20120935_Environmental Assessment_20090428

L-A
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
April 28, 2009
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator, Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
From: David Wainwright, Division of Water QualityloNs?
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:.
The DWQ is concerned 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(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.
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.
Transportation Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Location: 2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]
Internet: htpdm2o.enrstate.no.us/ncwedands/
NorthCarohna
Naturally
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Acdon Employer
General Comments:
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
most recent version of NCDWQ's Stormwater Best Management Practices, such as grassed swales,
buffer areas, preformed scour holes, retention basins, etc.
6. 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.
7. In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules {I 5A 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 shall be designed to
replace appropriate lost functions and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be
available for use as stream mitigation.
8. 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.
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. NCDOT is respectfully reminded that all impacts, including but not limited to, bridging, fill,
excavation and clearing, and rip rap 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.
11. Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or streams.
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.
13. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater shall not be permitted to
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 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 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 minimizes 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 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 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
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Project Review Form 14
?s
y?y
?29,9
Project Number: 09-0272 County: Brunswick
Due Date: 5/8/2009
Date Received:
Project Description: Environmental Assessment - TIP # R-3434 - Proposal extension of SR 1163
to NC 179
IM:: ro?ec is emg reviewe as m tca e Below:
Regional Office Regional Office Area In-House Review
Asheville Air - Soil & Water ? Marine Fisheries
_
Fayetteville Water ? Coastal Management _ Water Resources
_
Mooresville Aquifer Protection Wildlife - Environmental Health
_
Raleigh Land Quality Engineer ? Wildlife - DOT _ Solid Waste Mgmt
_ Forest Resources Radiation Protection .
Washington _ _
_ Land Resources Other
Wilmington - -
- ? Parks & Recreation
Winston-Salem -
- Water Quality
? ` Water Quality - DOT
Air Quality
Sign-Off/Region:
Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
_ No objection to project as proposed. _ No Comment
Insufficient information to complete review y Cher (specify or attach comments)
If you have any questions, please contact
Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator at [e-mail]
Proposed Extension of SR 1163 (Old Georgetown Road)
From SR 1184 (Ocean Isle Beach Road) to NC 179
Brunswick County
WBS No. 35501.1.1
TIP No. R-3432
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)
APPROVED:
FaAGregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager
tat
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
Arn p 6
P003 D
Proposed Extension of SR 1163 (Old Georgetown Road)
From SR 1184 (Ocean Isle Beach Road) to NC 179
Brunswick County
WBS No. 35501.1.1
TIP No. R-3432
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
March 2009
Documentation Prepared in Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch by:
,
a2 -Dd
L9. Mrj?
Date Irstine O. Graham, P. E. 34g3g a
Proj Planning Engineer n OINE?p ?Q
Dta
Da _qWes R. Cox,
oject Engineer
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Proposed Extension of SR 1163 (Old Georgetown Road)
From SR 1184 (Ocean Isle Beach Road) to NC 179
Brunswick County
WBS No. 35501.1.1
TIP No. R-3432
Project Development & Environmental AnalVsis Branch - Archaeological Group
An updated archaeological investigation of the project corridor for Alternative 2B will be
conducted prior to the completion of the FONSI.
R-3432 Environmental Assessment
March 2009 Page 1 of I
I.
SUMMARY .........................................................................
A. TYPE OF ACTION ....................................................................
B. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION .......................................................
C. SUMMARY OF PURPOSE AND NEED ........................................
D. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ................................................
E. NCDOT RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE ........................
:.....
F. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS .............................
G. PERMITS REQUIRED ...............................................................
H. COORDINATION ......................................................................
1. CONTACT INFORMATION .......................................................
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ...................
A. GENERAL DESCRIPTION .........................................................
B. HISTORICAL RESUME & PROJECT STATUS ............................
C. COST ESTIMATES ...................................................................
II.
I
.................I
.................1
.................1
.................1
................II
................II
...............III
.............. IV
.............. IV
1
III. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROJECT ............................................................................2
A. PURPOSE OF PROJECT ...........................................................................................
B. NEED FOR PROJECT ..............................................................................................
1. Description of Existing Conditions ....................................................................
a. Functional Classification .....................................................................
b. Physical Description of Existing Facility ............................................
1. Roadway Cross Section ...................................................................
2. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment .................................................
3. Right of Way and Access Control ...................................................
4. Speed Limit ......................................................................................
5. Intersections .....................................................................................
6. Railroad Crossings ...........................................................................
7. Structures ..........................................................................................
8. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities/Greenways .................................
9. Utilities .............................................................................................
c. School Bus Usage ................................................................................
d. Traffic Carrying Capacity ....................................................................
1. Existing Traffic Volumes ................................................................
2. Existing Levels of Service ...............................................................
3. Future Traffic Volumes ...................................................................
4. Future Levels of Service ..................................................................
e. Accident Data .......................................................................................
f Airports ................................................................................................
g. Other Highway Projects in the Area ...................................................
2. Transportation and Land Use Plans .........................................................
a. NC Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) ...............................
b. Local Thoroughfare Plans ...................................................................
c. Land Use Plans ....................................................................................
3. System Linkage/Travel Time/Access Need ............................................
C. BENEFITS OF PROPOSED PROJECT .............................................................
................2
................2
................2
................2
................2
................2
................3
................3
................3
................3
................3
................3
................3
................3
................3
................4
................4
................4
................4
................4
................5
................5
................6
................6
.............................. 6
..............................6
7'
c. Federal Species of Concern and State Protected Species ................................ ..................26
4. Soils ....................................................................................................................... ..................26
5. Coastal Zone Issues ............................................................................................... ..................26
a. Coastal Area Management Act Areas of Environmental Concern ................. ..................26
b. Essential Fish Habitat ....................................................................................... ..................27
B. CULTURAL RESOURCES ......................................................................................... ..................27
1. Historic Architectural Resources .......................................................................... ..................27
2. Archaeological Resources .................................................................................... ..................27
C. SECTION 4(F)/ SECTION 6(F) RESOURCES .............................................................. ..................27
D. FARMLAND ............................................................................................................ ..................28
E. SOCIAL EFFECTS .................................................................................................... ..................28
1. Demographics ....................................................................................................... ..................28
2. Neighborhoods/Communities ............................................................................... ..................30
3. Relocations of Residences and Businesses .......................................................... ..................31
4. Environmental Justice ........................................................................................... ..................31
5. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities .......................................................................... ..................31
6. Recreational Facilities ........................................................................................... ..................31
F. ECONOMIC EFFECTS ............................................................................................... ..................32
G. LAND USE .............................................................................................................. ..................32
1. Existing and Future Land Use .............................................................................. ..................32
2. Project Compatibility with Local Plans ............................................................... ..................33
H. INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS .................................................................. ..................33
1. Indirect Effects ...................................................................................................... ..................33
2. Cumulative Effects ................................................................................................ ..................34
1. FLOOD HAZARD EVALUATION ............................................................................... ..................34
J. TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS ..................................................................................... ..................35
1. Ambient Noise Levels ........................................................................................... ..................35
2. Analysis Results .................................................................................................... ..................35
3. Noise Abatement Alternatives .............................................................................. ..................37
4. Construction Noise ................................................................................................ ..................37
5. Summary ............................................................................................................... ..................38
K. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS ........................................................................................ ..................38
1. Background CO Concentrations ........................................................................... ..................38
2. Air Quality Analysis Results ................................................................................ ..................38
3. Construction Air Quality Effects .......................................................................... ..................39
4. Mobile Air Source Toxics .................................................................................... ..................39
5. Summary ............................................................................................................... ..................40
L. HAZARDOUS MATERIAL ........................................................................................ ..................40
VII. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ............................................................................41
A. CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP ......................................... .........................................41
B. PUBLIC HEARING ............................................................................ .........................................41
C. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE .............................................................. .........................................41
D. NEPA/404 MERGER PROCESS ........................................................ .........................................41
E. OTHER AGENCY COORDINATION .................................................... .........................................42
0
0
O
O
O
0
O
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Proposed Extension of SR 1163 (Old Georgetown Road)
From SR 1184 (Ocean Isle Beach Road) to NC 179
Brunswick County
WBS No. 35501.1.1
TIP No. R-3432
1. SUMMARY
A. Type of Action
This State Environmental Assessment (SEA) has been prepared to evaluate the potential
impacts of this proposed transportation improvement project. From this evaluation, the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) does not anticipate that significant impacts to
the environment will occur as a result of this proposed project. A final determination will be made
in supplemental documentation, likely a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) document.
B. Description of 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) 2011 and construction in FFY 2012.
C. Summary of Purpose and Need
The purpose of the project is to alleviate traffic congestion and improve safety along
NC 179 and to establish a more efficient travel route between the towns of Shallotte and Calabash.
D. Alternatives Considered
