20120935 Ver _Information Letter_20100126

Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Project Review Form
Project Number: 10-0270
County: Brunswick
Due Date: 3/8/2010
In-House Review
soil & Water
_Z Coastal Management
Wildlife
? Wildlife - DOT
Forest Resources
_ Land Resources
Parks & Recreation
Water Quality.
? ae suali. - =O
Air Quality
Project Description: Finding of No Significant Impact - TIP # R-3432 - Proposal extension of SR
1163 to NC 179
FRegionalOfflce
Asheville
Fayetteville
Mooresville
Raleigh
Washington
Wilmington
_ Winston-Salem
Manager Sign-Off/Region:
Office Area
_ Air
Water
Aquifer Protection
Land Quality Engineer
Response (check all applicable)
- No objection to project as proposed.
Insufficient information to complete review
If you have any questions, please contact
Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator at
Date Received: 01/26/2010
Marine Fisheries
Water Resources
Environmental Health
_ Solid Waste Mgmt
Radiation Protection
Other
Reviewer/Agency:
No Comment
?p w4 -D 67`
Other (specify or attach comments)
,/qN -v v49YJ
7 2&1'0
?SA0
?9ti 'OU
Proposed Extension of SR 1163 (Old Georgetown Road)
From SR 1184 (Ocean Isle Beach Road) to NC 179 hbvir? `?Tp
Brunswick County
WBS Element 35501.1.1 T.
TIP Project # R-3432 ?y
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

A /D Submitted in compliance with the
APPROVED:
North Carolina State Environmental Policy Act

(sregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
0
Proposed Extension of SR 1163 (Old Georgetown Road)
From SR 1184 (Ocean Isle Beach Road) to NC 179
Brunswick County
WBS Element 35501.1.1
TIP Project # R-3432
State Finding of No Significant Impact
January 2010
Documentation Prepared in Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch by:
I ?I2010
Projetct Pe A. O'Connor, lanning Engineer E ?ARO //,
`?2pQ:oFESSipy!9%;
aL SEAL. 9r-:
/ 6 Zola = 34438 =
C rles R. Cox, P.E.
Q?.
:64,
Project Engineer i,- GINS
??
/? ANNE0%
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Proposed Extension of SR 1163 (Old Georgetown Road)
From SR 1184 (Ocean Isle Beach Road) to NC 179
Brunswick County
WBS Element 35501.1.1
TIP Project # R-3432
There are currently no special commitments for this project.
R-3432 Finding of No Significant Impact Page 1 of 1
January 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. TYPE OF ACTION ...........................................................................................................1
II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ...................................................................1
III. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE .......................................................................................2
IV. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS .........................................................2
V. COORDINATION AND COMMENTS ..........................................................................4
A. Circulation of the State Environmental Assessment (SEA) ..... ...........................................4
B. Comments Received on the EA ................................................ ...........................................4
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ................................ ...........................................4
2. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ............................................. ...........................................5
3. North Carolina Division of Coastal Management ................ ...........................................6
4. North Carolina Division of Water Quality ............................ ...........................................6
5. NC Wildlife Resources Commission .................................... .........................................10
6. NC Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services ....... .........................................10
C. Public Hearing Comments ........................................................ .........................................11
D. Actions Required by Other Agencies ...................................... ..........................................11
VI. REVISIONS TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ..............................................12
A. Archaeological Investigation ................................................... ..........................................12
B. Threatened and Endangered Species Update ........................... ..........................................12
C. Avoidance & Minimization ..................................................... ..........................................12
D. Air Quality - Mobile Source Air Toxics ................................. ..........................................13
VII. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ..........................................14
TABLES
Table 1: R-3432 Resource Effects
Appendix A Figures
• Figure 1
• Figure 2A
• Figure 2B
APPENDICES
Vicinity Map
Aerial Alternatives Map
Aerial Project Map
.... 3
Appendix B Comments from Federal, State, and Local Agencies
Proposed Extension of SR 1163 (Old Georgetown Road)
From SR 1184 (Ocean Isle Beach Road) to NC 179
Brunswick County
WBS Element 35501.1.1
TIP Project # R-3432
STATE FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Prepared by the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1. TYPE OF ACTION
This is a North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) administrative
action, State Finding of No Significant Impact (SFONSI).
NCDOT has determined this project will not have any significant impact on the
environment. This SFONSI is based on the State Environmental Assessment (SEA),
which has been independently evaluated by NCDOT and determined to adequately and
accurately discuss the environmental issues and impacts of the proposed project. The
SEA provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that an Environmental
Impact Statement is not required. NCDOT takes full responsibility for the accuracy,
scope, and content of the SEA.
II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
The NCDOT proposes to extend SR 1163 (Old Georgetown Road) from SR 1184
(Ocean Isle Beach Road) to NC 179 (Bricklanding Road) in Brunswick County (see
Figure 1).
This project is included in the approved 2009-2015 State Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP). The total cost in the STIP is $8,906,000, which includes
$700,000 for right of way, $6,000 for mitigation and $8,200,000 for construction. The
current estimated total cost for Alternative 213, the preferred alternative, is $10,637,700.
Right of way acquisition is scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2012 and
construction in FFY 2013.
III. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Several alternatives were evaluated in the SEA, including the "no-build"
alternative and five (5) new location build alternatives. After careful review and
extensive environmental studies, NCDOT recommends Alternative 2B as the preferred
alternative since it best minimizes impacts to the natural and human environment.
IV. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Adverse impacts to the human and natural environments were minimized through
alternative development and selection and shifts in the proposed alignment. No adverse
effect on the air quality of the surrounding area is anticipated as a result of the project.
The proposed project will not adversely impact any historic structures eligible for or
listed on the National Register of Historic Places or any known archaeological sites
eligible for listing in the National Register. The project will not involve any relocation of
residences or businesses. The project will impact approximately 0.47 acres of wetlands.
The preferred alternative was shifted to avoid potential Environmental Justice issues.
The Biological Conclusion for the wood stork is No Effect. Table 1 below gives a
comprehensive list of resources and the effects associated with each.
2
Table 1: R-3432 Resource Effects
Resource Alternative 2B
referred
Length (miles) 2.7
Railroad Crossings 0
Schools 0
Recreational Areas and Parks 0
Churches 0
Cemeteries 0
Major Utility Crossings 1
National Register Eligible Properties 0
Archaeological Sites 0
Federally-Listed Species within Corridor 0
100-Year Flood lain Crossings 0
Prime Farmland 0
Residential Relocations 0
Business Relocations 0
Hazardous Material Sites 0
Wetland Impacts (acres) 0.47
Stream Crossings 0
Stream hn acts linear feet) 0
Substantial Noise Impacts 0
Water Supply Watershed Protected Areas 0
Wildlife Refuges and Game Lands 0
Section 4(f)/ Section 6(1) Impacts 0
Low Income & Minority Population hn acts 0
Construction Cost $8,300,000
ght of Way Cost $2,010,000
tilities Cost $327,700
otal Cost $10,637,700
3
V. COORDINATION AND COMMENTS
A. Circulation of the State Environmental Assessment (SEA)
The FHWA approved the SEA on March 25, 2009. The approved SEA was
circulated to the following federal, state, and local agencies for review and comments.
An asterisk (*) indicates a written response was received from the agency. Copies of the
correspondence received are included in Appendix B of this document. Responses to
substantial comments are noted below in Section B.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
* U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
* U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Nati onal Marine Fisheries Service
