715.
cc: Dave Timpy, US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington Field Office
Clarence Coleman, Federal Highway Administration
Steve Sollod, NC Division of Coastal Management
Chris Militscher, Environmental Protection Agency
Travis Wilson, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Gary Jordan, US Fish and Wildlife Service
Ken Averitte, DWQ Asheville Regional Office
File Copy
aM STN[
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASI.EY LYNfyu"I-I'
G0VI;RN0 IZ svclaI ? t
June 27, 2006
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Brian Wrenn
Division of Water Quality/Wetlands
FROM: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Prrl,;ect !development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: New Route extending SR 1163 (Old Georgetown Road) from
SR 1 184 (Ocean Isle Beach Road) to NC 179, Ocean Isle,
Brunswick County, State Project 6.23 1023, State TIP Project
R-3432
The Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch has begun studying the
proposed improvements extending SR 1163 (Old Georgetown Road) from SR 1184 (Ocean Isle
Beach Road) to NC 179. The project is included in the Draft 2006-2012 North Carolina
Transportation Improvement Program and is scheduled for right of way in fiscal year (FY) 2011.
Construction is scheduled for fiscal year 2012.
The project proposes to construct a two-lane facility extending SR 1 163 (Old
Georgetown Road) from SR 1184 (Ocean Isle Beach Road) to NC 179.
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. This document will be prepared in
accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act. It is desirable that your agency respond by
August 15, 2006 so that your comments can be used in the preparation of this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Wayne Jacas, Project
Development Engineer, of this Branch at [phone], Ext. 252. Please include the TIP
Project Number in all correspondence and comments.
GJT/plr

1p. !-a(?.0
i5 zt. 2--00
Attachment
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
C
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
!'" 4 - Ir -I-(1)
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
Shalloo- ,7 /
Township
Park \
`-------r- - _/ usa
town
to)i
Ccool Q?
Grisaett°w° /
v
Ole
C*ov
Boy CUD
f A -
= b JI a Brenc? C?
nN
s an
onk
Bo
- s y r
i _
--:'
,7 n'
BO \ ??? ?:. a?DI J y
?r
/ A
s ?
G so
ling _n,
N8
?\ tlg _s Ocean I
easl
to ).- 41
FEET
0 1000 2000
0 200 400 600
METERS
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
a DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
o PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
SR 1163 (OLD GEORGETOWN ROAD)
EXTENSION FROM SR 1184 (OCEAN ISLE
BEACH ROAD) TO NC 179
BRUNSWICK COUNTY
TIP PROJECT R-3432
FIGURE I
:?
,?

a.. SUM
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
June 27, 2006
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT: New Route extending SR 1163 (Old Georgetown Road) from
SR 1184 (Ocean Isle Beach Road) to NC 179, Ocean Isle,
Brunswick County, State Project 6.231023, State TIP Project
R-3432
The Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch has begun studying the
proposed improvements extending SR 1163 (Old Georgetown Road) from SR 1184 (Ocean Isle
Beach Road) to NC 179. The project is included in the Draft 2006-2012 North Carolina
Transportation Improvement Program and is scheduled for right of way in fiscal year (FY) 2011.
Construction is scheduled for fiscal year 2012.
The project proposes to construct a two-lane facility extending SR 1163 (Old
Georgetown Road) from SR 1184 (Ocean Isle Beach Road) to NC 179.
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. This document will be prepared in
accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act. It is desirable that your agency respond by
August 15, 2006 so that your comments can be used in the preparation of this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Wayne Jacas, Project
Development Engineer, of this Branch at [phone], Ext. 252. Please include the TIP
Project Number in all correspondence and comments.
GJT/plr
Ms. Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse
Department of Administration
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
LYNDoTIPPETT
SECRETARY
Attachment
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBsi WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
i ?.
i
RAID ? 'Q?O` .. ?s?
oPGEtON'? ? ? nP ..
s Bra k'
s an 17B f?
onksd
T S 1/?Can?ding and
110
`--
i ti\ ?/ ?Nnmy' i //J1
Ify
N
LaiaUSB` n mg: sI ?n l ,? 1- ?? '
- nrftt?? Ocean 191,E y??\a t \ \:.j ?? • -

FEET
0 1000 2000
0 200 400 600
METERS
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
SR 1163 (OLD GEORGETOWN ROAD)
EXTENSION FROM SR 1184 (OCEAN ISLE
BEACH ROAD) TO NC 179
BRUNSWICK COUNTY
TIP PROJECT R-3432
FIGURE I
:?
,, t ,;
,,
.. '.
a
A STAB
tvY 3Q3
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
June 27, 2006
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT: New Route extending SR 1163 (Old Georgetown Road) from
SR 1184 (Ocean Isle Beach Road) to NC 179, Ocean Isle,
Brunswick County, State Project 6.231023, State TIP Project
R-3432
The Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch has begun studying the
proposed improvements extending SR 1163 (Old Georgetown Road) from SR 1184 (Ocean Isle
Beach Road) to NC 179. The project is included in the Draft 2006-2012 North Carolina
Transportation Improvement Program and is scheduled for right of way in fiscal year (FY) 2011.
Construction is scheduled for fiscal year 2012.
The project proposes to construct a two-lane facility extending SR 1163 (Old
Georgetown Road) from SR 1184 (Ocean Isle Beach Road) to NC 179.
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. This document will be prepared in
accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act. It is desirable that your agency respond by
August 15, 2006 so that your comments can be used in the preparation of this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Wayne Jacas, Project
Development Engineer, of this Branch at [phone], Ext. 252. Please include the TIP
Project Number in all correspondence and comments.
GJT/plr
Ms. Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse
Department of Administration
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Attachment
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WESSITE: MVW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
\ Shallottp
Township
_ A • Park
_r
Russtown -
i
i
... ` SEAN NICiM!'r?
coot P, in
_ . / i-
Gnsseltown
179
'l5
M
011
vt,0 It
oPG?
CIS
o%p
79 a JI s Branch`
%
/BPS san?? 179
L
qq?
so e. i. ? ?? '?Canding ?y1a and
nd
17
. -?
Gage -Y
Lan mg
,1^?(resSy?? Ocean
earl d ...
Seaside _r a t `/'..
Boy : -•?"
r .U-_ sue" u? - -
FEET
0 1000 2000
0 200 400 600
METERS
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
SR 1163 (OLD GEORGETOWN ROAD)
EXTENSION FROM SR 1184 (OCEAN ISLE
BEACH ROAD) TO NC 179
BRUNSWICK COUNTY
TIP PROJECT R-3432
FIGURE I
A
' ?? ..?
. l
i.'

ik
K 'I-,i

8'
• Barren Land (Roc
• Cultivated Crops
• Deciduous Forest
- Developed Low Ir
- Developed, High 1
- Developed, Media
Developed, Open
- Emergent Herbac

Legend
;and/Clay) - Evergri
O Grassy
O Mixed I
Isity - Open V
msity O Pasture
Intensity O ShrubA
pace Woody
is Wetlands
orest

V
H
J
J
s
0
?O
N

/
1 I y •` .?•.i 1?'L - l ?F'r „?nV.:. 1) ?.f„ 4 ?'',f1 _ .1

?> r l . 1 : l cr l

1

'
- p ''
l
{ f??, t
c? C
1

a +t.? US 17 BUS

HIGHWAY
U, 17 1 OGFAN
?
?

b a
w"' END PRpJECT
G?

Q ?
??`? 1C«NSION
Pp ?
? Z
ac'?ON1N RO ?
EO
O?0 V o:
m

OPO
? O?
od
?P?Q d

p O
_
U ?
fz - X00
Q
m 0O OFD
0
?P '';
LIJ
-J
_
? P?
r
Z G LEGEND
o OG?Pa\ ??? `? ADDED APE
g?cPG Q OLD APE

;y DELINEATION AREA
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION

D DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
.. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
\•,E, ,,,,% ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
SR 1183 (GEORGETOWN ROAD)
EXTENSION FROM SR 1184
(OCEAN ISLE BEACH ROAD)