There were originally five build alternatives under consideration for this project (see Figure
2A). All alternatives begin and end at the same locations. Alternatives 1, 2, 2A, and 213 run nearly
parallel, starting from the intersection of SR 1163 (Old Georgetown Road) and SR 1184 (Ocean
Isle Beach Road) and traveling generally eastward towards SR 1154 (Hale Swamp Road). These
four alternatives join SR 1154 (Hale Swamp Road) and continue northeast until just past the
intersection of NC 179 (Bricklanding Road).
Alternative 3 starts in the same location as the previous alternatives; however, it travels east
to SR 1154 (Hale Swamp Road) along a more northerly course than the others. It ties into Hale
Swamp Road at the existing intersection of SR 1154 (Hale Swamp Road) and NC 179
(Bricklanding Road).
Table S-l: Summary of Resources and Impacts for the Preferred Alternative
Resource Alt. 2B
Length (miles) 2.7
Railroad Crossings 0,
Schools 0
Recreational Areas and Parks 0
Churches 0
Cemeteries 0
Major Utility Crossings I
National Register Eligible Properties 0
Archaeological Sites* TBD
Federally-Listed Species within Corridor 1**
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 Impacts (linear feet) 0
Substantial Noise Impacts 0
Water Supply Watershed Protected Areas 0
Wildlife Refuges and Game Lands 0
Section 4(f)/ Section 6(f) Impacts 0
Low Income & Minority Population Impacts 0
Construction Cost $8,300,000
ght of Way Cost $2,010,000
tilities Cost $327,700
otal Cost . $10,637,700
'Archaeological surveys will be performed in early 2009.
-This project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the wood stork.
G. Permits Required
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 (NCDWQ).
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
iii
Proposed Extension of SR 1163 (Old Georgetown Road)
From SR 1184 (Ocean Isle Beach Road) to NC 179
Brunswick County
WBS No. 35501.1.1
TIP No. R-3432
II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. General Description
The NCDOT proposes to extend SR 1163 (Old Georgetown Road) from SR 1184 (Ocean
Isle Beach Road) to NC 179 in Brunswick County (see Figure 1).
The proposed two-lane facility will have 12-foot lanes with 8-foot shoulders (4-foot
paved). The length of the project is approximately 2.7 miles.
B. Historical Resume & Project Status
The scoping meeting for this project was originally held in February 1996, followed by a
Citizens Informational Workshop in August of that same year. This project was then put on hold
until November 2004, at which point a re-scoping meeting was held. This project was originally
included in the Merger process and the Concurrence Point 1 meeting was held in March 2005.
However, concurrence was not reached on Purpose and Need at this meeting. After revising the
design alternatives, NCDOT was able to minimize wetland impacts, at which point the decision
was made by the USACE in September 2007 to remove this project from the Merger process.
Another Citizens Informational Workshop was held in June 2008 to update the public on the new
developments.
C. Cost Estimates
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 is
$10,637,700 for the preferred alternative, Alternative 2B.
1
2. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment
The vertical alignment along existing SR 1163 (Old Georgetown Road) is suitable for the
posted speed limit. However, there are concerns with several of the curves on the horizontal
alignment of SR 1154 (Hale Swamp Road) and on NC 179 near the intersection with SR 1143
(Bricklanding Road).
3. Right of Way and Access Control
The existing right of way along SR 1163 (Old Georgetown Road) is 60 feet. The existing
right of way along NC 179 and SR 1154 (Hale Swamp Road) is also 60 feet.
4. Speed Limit
The existing speed limit along SR 1163 (Old Georgetown Road), SR 1154 (Hale Swamp
Road), and NC 179 is 55 miles per hour (mph).
5. Intersections
Two existing intersections would be involved with the proposed project. The western
terminus of the project is located where SR 1163 (Old Georgetown Road) currently tees into
SR 1184 (Ocean Isle Beach Road). The second intersection is located near the eastern terminus of
the project where SR 1154 (Hale Swamp Road) joins NC 179 at a T-intersection. Both are stop
sign controlled.
6. Railroad Crossings
There are no railroad crossings on the project.
7. . Structures
There are no existing hydraulic structures on this project.
8. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities/Greenways
No bicycle and pedestrian facilities or greenways exist along the project corridor.
9. Utilities
The only major utilities on this project are power transmission poles that are located near
the intersection of NC 179 and SR 1154 (Hale Swamp Road) and may need to be relocated.
C. School Bus Usage
Currently, there are four bus routes that travel along SR 1154 (Hale Swamp Road) on a
daily basis.
3
widening would be needed at both intersections of SR 1163 (Old Georgetown Road). Since the
existing facilities cannot be widened beyond the proposed two lanes at this point in time, single
turn lanes with storage lengths have been recommended for these intersections and are shown in
Figure 5. This intersection will operate at an overall LOS E in the design year with single left turn
lanes.
e. Accident Data
A crash analysis was performed on SR 1163 (Old Georgetown Road) from SR 1184
(Ocean Isle Beach Road) to NC 179. A total of 24 crashes were reported along this section of
roadway between October 1, 2005 and September 30, 2008. For crash rate purposes, this location
can be classified as a two-lane undivided rural secondary route. Table 1 shows the comparison of
the crash rates for the analyzed section of SR 1163 versus the 2005-2007 statewide crash rates for a
comparable road type and configuration.
Table 1: Crash Rate Comparisons
Rate Crashes Crashes per 100 MVM Statewide Rate Critical Rate
Total 24 304.14 354.02 470.54
Fatal 0 0.00 3.93 21.88
Non-Fatal Injury 7 88.71 125.75 197.75
Night 13 164.74 142.23 218.40
Wet 3 38.02 52.64 101.46
MVM = Million Vehicle Miles
2 2005-2007 statewide crash rate for rural 2-lane undivided secondary routes in North Carolina
3 Based on the statewide crash rate (95% level of confidence). The critical crash rate is a statistically derived value against which a calculated rate
can be compared to see ti the rate is above an average far enough so that something besides chance must be the cause.
Approximately 63% of the crashes within the study area occurred at the same location.
The stop controlled T-intersection of SR 1163 (Old Georgetown Road) with SR 1184 (Ocean Isle
Beach Road) had a total of 15 crashes, including seven (7) fixed object, five (5) left tum-different
roadways, two (2) angle, and one (1) left turn-same roadway.
While the night crash rate for this facility is above the average statewide crash rate for
similar type facilities, the night crash rate is below the critical rate.
C Airports
The Ocean Isle Beach Airport is located on NC 179 less than two (2) miles south of the
project site.
5
C. Benefits of Proposed Proieet
The proposed extension of SR 1163 (Old Georgetown Road) will help alleviate traffic
congestion along NC 179. This project will also establish a more efficient travel route between the
towns of Shallotte and Calabash, allowing for better roadway connectivity between major travel
routes and providing quick and efficient travel throughout the area. The proposed corridor will
run parallel to US 17 and will serve as a bypass of the congested beach corridor and as an alternate
travel route in the event of an incident along US 17.
7
Road. From this point, Alternative 1 follows the existing Hale Swamp Road to its
intersection with NC 179.
• Alternative 2
This alternative begins at the intersection of SR 1184 (Ocean Isle Beach Road) and
SR 1163 (Old Georgetown Road) and generally parallels Alternative 1 just to the
north. Alternative 2 continues east-northeast along new location until it intersects
SR 1154 (Hale Swamp Road) just north of Harry Bell Road. From this point,
Alternative 2 follows the existing Hale Swamp Road to its intersection with
NC 179.
• Alternative 2A
This alternative begins at the intersection of SR 1184 (Ocean Isle Beach Road) and
SR 1163 (Old Georgetown Road) and generally parallels Alternative 2 just to the
south. From this point, Alternative 2A follows the existing Hale Swamp Road to its
intersection with NC 179. This alternative was developed in order to reduce
wetland impacts associated with this project.
• Alternative 2B
This alternative is identical to Alternative 2A, with one exception. In order to avoid
impacting several homes, the alternative was shifted slightly north near the
intersection with Hale Swamp Road.
• Alternative 3
This alternative begins at the intersection of SR 1184 (Ocean Isle Beach Road) and
SR 1163 (Old Georgetown Road) and continues northeast until it intersects with
SR 1154 (Hale Swamp Road) approximately 1100 feet north of where Alternatives
1 and 2 intersect Hale Swamp Road. It is the most northerly and the most direct of
the alternatives.
9
V. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. Roadwav Cross-Section and Alignment
The proposed typical section will carry two 12-foot lanes with 8-foot shoulders (4-foot
paved). Exclusive single left and right turn lanes will be added at the intersection of SR 1184
(Ocean Isle Beach Road) and existing SR 1163 (Old Georgetown Road) on all four approaches.
Exclusive single left turn lanes will be added at the °T" intersection of NC 179 and the proposed
extension of SR 1163 (Old Georgetown Road) and at the intersection of SR 1154 (Hale Swamp
Road) and the proposed extension of SR 1163 (Old Georgetown Road) on the northbound and
westbound approaches. An exclusive right turn lane will also be added to the northbound
approaches at these two intersections.
B. Right of Way and Access Control
The proposed right of way width for this project vanes from 120 feet to 150 feet along the
length of the project. There will be partial control of access on all new location sections of the
project.
C. Speed Limit & Design Speed
The design speed for the proposed extension of SR 1163 (Old Georgetown Road) is 50
mph and the posted speed limit will be 45 mph.
D. Anticipated Design Exceptions
There are no design exceptions anticipated on this project.
E. Intersections
There will be three intersections on the proposed extension of SR 1163 (Old Georgetown
Road), including the intersection with SR 1184 (Ocean Isle Beach Road), the intersection with
SR 1154 (Hale Swamp Road), and the intersection with NC 179, the latter two of which will be
created as a part of this project. All of these intersections will be signalized, with the exception the
intersection with SR 1154 (Hale Swamp Road), which will be stop-controlled.
F. Service Roads
There are no service roads needed on this project.
G. Railroad Crossings
There are no railroad crossings on this project.
11
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. Natural Resources
1. Biotic Resources
a. Terrestrial Communities
Eight terrestrial communities were identified within the project area: Bay Forest, Clear-Cut,
Early Succession Pine, Human-Maintained/Disturbed, Ocean Isle Beach (0113) Spray Fields, Pond
Pine Woodland, Small Stream Swamp, and Pine Flatwoods.
1. Bay Forest
This community occurs in a Carolina bay located in the northeast quadrant of the project
area. The Carolina bay is an elliptical depression containing a jurisdictional non-riverine wetland
largely surrounded by a dry "rim" of sand. The plant community within the forest is diverse,
consisting of tree and shrub species such as sweet bay, loblolly bay, red bay, pond pine, and
loblolly pine. The shrub layer is dense, and consists of species such as fetterbush, titi, and
gallberry. Vines observed include laurel greenbrier and Virginia sweetspier. The herbaceous layer
is sparse and includes species such as blackberry and netted chainfern.
2. Clear-Cut
This area was recently disturbed by logging activity. The entire canopy was removed,
although early succession species are emerging..
3. Early Succession Pine
This community ranges from a dense canopy (early succession pine forest) to an open
canopy (early succession pine woodland). The early succession pine forest is primarily a
monoculture of loblolly pine. These areas were disturbed in the recent past, possibly due to
logging, and have been deliberately planted or allowed to reseed voluntarily with loblolly pine.
The loblolly pines are variable at some sites, are planted in rows within the plantations, and appear
to be approximately five (5) to fifteen (15) years old. The canopy is dominated almost entirely by
loblolly pine. The subcanopy layer consists of sweetgum, loblolly pine, and red maple. The shrub,
herb, and vine layers include broomsedge, blackberry, greenbrier, poison ivy, and Japanese
honeysuckle.
4. Human-Maintained/Disturbed
These communities encompass various types of habitats that have recently been or are
currently impacted by human disturbance consisting primarily of roadside shoulders and
maintained lawns. These regularly maintained habitats are kept in a low-growing state of early
succession. Herbaceous species expected in these communities include fescue, ryegrass,
13
Table 3: Estimated Area of Terrestrial Communities within the Project Corridor
Community Area (acres )
Bay Forest 59.5
Clear-Cut 70.0
Early Succession Pine 290.5
Human-Maintained/Disturbed 227.9
OIB Spray Field 103.5
Pond Pine Woodland 406.9
Small Stream Swam 135.9
Pine Flatwoods 218.2
Total Area: 1512.4
b. Terrestrial Wildlife
Many fauna species are highly adaptive and may populate or exploit the entire range of
biotic communities located within the project area (those species actually observed are indicated
with an asterisk (*)). Maintained roadsides and residential communities adjacent to forested tracts
provide foraging and cover areas and support early successional species. Forested areas provide
forage and cover for wildlife dependent on mature forests with mast producing hardwoods. Many
opportunistic species use both habitats to satisfy nutritional requirements and shelter. White-tailed
deer*, eastern cottontail, raccoon, eastern gray squirrel, gray fox, and Virginia opossum are likely
to be found in the project area. Reptiles expected in this area are eastern box turtle, common
snapping turtle, yellow-belly slider, five-lined skink, broadhead skink, copperhead, watersnakes,
and the rat snake. Avian species that may use habitat within the project area include American
crow*, red-headed woodpecker*, pine warbler*, great-crested flycatcher*, eastern towhee*,
Carolina chickadee*, brown-headed nuthatch*, hairy woodpecker*, red-tailed hawk*, northern
cardinal*, and Carolina wren*.
c. Aquatic Communities
The project area contains seven small creek systems. Fish species likely to occur in these
streams include the redbreast sunfish, banded sunfish, golden shiner, mosquitofish and pirate
perch. Other aquatic species likely to be found here include several of the previously mentioned
reptile species, as well as amphibians. Amphibians expected in the project area include bullfrog,
southern dusky salamander, leopard frog, and southern cricket frog.
d. Summary of Anticipated Effects
Table 3 describes the acreage of terrestrial communities within the project corridor.
Impacts -to terrestrial communities associated with construction activities include the removal of
vegetation, soil compaction, damaging and/or exposing root systems, as well as potential impacts
associated with petroleum spills. Efforts will be made to align corridors in order to minimize
impacts to woodlands.
15
Water resources in the project area are part of the Lumber River basin. Due to the project's
proximity to the coast, several waters designated as High Quality Water (HQW) SA occur within
1.0 mile of the project area. These waters are HQW due to their supplemental classification (SA)
of Tidal Salt Waters that are used for commercial shellfishing or marketing purposes. No waters
classified as Water Supplies (WS-1 or WS-II), listed Section 303(d) impairments, or Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.0 mile of the project area.
There are no benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring stations within the project area.
b. Wetlands
Five jurisdictional wetlands were identified within the project area. Wetland classification
and quality rating data are presented in Table 5. Descriptions of the natural communities are
presented in Section VI.A.I.a.