* N.C. Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
* N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
* N.C. Division of Coastal Management
N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries
* N.C. Division of Water Quality
* N.C. State Clearinghouse
* N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
B. Comments Received on the EA
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
COMMENT: "EPA has no major comments due to the scope of the project. Direct
impacts to jurisdictional waters are not significant."
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT: "However, the EPA continues to have general concerns on the
transportation purpose and need. The EPA did not concur at
Concurrence Point 1 prior to the project being removed from the Merger
process by the USACE."
RESPONSE: In a 2007 memorandum, NCDOT addressed the concerns of the Merger
team regarding the purpose and need of this project by providing
additional traffic forecasts that show that when the proposed extension
of SR 1163 (Old Georgetown Road) is built, traffic volumes will
decrease on NC 179 as more travelers will use the new facility than was
previously predicted. Additionally, it is noted in the SEA that
Transportation System Management (TSM) measures alone would not
solve the capacity deficiency issues along existing NC 179. Extending
4
SR 1163 (Old Georgetown Road) would provide increased connectivity
between Calabash and Shallotte while also alleviating capacity
deficiencies on the existing facilities.
COMMENT: The EPA shares some of the concerns expressed by other resources
agencies concerning indirect and cumulative impacts, as well as safety
and wildlife habitat fragmentation. EPA defers to USACE and
NCDENR on the permitting issues."
RESPONSE: Although DWQ initially expressed concern regarding the possible
indirect and cumulative effects of this project, after reviewing the
Indirect and Cumulative Impacts Assessment provided by NCDOT, the
DWQ concluded that further impact analysis was not required. This
Indirect and Cumulative Impacts Assessment stated that since there will
be minimal notable land use change in the Future Land Use Study Area
(FLUSA) beyond what would be anticipated with the No-Build
Alternative, a more detailed indirect impact study is not recommended.
2. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
COMMENT: "The Service concurred with all of NCDOT's biological determinations
in a letter dated August 11, 2008. We believe that the requirements of
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act have been satisfied. We
remind you that the obligations under Section 7 consultation must be
reconsidered if (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified
action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not
previously considered in this review; (2) this action is subsequently
modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; (3) a new
species is listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected by the
identified action."
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT: "On page 20, the SEA states `Wood storks are not known to breed in
North Carolina.' This is an incorrect statement. Wood storks have been
observed nesting a few miles away in Columbus County since at least
2005."
RESPONSE: At the time this statement was written, NCDOT was not aware of the
confirmed nesting. This statement has been corrected in Section VII.B
of this document.
5
3. North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
COMMENT: "Based on the information contained in the [SEA], it appears that the
proposed project will not impact a CAMA AEC as defined by the rules
of the North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission. Therefore, the
proposed project will not require a CAMA permit."
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT: "Although not anticipated, should the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
require an Individual Permit, the NCDOT must certify to the USACE
and DCM that the proposed project will be conducted in a manner that is
consistent with the State's coastal management program in accordance
with the requirements of Federal Consistency (15 CFR 930), under the
Federal Coastal Zone Management Act."
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
4. North Carolina Division of Water Quality
COMMENT: "Upon reviewing the information provided in the [Indirect and
Cumulative Effects Assessment], the DWQ has concluded that further
cumulative impact analyses are not required. However, please keep us
apprised of any additional information or revisions to the cumulative
impacts document."
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT: "A mitigation plan has yet to be reviewed by the DWQ for this project.
The DWQ would prefer to see on-site mitigation for projects when
practicable rather than off-site mitigation."
RESPONSE: The NCDOT will investigate potential on-site stream and wetland
mitigation prior to submitting the permit application. If on-site
mitigation is not feasible, mitigation will be provided by North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (EEP).
COMMENT: "Section V.J indicates that there is a power line crossing in the project
area and that there may be a need to relocate some power transmission
poles. It is unclear if moving these power poles will result in additional
impacts to jurisdictional areas. If so, then the impacts should be
included in the overall impacts for the project."
6
RESPONSE: If utilities need to be relocated as a result of this project, impacts to
wetland associated with these relocations will be calculated prior to the
project let date and included in the permit application package.
COMMENT: "Section V.I.2 discusses streams and wetlands located within the project
area. The features are shown on Figure 2. Figure 2 should show the
project boundary. Additionally, the stream and wetland features referred
to in the text should be labeled in the figure for easy identification.
Many of the features are shown and labeled in Figure 2B, but not all
shown in the table are included within this figure."
RESPONSE: Figure 2 has been modified to include labels for all wetlands in the
project study area. However, all of the streams noted in the SEA were
not included in Figure 2 since the surveyed project corridor was much
larger than the immediate project area. Jinny's Branch and Streams SB,
SC, and SF are located east of SR 1184 (Ocean Isle Beach Road) and
will not be affected by the proposed extension of SR 1163 (Old
Georgetown Road).
COMMENT: "Environmental assessment alternatives shall consider design criteria
that reduce the impacts to streams and wetlands from stormwater runoff.
These alternatives shall include road designs that allow for the treatment
of stormwater runoff through Best Management Practices (BMPs) as
detailed in the most recent version of NCDWQ's Stormwater Best
Management Practices, such as grassed swales, buffer areas, preformed
scour holes, retention basins, etc."
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT: "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."
RESPONSE: NCDOT will avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands and streams to the
fullest practicable extent during final design. A mitigation plan will then
be developed for any unavoidable impacts prior to submitting a request
for a 401 Water Quality Certification.
7
COMMENT: "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."
RESPONSE: As currently proposed, there are no stream impacts associated with this
project.
COMMENT: "Future documentation, including the 401 Water Quality Certification
Application, should continue to include an itemized listing of the
proposed wetland and stream impacts with corresponding mapping."
RESPONSE: This information will be included in the permit application.
COMMENT: "DWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impact that could