FEET TO NC 179
BRUNSWICK COUNTY
0 1000 2000 TIP PROJECT R-3432
0 200 400
METERS 660

FW: R-3432 Site Visit
Subject: FW: R-3432 Site Visit
From: "Timpy, David L SAW" <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:32:29 -0400
To: <[e-mail]>, <gary [e-mail]>,
<[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>,
<[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>,
<[e-mail]>
FYI. Some of you called regarding scoping comments on this project. The wetland line
has been verified by the Corps except for recent request by the ncdot. The purpose on my
meeting with the consultant on the 16th is for the Corps to verify this new area. No need
for you's, except for DWQ, to attend this.
The real reason for this email is make we are on the same page with this project. As you
may recall, the project team did NOT concur on purpose and need. The NCDOT
subsequently went ahead with field delineations in attempt to fits this project under a NWP
14 and avoid the merger. Apparently, it did not fit the nwp thresholds based on the recent
scoping exercises. So, it appears that we are back to considering purpose and need for
this project. It's not likely I will be handling this project when it comes back to the team.
One last note: there is a current ditch violation in the middle of the project area. Not sure
of the status of this violation but I am sure the ditch is alive and well. I think I sent you the
aerial pdf of this earlier, if not let me know and I'll send it. N. Lutheran is the DWQ poc.
I do miss the dot stuff with all interesting issues and fun.
Dave
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 10:10 AM
To: Timpy, David L SAW
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]. nc.us; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: R-3432 Site Visit
10:00 sounds good. I propose we meet at the intersection of Ocean Isle Beach Rd and Old
Georgetown Rd. (I will mark it on one of the maps). My cell # is 919 522-9253 in case you
need to contact me that day. Look forward to seeing ya'll August 16th.
Tommy
1 of 2 8/7/2006 3:42 PM
FW: R-3432 Site Visit
From: Timpy, David L SAW [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 10:03 AM
To: Cousins, Tommy
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: R-3432 Site Visit
I'm open to the time bur prefer the morning. How about 10:00? dave
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 9:56 AM
To: Timpy, David L SAW
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: R-3432 Site Visit
Dave,
Mason Herndon and Brian Wrenn will be joining us August 16th in Brunswick County to
verify the wetland delineation. I will send maps to everyone this week. What time would you
like to meet?
Thanks
Tommy Cousins
Kimley-Horn and Associates
4651 Charlotte Park Drive, Suite 300
Charlotte NC 28217
Din [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
2 of 2 8/7/2006 3:42 PM
(,?- %yc:??.L?,L? ? ?,? y"Ytr?=?J - ('? "L`1?:??'IL ?.(' ? :!?'?`-?=-fL ?• ,?;f??-eL:'r1??
u-cd (?,4. z
r _7
[? i `? << (J-Y C't L' 11Cd ?L d? c C L`ic 1 ?t c L
G' e(
/All
12
Ma?

l ,
J-9
! -/

47n,
rr
(1

# c /-'?

? S
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
March 22, 2005
?n
t
U^u"
77
N
Z: ? \ 111V
o . pV]`QVv
?p o ?
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
To: R-3432 Merger Team Meeting Participants
From: Michael Goins PW
Project Development Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Subject: March 10, 2005 NEPA/404 Merger Meeting for
TIP Project R-3432 in Brunswick County
A concurrence meeting was held for the subject project on March 10, 2005 at 3:00
p.m. in the Transportation Board Room. The following persons were in attendance:
Dave Timpy
Gary Jordan
Chris Militscher
Ron Lucas
Sarah McBride
Nicole Thomson
Steve Sollod
Don Eggert
Ron Allen
Brenda Moore
Darius Sturdivant
Tyler Bray
Regina Page
Erin Hendee
Allen Pope
Joe Blair
Tyler Stanton
Tim Gardiner
Rob Hanson
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
US Army Corps of Engineers
US Fish and Wildlife Service
US Environmental Protection Agency - Raleigh
Federal Highway Administration - Raleigh
State Historic Preservation Office
NC Division of Water Quality
NC Division of Coastal Management
Cape Fear RPO
NCDOT - Roadway Design
NCDOT - Roadway Design
NCDOT - Transportation Planning
NCDOT - Transportation Planning
NCDOT - Congestion Management
NCDOT - Congestion Management
NCDOT Division 3 Division Engineer
NCDOT Division 3 Construction Engineer
NCDOT - ONE
NCDOT-OHE
NCDOT - PDEA
TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
WEBSITE. K W ..DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
Charles Cox NCDOT -PDEA
Michael Goins NCDOT - PDEA
Travis Wilson (NC Wildlife Resources Commission), Ron Sechler (National
Marine Fisheries Service) and Fritz Rohde (DENR Division of Marine Fisheries) were
invited to the meeting but were unable to attend.
The meeting was opened and everyone introduced himself or herself.
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss Concurrence Point 1, the purpose and
need for TIP Project R-3432. This project is included in the 2004-2010 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP). Right of way acquisition is scheduled for fiscal year 2009
and construction is scheduled for Post Years.
Mr. Goins stated the purpose of the project, as listed in the merger packet dated
3/10/05, is to alleviate traffic congestion along NC 179, improve safety along NC 179,
and establish a more direct travel route between the towns of Shallotte and Calabash.
Mr. Goins presented the following needs to be addressed by the project:
Capacity Deficiencies
? NC 179 is a two to three lane facility. It was originally intended as a commuter route
between Shallote, Ocean Isle Beach, Sunset Beach, and Calabash.
? Ocean Isle Beach and Sunset Beach have become vacation destinations resulting in
heavy commercial development along NC 179 (See Figures 1 and 2)
? Current traffic volumes (2004) in the project area range from 8,900 to 14,000 vehicles
per day (vpd)
? Future traffic volumes (2030) in the project area range from 13,000 to 27,100 (vpd)
? Traffic volumes generated by local residents and tourists create frequent periods of
traffic congestion, especially during vacation season (See Table 1 and Appendix 2)
System Linkage
? Traveling from Calabash to Shallotte along NC 179 currently involves many
intersections and turns.
? US 17 and NC 179 provide east/west access to the area between Calabash and
Shallotte, which includes Ocean Isle Beach. NC 179 was originally intended as a
commuter route between Shallote, Ocean Isle Beach, Sunset Beach, and Calabash.
Existing NC 179 proceeds east from Calabash toward Shallotte until the intersection of
NC 904. Then, NC 179 proceeds south and east to Brick Landing Road and then to US
17 (see Appendix 1).
Safe
Safety concerns exist along existing NC 179, especially at the curved intersection of
Brick Landing Rd. (see Appendix 2, Intersection 95). This is a 90 degree turn.
Safety concerns also exist at acute intersection along existing NC 179 at Hale Swamp
Rd. (see Appendix 2, Intersection 46)
? NCDOT Division 3 has made temporary efforts to improve curves at Brick Landing
Rd. and Hale Swamp Rd. However, more permanent solutions are needed.
General Discussion
Mr. Goins stated that US 17 and NC 179 serve as hurricane evacuation routes.
Questions arose as to what other routes are designated as hurricane evacuation routes.
NC 130, NC 904, NC 179 and US 17 are designated as hurricane evacuation routes.
Mr. Militscher asked if the traffic numbers were peak numbers. He asked
what were the normal hour factors. Mr. Cox and Mr. Hanson stated that the projections
are annual average daily traffic and that seasonal volumes would be even higher. Mr.
Cox stated that seasonal traffic projections have been requested.
Mrs. McBride asked how the information for traffic projections is obtained. Mr.
Sturdivant stated that it could be a combination of ways: count stations, daily counts, and
historical data. All data is combined and used to determine traffic projection numbers.
Mr. Timpy asked about Old Georgetown Rd. and Beach Dr. Level of Service (LOS).
Mr. Cox stated that Old Georgetown Rd. has a LOS of B (2004) and C (2030). Beach Dr.
has'a LOS of D (2004) and F (2030). Mr. Cox stated that the intersection LOS shown in
the packet represents the worse case for all movements.
Mrs. Thomson asked how many intersections are signalized. Mr. Goins
stated there were three signals. Mrs. Thomson asked if the LOS throughout the project
area could be improved through additional signalization or some other measures besides
new location.
Mr. Goins stated that recommendations are to redesignate Old Georgetown Rd,
including Old Georgetown Rd. extension, as NC 179 once project is complete. Mr. Pope
stated that he had questions about the accuracy of the traffic projections if NC 179 was
moved onto Old Georgetown Rd. extension. Mr. Pope wondered if the traffic projections
might be higher once Old Georgetown Rd. extension is redesignated.
Mr. Timpy asked about access control on Old Georgetown Rd. Mr. Pope stated that
there was no access control currently on Old Georgetown Rd., but access control
measures would be implemented for the new project. Mr. Eggert added that Beach Rd.
was developed before any access measures was put into place.
Mr. Timpy stated that the curve at Brick Landing Rd. and Beach Dr. is very
dangerous, especially during vacation season. Safe speed goes from 50mph to about
20mph in a matter of feet at the curve.
Mrs. Thomson asked if we could look at improving intersections along existing NC
179 instead of building a new road. She stated that, according to projections, AADT on
Beach Dr. changes from 27,100 vpd (without project) to 21,800 (vpd) (with project). In
her opinion, that is not a justification for a new road.
Mr. Militscher stated that we need to look at why there is a need to go from Calabash
to Shallotte. We already have a connector, US 17. He also stated that we need to find
out if Beach Dr. is going to fail with the project and is there a connection between
Calabash and Shallotte?
Mr. Cox stated that we are dealing with local traffic on a downtown business district.
In his opinion, traffic would be alleviated along NC 179 with an alternative route. Mrs.
Thomson stated that she did not believe that traffic management was enough to justify a
new location project.
Mr. Militscher stated that he would like to see accident data to justify a safety need
and that a new location project would not help the troublesome intersections along
existing NC 179. Mr. Cox stated that with the new location, one of the troublesome
intersections (Hale Swamp Rd. and Brick Landing Rd.) would be realigned. Also, traffic
would be eased along existing NC 179 with a new location, thus helping to reduce the
possibility of accidents at Beach Dr. and Brick Landing Rd.
Mrs. Thomson wondered if the safety issues could be addressed by small projects
instead of a merger project.
Mr. Eggert stated that the area was growing quickly. The county is putting in a sewer
system in the project area. A lot of commerce is generated due to new businesses in the
area.
Mr. Timpy stated that it might be possible to only need a nationwide permit to build
the project and in that event, the project would be kicked out of the merger process. Mr.
Sollod and Mr. Militscher questioned whether, in the event the project is kicked out of
the merger process, the purpose of the project would be served.
Mr. Hanson stated that from what he was hearing, the project was not going to get
concurrence today. So, it would be more productive to allow each person an opportunity
to request information they would like to see at the next meeting. The following list
represents the requests of the participants:
Y Expanded study area to include Calabash, Shallotte, and US 17
Safety data
Better traffic data, seasonal traffic data
? If project is built, will the traffic problem get better or worse
? Ensure traffic data incorporates future development
2030 LOS with the project
,e Ensure troublesome intersections are addressed, possibly spelled out in purpose
and need
Decisions: Concurrence was not reached. It was agreed that new information was
needed and the meeting was adjourned.
MG/mg
i
. SIAI[ o
rr'
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
February 10, 2005
a
?pG? os ?
LYNDO TIKI
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: R-3432 Merger Team
FROM: Mike Goins
Project Development Engineer
SUBJECT: Old Georgetown Rd (SR 1163) Extension from Ocean Isle
Beach Rd (SR 1184) to NC 179, Brunswick County, TIP
Project R-3432, WBS No. 35501.1.1
A concurrence meeting has been scheduled for Thursday, March 10, 2005. The
meeting will be held in the Board Room in the Transportation Building, 1 South
Wilmington St., Raleigh. The purpose of this meeting is to present the project to the
merger team for Concurrence Point 1.
The members of the merger team are listed below. If anyone feels they have
been listed incorrectly, or if an agency does not Nvish to participate in the merger
team for this project, please notify me in writing of this decision.
The information packet is enclosed. Please review this material prior to the
meeting. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at [phone]
ext. 252 or [e-mail]. Please RSVP if you will not be attending.
R-3432 Merger Team
Dave Timpy, US Army Corps of Engineers
Gary Jordan, US Fish & Wildlife Service
Travis Wilson, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Sarah McBride, State Historic Preservation Office
Chris Militscher, US Environmental Protection Agency
Nikki Thompson, NC Division of Water Quality
Ron Lucas, Federal Highway Administration
Don Eggert, RPO Coordinator (non-signatory)
Steve Sollod, NCDCM
Ron Sechler, National Marine Fisheries Service
Fritz Rohde, NC Division of Marine Fisheries
Technical Support Staff & Other Afrencv Staff
Allen Pope, NCDOT Division 3
Joe Blair, NCDOT Division 3
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENTAND ENVIRONMENTALANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. MM.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