Table 5: Jurisdictional Characteristics of Wetlands in the Project Corridor
Ma ID Cowardin Classification* Classification Area ac
WA PF03,4 Riverine 153.7
WB PF04 Non-Riverine 0.1
WC PF04 Non-Riverine 538.8
WD PF04 Non-Riverine 0.6
WE PF04 Non-Riverine 0.9
Total: 694.1
T-Palustrine, FO-Forested, 3-Broad-leaved Evergreen, 4-Needle-leaved Evergreen
C. Summary of Anticipated Effects
There are no stream impacts anticipated for this project. Wetland impacts were determined
for project alternatives as discussed in Section W (see Table 2). There are 0.47 acres of wetland
impacts anticipated for the recommended Alternative 2B. Wetland impacts are calculated from
slope stake to slope stake, plus an additional 20 foot offset outside of each limit as determined from
the current preliminary design plans. Table 6 shows the breakdown of impacts for each wetland
system for the preferred alternative.
Table 6: Wetland Impacts for Alternative 2B
Wetland Impact Area acres
WA 0.33
WC 0.14
d. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation
NCDOT will attempt to avoid and minimize impacts to streams and wetlands to the
greatest extent practicable during project design. NCDOT will also investigate potential on-site
17
Eastern Cougar
Habitat Description: Records of eastern cougar occur across the state of North Carolina
with most sightings in coastal swamps and the southern Appalachian Mountains. This
nocturnal predator is found in large remote wilderness areas where there is an abundance of
their primary food source, white tailed deer. A cougar will usually occupy a range of 10 to
20 square miles, varying in size with age, sex, and food availability. Activities such as
destruction of habitat by residential, commercial and recreational development, and
intentional eradication of species by hunting, poisoning, and trapping may have extirpated
this species from North Carolina. Historic reduction in the size of deer herds may have
also adversely affected the eastern cougar.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No occurrences of Eastern cougar are known within the project vicinity. The project does
not provide a sufficiently large tract of undisturbed wilderness to support Eastern cougar.
Therefore, the biological conclusion for this species is No Effect.
West Indian Manatee
Habitat Description: Manatees have been observed in all the North Carolina coastal
counties. Manatees are found in canals, sluggish rivers, estuarine habitats, saltwater bays,
and as far 3.7 miles offshore. They utilize freshwater and marine habitats at shallow depths
of five (5) to 20 feet. In the winter, between October and April, manatees concentrate in
areas with warm water. During other times of the year, habitats appropriate for the
manatee are those with sufficient water depth, an adequate food supply, and in proximity to
freshwater. Manatees require a source of freshwater to drink. Manatees are primarily
herbivorous, feeding on any aquatic vegetation present, but they may occasionally feed on
fish. The biggest threat to the continued existence of the manatee is injury or death caused
by underwater boat collisions. Another threat is the stability and longevity of warm-water
refuges, provided by springs and outfalls from power plants and industrial facilities. In the
absence of these sources of warm water, manatees are vulnerable to cold temperatures and
can die from both hypothermia and prolonged exposure to cold. Intensive coastal
development also presents a long-term threat to survival of the species.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No occurrences of West Indian manatee are known within the project vicinity. This project
will not affect water resources of sufficient size where manatees may be found. Therefore, this
project will have No Effect on this species.
American Alligator
Habitat Description: In North Carolina, alligators have been recorded in nearly every
coastal county, and many inland counties to the fall line. The alligator is found in rivers,
streams, canals, lakes, swamps, and coastal marshes. Adult animals are highly tolerant of
19
moderately stocked, pine habitat, sufficient foraging substrate can be provided on 80 to 125
acres. The single most critical factor leading to the endangered status of this species is its
dependence on old-growth pine forests. Threats include a loss of habitat (either gradually
through poor management or rapidly through the outright destruction of old-growth
forests), forest fragmentation, competition with other species for cavities, catastrophic
events, and demographic and genetic processes affecting populations confined to isolated
conservation areas.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable foraging and nesting habitat does exist within the project area. However,
following an intensive field survey based on the Guidelines for Surveys to Assess Potential Project
Impacts to Red Cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) Nesting and/or Foraging Habitat from the 2003
USFWS Recovery Plan on June 16, 2008, no evidence of RCW use (past or present) was identified
in the project area.
Piping Plover
Habitat Description: Primary constituent elements of wintering piping plover habitat
include sand and/or mud flats with no or very sparse emergent vegetation. In some cases,
these flats may be covered or partially covered by a mat of blue-green algae. Adjacent
unvegetated or sparsely vegetated sand, mud, or algal flats above high tide are also
essential, especially for roosting piping plovers. Such sites may have debris, detritus
(decaying organic matter), or micro-topographic relief (less than 20 inches above substrate
surface) offering refuge from high winds and cold weather. Essential components of the
beach/dune ecosystem include surf-cast algae for feeding of prey, sparsely vegetated
backbench (the beach area above mean high tide seaward of the dune line, or in cases
where no dunes exist, seaward of a delineating feature such as a vegetation line, structure,
or road) for roosting and refuge during storms, spits (a small point of land, especially sand,
running into water) for feeding and roosting, saltems (bare sand flats in the center of
mangrove ecosystems that are found above mean high water and are only irregularly
flushed with sea water) and washover areas for feeding and roosting. Washover areas are
broad, unvegetated zones with little or no topographic relief that are formed and maintained
by the action of hurricanes, storm surge, or other extreme wave action. Several of these
components (sparse vegetation, little or no topographic relief) are mimicked in artificial
habitat types used less commonly by piping plovers, but that are considered critical habitat
(e.g., dredge spoil sites).
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No occurrences of piping plover are known within the project vicinity. This project will
not impact the beaches of North Carolina or other areas where adults and nests may be found.
Therefore, this project will have No Effect on this species.
21
primary nesting areas are in Florida, however nests are known from Georgia, South
Carolina, and North Carolina as well. Nesting occurs from April to August. Leatherbacks
need sandy beaches backed with vegetation in the proximity of deep water and generally
with rough seas. Beaches with a relatively steep slope are usually preferred. In North
Carolina, leatherback turtles face threats on both nesting beaches and in the marine
environment. Threats to the continued existence of all species of sea turtles can be
generally summarized as: nesting habitat degradation due to development and heavy traffic
(both foot and vehicular) on beaches that can disrupt adults or destroy incubating eggs, and
beach lighting that may disorient adult females or hatchlings; indirect capture by fishing
nets, which can lead to injury or death; accidental collisions with boats; egg predation by
dogs, raccoons, etc.; epidemic outbreaks of fibropapilloma or "tumor" infections; beach
renourishment activities that can uncover or compact sea turtle nests; and general ocean
pollution, including toxic chemicals and refuse, which may be ingested by turtles.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No occurrences of leatherback sea turtle are known within the project vicinity. This project
will not impact the beaches of North Carolina or waters where adult and juvenile sea turtles may be
found. Therefore, this project will have No Effect on this species.
Loggerhead turtle
Habitat Description: The loggerhead is widely distributed within its range, and is found
in three distinct habitats during their lives. These turtles may be found hundreds of miles
out in the open ocean, in near shore areas, or on coastal beaches. In North Carolina, this
species has been observed in every coastal county. Loggerheads occasionally nest on
North Carolina beaches, and are the most common of all the sea turtles that visit the North
Carolina coast. They nest nocturnally, at two to three year intervals, between May and
September, on isolated beaches that are characterized by fine-grained sediments. In near
shore areas, loggerheads have been observed in bays, lagoons, salt marshes, creeks, ship
channels, and the mouths of large rivers. Coral reefs, rocky places, and shipwrecks are
often used as foraging areas. Threats to the continued existence of all species of sea turtles
can be generally summarized as: nesting habitat degradation due to development and
heavy traffic (both foot and vehicular) on beaches that can disrupt adults or destroy
incubating eggs, and beach lighting that may disorient adult females or hatchlings; indirect
capture by fishing nets, which can lead to injury or death; accidental collisions with boats;
egg predation by dogs, raccoons, etc.; epidemic outbreaks of fibropapilloma or "tumor"
infections; beach renourishment activities that can uncover or compact sea turtle nests; and
general ocean pollution, including toxic chemicals and refuse, which may be ingested by
turtles.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No occurrences of loggerhead sea turtle are known within the project vicinity. This project
will not impact the beaches of North Carolina or waters where adult and juvenile sea turtles may be
found. Therefore, this.project will have No Effect on this species.
23
Rough-leaved Loosestrife
Habitat Description: Rough-leaved loosestrife, endemic to the Coastal Plain and
Sandhills of North and South Carolina, generally occurs in the ecotones or edges between
longleaf pine uplands and pond pine pocosins in dense shrub and vine growth on moist to
seasonally saturated sands and on shallow organic soils overlaying sand (spodosolic soils).
This perennial herb specifically occurs in the ecotones between the following habitats:
longleaf pine savanna and pocosin, longleaf pine flatwood and pocosin, longleaf pine
savanna and mixed herb, longleaf pine/pond pine and evergreen shrub, longleaf
pine/wiregrass savanna and Carolina bay pocosin, Streamhead Pocosin and Pine/Scrub Oak
Sandhill, and Sandhill Seep and Pine/Scrub Oak Sandhill. Occurrences are also found in
the following natural habitats: Low Pocosins, High Pocosins, Wet Pine Flatwoods, Pine
Savannas, Streamhead Pocosins, Sandhill Seeps, riparian floodplains, boggy seeps and
meadows, on deep peat in the middle of the low shrub community of large Carolina bays,
and at the peaty margins of ponds and lakes. Occurrences are found in such disturbed
habitats as roadside depressions, maintained power and utility line rights-of-way,
firebreaks, and trails. The species prefers full sunlight, is shade intolerant, and requires
areas of disturbance (e.g., clearing, mowing, and periodic burning) where the overstory is
minimal. It can, however, persist vegetatively for many years in overgrown, fire-
suppressed areas. Blaney, Gilead, Johnston, Kalmia, Leon, Mandarin, Murville, Torhunta,
and Vaucluse are some of the soil series that occurrences have been found on.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No occurrences of rough-leaved loosestrife are known within the project vicinity, though
suitable habitat does exist within the project area. However, following an intensive field survey
June 16, 2008, no individuals of rough-leaved loosestrife were identified in the project area.
Therefore, this project will have No Effect on this species.
Cooley's Meadowrue
Habitat Description: Cooley's meadowrue, documented in the Pine Savanna natural
community, occurs in circumneutral soils in sunny, moist to wet grass sedge bogs, wet-pine
savannas over calcareous clays, and savannah-like areas, often at the ecotones of
intermittent drainages or non-riverine swamp forests. This rhizomatous perennial herb is
also found along plowed firebreaks, roadside ditches and rights-of-way, forest clearings
dominated by grass or sedge, and power line or utility rights-of-way. The species requires
some type of disturbance (e.g., mowing, clearing, periodic fire) to maintain its open habitat.
The plant typically occurs on slightly acidic (pH 5.8-6.6) soils that are loamy fine sand,
sandy loam, or fine sandy loam; at least seasonally moist or saturated; and mapped as
Foreston, Grifton, Muckalee, Torhunta, or Woodington series. Atlantic white cedar, tulip
poplar, golden sedge, and bald and pond cypress are a few of its common associate species.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
25
b. Essential Fish Habitat
While this project is in a county subject to Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) with respect to the
1996 Congressional amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act (MSFCMA) (PL 94-265), Jinny's Branch and its tributaries are not identified as waterbodies
that require an EFH Assessment. As such, the proposed project will result in a negligible net effect
on available Essential Fish Habitat.
B. Cultural Resources
This project is subject to compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
of 1969 and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. Section 106 of
the NHPA, as amended, 36 CFR Part 800, requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect
of their undertakings on properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places (NR) and to afford the Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on
such undertakings.
1. Historic Architectural Resources
In letters dated April 4, 1996 and August 8, 2006, the North Carolina Historic Preservation
Office (NCHPO) determined that this project as it is proposed will not affect any historic
structures.
2. Archaeological Resources
In a letter dated September 11, 1996, the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
(NCDCR) concurred with NCDOT's recommendation of no further archaeological investigation.
In a more recent letter dated August 8, 2006, NCDCR stated that as long as the current
proposed route conforms to the area previously surveyed, they will continue to support a
recommendation that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
Alternative 213 was developed after the original survey was completed and is outside the
original survey area, an updated archaeological investigation will be conducted prior to the
completion of the FONSI.
C. Section 4(f)/ Section 6(f) Resources
Because this is a state funded project, Section 4(f) does not apply.
Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 prohibits the
conversion of any property acquired or developed with the assistance of the fund to anything other
than public outdoor recreation use without the approval of the Secretary of the Department of the
Interior. While still applicable with the use of state funds, there were no parklands affected by the
project and therefore no requirement for this type of analysis.
27
Table 10: Brunswick County & Municipal Population Growth, 1980-2003
Municipality Percent Change Average Annual
Growth Rate
Calabash 942.2% 41%
Ocean Isle Beach 213.3% 9%
Shallotte 144.4% 6%
Sunset Beach 547.0% 24%
Total County 128.7% 6%
Total Unincorporated Areas 85.5% 4%
Brunswick County has a high percentage of population over the age of 65 when compared
to the state overall, suggesting that the area is attractive to retired individuals (see Table 11). The
past decade has brought an influx of seasonal vacationers and retirees that are attracted to the
county's natural resources, namely the coastline and various hydrologic features.
Table 11: Age of Population, 2000
North Carolina Brunswick County Census Tract 205.01,
Block Group 3