result from this project. NCDOT 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."
RESPONSE: Please see pages 15-18 of the EA regarding potential impacts to aquatic
communities, wetlands and streams and the procedures NCDOT uses to
avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to them.
COMMENT: "NCDOT is respectfully reminded that all impacts including but not
limited to, bridging, fill, excavation and clearing, to jurisdictional
wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers need to be included in the final
impact calculations. These impacts, in addition to any construction
impacts, temporary or otherwise, also need to be included as part of the
401 Water Quality Certification Application."
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT: "Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in
wetlands or streams."
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT: "Borrow/waste areas shall avoid wetlands to the maximum extent
practical. Impacts to wetlands in borrow/waste areas will need to be
presented in the 401 Water Quality Certification and could precipitate
compensatory mitigation."
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
8
COMMENT: "The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to
specifically address the proposed methods for stormwater management.
More specifically, stormwater should not be permitted to discharge
directly into streams or surface waters."
RESPONSE: The application will address the proposed methods for stormwater
management. Stormwater will not be permitted to discharge directly
into streams or surface waters.
COMMENT: "Based on the information presented in the document, the magnitude of
impacts to wetlands and streams may require an individual permit
application to the Corps of Engineers and corresponding 401 Water
Quality Certification. Please be advised that a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires satisfactory protection of water quality to ensure
that water quality standards are met and no wetland or stream uses are
lost. Final permit authorization will require the submittal of a formal
application by the NCDOT and written concurrence from the NCDWQ.
Please be aware that any approval will be contingent on appropriate
avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream impacts to the
maximum extent practical, the development of an acceptable stormwater
management plan, and the inclusion of appropriate mitigation plans
where appropriate."
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT: "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 merchandized equipment and leaving
the stumps and root mat intact allows the area to revegetate naturally and
minimizes soil disturbance."
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT: "Placement of culverts and other structures in waters, streams, and
wetlands shall be placed 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 disequilibrium of wetlands, streambeds or banks, adjacent to or
upstream and downstream of the above structures. The applicant is
required to provide evidence that the equilibrium is being maintained if
9
requested in writing by the DWQ. If this condition is unable to be met
due to bedrock or other limiting features encountered during
construction, please contact the DWQ for guidance on how to proceed
and to determine whether or not a permit modification will be required."
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT: "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."
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT: "Riparian vegetation (native trees and shrubs) should be preserved to the
maximum extent possible. Riparian vegetation must be reestablished
within the construction limits of the project by the end of the growing
season following completion of construction."
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
5. NC Wildlife Resources Commission
COMMENT: "Alternative 2B impacts 0.47 acres of wetlands and no streams.
Furthermore, this alignment is located south of the Sandy Branch Sand
Ridge and Bay Complex, a regionally significant natural area. By
selecting a preferred alternative located in an area of previously
disturbed community types, we do not object to the selection of 2B as
the preferred alternative. At this time we concur with the EA for this
project."
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
6. NC Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
COMMENT: "All alternatives in this proposal will further fragment farmland and land
parcels and convert prime soils directly or indirectly. We believe that
whenever existing infrastructure can be updated to alleviate traffic and
safety concerns, this action should be taken. Each alternative in this
proposal will have an adverse effect on the productivity and viability of
the working lands in the project area."
10
RESPONSE: It has been determined, based on GIS analysis, that the project will
likely affect farmland identified as having statewide or unique
importance. Therefore, NCDOT will prepare a NRCS Farmland
Conversion Form (CPA-106 for linear projects), as is consistent with
FHWA guidance on the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA). The
Indirect and Cumulative Effects analysis completed for the R-3432
project concluded that the project would result in a minimal notable
change in land use beyond what would be anticipated to occur with the
No-Build Alternative.
C. Public Hearing Comments
Following the circulation of the SEA, an informal combined Public Hearing was
held on July 27, 2009 at the National Guard Armory in Shallotte, NC. Approximately 33
citizens were present for the hearing.
Most of the verbal comments received at the meeting were in favor of the
preferred alternative. Ocean Isle Palms, LLC, a residential developer in this area, is
concerned that this project will encroach upon their planned subdivision and would prefer
that the proposed alignment go further north to avoid their property. CGS Land
Holdings, LLC, another area developer, has stated that they are concerned about access to
their property from the proposed extension of SR 1163 (Old Georgetown Road) and
requested that NCDOT provide a way for their property to have accessibility to the new
facility once it is constructed.
D. Actions Required by Other Agencies
Since wetland impacts for this project will not exceed 0.5 acre, it is anticipated
that a Nationwide Section 404 Permit will be applicable. The United States Army Corps
of Engineers (USACE) holds the final discretion as to what permit will be required to
authorize project construction. In addition to the 404 permit, other required
authorizations include the corresponding Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC)
from the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ).
Brunswick County is a coastal county covered by the Coastal Area Management
Act (CAMA). No CAMA Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC) have been identified
in the project area. The streams in the project area are small and are not likely to be
designated as Public Trust Waters. The jurisdictional wetlands within the project area
have not been identified as falling under CAMA jurisdiction. If however, an AEC is
identified and impacted by construction of the project, a CAMA major permit from the
NC Division of Coastal Management (DCM) will be required. A State Stormwater
Permit is also anticipated.
11
VI. REVISIONS TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. ArchaeologicalInvestisation
Since Alternative 2B was developed after the original archaeological survey was
completed and is outside the original survey area, an updated archaeological investigation
was completed in November 2009. No eligible sites were discovered in the project area.
On December 10, 2009, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) sent a letter to
NCDOT stating that they had reviewed and concurred with the conclusions in the
updated archaeological report; therefore, no additional investigations will be necessary.