Mason Herndon, NCDOT Division 3
Brenda Moore, NCDOT Roadway Design
Thad Duncan, NCDOT Roadway Design
Darius Sturdivant, NCDOT Transportation Planning
Tyler Bray, NCDOT Transportation Planning
Regina Page, NCDOT Congestion Management
Tim Gardiner, NCDOT Office of Human Environment
Bill Arrington, NCDCM

I
i
likkk
I
TIP PROJE CT R-3432
BRUNSWI CK COUNTY
March 1 0, 2005
Transportation Bu ilding Board Room
Agenda fo r Meeting:
• Project D escription
• Comment s and Questions

Project Development Engineer:
Purpose and Need Docu
Mike Goins
[phone] ext. 252
[e-mail]

Old Georg
TIP
B
TIP Project R-3432 involves a new
Road) from SR 1184 (Ocean Isle Beach Rc
County for a length of 2.4 miles. The proj
of way acquisition and construction schedu
respectively. While this project is programs
have been made about the final location of
studied. The total estimated cost for the pr
$700,000 for right of way acquisition and 9
A scoping meeting for the
Capacity Deficiencies
n Road Extension
ect R-3432
ek County
ute extending SR 1163 (Old Georgetown
to NC 179 in Ocean Isle in Brunswick
is included in the 2004-2010 TIP with right
i for fiscal years 2009 and Post Year,
d in the TIP as a new route, no decisions
road or other alternatives that may be
used project is $7,600,000, which includes
900,000 for construction.
ion project on November 9, 2004.
• NC 179 is a two to three lane facility. It was originally intended as a commuter route
between Shallote, Ocean Isle Beach, Sunset Beach, and Calabash.
• 0
he

in
2

Current traffic volumes (2004) in the project area range from 8900 to 14,000 CDT
(See Appendix 3)
Future traffic volumes (2030) in the project area range from 13,000 to 27,100 AADT
(See Appendix 4)
Traffic volumes generated by local residents and tourists create frequent periods of
traffic congestion, especially during vacation season (See Table 1 and Appendix 2)
TABLE I - Intersection Capacity Analvsis - No Build
Intersection i Intersection Intersect ion LOS
....................................
No. 2004
........ ......, 2030
............................
.
.........................
1 Old Georgetown Rd. and Seaside Rd. F F
................. ...
2' ................. _......................... ........ ................................ . ............
Sunset Blvd. and Seas .. ...._
ide Rd. .....
F _
F
.................. ..? ..
3 ..........._.._...._... _..... . .... ............. .
Beach Dr. (NC 179) and C ..... .......
auseway Dr.
F
F

4
Beach Dr. (NC 179) and Ha
le Swamp Rd ................
I C ... _ ...
C

5

Beach Dr. (NC 179) and Bric

k Landing Rd

I B .....
f
F
1
.............
6 i ... ....... ....
Brick Landing Rd. and Hal .... . ......
e Swamp Rd.
F ........................
F
_.................. W.._.__ ................... ...

7 ............. .__..... ................... ................ ...................... .............. .................. .. .................. _.............................. .......................................................

Brick Landing Rd. and Village Point I ................._...................................

F
.
.............................................
F
..
........... .............................. .............................. ..
8
1 ..................... .................................................. ......... .. ....................... ................. ........... .... .....
Ocean Hwy. (US 17) and Ocea ..................._ _........._....
n Isle Beach Rd. ._......._........_............_.........._...
F ......._.....e........._......_..... ..
.
F
...
...................... _............ ._........... ................ _.
9 ..................._._.................... ........... ...._._..... ........ __........ _.......... .... ..... ._ _..................... ..... .....
Old Georgetown Rd. and Ocea . _........ ........ ..... ....................... ............................. _.........
n Isle Beach Rd. ...;.................... .................. ............
E .... ..................... .... ...... ............ ......
F
....._...._....._.._._..... _ ............... ................. _.....

10 ....... _........ __.................... _.......... ......... ...................Y.....(................... )....._.......

Ocean Hw US 17 and .................. ................... ......................._......._..

Seaside Rd. ... ..............._...._............._.......... ...

F
..................
...... ....................... ..
F

System Linkage
• Traveling from Calabash to Shallotte along NC 179 currently involves many
intersections and turns.
• US 17 and NC 179 provide east/west acc
Shallotte, which includes Ocean Isle Bea
commuter route between Shallote, Oceat
Existing NC 179 proceeds east from Cal;
of NC 904. Then, NC 179 proceeds soul
to US 17 (see Appendix 1).
ess to the area between Calabash and
3h. NC 179 was originally intended as a
Isle Beach, Sunset Beach, and Calabash.
.bash toward Shallotte until the intersection
h and east to Brick Landing Road and then
Safety
• Safety concerns exist along existing NC 179, especially at the curved intersection of
Brick Landing Rd. (see Appendix 2, Intersection #5). This is a 90 degree turn.
• Safety concerns also exist at acute intersection along existing NC 179 at Hale Swamp
Rd. (see Appendix 2, Intersection #6)
• NCDOT Division 3 has made temporary efforts to improve curves at Brick Landing
Rd. and Hale Swamp Rd. However, more permanent solutions are needed.
The purpose of the project is to alleviz
improve safety along NC 179, and establish a
of Shallotte and Calabash.
traffic congestion along NC 179,
ore direct travel route between the towns
e FO-1
cn z
O? O
c
¦
y
1
,1
O
O
U1
N
w
a
N
D? L
1 '
fi
n
d
7
I

c
p0
o ca
o 3
v0 Q N :
cl- a

a C.