Population Percent of
Population Percent of
Population Percent of
Total Total Total (%)
0-64 6,891,452 86 56,715 78 1,840 87
1165 or above 1,157,861 14 16,428 22 1,596 13
Data from the 2000 U.S. Census was reviewed to ascertain the racial composition of the
population in Brunswick County and the Demographic Study Area. The summary of that data is
shown in Table 12. The census data indicates that the Demographic Study Area is largely
occupied by a white population, representing 95% of the total population at a county level.
29
the proposed project will be built mainly on new location; thus, existing traffic patterns will be
maintained for the most part until project construction was completed.
3. Relocations of Residences and Businesses
With the selection of Alternative 2B as the preferred alternative, there will be no residential
or business relocations necessary.
4. Environmental Justice
Executive Order 12898 requires that Environmental Justice principles be incorporated into
all transportation studies, programs, policies, and activities. The three environmental principles
are: 1) to ensure the full and fair participation of all potentially affected communities in the
transportation decision making process, 2) to avoid, minimize or mitigate disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on
minority or low income populations, and 3) to fully evaluate the benefits and burdens of
transportation programs, policies, and activities upon low-income and minority populations.
The proposed extension of SR 1163 (Old Georgetown Road) was assessed to ensure that
the actions related to the proposed project would not result in a disproportionately high and adverse
effect on minority and low-income populations. Under Alternative 2A, the proposed project would
have caused notable impacts to a cohesive community of low income, minority family members.
The proposed alignment for Alternative 2A would have led to the relocation and loss of cohesion
of these property owners and family members.
After discussing potential solutions, NCDOT attempted to contact the property owners via
U.S. mail since no phone numbers were available. Only one property owner, Mary Wigfall,
responded, and after speaking with her via telephone, it was determined that she did not live at the
location in question, but had inherited it from a family member. In order to avoid the
Environmental Justice issue that would result from impacting these homes, NCDOT developed a
fifth alternative, Alternative 213, which skirts approximately 400 feet to the north of them and
prevents the need for relocation of the property owners. No community impacts are expected as a
result of this project; consequently, all Environmental Justice concerns have been addressed and
avoided.
5. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
There are no bicycle or pedestrian facilities that will be impacted as a result of this project.
6. Recreational Facilities
There are no recreational facilities that will be impacted as a result of this project.
31
Table 13: Sub Basin 03-07-59 Land Use, Brunswick County
Land Use Parcels Acres % of Total
Commercial 111 170.32 0.13%
Industrial 47 852.76 0.66%
Multi-Family Residential* 109 49.96 0.04%
Mobile Home 21 71.93 0.06%
Office & Institutional 91 3,340.19 2.60%
Residential/A 'cultural** 1,381 14,959.51 11.64%
Recreation 5 160.96 0.13%
Single-Famil Residential*** 7,936 3.939.87 3.06%
Vacant 29,157 105,023.63 81.69%
Total 38,858 128,569.13 100%
'There is no assumption of density. This category includes parcels where there are none than one dwelling unit per parcel.
"Low density residential includes areas where residential density is primarily 1.5 acres per dwelling or greater.
-Residential includes areas where residential density is primarily less than 1.5 acres per dwelling unit.
2. Protect Compatibility with Local Plans
The proposed project is consistent with local and regional development goals and plans.
H. Indirect and Cumulative Effects
1. Indirect Effects
The analysis of indirect effects considers the Future Land Use Study Area's (FLUSA) goals
and notable features including land use/development trends, demographics, public policy, natural
resources and water quality.
Land use change is anticipated to occur within the boundaries of the FLUSA regardless of
the construction of the proposed project, due to the notable increase in population projected over
the next decade. The travel time savings associated with the project and the general increase in
accessibility within the FLUSA is likely to increase the rate of development. Although the project
may increase the accessibility to developable land within the FLUSA, the lack of municipal sewer
service and the existence of environmentally sensitive areas are anticipated to constrain
development of parcels immediately adjacent to the proposed project.
The travel time savings afforded by the proposed project are likely to make future
development in areas within the FLUSA more attractive to those that travel to and from Shallotte,
Ocean Isle Beach, and Calabash.
Based on the finding that there will be minimal notable land use change in the FLUSA
beyond what would be anticipated with the No-Build Alternative, a more detailed indirect impact
scenario assessment is possible, but not recommended. This course of action is consistent with the
result proposed by the Project ICE Screening Tool.
33
I Traffic Noise Analysis
Traffic noise impacts are an unavoidable consequence of transportation projects, especially
in areas where there are no previous traffic noise sources. A Traffic Noise Analysis was performed
utilizing the FHWA Traffic Noise Model software to predict future noise levels and impacted
receptors along the proposed alignments. This analysis compared all proposed alignment
alternatives. There are no proposed roadway improvements between SR 1154 (Hale Swamp Road)
and existing NC 179, therefore, no traffic noise analysis was performed on this roadway segment.
A copy of the unabridged version of the full technical report entitled Traffic Noise Analysis can be
viewed in Room 443 of NCDOT's Transportation Building, 1 South Wilmington Street, Raleigh,
NC.
1. Ambient Noise Levels
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the project to determine ambient
(existing) noise levels for the identified land uses. The purpose of this noise level information was
to quantify the existing acoustic environment and to provide a base for assessing the impact of
noise level increases. The existing Leq noise levels in the project area were modeled at 50-feet
from the edge of pavement and ranged from 63.7 dBA to 68.5 dBA. A background noise level of
45 dBA was determined for the project, to be used in areas where traffic noise was not the
predominant source. The ambient measurements are shown below in Table 14.
Table 14: Ambient Noise Levels (Leq)r
Site Location De" tion Noise Level dBA)
1 SR 1154 (Hale Swam Road) Modeled 63.7
2 NC 179 Modeled 68.5
'Ambient noise level sites were measured at 50 feet from the edge of pavement of the nearest lane of traffic.
2. Analysis Results
A land use is considered impacted by highway traffic noise when exposed to noise levels
approaching or exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria and/or predicted to sustain a
substantial noise increase. The NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy defines a traffic noise
impact occurs when the predicted traffic noise levels either:
• Approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria (with "approach" meaning
within 1 dBA of the value in Table N2 of the full Traffic Noise Report), or
• Substantially exceed the existing noise levels as shown in the lower portion of
Table 2 in the Traffic Noise Report.
Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to receptors that fall in either
category.
35
highway project will be the approval date of the FONSI. For development occurring after this
public knowledge date, local governing bodies are responsible to ensure that noise compatible
designs are utilized along the proposed facility.
With the proper information on future traffic noise contours and predicted noise levels, the
local authorities can prevent further development of incompatible activities and land uses with the
predicted noise levels of an adjacent highway. The maximum extent of the 72-dBA noise level
contour is 38.6 feet from the center of the proposed roadway. The maximum extent of the 67-dBA
noise level contour is 74.2 feet from the center of the proposed roadway. Contour information and
predicted future noise levels are shown by roadway sections in Table 17. This information should
assist local authorities in exercising land use control over the remaining undeveloped lands
adjacent to the roadway within local jurisdiction.
Table 17: Predicted Leq Noise Levels and Noise Contours
Maximum. Predicted
Maximum Contour
Description Leq Noise Levels Distances
dBA it
50 ft 100 ft 200 ft 72 dBA 67 dBA
Proposed Extension From SR 1184
(Ocean Isle Beach Road) to SR 1154 68.6 62.5 56.6 <37.0 71.9
(Hale Swamp Road)
SR 1154 (Hale Swamp Road) from 68.9 62.9 57.1 38.6 74.2
Proposed Extension to NC 179
' 50-ft, 1004ft, and 200-ft distances are measured from the edge of nearest travel lane
2 72-dBA and 67dBA contour distances are measured from the center of proposed roadway
3. Noise Abatement Alternatives
If traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination and evaluation of alternative noise
abatement measures for reducing or eliminating the noise impacts must be considered.
Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to all impacted receptors. There are no
impacted receptors due to highway traffic noise in the project area, no noise abatement is
recommended.
4. Construction Noise
The major construction elements of this project are expected to be earth removal, hauling,
grading, and paving. General construction noise impacts, such as temporary speech interference
for passersby and those individuals living or working near the project, can be expected, particularly
from paving operations and from the earth moving equipment during grading operations.
However, considering the relatively short-term nature of construction noise and the limitation of
construction to daytime hours, these impacts are not expected to be substantial. The transmission
loss characteristics of nearby natural elements and man-made structures are believed to be
sufficient to moderate the effects of intrusive construction noise.
37
3. Construction Air Quality Effects
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from clearing and
grubbing, demolition or other operations will be removed from the project, burned or otherwise
disposed of by the Contractor. Any burning done will be done in accordance with applicable local
laws and ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with
15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure burning will be done at the greatest distance
practical from dwellings and not when atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to the
public. Burning will be performed under constant surveillance. Also during construction,
measures will be taken to reduce the dust generated by construction when the control of dust is
necessary for the protection and comfort of motorists or area residents.
4. Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs)
In addition to the criteria air pollutants for which there are National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS), EPA also regulates air toxics. Most air toxics originate from human-made
sources, including on-road mobile sources, non-road mobile sources (e.g., airplanes), area sources
(e.g., dry cleaners) and stationary sources (e.g., factories or refineries).
Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) are a subset of the 188 air toxics defined by the Clean
Air Act. The MSATs are compounds emitted from highway vehicles and non-road equipment.
Some toxic compounds are present in fuel and are emitted to the air when the fuel evaporates or
passes through the engine unburned. Other toxics are emitted from the incomplete combustion of
fuels or as secondary combustion products. Metal air toxics also result from engine wear or from
impurities in oil or gasoline.
The EPA is the lead Federal Agency for administering the Clean Air Act and has certain
responsibilities regarding the health effects of MSATs. The EPA issued a Final Rule on
Controlling Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources in 66 FR 17229 (March
29, 2001). This rule was issued under the authority in Section 202 of the Clean Air Act. In its rule,
EPA examined the impacts of existing and newly promulgated mobile source control programs,
including its reformulated gasoline (RFG) program, its national low emission vehicle (NLEV)
standards, its Tier 2 motor vehicle emissions standards and gasoline sulfur control requirements,
and its proposed heavy duty engine and vehicle standards and on-highway diesel fuel sulfur control
requirements. Between 2000 and 2020, FHWA projects that even with a 64 percent increase in
VMT, these programs will reduce on-highway emissions of benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene,
and acetaldehyde by 57 percent to 65 percent, and will reduce on-highway diesel PM emissions by
87 percent.
As a result, EPA concluded that no further motor vehicle emissions standards or fuel
standards were necessary to further control MSATs. The agency is preparing another rule under
authority of CAA Section 202(1) that will address these issues and could adjust the full 21 and the
primary 6 MSATs.
39
VII. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Citizens Informational Worksho
The initial Citizens Informational Workshop was held on August 15, 1996 at Shallotte
Middle School to introduce this project to the public and obtain their comments. Approximately
eight (8) people attended. One written comment in favor of this project was received after the
workshop.
On July 22, 2008, a second Citizens' Informational Workshop was held by NCDOT
representatives to present the proposed project to the public and obtain comments and suggestions
about the improvements. The workshop was held at the Ocean Isle Inn. Approximately 35 people
attended this workshop.
Several verbal comments at the Citizens' Informational Workshop were in favor of the
project. Four written comments were received during and after this meeting, two from the same
citizen. Two citizens expressed support for the project and suggested that NCDOT look into
advanced acquisition of the right of way due to rising property values in this area. The third citizen
was concerned that the proposed right of way for this project would negatively affect his business
and requested that an updated wetland delineation be performed.
B. Public Hearing
A public hearing will be held following the circulation of this document. This public
hearing will provide more detailed information to the public about the proposed improvements.
The public will be invited to make additional comments or voice concerns regarding the proposed
project.
C. Environmental Justice
Coordination was performed between NCDOT and property owners near the intersection of
Hill Way and SR 1154 (Hale Swamp Road) due to a possible Environmental Justice issue. Further
detail on this coordination can be found in Section VI.EA of this document.
D. NEPA/404 Merger Process
Merger 01 is a process to streamline the project development and permitting processes,
agreed to by the USACE, NCDENR-DWQ, FHWA, and NCDOT and supported by other
stakeholder agencies and local units of government. To this effect, the Merger 01 process provides
a forum for appropriate agency representatives to discuss and reach consensus on ways to facilitate
meeting the regulatory requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act during the
NEPA/SEPA decision-making phase of transportation projects.
41
* Town of Calabash
Town of Shallotte
* Brunswick County
These comments and related issues, included in Appendix B, have been addressed in this
document.
43
APPENDIX A
MAPPING & FIGURES