B. Threatened and Endangered Species Update
Since the approval of the SEA, the biological conclusion provided for the wood
stork has been updated from "May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect" to "No
Effect." Upon the conclusion of detailed environmental surveys, no wood stork habitat
was found to be located within the limits of the chosen alignment; therefore, this project
will have no effect on the wood stork.
C. Avoidance & Minimization
NCDOT was unable to totally avoid wetlands because of the extent of wetlands in
the project study area. It was determined that there was no practicable alternative to the
proposed construction in wetlands and that the proposed action includes all practicable
'I measures to minimize harm to wetlands which may result from such use. Minimization
efforts include:
• Alternatives 2A and 2B were developed specifically to minimize wetland
impacts. Although Alternative 2A had only 0.18 acre of wetland impacts
and was NCDOT's original preferred alternative, the alignment of this
alternative was shifted slightly to avoid a potential Environmental Justice
issue, thus creating Alternative 2B. Alternative 2B was selected as the
new preferred alternative and has 0.47 acre of wetland impacts.
• Reducing the double left turn lanes on SR 1184 (Ocean Isle Beach Road)
and the proposed extension of SR 1163 (Old Georgetown Road) to single
left turn lanes due to the presence of wetlands at that intersection.
12
D. Air Ouatity - Mobile Source Air Toxics
Concerns for air toxics impacts are becoming more frequent on transportation
projects during the NEPA process. Transportation agencies are increasingly expected by
the public and other agencies to address MSAT impacts in their environmental
documents as the science emerges. Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) analysis is a
continuing area of research where, while much work has been done to asses the overall
health risk of air toxics, many questions remain unanswered. In particular, the tools and
techniques for assessing project-specific health impacts from MSATs are limited. These
limitations impede FHWA's ability to evaluate how mobile source health risks should
factor into project-level decision-making under the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). Also, EPA has not established regulatory concentration targets for the six
relevant MSAT pollutants appropriate for use in the project development process.
FHWA has several research projects underway to more clearly define potential risks from
MSAT emissions associated with transportation projects. While this research is ongoing,
FHWA requires each NEPA document to qualitatively address MSATs and their
relationship to the specific highway project through a tiered approach (as according to
USDOT's Federal Highway Administration memorandum, "Interim Guidance on Air
Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents," from February 3, 2006). The FHWA will
continue to monitor the developing research in this emerging field. A qualitative analysis
of MSATs for this project appears in its entirety as an addendum to the project Air
Quality Analysis report, which can be viewed at the PDEA Branch Office on the 4th floor
of the NCDOT Transportation Building in downtown Raleigh at 1 South Wilmington
Street.
13
VII. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based upon a study of the impacts of the proposed project, as documented in the
SEA, and upon comments received from federal, state, local agencies, and the general
public, it is the finding of the NCDOT that this project will not have a significant adverse
impact upon the human or natural environment. The project is not controversial from an
environmental standpoint. No significant impacts to natural, social, ecological, cultural,
or scenic resources are expected. The proposed project is consistent with local plans and
will not disrupt any communities. The project has been extensively coordinated with
federal, state, and local agencies. In view of the above evaluation, it has been determined
that a FONSI is applicable for this project. Therefore, neither an Environmental Impact
Statement nor further environmental analysis is required.
The following person may be contacted for additional information regarding this
proposal:
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
[phone]
14
Appendix A
Figures
Appendix B
Comments from Federal, State,
and Local Agencies
i?
I?
i
I?
10
10
0
10
10
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
i0
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh. North Carolina 27636-3726
April 7, 2009
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
This letter is in response to your April 2, 2009 letter which requested comments from the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the State Environmental Assessment (SEA) for the
proposed extension of SR 1163 (Old Georgetown Road) from SR 1184 (Ocean Isle Beach Road)
to NC 179, Brunswick County, North Carolina (TIP No. R-3432). These comments are provided
in accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c))
and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
According to the SEA, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to
extend SR 1163 to NC 179 on a new-location, two-lane facility for a distance of 2.7 miles. Five
alternatives were considered, with Alternative 2B being the NCDOT preferred. Due to low
impacts to jurisdictional resources (0.47 acre wetlands, 0 feet stream), the decision was made to
remove this project from the combined NEPA/Section 404 Merger Process.
There are fourteen federally protected species listed for Brunswick County. NCDOT determined
that the project would have no effect on all federally listed species, with the exception of the
wood stork (Mycteria americana). NCDOT determined that the project may affect, but is not
likely to adversely affect the wood stork. The Service concurred with all of NCDOT's biological
determinations in a ictier daied Augusi 11, 2008. We believe thai the requiremeuis of section
7(a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied. We remind you that obligations under section 7
consultation must be reconsidered if (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified
action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered in
this review; (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this
review; (3) a new'species is listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected by the
identified action.
On page 20, the SEA states "Wood storks are not known to breed in North Carolina." This is an
incorrect statement. Wood storks have been observed nesting a few miles away in Columbus
County since at least 2005.
The Service believes that this SEA adequately addresses the existing fish and wildlife resources,
the waters and wetlands of the United States, and the potential impacts of this proposed project
on these resources. The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If you have
any questions regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at [phone], ext. 32.
Sincerely,
r
1 '.
Pete Benjamin
Field Supervisor
cc: Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Brad Shaver, USACE, Wilmington, NC
RECEIVED
i;vision of Highways
t-? s
.- . ? APR 0 6 1009
!' -'c strjctm
North Carolina P.r*ctDmbprmntand
Department of Administration n,wrienla, Anatysis Branch
Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor Britt Cobb, Secretary
April 2, ?009
Mr. Gregory Thorpe
NCDOT
Project Dev. & Env. Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Thorpe: 2
Subject: Environmental Assessment - TIP # R-343/- Proposal extension of SR 1163 to NC 179
The N. C. State Clearinghouse has received the above project for intergovernmental review. This
project has been assigned State Application Number 09-E-4220-0272. Please use this number with
all inquiries or correspondence with this office.
Review of this project should be completed on 05/13/2009 . Should you have any questions,
please call(919)807-2425.
Sincerely,