ID

V

O
rn
W

Q. 13
C
V!
CD :
O
O ?¦¦? ¦
(C 0
CD T /\
?F
Os
=3 O
0
-t"
W
Q
' r 446

d ? ? tV
O ;
i
I[?ti o r ITi a
d c Q
O Z ?a^
y
d c d Q '? g Seasi(Ie
10 }4??? -? ap
M1 W
Ci
LLL???,,?rr ? J
s
u e
H
H
i
v.
Causeway O rive
4>
?a
L•
0
.4 71
H
x I-4
a
W a
a
q am ;u
g +
y m 8 o
w '.'? y w O `°•
N = 0 0 'r arickiandin
Z o U
3 ;u au ,?
2L
n` 0 ?•.
CL e
J l 0 o+ 0 lb
} A ??? r4
?o
0 1J N y
W (a
N 03
V ??y
Q N
j 1 lY
C) m
3
0
a
G)
ID (n
O
..1 V
W
g
a
U
cl. y
O O
0
? C
1-4 j a 0
Q
s ?
4
t3.
g o00 ?
SeasI(Ie Rd.
I-ISE
to M6
4•??1 1
fh ? 7
7 a 0
Q0 ? ?
4
n
0A
d
fa ^y
o ?
0 0 °
SR 1184
Ocean Isle Beach Rd. g
44 q4 ['"- to
1'Z.II N
O
O
O
NPk
zI
Q
Q ?
to 0 y
15)
480 Li a '?" (CJ
?-1
?00 C3
!7? .5, rn 4 o W p
NCB c O
r?E 104 r Q ¢ a O ° O
x F m N U
x Seaside Rd. o 0
m p 0 0
d c d a Seaside Rd. `T` g "' G)
CD m
T W
/ Y
A
C.J
a
V
t.a
a cn rr
m
s
s
r
!•C y
C
0
7
1
O
ra
N
? o
ell.
4
.0
3
N
Al
& i°
m
G•
W
v ,
g
2 Z

v
u
0
H
H
b
C)
? r
H Causeway Drive
o <*>
F--r
7t
t7l
0-4
A
9
l?
IVO
.w
G9
O
m
(A 1-4 o
low
w g
M
r
SR 1184
rn
0cean Isle Beach Rd. C)
r ,4
yo'/e s?
.
A. jX
W o
rt a` I Q$?i
r 1
f3rfGkfandfng Rd.
14
14
p ? Q??`?? r..+y ?u
CL
rx rn
O'
Q
n of
-4 W 4
?1y V
A
CL
? X
$ g o /'
s
'f
17
RE: DOT Project in Brunswick County
From: Brian Wrenn [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 10:35 AM
To: [e-mail] 1
i
Cc: Timpy, David L SAW
Subject: Re: DOT Project in Brunswick County
I'll be there on 8/16. Please send me meeting details when you get them
Thanks.
Brian
Tom. Cousins(?kimley-horn.com wrote:
Brian,
We performed a wetland delineation for DOT proje
Extension) in Brunswick County. No streams were
field visit scheduled for August 16th with Dave Tim
comment on our delineation, please let me know. i
map, and our delineation map. Thanks for your hel
Tommy
Tommy Cousins
Kimley-Horn and Associates
4651 Charlotte Park Drive, Suite 300
Charlotte NC 28217
Dir: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Brian L. Wrenn
Environmental Specialist III
Transportation Permitting Unit
Division of Water Quality
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Ste 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
2of3
R-3432 (Old Georgetown
)ntified on site, only wetla
. If you would like to see tl
ached are a soils map, a t
P.

I
have a
e or
no topo
E= I i
*i ?I t
d
1S
i
f
s
+,
Ff
?}
r
III

I I f
I;
j

9 I i
a
I
r

9

9 `i f f r.
?
Q3 w ?! ? 1 `.
E#

P
S
1 u . .• • •.. •
..so"
•.NM ` f
.. • Oi
l

00

¦ i f ,-7r ^ M1 4

S .? t! •

4

,`
3`1',

r_r'-.

a
LO
W\XX . .

r
M
O
r
O
O
N
O
M
O
Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc,
July 17, 2006
Mr. Brian Wrenn
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Transportation Permitting Unit
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Ste 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
o?
00
cy
Re: Field Review, R-3432 Old Georgetown Road Delineation
Brunswick County, NC
Dear Mr. Wrenn:
On behalf of our client, North Carolina Department of Transportation, Kimley-
Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA) has completed a site evaluation for an
approximately 900 acre tract of land in southwest Brunswick County. In
preparation for our field review on August 16, 2006, attached for your review is a
vicinity map, an aerial photograph, a USGS quad map, and a USDA soils map of
the area.
I look forward to our meeting on August 16th. Thank you for your assistance
with this matter. If you have any questions, please contact me at [phone]
or on my cell at [phone].
Very truly yours,
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

Tommy Cousins
Environmental Scientist
¦
Suite 300
4651 Charlotte Park Drive
Charlotte, North Carolina
28217
¦
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
Project/Site: R-3432/Supp.1 Old Georgetown Road Date: 5/31/2006
Applicant/Owner: N.C. Department of Transportation County: Brunswick
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Tommy
Investigator: Cousins, Laura Lang) State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on this site? Yes Community ID: Forested
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No Transect ID: w2-13
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Plot ID: Wetland 1
Vegetation
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Pinus serotina T FACW+ 9.
2. Persea borbonia T/S FACW 10.
3. Magnolia virginiana T/S FACW+ 11.
4. Gordonia lasianthus T/S FACW 12.
5. Cyrilla racemii fora T/S FACW 13.
6. Lyonia lucida S FACW 14.
7. Woodwardia virginica H OBL 15.
8. Smilax bona-nox V FAC 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (e xcluding FACU): 100%
Remarks:
Hydrology:
RECORDED DATA:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
Depth to Surface Water: N/A (in)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in)
Depth to Saturated Soil: N/A (in)
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS:
PRIMARY INDICATORS:
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
SECONDARY INDICATORS:
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Water Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Fac-Neutral Test
Other
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phrase): Murville fine sand Drainage Class: Very poorly drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Haplaquods
PROFILE 11ESCRIPTION
Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type? (Y/N) No
Depth
inches
Horizon Matrix Color
Munsell Moist Mottle Colors
Munsell Moist Mottle
Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions,
Structure, etc.
0-8 A 10 YR 2/1 Sand loam
8-14 B 10 YR 3/1 Sand loam

HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
X Reducing Conditions
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Streaking in
Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
X Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in remarks)
Hydric Soil Present? (Y/N) Yes
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION (Y/N)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
Hydric Soils Present? Yes
Is this sampling point a Wetland? Yes
Remarks:

DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
Project/Site: R-3432/Supp.1 Old Georgetown Road Date: 5/31/2006
Applicant/Owner: N.C. Department of Transportation County: Brunswick
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Tommy
Investigator: Cousins, Laura Lang) State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on this site? Yes Community ID: Forested
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) Transect ID: w2-13
Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Plot ID: Upland _
Vegetation
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Pinus serotina T FACW+ 9. _
2. Pinus palustris T FACU+ 10. _
3. Persea borbonia T/S FACW 11. _
4. Magnolia virginiana T/S FACW+ 12.
5. Gordonia lasianthus T/S FACW 13.
6. Lyonia lucida S FACW 14.
7. Vaccinium crassifolium H FAC+ 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Spe cies that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (e xcluding FACU): 86%
Remarks:
Hydrology:
RECORDED DATA:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
Depth to Surface Water: N/A (in)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in)
Depth to Saturated Soil: N/A (in)
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS:
PRIMARY INDICATORS:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
SECONDARY INDICATORS:
Oxidized Root Channels in Uppei
Water Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Fac-Neutral Test
Other
12 inches
SOILS
?Aap Unit Name
Series and Phrase): Leon fine sand Drainage Class: Poorly drained
Faxonomy (Subgroup): Aeric Haplaquods
3ROFILE DESCRIPTION
Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type? (Y/N) No
Depth
inches
Horizon Matrix Color
Munsell Moist Mottle Colors
Munsell Moist Mottle
Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions,
Structure, etc.
0-6 A 10 YR 2/1 Sand loam
6-14 B 10 YR 6/3 Sand loam

AYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Streaking in
Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Hydric Soil Present? (Y/N) No
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in remarks)
Remarks:
)-6 inches - 25% uncoated sand grains
NETLAND DETERMINATION (Y/N)
-lydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Netland Hydrology Present?
-iydric Soils Present?
s this sampling point a Wetland?
Yes
No
No
No
Remarks:
DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
Project/Site: R-3432/Supp.1 Old Georgetown Road Date: 5/31/2006
Applicant/Owner: N.C. Department of Transportation County: Brunswick
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Tommy
Investigator: Cousins, Laura Lang) State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on this site? Yes Community ID: Forested
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No Transect ID: wa-27
Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Plot ID: Wetland 2
Vegetation
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Pinus serotina T FACW+ 9. Smilax laurilolia V FACW+
2. Pinus palustris T FACU+ 10.
3. Acer rubrum T/S FAC 11.
4. Persea borbonia T/S FACW 12.
5. Magnolia virginiana T/S FACW+ 13.
6. Myrica cerifera S FAC+ 14.
7. Ilex glabra S FACW 15.
8. flex coriacea S FACW 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (e xcluding FACU): 89%
Remarks:
Hydrology:
RECORDED DATA:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
Depth to Surface Water: N/A (in)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in)
Depth to Saturated Soil: N/A (in)
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS:
PRIMARY INDICATORS:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
SECONDARY INDICATORS:
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Water Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Fac-Neutral Test
Other
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phrase): Murville fine sand Drainage Class: Very poorly drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Haplaquods
PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type? (Y/N) No
Depth
inches
Horizon Matrix Color
Munsell Moist Mottle Colors
Munsell Moist Mottle
Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions,
Structure, etc.
0-9 A 10 YR 2/1 Loam sand
9-16 B 10 YR 4/1 10 YR 6/2 few Sand loam

HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS
Histosol X Reducing Conditions X Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Histic Epipedon X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Sulfidic Odor Concretions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Aquic Moisture Regime High Organic Streaking in Other (Explain in remarks)
Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Hydric Soil Present? (Y/N) Yes
Remarks:

WETLAND DETERMINATION (Y/N)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
Hydric Soils Present? Yes
Is this sampling point a Wetland? Yes
Remarks:
DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
Project/Site: R-3432/Supp.1 Old Georgetown Road Date: 5/31/2006
Applicant/Owner: N.C. Department of Transportation County: Brunswick
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Tommy
Investigator: Cousins, Laura Lang) State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on this site? Yes Community ID: Forested
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
No Plot ID:
Vegetation
wa-27
Upland 2
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Pinus serotina T FACW+ 9. Caylussacia frondosa S FAC
2. Pinus palustris T FACU+ 10.
3. Quercus nigra T FAC 11.
4. Acer rubrum T/S FAC 12.
5. Persea borbonia T/S FACW 13.
6. Rhus copallinum S NI 14.
7. Myrica cerijera S FAC+ 15.
8. Ilex glabra S FACW 16.
Percent of Dominant Spe cies that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (e xcluding FACU): 80%
Remarks:
Hydrology:
RECORDED DATA:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
Depth to Surface Water: N/A (in)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in)
Depth to Saturated Soil: N/A (in)
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS:
PRIMARY INDICATORS:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
:CONDARY INDICATORS:
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Water Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Fac-Neutral Test
Other
SOILS
Aap Unit Name
Series and Phrase): Leon fine sand Drainage Class: Poorly drained
Field Observations
axonomy (Subgroup): Aeric Haplaquods Confirm Mapped Type? (Y/N) No
)ROFILE DESCRIPTION
Depth
inches
Horizon Matrix Color
Munsell Moist Mottle Colors
Munsell Moist Mottle
Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions,
Structure, etc.
0-1 O Organic layer
1-10 A 10 YR 2/1 Loam sand
10-20 B 10 YR 6/2 Loam sand

-lYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Streaking in
Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in remarks)
Hydric Soil Present? (Y/N) No
Remarks:
1-10 inches: 40% uncoated sand grains
NETLAND DETERMINATION (Y/N)
-lydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes
Netland Hydrology Present? No
-lydric Soils Present? No
s this sampling point a Wetland? No
Remarks:
DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
Project/Site: R-3432/Supp.1 Old Georgetown Road Date: 5/31/2006
Applicant/Owner: N.C. Department of Transportation County: Brunswick
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Tommy
Investigator: Cousins, Laura Lang) State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on this site? Yes Community ID: Forested
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No Transect ID: ws-9
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Plot ID: Wetland 3
Vegetation
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Pinus serotina T FACW+ 9.
2. Pinus palustris T FACU+ 10.
3. Acer rubrum T/S FAC 11.
4. Persea borbonia T/S FACW 12.
5. Magnolia virginiana T/S FACW+ 13.
6. Myrica cerifera S FAC+ 14.
7. Ilexglabra S FACW 15.
8. Smilax laurifolia v FACW+ 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (e xcluding FACU): 88%
Remarks:
Hydrology:
RECORDED DATA:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
Depth to Surface Water: N/A (in)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in)
Depth to Saturated Soil: N/A (in)
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS:
PRIMARY INDICATORS:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
X ]Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
SECONDARY INDICATORS:
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Water Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Fac-Neutral Test
Other
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phrase): Murville fine sand Drainage Class: Very poorly drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Haplaquods
PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type? (Y/N) No
Depth
inches
Horizon Matrix Color
Munsell Moist Mottle Colors
Munsell Moist Mottle
Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions,
Structure, etc.
0-8 A 10 YR 2/1 Loam sand
8-16 B 10 YR 4/1 10 YR 6/2 few Sand loam

HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
X Reducing Conditions
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Streaking in
Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Hydric Soil Present? (Y/N) Yes
X Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION (Y/N)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
Hydric Soils Present? Yes
Is this sampling point a Wetland? Yes
Remarks
DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
Project/Site: R-3432/Supp.1 Old Georgetown Road Date: 5/31/2006
Applicant/Owner: N.C. Department of Transportation County: Brunswick
Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. (Tommy
Investigator: Cousins, Laura Lang) State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on this site? Yes Community ID: Forested
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No TransectID: WS-9
Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Plot ID: Upland 3
Vegetation
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Pinus serotina T FACW+ 9.
2. Pinus palustris T FACU+ 10.
3. Persea borbonia T/S FACW 11.
4. Magnolia virginiana T/S FACW+ 12.
5. Gordonia lasianthus T/S FACW 13.
6. Lyonia lucida s FACW 14.
7. Vaccinium crassiifolium H FAC+ 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Spe cies that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (e xcluding FACU): 86%
Remarks:
Hydrology:
RECORDED DATA:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
Depth to Surface Water: N/A (in)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in)
Depth to Saturated Soil: N/A (in)
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS:
PRIMARY INDICATORS:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
SECONDARY INDICATORS:
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Water Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Fac-Neutral Test
Other
TOILS
ap Unit Name
aeries and Phrase): Leon fine sand Drainage Class: Poorly drained
Field Observations
axonomy (Subgroup): Aeric Haplaquods Confirm Mapped Type? (Y/N) No
ROFILE DE
Depth
inches SCRIPTION

Horizon
Matrix Color
Munsell Moist
Mottle Colors
Munsell Moist
Mottle
Abundance/Contrast
Texture, Concretions,
Structure, etc.
0-4 A 10 YR 2/1 Sand loam
4-14 B 10 YR 6/3 Sand loam

YDRIC SOIL INDICATORS
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Streaking in
Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in remarks)
Hydric Soil Present? (Y/N) No
Remarks:
VETLAND DETERMINATION (Y/N)
lydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes
Vetland Hydrology Present? No
lydric Soils Present? No
s this sampling point a Wetland? No
Remarks:
DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
Project/Site: R-3432/Supp.1 Old Georgetown Road Date: 5/31/2006
Applicant/Owner: N.C. Department of Transportation County: Brunswick
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Tommy
Investigator: Cousins, Laura Lang) State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on this site? Yes Community ID: Forested
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No Transect ID: w6-15
Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Plot ID: Wetland 4
Vegetation
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Pinus serotina T FACW+ 9.
2. Pinus palustris T FACU+ 10.
3. Acer rubrum T/S FAC 11.
4. Persea borbonia T/S FACW 12.
5. Magnolia virginiana T/S FACW+ 13.
6. Myrica cerifera S FAC+ 14.
7. Smilax laurifolia y FACW+ 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (e xcluding FACU): 86%
Remarks:
Hydrology:
RECORDED DATA:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
Depth to Surface Water: N/A (in)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in)
Depth to Saturated Soil: N/A (in)
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS:
PRIMARY INDICATORS:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
X ]Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
SECONDARY INDICATORS:
X Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
X Water Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
X Fac-Neutral Test
Other
SOILS
vlap Unit Name
Series and Phrase): Leon fine sand Drainage Class: Poorly drained
Faxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Haplohumods
3pnmI F nFRCRIPTION
Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type? (Y/N) No
Depth
inches
Horizon Matrix Color
Munsell Moist Mottle Colors
Munsell Moist Mottle
Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions,
Structure, etc.
0-4 A 10 YR 3/1 Loam sand
4-12 B 10 YR 6/1 10 YR 5/2 few Sand loam
12-18 10 YR 5/2 Sand loam

1YDRIC SOIL INDICATORS
Histosol X Reducing Conditions X Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Histic Epipedon X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Sulfidic Odor Concretions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Aquic Moisture Regime High Organic Streaking in Other (Explain in remarks)
Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Hydric Soil Present? (Y/N) Yes
Remarks:

NETLAND DETERMINATION (Y/N)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes
Netland Hydrology Present? Yes
Hydric Soils Present? Yes
Is this sampling point a Wetland? Yes
Remarks:
DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
Project/Site: R-3432/Supp.1 Old Georgetown Road Date: 5/31/2006
Applicant/Owner: N.C. Department of Transportation County: Brunswick
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Tommy
Investigator: Cousins, Laura Lang) State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on this site? Yes Community ID: Forested
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No Transect ID: w6-15
Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Plot ID: Upland 4
Vegetation
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Pinus palustris T FACU+ 9.
2. Quercus laevis T/S NI 10.
3. Persea borbonia T/S FACW 11.
4. Gaylussacia frondosa S FAC 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (e xcluding FACU): 50%
Remarks:
Hydrology:
RECORDED DATA:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
Depth to Surface Water: N/A (in)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in)
Depth to Saturated Soil: N/A (in)
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS:
PRIMARY INDICATORS:
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
SECONDARY INDICATORS:
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Water Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Fac-Neutral Test
Other
SOILS
Vlap Unit Name
,Series and Phrase): Kureb fine sand Drainage Class: Excessively drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Spodic Quartzipsamments
PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type? (Y/N) No
Depth
inches
Horizon Matrix Color
Munsell Moist Mottle Colors
Munsell Moist Mottle
Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions,
Structure, etc.
0-8 A 10 YR 3/1 Sand loam
8-16 B 10 YR 5/3 Sand loam

HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Streaking in
Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in remarks)
Hydric Soil Present? (Y/N) No
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION (Y/N)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present?
Is this sampling point a Wetland?
Yes
No
No
No
Remarks:
n
11
i7
add?
M
x
4
i?
n
11
7
a?
a
h?,wxxiu?
,??AeJ ?ryry?mV
?'VL?'IIA?'AM1VD??

it 03

3
?.1J
c
0
Section 404/NEPA Interagency Agreement
Concnce-P-oin
Purpose and-Necd_____
Project Title' --Old Georgetown_Rd (SR 1163) EYten_s on_from Ocean Isle Beach Rd
(SR 1184) to NC 179, Brunswick County, TIP Project R-3432,
WBS No. 35501.1.1
Project Description: The project is programmed in the approved 2004-2010 North
Carolina Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as the construction of a roadway on
new location between Calabash and Shallotte. A two-lane roadway with shoulders is
proposed.
Purpose and Need of Proposed Project: The purpose of the project is to alleviate traffic
congestion along NC 179, improve safety along NC 179, and establish a more efficient
travel route between the towns of Shallotte and Calabash. Supporting data for the
purpose and need is contained in information provided by NCDOT at the project team
meeting held on March 10, 2005.
The project team has concurred with the purpose and need of the proposed project
as described above and the study area revised 3/10/05 (see attached).
USACE USFWS
FHWA
NCDWQ EPA
NCDCR DCM
NCDOT DMFS
NCWRC

NMFS

'It-

4
?

a.
1
1 O
'C V19
n
0
hway
Ocean f ft
0
n
fD
v
rA
v
NC 1191904
YYo
n
.o
0
.P

NC 1
0
04
d
C?
(IQ
TIP B-4031

a?
Georgetown Road Extension
•Description:
New route extending SR 1163 (Old Georgetown Road) from SR 1184
(Ocean Isle Beach Road) to NC 1.79 in Ocean Isle in Brunswick County.
A 2-lane roadway with shoulders is the proposed cross section.
*Length = 2.4 miles
*Design Speed = 80 km/h (50 mph)
R-3432
Brunswick County
II
•Pro?ect Need
*Commuter route
Dip
*Vacation Destination
Traffic volumes - Local Residents/Tourists
*Direct travel route - Calabash and Shallote
*Alleviate traffic congestion along NC 179

LOW-)-- M4LI,"T

-fi?.
J?V JA Nm'Pr
R-3432
Brunswick County
Lc act
TIP Project R-3432
Brunswick County
Old Georgetown Rd.
Logend
l \ + ii set e ••? aty Boundaries
N ."'?..-?•? City Streets
?r •r r DOT Roads
lc? 0 0.5 1 2 3 4Miles DOT PrimaryRc
Intersection LOS
Major Water Boy
1 Intersection Number Appendix 2 """'? Gount Bounda

N
904
Longwood Rd. 11+?
8700 ? shallotte
Township Park v .a;W/
34100 2100 t2500 37200 43000 US it
170
u]Z 3200soon Ocean Highway S
1Z 3100 r00 Ocean Highway 26800
Ocean Highway Grissettown
ro y
Sho0le River
+- a rlcemr PldOe • u - 8100
PlnMallon E GoM r 24200 55 0
? Causes 51 S
13000 12200 m 103001e
t( 13900
10600 ?/ S 13600
904 7100 300 rd?o Sri
(3500 0; yS
8800 ? ? - 1700 179 'P
_ q
28V 1200 ?3 Rood
3100 1200 10300 Old Georgetown II
15800 SR 1167 2000 r00 ExtenSlon, o
rn
1800
SR 11 15 3 5400
Old Georgetown Rcl.? , 5200g(?\ 14200 c
Old Georgetown Rd.
d A0
f
12300 re
JiMIA drench
15900 N } 120 1400
!04 y 4900 J ?
n ^ n" a 19600 t 2200
1`•?•
Own"
ch OTwe
?' 0 6ca 3800
51 8400 2700 Lw
21800 179 4 i ?k j. 7743
O 18800 ! 9
179 1100 800 179 Beacl10tive 8500 6800 0'
8??lcvard 9D4 2 Ra
d
4300
22700
2030 ESTIMATED AADT 'a4
LEGEND LOCATION:
NC DOT TRANSPORTATION PLANNING SR 1163 (Georgetown Road) Extension from SR 1184 (Ocean
ffi IM? o Isle Beach Road) to NC 179
PROJECT:
DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME(%) - X30 Two-lanes on new location, Ocean Isle Beach
X30 m 307H HIGHEST HOURLY VOLUME
PM PM PEAK PERIOD
D DIRECTIONAL SPLIT(%) COUNTY: BRUNSWICK
INDICATES DMEC71ON OF D
1OW FORAM PEAK
(d,t) DUALS, TUST'S (%) DB.7.: 3 DATE: MARCH 25, 2004
Tip = R • 3432 W. O. = 35501.1.1
I
*Schedule
EA .....................February 2007
FONSI................February 2008
Right of Way........ 2009
Construction ......... Post Years
Type of Existinj Roadway
Existing facility (Old Georgetown Road) is a two-lane highway
with a 24-foot pavement width and 5-foot unpaved shoulders
Proposed Roadway
2-lanes, each 12-foot wide, with 8-foot shoulders (4-foot paved)
Project is recommended in the 2001 Brunswick County
Transportation Plan Report, the 2002 Shallotte
Transportation Plan Report and the Transportation
Plan for the Town of Ocean Isle Beach (currently R _-AA17
being developed)
?_V.V
Brunswick County

Logging Road
R-3432
Brunswick County
I?
Spray Fields Ado
R-3432
Brunswick County
i t ? ¦ ? ?
Brunswick County
kintersection of pia Georgetown Ka. Brunswick County
And Hwy 179/904)

MHF t'"^,i1
r 9 l(t SA , ? (,.
-- --------------
fop 1, i ?
? y. t? t 1c ti
4
CITG O
t < w.
Hwy 179/904 W,3 AWO
R-3432
(Intersection of Hwy 179
and Ocean Isle Beach Rd.) Brunswick Co
(Ocean Isle Beach Airport)
Brunswick County
c

i ,
c
rr Y.lj•
s. f ."F'•
•./ ,?"
AA

Goose Creek Road
(Intersection of Hale Swamp Road)