o u o o ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MAP
SR 1163 (GEORGETOWN RD. EXT.)

N m
cn cil
z NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
FROM SR 1184 OF TRANSPORTATION /" \

m t
= °
0 cn OCEAN ISLE BEACH RD.) DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
-' ?
: ?-: PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
TO NC 179
oN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
0 co BRUNSWICK COUNTY
TIP P
T
ROJEC
R-3432

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MAP
SR 1163 (GEORGETOWN RD. EXT.)
FROM SR 1184
z (OCEAN ISLE BEACH RD.)
TO NC 179
BRUNSWICK COUNTY
TIP PROJECT R-3432
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT a "°pr"
OF TRANSPORTATION g9
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
00 5 0 0
(A ma o? o
cm
cD TI m
h cr C
o
o D
m _
? C',
C T
-+?
W N C7
? N

o o o o ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MAP
0 W ? w c SR 1163 (GEORGETOWN RD. EXT.)

rt N
Q
o
Z NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
FROM SR 1184
P
C OF TRANS
ORTATION
t? = m _?
:* Z (OCEAN ISLE BEACH RD.) DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
?
cam
n TO NC 179 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
°
?? ti, a
C) N BRUNSWICK COUNTY
co
PROJECT R-3432
F-00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001

..w 4
i
t rY. 4 SI1 ,y- j???Y
,a
r T.a y tit
F ? r
1
-41
!? ?.. .rte .!.'1 W'o • ..
t. 7-jl.
w
Z A-
?.1. N ? V
T

O m Cn m
N
m'

(D
a
N

v m
m'

(D
o

m
w
3 cn

O
C
C o
N
0

M

E
m
N L
ID
O

<

3 r
CQ

a
N N

t:- ?.. X
* r.
? yr-
• _ 1 .d? ? 0.? Y?
- ' '? r { r i ' ? y i•t

r
w1
J

y
A

? ? ,1? '?.'- ? ? 79.7 ? r +. ` J Y yi ? 3? ? -v r <? +._"?. ? - - ,'•? ~4 •[ y
- r J?;r. '.7 •? c.•3'?!. 'f, °l. ? .: r ? •,?t T?i .'b? y, v y : -, ?. -NSF" + •. ? ,<,?' ;y??.
?,?,.?r .?.. M
t jh rl r .M .
41-

m <
? C? `D was ?' ?

N c
ca o z

0 <D W u
Iv
W C) W T`
co I
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MAP
SR 1163 (GEORGETOWN RD. EXT.) NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
FROM SR 1184 OF TRANSPORTATION
(OCEAN ISLE BEACH RD.) DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
TO NC 179 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND G
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
BRUNSWICK COUNTY
TIP PROJECT R-3432
` y!T
1
7.

.-: lV11.11-

S
17
1 ±`{4r N
? -17 7? ? ? t 7I.?
r ?
t _ i } ` .,?31q©
F P10 J25Cv
r• ... `?? ? ,Cem
1
""?
0 1,000 2,000 4,000
Feet
.. V
? 4-
l"?
VICINITY MAP
aprH Count BRUNSWICK
r
•Q
°` NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT SR 1163 (GEORGETOWN RD. EXT.) ure
Fi
° OF TRANSPORTATION FROM SR 1184 Div. 3 TIPft 132 g
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS (OCEAN ISLE BEACH RD.)
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND WBS' 35501.1.1
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH TO NC 179
BY: J.TORTORELLA BRUNSWICK COUNTY Dete: JULY 2008
TIP PROJECT R-3432
w
J w
m
QD
E J

U
F?
lc?
O
0
Try c,q TYPICIAL SECTION MAP County: BRUNSWICK
r '%} NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT SR 1163 (GEORGETOWN RD. EXT.)
OF TRANSPORTATION FROM SR 1184 Div: 3 Figure
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS (OCEAN ISLE BEACH RD.)
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND WBS: 35501.1.1
Py " Vw ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH TO NC 179
"'co ,nv? BRUNSWICK COUNTY Date: DEC 2008
TIP PR(1.lPr.T P-11.19
li a

?, - rn ,•
' ,• 1~ A PM
17 -?75 I3 PM
?-160 ?•" O
'? A 13

ao
N 1 S
? -
! ?l? m
o
!

?, Br
to !
!
-
4 !
A = n
C N
m
? ? I
I
SON 0
m

n !
m

1 IJ
M 55 N ? ? 13 -? 55 ? T
z.
tz.l! /
E-'
T\ `??
!
17-?t a0
c2.11
N
w
PM
a-Ias
(21)

D ? I Y"J
v i
!

?T3

?

X13:

?1;
? i u N N
a _
!
IS 65 0
(LI)
O 13
-? 55 w
(2.1) \ ,)
IM
Ilt 153 o

Q 1
I O
G
n
v i
o ?
C
?l
,
?
m i

!
A

# _ rn
I
t 09 SI
Ndd N
#
it
# 3 O z O
Z
a I
! (?\I

c
#t c m o
tt " 0

r
i - W

o O N O 'fl
I
_ a
'rT yq?f
V
G = n f?
°A tn

A

- 1 .12 WH

.Nn 094-SI
Wd
O4
4
_
TD

o S o o v
°c' a -0 'ro^
Z '
! o
j
19
N d N .D
ti N o O
- V
jl ;g
c _
°
o ! C

? o• c
o ? 3
0
- I
4n
T>
I z
O O
°' m
^ 1 6
PM
13 55
rw
3.. 2?
w0 ? I ? ? ryl ?`. ? 1 SS_ fQ

m M N r
n
oo n
O z ?s c?0 yy g O
??