Valerie W. McMillan. Director
State Environmental Review Clearinghouse
cc: Kristine Graham, Project Development Engineer
V7 ,t/ailin-Address: Telepharne: [phone]
1301 Mail Service Center Fu (919(73,3-9571
Ralei_ah, NC 27699-1301 Slate Courier #$ 1 -01 -00
0 c-mail valerie w.nicrnilhnn-doa tic snv
0 Ai, Equal Etnplu)er

Location Address:
116 Nest Jones Street
Raleigh. Noah Carolina
y u ck
i
`Wl 7 .1
?° 'may
Z'
Steven W. Troxler North Carolina Department of Agriculture
Commissioner - - -and Consumer Services
Agricultural Services
Ms. Valerie McMillan
State Clearinghouse
N.C. Department of Administration
1301 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1301
State ';: 09-E4220-0272
RE: lP 9R-3434
Proposal extension of SR 1163 to NC 179
Dear Ms McMillan
Maximilian Merrill
Environmental Programs

?A 1 P.

.5

During the period 2002-2007, NC lost 600,000 acres of farm and forest land due to conversion. This land mass is larger than
most NC counties. Some of this conversion was due to new road construction but most was due to the indirect effects of
infrastructure. All alternatives in this proposal will further fragment farmland and land parcels and convert prime soils directly
or indirectly. We believe that whenever existing infrastructure can be updated to alleviate traffic and safety concerns this
action should be taken. Each alternative in this proposal will have an adverse effect on the productivity and viability of the
working lands in the project area.
Gratefully
Maximilian Merrill.
E-mail: [e-mail]
1001 Mail Service Center. Raleigh. North Carolina. 27699-1001 [phone] • Fax [phone]
TTY: 1-800-735-2962 Voice: 1-877.735-8200
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
•
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUS E
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW •
COUNTY: P.:tU'15';:?: :: F02: F. I,G.Tll).'-S =ND -... •.?5 STATE NUMBER: -49-_-4 2'0-C 212 •
. DATE RECEIVED .. 09
fl
f= jt+
} AGENCY RESPONSE . I - 09 •
fl
fim REVIEW CLOSED ';3 + ' )09

•
C:L31R-:wiiC)US CO•: ?9d:
DEFT OF CUL ?F:;c CE:; 1CEi is,
'KY3
'
, GS 96 - Oa39
_
ARCUTeFS-uisTOSV :>r.D ; - >sC nr;
:eAUa3N n:; - _ -

REVIEW DISTRIBUTION
'
"Fl
1 -. •
AI3 F
?.r.R. COG ,
i
?
?
CC6?Li - DENS, fivodp l-Ln flanagcmp Ci :
•... _• •
ENR - COASTAL i•1.,T •
;EP+R LEGISL%\T Pi I: AFFAi kS

DEPT cr rl
DEF: OF RANSFOR Til ID I .

PROJECT INFORMATION '- '.
rr"i. PT.TCAN'I: NCDOT •
TYPE: S.aLn Eneirorim ntal Policy P.CL
2..nviron.c:er:ta:i Assessment. ?
-41
--30109 •
•
ES..: I IP n 'R i4.r - •ropo.;a.l.. ,.nie: siD:: o= SR l16.3 ;.c NC 1 79 - . r'.Joo,t:l _f. co^s-rwct. i1
_.•..-lane Fa..i Li tV e:<':°.::cing S"t 1'.63 1 0.d .,Coe.. -_,wn Poe:.. . __om ±E: 1'. i?d ;l;c<v: r. •
L=.'_e Beach RDa.0 to NC 11:9. TIP Nc. R-i43': •
9n-F-4270-(i56-.7
C3OS5-3EE 3E.1(..? Pi!7i-1r. F.:.: •
Tie attached pro'^_cr" t., the N. C. SCa[e --_lari_::gi nt.:;^_. `Dr •
,Ce go.'?r'«e^ttl L i a. Pleas c .v. -J

I_ a...1 '.cional f'E•:__n rife is 71_ 100, j-- -I Z C1.. i42:. ..
.

•
..IF.W T-F: FOLL0L2ING TS SUP-MITToD:
SU?e' U? TEI`3
AH r'
fYc ? :EED
...
.
.

SI(:N?Y;