R-3432
Brunswick County

a
R-3432
Brunswid
Questions/Comments?
R-3432
Brunswick County
4
Thank you for coming! !
R-3432
Brunswick County
J
0ENT OF
a p
N 0
? a
ra --a9
?4gCH 3
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726
August 25, 2004
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
This letter is in response to your request for comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) on the potential environmental impacts of the proposed extension of SR 1163 (Old
Georgetown Road) from SR 1184 (Ocean Isle Beach Road) to NC 179 in Brunswick County,
North Carolina (TIP No. R-3432). These comments provide scoping information in accordance
with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and section 7 of
the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
Recent aerial photography and National Wetland Inventory maps of the project area show a
mixture of agricultural land, forest, and forested wetlands. Much of this land likely provides
excellent habitat for a variety of wildlife species. It appears that the project has the potential to
impact a significant amount of wetland acreage.
For road improvement projects such as widening, realignment, bridge replacement and culvert
replacement, the Service recommends the following general conservation measures to avoid or
minimize environmental impacts to fish and wildlife resources:
Wetland and forest impacts should be avoided and minimized to the maximal extent
practical. Areas exhibiting high biodiversity or ecological value important to the
watershed or region should be avoided. Proposed highway projects should be aligned
along or adjacent to existing roadways, utility corridors or other previously disturbed
areas in order to minimize habitat loss and fragmentation. Highway shoulder and median
widths should be reduced through wetland areas;
2. Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use existing crossings and/or
occur on a bridge structure wherever feasible. Bridges should be long enough to allow
for sufficient wildlife passage along stream corridors. Where bridging is not feasible,
culvert structures that maintain natural water flow and hydraulic regimes without
scouring or impeding fish and wildlife passage should be employed;
i
3. Bridges and approaches should be designed to avoid any fill that will result in damming
or constriction of the channel or flood plain. To the extent possible, piers and bents
should be placed outside the bank-full width of the stream. If spanning the flood plain is
not feasible, culverts should be installed in the flood plain portion of the approach to
restore some of the hydrological functions of the flood plain and reduce high velocities of
flood waters within the affected area;
4. Bridge designs should include provisions for roadbed and deck drainage to flow through
a vegetated buffer prior to reaching the affected stream. This buffer should be large
enough to alleviate any potential effects from run-off of storm water and pollutants;
5. Off-site detours should be used rather than construction of temporary, on-site bridges.
For projects requiring an on-site detour in wetlands or open water, such detours should be
aligned along the side of the existing structure which has the least and/or least quality of
fish and wildlife habitat. At the completion of construction, the detour area should be
entirely removed and the impacted areas be planted with appropriate vegetation,
including trees if necessary;
6. If unavoidable wetland or stream impacts are proposed, a plan for compensatory
mitigation to offset unavoidable impacts should be provided early in the planning
process. Opportunities to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity via conservation
easements, land trusts or by other means should be explored at the outset;
7. Wherever appropriate, construction in sensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning
and migratory bird nesting seasons. In waterways that may serve as travel corridors for
fish, in-water work should be avoided during moratorium periods associated with
migration, spawning and sensitive pre-adult life stages. The general moratorium period
for anadromous fish is February 15 - June 30;
8. Best Management Practices (BMP) for Protection of Surface Waters should be
implemented; and
9. Activities within designated riparian buffers should be avoided or minimized.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act requires that all federal action agencies (or their
designated non-federal representatives), in consultation with the Service, insure that any action
federally authorized, funded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any federally-listed threatened or endangered species. A biological
assessment/evaluation may be prepared to fulfill the section 7(a)(2) requirement and will
expedite the consultation process. To assist you, a county-by-county list of federally protected
species known to occur in North Carolina and information on their life histories and habitats can
be found on our web page at bttp://nc-es.fivs.,gov/es/countyfr.litmi .
Although the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database does not indicate any
known occurrences of listed species near the project vicinity, use of the NCNHP data should not
be substituted for actual field surveys if suitable habitat occurs near the project site. The
NCNHP database only indicates the presence of known occurrences of listed species and does
not necessarily mean that such species are not present. It may simply mean that the area has not
been surveyed. If suitable habitat occurs within the project vicinity for any listed species,
surveys should be conducted to determine presence or absence of the species.
If you determine that the proposed action may affect (i.e., likely to adversely affect or not likely
to adversely affect) a listed species, you should notify this office with your determination, the
results of your surveys, survey methodologies, and an analysis of the effects of the action on
listed species, including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, before
conducting any activities that might affect the species. If you determine that the proposed action
will have no effect (i.e., no beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect effect) on listed species, then
you are not required to contact our office for concurrence.
We reserve the right to review any federal permits that may be required for this project, at the
public notice stage. Therefore, it is important that resource agency coordination occur early in
the planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise and minimize delays in
project implementation. In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the
environmental documentation for this project include the following in sufficient detail to
facilitate a thorough review of the action:
1. A clearly defined and detailed purpose and need for the proposed project, supported by
tabular data, if available, and including a discussion of the project's independent utility;
2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered,
including the upgrading of existing roads and a "no action" alternative;
3. A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact area that may be directly or indirectly affected;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted
by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should be
differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National
Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987
Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers;
The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be
likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also
include the extent to which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to
natural resources, and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative adverse
effects;
6. Design features and construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize impacts to fish and wildlife resources, both direct and indirect, and including
fragmentation and direct loss of habitat;

7. Design features, construction techniques, or any other mitigation measures which would
be employed at wetland crossings and stream channel relocations to avoid or minimize
impacts to waters of the US; and,
8. If unavoidable wetland or stream impacts are proposed, project planning should include a
compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting the unavoidable impacts.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please continue to advise us
during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding our response, please contact Mr.
Gary Jordan at [phone], ext. 32.
Si ice e
Pete Bjamin
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Dave Timpy, USACE, Wilmington, NC
Nicole Thomson, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
IMPORTANT
To ,2?;"l G
Date & /_3_ Time
WHILE YOU WERE OUT
M I-/<- / A ; e /
of iDr C ?T
Phone 33' ?_ 7r.?x ?3
AREA CODE NUMBER EXTENSION
TELEPHONED -PLEASE CALL
CALLED TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU URGENT
RETURNED YOUR CALL
Message
t w?tS
Signed
N.C. Dept. of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources

11 T
,,.sun o
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
March 1, 1996
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR - Water Quality Lab
4401 Reedy Creek Road
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Brunswick County, SR 1163 (Georgetown Road) Extension
from SR 1184 to NC 179, State Project 6.231023, TIP No.
R-3432
The Planning and Environmental Branch of the Division of Highways has
begun studying the proposed extension to SR 1163 (Georgetown Road). The
project is included in the 1996-2002 North Carolina Transportation
Improvement Program and is scheduled for right of way in fiscal year 1998 and
construction in fiscal year 1999.
The proposed project will extend SR 1163 (Georgetown Road) on new
location, from SR 1184 to NC 179. The proposed cross section is two, 12-foot
lanes with 4-foot paved shoulders. This cross section will accommodate
bicycle traffic as well as vehicular movement. An alternative alignment to
avoid wetlands is also being studied (please see attached 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. This document will be prepared in accordance with
the State Environmental Policy Act. It is desirable that your agency respond
by April 30, 1996 so that your comments can be used in the preparation of
this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact
Marc Hamel, Project Planning Engineer, of this Branch at (919) 733-784)).
HFV/plr A
Attachment
9v L--- ?r-Ge •?? J ?
r'

N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
/ lqf,
TO:
C
-
'
l
- REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
1
a
F,r
o
at er -
E- r
c- 1- Dc-4 N) F-
,
FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
Marc- Hcime,(
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR PEOUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR 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:
RECEIVED
MAR 0 7 199u'
EtvvIRCN!,IENTAL SCIENCES

51TA [
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
MEMORANDUNI TO
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
February 28, 1996
File
Marc L. Hamel, Project Engineer Y -
C/-
Alitiutes o f &ol ing illeeting, T. 1.P. # R-343 , S R I 163
(Georgetown Road Extension), From SR 1 184 to NC 179,
Brunswick County, State Project Number 6.231023
The following were in attendance for the February 19th, 1996 scoping meeting at 10:30 in
the Plannin- and Environmental Conference Room (434):
Debbie Bevin
John Taylor
Brenda Moore
Derrick Lewis
Linda Kester
Betty Yancey
Nelson Frye
Jerry Snead
Teresa Ellerby
Ray McIntyre
Pat Puglisi
Keith Johnston
Doug Bowers
Marc Hamel
*Eric Galamb
*David Cox
SI LPO
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Traffic Engineering
Traffic Engineering
Right-of-Way
Right-of-Way
Hydraulics
Roadway Design
Program Development
Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation
Photogrammetry
Division 3
P&E
DEM
Wildlife Resources Comm.
*Provided comments later due to conflicting schedules
The following narrative presents the highlights of scoping items pertaining to the project:
Debbie Bevin noted there were no National Register sites existing; however, she also noted
that Wilmington Branch requests more information before determination can be made about
archaeological sites.
2. Doug Bowers stated the intent is for this route to be designated as NC 179 when
completed, and that existing NC 179 be designated NC 179 Business.