'' ?"' / \ ?9
l 3' IC ? ?I
C)o 3 Z -
I
l c
9 TT
i?
\
r' ?
?a s y
y
m
•• O O w 75
V
°
?
's
2s 4
3
v
W C'1 ro z u, ! 9
FO
_
rn
a 3
A]i V
r
? ?I
L N i r ?4

o
=r
o

W O

m z
a OL
n
.. °
ro !
f7 n
A

f

a

J
O N I
rn ! (_ ¦
L , Ts ??( te 8 SRII73-VILLAGC RO

= X
MW

'

?
y

u
] -? 55
(2.1)
n
? ? .D rn
X A
? < Jr
, ? IC I
C,
6193 'D ;>D o
i3
3 O Z •-?' m N ! v

c 10
w
,
``?
C
s

p O
t(p ?
$y?
! 90

1 `? H
l ?
I
l
- i
r m
r' N

O

rn
O
n D
t z
N
O
O
a
G
m ?
D
m -?
D
Z
Z
c
a
v
a z
D
TI
f7
4 A
2
v
C
z
v
v ?
z
Mi
t" 1

# O

D
xc3 vz r
Yz c m o z
a
-0 -
° 0
v ? v ? n
o
Q
.
0
C A y
'O
v n'1

a

D
v
m v o
b
3
°
?

? o
i
u
i
?=d= Z
.?
<
vii 0
O

? C
o
_ 0
o 3 o
° r 7

v o

O
a ?
z
m
M 0 O 75
n Ln
v z

n

? o
v
0 LA
7 N

1 1 C
p, C W W -{
CID
0 0
Ol =r
t1 t1 (D
O

In 0)
-< 0 W
N

.'
tD r*I
x
`D ^

n CL
v
v_
rTl C
x

N
0
n R3 N
O
Z

y O Z
ID , o
W
Cr
O ?
DJ N
O
? Ln
7 Ut
r
o I) --? 55 IJ -1 60 N IJ -----) 65
o' ? ? J - N y y a O y? o Q
oa?a,?°a5
i

i
VT?
W -
?l;
o

i
i

) P? 55 N
iv (2.11 E.-?/

J

F 35
PM
(7l) Pm

1] -1 60
tz.l>
/ ')

!
!
!
I
i
T
T
T

?

17-?
55

I 1

I
i '
?

I A
? ,I.I)
d
N

T
??

!
.1 1 \ 'p0 1
?

N
Wl)
I? 1
1
1
1
?-sl
09 JT T\
1

i - ?

I IJ PM 55
Iz.n "
?
I
I
I

,
I
i
-
g
i
? S
A
?

1
I

i
1
I A
W
W
?
n
2
O
Z

J
I z r? y qD
m
1 (`
se /lD ? n
4
h?(
r a?'
? sr
? q? ?
i
I
? AO/yJ
96
.._...

.
R
b
x
v

N NJT PM 165
IS (2.1)
'
=1=
a T
V
N
=1;
V
66
6
.n?1 44 p0
4 /

w=
F
'D 44?a Q
S r. \
A ? D
r3? 0 f`A
2J SS 2? ? TT -.
? via `sd
Iro
/l SS su JJJ???
a
\ l
SRII77•VILLAGE RD
PM
IJ - 0 55
_ (2J1
0
A
Yom'/\y
SJ.
?1 'N

( ?
.
I m
1
'1
A Z I
r• w
O

I•

A /•

R

Q '
,•

/•r
V PM
O 13 55
a In 13.1)
PM w
13 -? 60 •p
(7.1)

V
PM
I] -? 65 y
(J,1)
?
I
q L I r• O _
,• 04
yea

3 ,? Srb O I

!
-Zj
1y
V I
.7r I?

_I;
:
l m

??7oH?+H
a
!

v

7 -/ 55 w
P"

D I7

5 N
PM

?

] 60

s

O

] -? 65
pm

?
a
! o
®0

~
n I
R
-n _ .7.
PM
150 65?

= I P w ?` ?
O
v
= ;
I
C
Z I
I
v I

I Ov { d 51
w
N
XZ
it -
Z
! n
-I Ik 3 v z
C xS n •.C O r
?
? !
I $
pv N y
/!
w
.a •p m M
o JJ, hq ? 1 0
y"?
g a ID
m = o
r O I 1 _m ?
IIICCC ^?a o
-
< O N i " w1 d y n m

v !
(

1 S

° (1'I)
094SI
Vl
'? r

ly O f

--
5r
??
3 =
a
'.
.... C
R1
I
'
^
x I?\
T
10, /dl
y
I ?
0 ((
of a 3 ? Z ! yl
v
o o ° 3 l? - a ' z T.
- {N

0 V4.
°• d 3 ° I /S 1 PM V 5`
v O
O
r L n
? ? z
0 co O
rn n z
a m
m nn O Lnn 7
Q ro z Ln !
o, o
O VI

i

-'
C
7 n TJ

(ID

N !
d
n !
0 to
O I

CIL

O

? ro

W ^
¦
,
Y,
O
!
to _
O N

ro
?
Y/
fD d
n K
w OL v v

n
° D
m
to
C
o z
?T
Z
!
rn
0 n
ro
G ?
Q
W 1
!
O
00 f^
NO I
i
L
m i
13 P 55 T Iv
0
a
w
m
n ..
x '
o _
D
J?
p '?1 ]I yC'?9
? l J
d9 c'?9 ? a
i
f 4
wryl
.. .._..
ti
/? by
/O IC 1 3?J ss s\J
? by " S _ p91C ^ ]IBS
4 44
1
y
/?/ASS 99?
a ?
SR1173-VILLAGE RD v
P
13 ? 55
n
?gooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo-0000000I

n
O
n
tT7
x
?now-

,
-4

j-

ate. _ •
7
I. •
l ie
`r • 3

^?\ r ,.

,'

3OO
-l PM
O 17 -? SS
3.11

i7 -? 60 A 'r
3,1)

T ?1 I7 -? 65 a
It I
o

N
0
0

xc p
7k :. Z
n
? u 3
c v z
r4t c a O
D
? <°
v? o?
o c7

a N
r ;13
C O N

v m

1
a
C
m
O ¢ ? 3 p

N
=
y p d <
0 v
'
m 3
v
n C .c
a o<
o c
`0
v V7
V O
? ? f'Y .
.'17 .Z7 Z7
m O C7 C
? N
.TJ C7
O 1
w '.'1
0 e
1 (
D Z LLn 9
o co
0 LA

1 ^

y
C
W rn
W
. 1 LA
^ ED G7 7

O m
=r (D
O f
Q
O :E Q - AD. `
W ^
O O W
fV

Oi

-w
(D

7 t
n p
j X

- OL
v
°
,,, a
m
Ici7 O z rl v+
E5
o O z
(D
'D
3 0 w

O ?
n
d N
O
O
O
O Ln

!
I
I
i
I

1

N =1

w

PM PM
13 -? 60 1i1 17 55
(2.1) I2.1)
O4
a?a a?5

Y
A 17 -? 55
(2.1)

?

11
t,JJ

O

,)

m 55
I2.1)
! ?
O O
I
I ? O

I C; -7

!

i
15 65
(22..11) 1
tJ
-/ 55 55

Pm
N R
g

2
I
?O
A

4- M L

1
'
, A
o

A

09 ?- SI T\ ? f
{

I
v
N .l?
? 'A cr
- ? ?%Y.p
G
Ao !r ?
f

I
s ? \ a IL 1 ((J? ?
?
4 r .?\? yy v
`
!
! U
d I I'I)
09 ?- SI
wa N O
?
t ?
Y

y I ?
?c
W
N I[/\ (JI
?
1y?
I
A
O ' ?I
1
3

N ? ' w

3
i c
z
11
i
l9 PM
13 0 55 l?0
1 b

1 -
=1$ 4
1 c
i
!
1 w
m
1 ?
n
1 ? .
0
G7 9y
???, yPo
?1 ? o l ms D
1
n `'2'?
i A
?i 8 .D
111111 y •?
I' L?? f c" ? ' aS
C
1 4?6 p?2
1 v ...
i
a"
`lQ a +' - ?- 0491C
?,? .off
?? ass
ti` c ? ss
J a ? ?e
2 ? ?BBS7y
`T SJ
SR1173-VILLAGE RD
I) -? 55
(2,1)
0

D
a
O
a

.ice
I t"
,L
1
I ' ?y-
r J ? f
m
0
Z 1
W
ti
0
m
O
a
sa
p
! O\
N oa?a aa?
O !
O I
)? Yr t n 1
V • 1
a !
< !
T
rrnn
D !
z r L o L J
C i
ar D I ? 1? u
v
a !
r z !
a '
v
C i
z ? ? 0
v ,
? i
i
m
-4
Z
4t3 oz > ! ? -
I ?' W
c Yt c n o
3 ;t -n
n I J
c 0=1 ? I U / /i9'?in
ID O IICC /\
° LA C ! IL 1?
m i
i
a 3 C 1 ?
I
0 j O o
N
lil O ? ° 3 ? I - U
r, o '? f I
n 0
? p C
N ? O I B
v vl ;
-V Ln r-
O n
rrI
H
a Z
- _
m -
m O Ln
= !
1 A
l7 z
7 ul Ln
cn m - Z i
rn fn A
C W w ..?

N
R
0
0
x
0
0

I? s
V
?i
?? IC ? 71
? ? 9 5 9otC
T, Lam/
45/7
x
O ? ^ rp ! z \\\ -
O O• O I T a_
O ?- Q (D ww I ¦ \?
CrLi O w
N K O N
Of 7 °? !
d X I
n m D C t
10 tCA O •x• rn N !
v Z O 'G ! - s9
f 1 O Z ! T iiys
CD p ^ I ' 1 , Lil?9
`t c w
?_ ! rn -po
d N
O I ..._..-
O O I
Lrl
.m
?n
10 ????QB r
? y I ~
S8 -
B ? ( 2
?2 y\y SRI173-VILLAGE RD ??'"

. m
e
S ?
IC ]I

'
Z 1 i
O

- n

P

V7
R = D
C
M
Z

? i

I

z
Z I a 15
+

D
r

?

I W
? ?V p o? W
?C p? W

ti
p
D

? !
1
? r`;
p.
r I
1
D i T\ ? T\ /T o
? ?
=
a
?
? I
I 1 v

2
I 1
1
p i 1
? i
S
`

o
-- It 3 az
t s? ` O
r
D
i
1
N y

< ? Ian O A
C ? n
n
?
!
I
1
hy?f
S!L
?
,
1
? ti
_

a ? o G7 ; ?; ? ? 1 ?
.. ? I F

v o v
c a?v
? m
a a w

Z 1

!
I

?

n_.
1 ..

og
d
1 iD =
~ C O 2
v !
C
O '? I

e
G ?
11
? I
,
,e
O O
7 O c
? I
o y 3 ° •" I ?

v 1.1

?