•
•
•
%
•

•

•
%
•
•
•

APR 0 C ZOOS
r

0
0
0
I0
I0
IQ
I?
i?
IO
10
10
10
0
10
10
10
?r
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Beverly Eaves Perdue James H. Gregson
Governor Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator
Office of Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: Steve Sollod, DCM Transportation Project Coordinator g'of
DATE: May 5, 2009
Dee Freeman
Secretary
SUBJECT: Proposed Extension of SR 1163 (Old Georgetown Road) from SR 1184 (Ocean Isle
Beach Road) to NC 179, Brunswick County, R-3432, Project Review No. 09-0272
The North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (DCM) has reviewed the Environmental
Assessment for the above referenced project, which was submitted to the NC State Clearinghouse
for intergovernmental review. We appreciate the opportunity to provide information relevant to the
potential permitting of the proposed project by our agency and offer the following comments.
Based on the information contained in the document, it appears that the proposed project will not
impact a CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) as defined by the rules of the NC Coastal
Resources Commission. Therefore, the proposed project will not require a CAMA Permit.
Although not anticipated, should the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) require an Individual
Permit, the NCDOT must certify to the USACE and DCM that the proposed project will be
conducted in a manner that is consistent with the State's coastal management program in accordance
with the requirements of Federal Consistency (15 CFR 930), under the federal Coastal Zone
Management Act.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at [phone] x 230, or via e-mail at
[e-mail]. Thank you for your consideration of the North Carolina Coastal
Management Program.
1533 Mad Service Curler, Raleigh, NC 276931538
Phone [phone] t FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastalmanagemenl.nel
M EQua OpXftrdy IAff,=we AC= Em kyor
NorthCarolina
Naturally
®'V
NCDENR
.,..i .. a. .;, of c.^. /.??;il".c•': a" _ ..c=
April 28, 2009
MEMORANDUNI
To: Melba McGec, Environmental Coordinator, Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
i
From: David Wainwright, Division of Water Quality
Subject: Comments on the Environmental Assessment related to proposed extension of NC 133 (Old
Georgetown Road) from existing SR 1 184 (Ocean Isle Beach Road to existing NC 179,
Brunswick County. TIP R-3432.
This office has reviewed the referenced document dated March 2009. The NC Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities that
impact Waters of the U.S., including wetlands. It is our understanding that the project as presented will
result in impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and other surface waters. The DWQ offers the
following comments based on review of the aforementioned document:
Project Specific Comments:
1. The DWQ is concemed about potential cumulative impacts for this project. It is indicated several
times in the text that Ocean Isle Beach, Calabash, and Sunset Beach, which are in close proximity
to the project area, as well as the rest of Brunswick County, are growing at a particularly fast rate
and this trend is expected to continue. Such development rates will most certainly place
development pressure on land surrounding this new location road. Consequently, it is also stated
that the lack of infrastructure to the project area and potential environmental constraints will most
likely prevent or impede growth within the project area. It was concluded in the text that a more
detailed impact assessment not be conducted based on the results of the ICE screening tool. The
DWQ will reserve the requirement of a more detailed cumulative effects analysis until further
review of the ICE Screening Tool results and any other information or documents that may be
available at this time can be made.
2. A mitigation plan has yet to be reviewed by the DWQ for this project. The DWQ would prefer to
see on-site mitigation for projects when practicable rather than off-site mitigation.
3. Section V(]) indicates that there is a power line crossing in the project area and that there may be a
need to relocate some power transmission poles. It is unclear if moving these power poles will
result in additional impacts to jurisdictional areas. If so, then the impacts should be included in the
overall impacts for the project.
4. Section VI(2) discusses stream and wetlands located within the project area. The features are
shown on Figure 2. Figure 2 should show the project boundary. Additionally, the stream and
wetland feature referred to in the text should be labeled in the figure for easy identification. Many
of the features are shown and labeled in Figure 213, but not all shown in the table are included
within this figure.
Nt)flilCC<ll'O i!i21
ml 111-ally
10
0 General Comments:
0 5. Environmental assessment alternatives shall consider design criteria that reduce the impacts to
streams and wetlands from storm water runoff. These alternatives shall include road designs that
allow for treatment of the storm water runoff through best management practices as detailed in the
0 most recent version of NCDWQ's Slor uwuler Best Management Pruclices, such as grassed swales,
is buffer areas, preformed scour holes, retention basins, etc.
I NV 6. After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality
j 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 { I5A NCAC 2}i.0506(h)),
mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than I 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.
i0
'I 7. In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules (I>A NCAC
21-1.0506(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 shall be designed to
0 replace appropriate lost functions and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be
g available for use as stream mitigation.
%V 8. Future documentation, including the 401 Water Quality Certification Application, should continue
0 to include an itemized listing of the proposed wetland and stream impacts with corresponding
mapping.

1 9. The DWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project.
The NCDOT shall address these concerns by describing the potential impacts that may occur to the
aquatic environments and any mitigating factors that would reduce the impacts.
10