41 . .
Alternatives to using the existing dirt road alignment depend on what is found in the field by
our staff biologists. Eric Galamb and David Cox each noted an alignment south of the
currently proposed route has the potential for lesser impacts. To the north are Carolina
Bays which should be avoided. It is also likely that Red Cockaded Woodpeckers are in the
area, so surveys will need to cover this.
4. The intersection on the eastern terminus of the project needs to be carefully addressed to
correct alignment and geometry problems.
Pat Puglisi noted that the it would be desirable to have 4-foot paved shoulders on the
project to accommodate bicycles. She showed a NCDOT plan delineating bicycle facilities
in the area.
6. Marc Hamel will request a revised traffic forecast in light of the potential for this route to be
designated NC 179.
Jerry Snead no streams were being crossed, but there are wetlands involved. A CAMA
permit will apply.
8. Tragic engineering requests revised traffic projections before input on intersection geometry
can be provided.
9. Ray McIntyre requested new cost estimates, as the current cost estimates are old.
10. It was noted by Doug Bowers that the Board Member would like to accelerate the schedule
for this project as funding allows. Discussion revealed that it may not be possible due to
time constraints on individual branches.
11. It appears that Shallotte would be a good place to hold a Citizen's Informational Workshop.
12. The project will study an alignment along the dirt road alignment currently existing, as well
as an alignment south of this proposal to lessen potential impacts. A two-lane shoulder
cross section roadway is currently proposed, with 4-foot paved shoulders to accommodate
bicycle traffic.
MLH/plr
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DATE
TRANSMITTAL SLIP l? ?qy
TO. REF. NO. OR ROOM, DLDG.
FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, DLDG.
mo,,rc- ) amp l P--E _
ACTION
? 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 ADOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGI I, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
January 16, 1995
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR - Water Quality Section
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for R-3432, Brunswick County,
SR 1163 (Georgetown Road) Extension, From SR 1184 to
NC 179, State Project #6.231023
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 February 19, 1996 at 10:30 a.m. in the Planning
and Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 434). You may provide us
with your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process.
If there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please
call Marc Hamel, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7844, Extension 233.
MH/plr
Attachment 03057
v-r `T l v ?t
00 ?Wj
3?Zoly.G
15-ZS,2-IL - I- (\>
I z - 25-Z- (I)
4 ?o?v COx?ec?S TGt2
5
Ik/)L
& FO
2-
s
L q

PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Date 12/6/95
Revision Date
Project Development Stage
Programming _
Planning X
Design
TIP # R-3432
Project # 6.231023
F.A. Project # N/A
Division 3
County Brunswick
Route SR 1163 (Georgetown Road) Extension
Functional Class: N/A (New location)
Length 3.4 kilometers (2.4 miles)

Purpose of Project: To provide an alternative route for
traffic traveling east/west through coastal Brunswick county,
thereby easing traffic congestion and improving safety on
existing routes.
Description of Project (including specific limits) and major
elements of work: Construct on new location a two-lane
extension of SR 1163 (Georgetown Road) from SR 1184 to NC 179
in Brunswick County. A two-lane roadway with shoulders is
proposed for this extension.
Type of environmental document to be prepared: SEA & SFONSI
Environmental study schedule: SEA: In Progress - 10/96
SFONSI: 12/96 - 4/97
Will there be special funding participation by municipality,
developers, or other? Yes _ No X
If yes, by whom and amount: ($) , or M
How and when will this be paid? N/A
-Page 1-
PROJECT SCCPING SHEET
Type of Access Control: Full _ Partial - None x
Number of Interchanges: None
Stream/Body of Water Crossing: None
Typical Section: Existing: N/A (New location)-
Proposed,' Two-lane, 24-foot w/_shculders_ `.
Traffic (ADT): Current: N/A Buildout: 3100 vpd
Design Year (2020): 5,600 vpd
TTST 1 % Duals 5%
Design Standards Applicable: AASHTO X 3R
Design Speed: 60 MPH
Feasibility Cost Estimate:
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Right of Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
TOTAL FEASIBILITY COST ESTIMATE . . . . $
Planning Cost Estimate:
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,000,000
Right of Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 700 , 000
TOTAL PLANNING COST ESTIMATE . . . . $ 3,700,000
TIP Cost Estimate:
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 700 , 000

Right of Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,000, 000

TOTAL TIP COST ESTIMATE . . . . $ 3,700, 000
-Page 2-
PROJECT SLOPING SHEET
List any special features, such as railroad involvement,
which cculd affect cost or schedule or project:
ITEMS REQUIRED (X) ;COMMENTS: COST
Three-Lane Curb & Gutter _-_-"
Estimated Costs of Improvements: -""
Pavement
x Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 617 ,400
Widening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Resurfacing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
_ Shoulders
_ Paved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . $ -
_ Earthen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
X Earthwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 308 ,800
X Subsurface items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 173 ,550
X Subgrade and Stabilization. . . . . . . . . $ 163 ,800
X Drainage (list any special items) . . . . . $ 282 ,000
_ Sub-Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
_ Structures
Bridge Rehab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
New Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
_ Remove Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
New Culvert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Culvert Extension . . . . . . . . . . . $
_ Retaining Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Noise Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Other Misc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Concrete Curb and Gutter. . . . . . . . $
Concrete Sidewalk . . . . . . . . . . . $
Guardrail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Fencing
W.W .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
C.L.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
X Erosion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 102,000
_ Landscaping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
X Traffic Control . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 10,000
Signing
_ New . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
_ Upgraded . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
_ Traffic Signals
New . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Revised . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
RR Signals
New . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
_ Revised . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
With/without arms . . . . . . . . . . . $
-Page 3-
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
ITEMS REQUIRED (X) COMMENTS: COST
Three-Lane Curb & Gutter
If 3R
_ Drainage Safety Enhancement . . . . . . $
_ Roadside Safety Enhancement . . . . . . $
_ Realignment for Safety Upgrade. . . . . $
Pavement Markings
_ Paint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Thermoplastic . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 21,150
_ Raised Pavement Markers . . . . . . . . $
_ Delineators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
_ Other(clearing,grubbing,misc.,and mob.) $ 961,300
CONTRACT COST Subtotal. . . . . . . . $ 2,640,000
Engineering & Contingencies . . . . . . . . . . $ 360,000
PE Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Force Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Construction Subtotal. . . . . . . . $ 3,000,000
Right-of-Way
Will Contain within existing P,/W? Yes _ No X
Existing Width
New R/W needed X Estimated cost. $
Easements: Type Width
Estimated cost. $
Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Right-of-Way Subtotal. . . . . . . . $
Cost Prepared by:
Scoping Sheets Prep. by:
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST. . $
-Page 4-
Date
Date
PROJECT SLOPING SHEET
The above scoping has been reviewed and approved* by:
Init. Date
Highway Design
Roadway
Structure
Design Services
Geotechnical
Hydraulics
Loc. & Surveys
Photogrammetry
Prel. Est. Eng DMC
Ping & Environ.
Right of Way
R/W Utilities
Traffic Engr.
Project Management
County Manager
City/Municipality
Init. Date
B.O.T. Member
Mgr Program & Policy
Chief Engineer-Precon
Chief Engineer-Op
Sec Roads Officer
Construction Branch
Roadside Environ.
Maintenance Branch
Bridge Maintenance
Statewide Planning
Division Engineer
Bicycle Coordinator
Program Development
FHWA
Dept. of Cult. Res.
DEHNR
(Scoping Sheet for local officials will be sent to Division
Engineering.)
*If you are not in agreement with proposed project or
scoping, note your proposed revisions or comments here:

-Page 5-
U
It
{{
r,
?ZZ) r?
cl /1'1?
C J

Melba McGee
March 26, 1996
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 or water impacts have not
been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
11204.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources •
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Governor
p E H N F1
Jonathan B. Howes, , Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., RE., Director
March 26, 1996
TO: Melba McGee, Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM:- Monica Swihart',' Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #96-0567; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Proposed Extension of SR 1163(Georgetown Road)_,
Brunswick County, TIP#R-3432, Lumber Subbasin 03-07-59
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. DEM recommends that no weep holes be
installed in bridges that drain directly into surface
waters.
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, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
J
,. sub o
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
March 1, 1996
MEMORANDUM TO: Mrs. Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse
Dept. of Administration
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branc /A
SUBJECT: Brunswick County, SR 1163 (Georgetown Road) Extension
from SR 1184 to NC 179, State Project 6.231023, TIP No.
R-3432
The Planning and Environmental Branch of the Division of Highways has
begun studying the proposed extension to SR 1163 (Georgetown Road). The
project is-included in the 1996-2002 North Carolina Transportation
Improvement Program and is scheduled for right of way in fiscal year 1998 and
construction in fiscal year 1999.
The proposed project will extend SR 1163 (Georgetown Road) on new
location, from SR 1184 to NC 179. The proposed cross section is two, 12-foot
lanes with 4-foot paved shoulders. This cross section will accommodate
bicycle traffic as well as vehicular movement. An alternative alignment to
avoid wetlands is also being studied (please see attached 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. This document will be prepared in accordance with
the State Environmental Policy Act. It is desirable that your agency respond
by April 30, 1996 so that your comments can be used in the preparation of
this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact
Marc Hamel, Project Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone].
HFV/plr
Attachment RECEIVED
MAR 9
N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE

,z
1
N
cr)
qlqr
ce ;
a
I "
1
ii
d H
i Z
tl. U
cn
Z
??;; D
"'Lr
? T
U
. } Z
?O
©<
? T ¢
T U
O
Cf)
0, z
U) z
w0
x ?-
w
OLL
?W
Z
Z
' w?
0 c)
C'i
T Cl)
T Z
rs 0
cn U