- J

I
11
? J I
I
CC

m CD
rn -4

p a z o
W ('? ? E)7 1 A
75 0 ILA C w
?
0

a
c %
w
-i LA n
x
a n Q n
n (D
=r o 71- z
CL y i
L
CL (D ' m
O
? W
N Y
N m

!D
^- tn
Cl

o

v
_
x
n o
rn
z
z
(D 4 O O
Q W

? N I
n I

O p
Ln
1
1
1
y ? >
yCi
?D
/B
.. '90
n
?7
0

S
c^?j
110
62 - -
SR1173,VILLACE RD
0
D
m
N
0
VF
R
m
•..•s•.....••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
?' n D
A
z
0
0
n
m
0
n
m
A
n
A VI
z+ O
o c
z z
2j9
19
y I3-0 65 A
NAB (3.t) ? a
T Ja5

w I
r+/'?? Sri f 1

n =

UN , C
M
DD !

I

a
? T\

1 aA ? N N
•?
v

I

a I
y 1 ? I I

v
x

a
Z
1
v
v
M i
Yi ' ?r, O I ?
'-? •

0 Z z
a A 1
.
n t
?
'` ao
o
s• <
c?
p D v. ? ?, a
(? ?
i y9
ct

N O '^

r --4

O

!
C
4H
o ; N
o !
1
?

lo?v i
? m

v? v v o
a n a 3 N

? A "
! o
I
y ? C ? .O C I
n
+ ^ n <
v O V
° a 3
v o
?.
-o?
t
_
X X

p .L7 r
Q
n

? n
O
C
i
rri
m

v -1
r
ft
O
z L"

Ln 75-
W
'C
O
O
N _
M
I
O
V1 V
O M C
Z !
I w
pZ
OI C W w ? G n
(n N PM
17 -0 65
(2.1)

N

PM
is -? 75 m T
N

D ~ ° F
D
fl
2
99
- TIT
F
(D ^
I
r1 I
0
D .._
O O O' D
O T. mn o -
Q

O
CL
DTI
a
.C
!
t

/1
z

yc,

in
O 0 W
N
(Y. /1 o ?9
tD 9?l
'

!D
P
Q
tn
?
OL
v
v

Ln O
Z
.
M
H

-g vs.
%0 3 o 446
w y
y i Y ? fga
,

f? o

??
`S•9
IC ?
?? I?
TT
v
.i'd T a 6??
l yP
Fj
49
3
?
J
SJ.
OT
_

SR1173-VILLAGE RD
9
0
S
Z4

1 n / ?
a

n
0

'
0 rn

A S

oZ

I
/ m
n

a D !
!
I A
!

w vQ'i T

? to -°
o - ?J of

n I
D i
ii u

a
!
I ?- pp W W ?I ?I? pp W Z
v
_
6

v !
!

O 1
1

0 1-
I 0
n ! _ `OJf
xt
G?? O
Eel
O
it c
D !
! ?,RO

+l a

b

d
3 N p i r"1

U s`` 1
O?
c m r

to I o
\
? 1

?
I

N I
]I ?

A 1
N9
li
+°
I /T T ?
?v3 ? \ ??
v
c ! _ W

O a A; m
a x -
'
?
i
Ao
I ^
? 1
z
x
O
N
?
i.
ID
o =
J
o
7 p C
o a 3
v yr m

v

_
"_

!
!

9 1

1
1 ?^

0
VIV
I

n C i 7 ?? k
N
, ?I
99
m _i O
^ O W
? n i p??
-
v 0 !
p
7 z O z 19?
?
\ j
75 0 N t
:3 GT
ip
-
o C:
Z
! 41
m \

'

7
03 +

w

-? cCn

G

I

x

O c
s

tp .+ d
? (D
N rD ??
a J
OL CL (D
,(
lA ,? O N SRII7YVILL4GE RD
C r
!D
?
n
=
'
m /
y`'

rC
p
,
x

C
N

•
!

m

?9 p;
00

Il
Ln O
m
0
z
!
s?
'
M O Z ? '*s b a
N,9 `
,
3 W T ?Cq
p ? I y pi,?
O? I AO
O
0

00
m° ? o
< ?
71 m@ cWn? W X?
c

c°
W 01
z

CD x
N
Wu
c:) N
00
REGIONAI VICINITY MAP
SR 1163 (GEORGETOWN RD. EXT.)
FROM SR 1184
(OCEAN ISLE BEACH RD.)
TO NC 179
BRUNSWICK COUNTY
TIP PROJECT R-3432
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION t
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH .

171

C
0) Q)
?
(13
W ?
V)
V O
u)
C O Z _ J
~ O yO Ln

LM W
LU

? 6
`VM •
• t Z J
1
r --- ----
o I tioa
c I ?oo
°
1 y?
o
O ce
u OSI v?
l sz Lni E
v E
? l ••
1 + I
t 1v a v)i
a E
p `
,° °r
h I f

F-
Z
W
5
M
Q .y G r - - - - - - - i
W oa +•
y
LM v N
C C

S I y o°

W
,osz

I
F- It "ti

aC I 4ij4 4r'009
I

Z c c l osz ti tM I
0 N v l 00E 'j? o o
_

?N
. ,OSZ
I - - -
- - - - I
J
U
Lll m rl 44 i ,osz
Cl) c • •
c ,ooz -t
W ,osz •t1iM
H O
Z
z N ?

LU s

s

APPENDIX B
COMMENTS FROM FEDERAL,
STATE, & LOCAL AGENCIES
0
O
0
i0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
PA. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
?aw"?•?'- REPLY TO May 14, 1996
--- ATTENTION OF J
Special Studies and ?? C E /
Flood Plain Services Section
MGY 1 ; fcoh
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager L
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201 ?gCNN,;J,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick!
This is in response to your letter of March 1, 1996, requesting our comments on
"Brunswick County, SR 1163 (Georgetown Road) Extension from SR 1184 to NC 179,
State Project 6.231023, TIP No. R-3432" (Regulatory Branch Action 1. D. No.
199603116).
Our comments involve impacts to flood plains and jurisdictional resources, which
include waters, wetlands, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects. The proposed
roadway improvements would not cross.any Corps-constructed flood control or
navigation project. Enclosed are our comments on the other issues.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can be of further
assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
C. E. Shuford, Jr., P. E.
Acting Chief, Engineering and
Planning Division
Enclosure
May 14, 1996
Page 1 of 1
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
'Brunswick County, SR 1163 (Georgetown Road) Extension from SR 1184 to NC 179,
State Project 6.231023, TIP No. R-3437' (Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No.
199603116)
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Mr. Bobby L. Willis. Special Studies and Flood Plain
Services Section, at [phone]
The proposed project is located in Brunswick County which participates in the
National Flood Insurancp. Program. From a review of Panels 310 and 330 of the April
1991 Brunswick County, North Carolina Flood Insurance Rate Map, the project site is
not located within an identified flood hazard area. This is verified by a review of the
pertinent United States Geological Survey 1:24000 scale topographic map, "Shallotte
NC". dated 1990.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Mr. Scott McLendon. Wilmington Field
Office. Regulatory Branch, at [phone]
Based on available information, including aerial photography and the Brunswick
County Soil Survey, the proposed project has the potential to impact a large, relict
interdunal swale that is parallel to the proposed road. This wetland and others in the
project vicinity provide a number of benefits to Jinnys Branch and the Millpond,
including the attenuation and desynchronization of flood events, improvements to water
quality in downstream receiving waters, and the uptake and transformation of many
biologically active compounds. In addition, these areas provide valuable wildlife
habitat for a variety of birds, mammals, amphibians, and reptiles.
We strongly recommend that the limits of this wetland and any others in the
project vicinity be located early in the planning process to aid in avoiding and
minimizing impacts to these areas and to facilitate resource agency review of the
proposed project.
As you are aware, Department of the Army (DA) permit authorization, pursuant to
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be required for the
discharge of excavated or fill material, including mechanized landclearing, in waters of
the United States or any adjacent or isolated wetlands in conjunction with this project,
including disposal of construction debris. Under our mitigation policy, impacts to
wetlands should first be avoided or minimized. We will then consider compensatory
mitigation for unavoidable impacts. When final plans are completed, including the
extent and location of any work in wetlands and proposed wetland crossing types (if
any), our Regulatory Branch would appreciate the opportunity to review these plans for
project-specific determinations of DA permit requirements.
If you have any questions, they should be addressed to Mr. McLendon.
10
!0
i0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
llh:P1RT19h:\"I' Or'fHl; ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 284412-18911
1 1„
R1 i'1
October 20, 2004
Regulatory Division
SUBJECT: Action ID 200500029; TIP Project No. R-3432
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
N.C. Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
{{)? 25
eHIGHWAYS
'4L A 14
?,oFnr, a
ucVELOVM,\S
Reference your August 18, 2004 letter requesting our scoping comments on the proposed
roadway improvements on new location from SR 1 184 (Old Georgetown Road) to NC 179,
Occ:m ISIe. BI"LIJIS%elck County, North Carolina.
Based on a recent field inspection by this office, information provided in the referenced
letter and a review of the soil survey for Brunswick County by the Natural Resources
Conservation Scrvice, the proposed project may impact jurisdictional wetlands. In addition, the
information you have provided indicates that the proposed project may impact wetlands
associated with the Shallotte River. More information is needed on the extent and location and
conununity type of all the impacted wetlands and streams before an environmental assessment
can he made. In addition, based on the information provided in your letter, the apparent level of
wetland impacts and scope of the referenced projects may warrant coordination pursuant to the
integrated NEPA/Section 404-merger agreement.
Department of the Army (DA) permit authorization, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean
Watei Act of 1977, as amended, will be required for the discharge of dredged or till material in
waters of the United States or any adjacent wetlands in conjunction with this project, including
disposal of construction debris. Pursuant to our mitigation policy, impacts to wetlands should
first be avoided or minimized. We will then consider compensatory mitigation for unavoidable
impacts. When final plans are completed, including the extent and location of any work in
wetlands, our regulatory division would appreciate the opportunity to review these plans for
project-specific determinations of DA permit requirements.
Should you have any questions please contact Mr. David L. Timpy in the Wilmington
Field Office at [phone].
Sincerely,

E. David Franklin
Chief. NCDOT Team
Copies Furnished:
Mr. John Domey
NCDENR-DWQ
Wetlands Section
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1 62 1
Mr. Travis Wilson
Highway Coordinator
North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission
1 142 1-85 Service Road
Creedmoor, North Carolina 27522
Mr. Pete Benjamin
United States Fish & Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Christopher Militcher
USEPA Raleigh Office
Off ice of Environmental Assessment
310 New Bern Avenue, Room 206
Raleigh, NC 27601
Mr. Doug Haggett
Division of Coastal Management
1638 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-163
Mr. Allen Pope, PE
Division Engineer
North Carolina Department of
Transportation
Division 3
124 Division Drive
Wilmington, North Carolina 28401
2
0
0
O
to
O
;0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

United States Department of the Interior
FISH :\?NI) \\'II.1)LIFE SERI"IC G.
Raleigh Field Ollirc
P-1 Olfirc 140 3T26
R--.dcigh, N,-i Iit C: , oIi i., 2763,j ai_:i
March 27, 1996
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Subject: SR 1163 Extension from SR 1184 to NC 179
Brunswick County, North Carolina (TIP No. R-3432)
Dear Mr. Vick:
.CF/L
sire.