0 10. NCDOT is respectfully reminded that all impacts, includine but not limited to, bridging, fill,
ff
d
b
ers nee
u
to
excavation and clearing, and rip rap to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and riparian
be included in the final impact calculations. Thesc impacts, in addition to any construction impacts,
0 temporary or otherwise, also need to be included as part of the 401 Water Quality Certification
Application:
0 11. Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or streams.
I0
0 12. Borrow/waste areas shall avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practical. Impacts to wetlands in
borrow waste areas will need to be presented in the 401 Water Quality Certification and could
precipitate compensatory' mitigation.
0 13. The 401 Water Quality C'crtification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for stonnwater manaaement. More specifically. stormwater shall not be permitted to
0 discharge directly into streams or surface waters.
14. Based on the information presented in the document, the magnitude of impacts to wetlands and
streams may require a Nationwide Permit application to the Corp; of Engineers and corresponding
401 Water Quality Certification. Please be advised that a 401 Water Quality Certification requires
satisfactory protection of water quality to ensure that water quality standards are met and no
wetland or stream uses are lost. Final permit authorization will require the submittal of a formal
application by the NCDOT and written concurrence from NCDWQ. Please be aware that any
approval will be contingent on appropriate avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream
impacts to the maximum extent practical, the development of an acceptable stormwater
management plan, and the inclusion of appropriate mitigation plans where appropriate.
15. if temporary access roads or detours are constructed, the site shall be graded to its preconstruction
contours and elevations. Disturbed areas shall be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and
appropriate native woody species shall be planted. When using temporary structures the area shall
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 minimize., soil disturbance.
16. Placement of culverts and other structures in waters, streams, and wetlands shall be placed 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 waver 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 the DWQ. If this condition is unable to be met due to bedrock
or other limiting features encountered during construction, please contact the DWQ for guidance on
how to proceed and to determine whether or not a permit modification will be required.
17. 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. .
18. Riparian vegetation (native trees and shrubs) shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible.
Riparian vegetation must be reestablished within the construction limits of the project by the end of
the growing season following completion of construction.
NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project. Should you have any questions
or require any additional information, please contact David Wainwright at [phone].
cc: Brad Shaver, US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington Field Office
Chris Militscher, Environmental Protection Agency (electronic copy)
Travis Wilson. NC Wildlife Resources Commission (electronic copy)
Steve Sollod, Division of Coastal Management
Ken Averitte, NCDWQ Fayetteville Regional Office
File Copy
0
0
0
!0
0
0
10
V
'0
10
10
;0
I
10
Is
0
0
0
0
ern
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins
Governor Director -
Julv 8, 2009
hi .14 2009
MEMORANDUM
To: Kristine O'Connor, P.E.. Project Planning Engineer, NCDOT
From: David Wainwright, Division of Water Quality yr
Dee Freeman
Secretary
Subject: Response to the Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment for SR 1163 (Georgetown
Road) Extension from SR 1 184 (Ocean Isle Beach Road) to NC 179, Brunswick County,
TIP R-3432.
This office has reviewed the referenced document dated September, 2008. The NC Division of Water
Quality (NCDWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for
activities that impact Waters of the U.S., including wetlands. Under 15A NAC 2H .0500 (.0506[4]). it is
the NCDWQ's responsibility to ensure that projects do not result in cumulative effects or cause a
violation of downstream water quality based on reasonably anticipated future impacts.
Upon reviewing the information provided in the referenced document, The NCDWQ has concluded that
further cumulative impact analyses are not required. However, please keep us apprised of any additional
information or revisions to the cumulative impact document(s). This decision is based on information
currently provided to us; this decision may change based on updated or new information.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The NCDOT 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 David Wainwright at [phone].
cc: Charles Cox, NCDOT, Project Development
Brad Shaver, US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington Field Office
Chris Militscher, Environmental Protection Agency (electronic copy only)
Ken Averitte, NCDWQ Favetteville Regional Office
File Copy
Transportation Pemining Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Ralegh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Location: 2321 Crabtree Blvd., .Raleigh. North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]
Internet: http:11h2oenraute.nc.usmirNetlandsl
Ar Equal Opportunity 1 Aflumalrve Actin cmpli
North Carolina
,Naturally
05!08(2005 13:52 9195299933
PACE 03
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission §
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs. DENT
FROM: Travis Wilson, Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Programme .C/• /?
DATE: May 8, 2009
SUBJECT: North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Environmental
Assessment (EA) for Cne proposed extension of SR It 63 (Old Georgetown Rd)
from SR 1184 to NC 179 in Ocean Isle, Brunswick County, North Carolina. TIP
No. R-3432. SCH Project No. 09-0272
Staff biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the subject
EA and are familiar with habitat values in the project area. The purpose of this review was to
assess project impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Our comments are provided in accordance
with certain provisions of the 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).
NCDOT proposes to extend SR 1163 on nmv location for approximately 2.7 miles. Five
build alternatives were presented in the document, and alternative 2B is designated as the
preferred alternative. Alternative 2B impacts 0.47 acres of xedands. and no streams:
furthermore this alignment is located south of the Sandy Branch Sand Ridge and Bay Complex, a
regionally significant natural area. By selecting a preferred alternative located in an area of
previously disturbed community types, we do not object to the selection of 2B 'as the preferred
alternative. At this time we concur with the EA for this project. Thank you for the opportunity
to comment. Uwe cm be of any further assistance please call me at [phone].
cc: Gary Jordan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Seib ice, Raleigh
David Wainwright, DWQ, Raleigh
i<Snilina Address: Dnision ofIn!and Fishzrie; • 1721 vf a:I Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699) 121
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
••a••••?••?••••••••??•••••••••?••?

w
? ti•a ? -t? ? ?J '?-.AM'?r??f_.rS.,,? ?i4...?yi,4??•??) N f\. ?, !
jl?
• 4 } ^?t 1rt`1 ti-?11t1*-„t1 4 :` 'til
01,
Nlt: sla
y

?L yh ? `i
t ` Y'
{
tft
C'•i
N r' `
lal ?V• `

JI.t
e ?
1Y.?k
r? ip'xi<i1'^r .r'
t •?? M
;Ll W.
,It 'F It,
?X13; , n - ?•?s ?? _ ?'
tIT
i.
t .,
Al.
a ?.
F,r < 'ti
v 'N
C "a
ti;!
,?,p{{?,?s?cr, ? ? ??r.- r ? ? V r . d ••'?y -rte{,. p+ . ^'a+. f • U• ? .?' s• '`'
_ Y• ,'s; ..4 ,ice _ r ;yr 1 "6 ?, ?t - -
717
a _ .f l??ld,el?'" ?J?iM'?.v??j 17'J? '? r S" '?•'9' '3'! ^';C.? ?'?''. . -- - ?f' •? ?-? ?.
0000000000000000000000000000000001
1
rr IF

71

-
' yJy. j.? y...
?
r ,p t lA
?OP
T
4
=l y..
?•' -b
••••••••?•`•••?•••••••?••••••••••a
r
t

i
r,
-?O 1 00
114
A.
?A -:?l - _4 f51',
?I a _ - ?t.. `r br rM_
'
I I' ?f P ?
. ?,i?i. i ,_af,,'? I??6, fir i••
-,f ?1 -?, ?i-?`f+•-1 ? ?./.? .•i}?'. ?i •'`• ._x.•18°?•. ?
0 1,000 2,000 4,000
t nFeet
Sa:gc '`,

VICINITY MAP
county: BRUNSWICK
°°N
-4
l
SR 1163 GEORGETOWN RD. EXT.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT ( ure
Fi
OF TRANSPORTATION FROM SR 1184 Div' 3 TIP# R-3432 g
o DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
OCEAN ISLE BEACH RD
(
.)
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
t?
WBS: 35501.1.1
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH TO NC 179
BY: J.TORTORELLA BRUNSWICK COUNTY Date. January 2010
TIP PROJECT R-3432