This responds to your letter of March 1, 1996 requesting information from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for evaluating the potential
environmental impacts of the above-referenced project. This report provides
scoping information and is provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). This report also serves
as comments to federal and state resource agencies for use in their permitting
and/or certification processes for this project.
Preliminary planning by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
calls for the extension of SR 1163 (Georgetown Road) on new location, from SR
1184 to NC 179 with a cross section of two 12-foot lanes with paved shoulders.
The Service's mission is to provide the leadership to conserve, protect, and
enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of all
people. Due to staffing limitations, we are unable to provide you with site-
specific comments at this time. However, the following recommendations should
help guide the planning process and facilitate our review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized
to the maximum extent practicable as outlined in. the Clean Water Act Section
404(b) (1) Guidelines. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, we recommend
that every effort be made to identify compensatory mitigation sites in advance.
Opportunities to protect target areas in pernetuity, preferably via conservation
easement, should be explored at the outset.
Regarding avoidance and minimization of impacts, we generally recommend that
proposed highway projects be aligned along or adjacent to existing roadways,
utility corridors, or previously developed areas in order to minimize habitat
fragmentation and encroachment. Areas exhibiting high biodiversity or ecological
value important to the watershed and/or region should be avoided. Crossings of
streams and associated wetland systems should use existing crossings and/or occur
on structure wherever feasible. Where bridging is not feasible, culvert
structures that maintain natural water flows and circulation regimes without
scouring or impeding fish and wildlife passage should be employed. Highway
shoulder and median width should be reduced through wetland areas. Roadway
embankments and fill areas should be stabilized by using appropriate erosion
control devices and/or techniques. Wherever appropriate, construction in
sensitive areas should occur outside of anadromous fish spawning and migratory
bird nesting seasons.
We reserve the right to review any required federal or state permits at the time
of public notice issuance. Resource agency coordination should occur early in
the planning process to resolve land use conflicts and minimize delays.
In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the environmental
documentation for this project include the following (the level of detail should
be commensurate with the degree of environmental impacts):
1. A clearly defined purpose and need for the proposed project including a
discussion of the project's independent utility;
2. An analysis of the alternatives to the proposed project that were
considered, including a no action alternative;
3. A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within the action
area of the proposed project which may be affected directly or
indirectly;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that
are to be impacted by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, and/or
draining. Wetland impact acreages should be differentiated by habitat
type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National Wetlands
Inventory. Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987
Corns of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers;
5. The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent,
that would be likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed
project. Also, an assessment should be included regarding 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. Techniques which would be employed to design and construct wetland
crossings, relocate stream channels, and restore, enhance, or create
wetlands for compensatory mitigation;
7. Mitigation measures which would be employed to avoid, minimize, rectify,
reduce, or compensate for habitat value losses associated with the
project. These measures should include a detailed compensatory
mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts.
The attached page identifies the Federally-listed endangered, threatened, and
candidate species that are known to occur in Brunswick County. Habitat
requirements for the Federally-listed species in the project area. should be
compared with the available habitat at the project site. If suitable habitat is
present within the action area of the project, field surveys for the species
should be performed, and survey methodologies and results included in the
environmental documentation for this project. In addition to this guidance, the
following information should be included in the environmental document regarding
protected species (the level of detail should be commensurate with the degree of
environmental impacts) :
1. A specific description of the proposed action to be considered;
2. A description and accompanying map of the specific area used in the
analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts;
3. A description of the biology and status of the listed species and of the
associated habitat that may be affected by the action, including the
results of an onsite inspection;
4. An analysis of the "effects of the action" on the listed species and
associated habitat: ,
a. Direct and indirect impacts of the project on listed species.
Indirect effects are those that are caused by the proposed action
and are later in time but are still reasonably certain to occur;
b. A discussion of the environmental baseline which includes
interrelated, interdependent, past and present impacts of Federal,
State, and private activities in the project and cumulative effects
area;
C. Interrelated actions are those that are part of a larger action and
depend on the larger action for their justification;
d. Cumulative impacts of future State and private activities (not
requiring Federal agency involvement, that will be considered as
part of future Section 7 consultation);
5. Summary of evaluation criteria used as a measurement of potential effects;
6. A description of the manner in which the action may affect any listed
species or associated habitat including project proposals to
reduce/eliminate adverse effects;
7. Based on evaluation criteria, a determination of whether the project is
not likely to adversely affect or may affect threatened and endangered
species.
Candidate species are those plant and animal species for which the Service has
sufficient information on their biological status and threats to their survival
to propose them as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA). Although candidate species receive no statutory protection under the ESA,
Federal agencies are required to informally confer with the Service on actions
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of these species or that may destroy
or modify proposed critical habitat. Species of concern include those species
for which the service does not have enough scientific information to support a
listing proposal or species which do not warrant listing at the present time.
Species of Concern receive no statutory protection under the ESA, but could
become candidates in the future if additional scientific information becomes
available indicating they are endangered or threatened. Formal listing places
the species under the full protection of the ESA, and necessitates a new survey
if its status in the project corridor is unknown. Therefore, it would be prudent
for the project to avoid any adverse impact to candidate species or their
habitat. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted for
informationon species under State protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please
continue to advise us of the progress made in the planning process, including
your official determination of the impacts of this project.
Attachment
REVISED APRIL 19, 1995
2 PAGES
Brunswick County
Mammals
Eastern cougar (Felix concolor couguar) - E
West Indian manatee (Trichechus mantus) - E
Birds
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) - E
Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus tundrius) - T
Piping plover (Charadrius melodus) . T
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - E
Wood stork (Mvcteria americana) - E
Reptiles
Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) - T
Kemp's fAtlantic) ridley sea turtle (Leoidochelvs kempii) - E
Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelvs coriacea) - E
Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) - T
Fishes
Shortnose sturgeon (Acioenser brevirostrum) - E
Plants
Cooley's meadowrue (Thalictrum cooleyi) - E
Rough-leaved loosestrife (Lvsimachia asoerulaefolia) - E
Seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus) - T
Sea turtles, when "in the water," and the shortnose sturgeon, a Federally endangered fish, are under the
jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). You should contact NMFS regarding your
responsibilities for these species under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
National Marine Fisheries Service
U.S. Department of commerce
9450 Koger Boulevard
Duval Building
St. Petersburg, Florida 33702
There are species which, although not now listed or officially proposed for listing as endangered or
threatened, are under status review by the Service. These "Candidate"(C1 and C2) species are not legally
protected under the Act, and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are
formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. We are providing the below list of candidate
species which may occur within the project area for the purpose of giving you advance notification. These
species may be listed in the future, at which time they will be protected under the Act. In the meantime,
we would appreciate anything you might do for them.
Brunswick County (cont'd)
REVISED APRIL 19, 1995
Birds
Bachman's sparrow (_Aimophila aestivalis) - C2
Henslow's sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii) -C2
Reptiles
Mimic glass lizard (Oohisarus mimicus) - C2
Amphibians
Carolina crawfish frog Rana areolata caoito) - C2
Clams
Waccamaw spike (Eliiptio waccamawensis) - C2
Fishes
Carolina pygmy sunfish (Elassoma boehlkei) - C2
Snails
Cape Fear three tooth (Tridoosis soelneri) - C2
Magnificent ramshom snail (Planorbella magnifica) - C2
Insects
Pyxis moth (Aarotis buchholzi) - C2
Rare skipper (Problems bulenta) - C2"
Plants
A beaksedge (Rhvcoosoora decurrens) - C2
Awned meadowbeauty (Rhexia aristosa) - C2
Carolina asphodel Tofieldia la abra) - C2
Carolina bogmint (Macbridea caroliniana) - C2
Carolina goldenrod (Solidago up Ichra) - C2
Carolina grass-of-parnassus (Parnassia caroliniana) - C2
Chapman's sedge (Carex chapmanii) - C2
Dune blue curls (Trichostema sp.) - C2
Dwarf burhead (Echinodorus oarvulus) - C2
Harper's fringe rush (Fimbristvlis oerpusilla) - C2
Honeycomb head (Balduina atroourourea) - C2
Loose watermiifoil (Mvriophvllum laxum - C2
Pinsland plantain (Plantano soarsiflora) - C2
Pondspice (Li sea aestivalis) - C2
Savanna campylopus (Camovlopus carolinae) - C2•
Savanna leadplant (Amorpha georgiana confuse) - C2
Savanna cowbane (Oxyoolis ternata - C2
Spring-flowering goldenrod (Solidago vernal - C2
Sun-facing coneflower (Rudbeckia heliopsidis) - C2
Thoma's beaked-rush (Rvhnchosoora thornei) - C2
Venus flytrap (Dionaea muscigula) - C2
Wireleaf dropseed (Sooroboius teretifolius) - C2
•Indicates no specimen in at least 20 years from this county.
:0
0
0
i®
;0
0
,0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 276363726
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:
IV 41P104-?'C Lrli?
K ' sn ?nn:
r
p?p"'r'„ f
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 1 184 (Ocean Isle Beach Road) to NC 179 in Brunswick County,
North Carolina (TIP No. R-3432). These comments provide seeping 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;
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;
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;
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 http://nc-es.fws.gov/es/countyfr.html .
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
:O
A
O
O
A
,®
A
O
A
O
O
O
A
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
a
O
O
O
O
A
O
0
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
Coms 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;
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 cerely.
Pete Bamin
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Dave Timpy, USACE, Wilmington, NC
Nicole Thomson, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
O
O UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
4r
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
iNATCIN41- MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Southeast Regional Office
9721 Executive Ccntcr Drive North
St. Petersburg, Florida 33702
Q September 23, 20041
O
O
O
® Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
O Environmental Management Director
® Project Development and Environmental Assessment
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
® Attention: Michael Goins
O
® Dear Dr. Thorpe:
This responds to the North Carolina Department of Transportation's (NCDOT) August 18, 2004,
request for National Marine Fisheries .Service's (NOAH Fisheries; comments concerning
preparation of an Environ.meatal Assessment (EA) for the proposed extension of SR 1 163 (O!d
® Gcor,•etown Road) from SR I I S4 to NC 179 i.n, Brunswick County, North Carolina (TIP No. R-
3433). The purpose of the project is to provide a mere di:-.ct route between SR i 1S4 and NC
179.
The approximately three-mile-long highway segment to be constructed on new location crosses
tributaries of the Shallotte River and Jinny's Branch and their associated forested wetlands.
® These wetlands, located in the upper reaches of the basin, have a .direct hydrological connection
with the Shallotte River and ultimately to waters of Shallotte Inlet. The Shallotte River estuary
® provides habitat for a variety of fishery resources and includes essential fish habitat (EFH) for
federally managed species. The river has also historically served as a spawning and maturation
site for anadromous hickory shad and river herring.
® Wetlands that would be impacted by this project serve as a source of organic material that serves
0 as a key nutritional component of tiverine and estuarine food chains. These wetlands also retain
® storm water runoff that may increase as a result of highway construction and associated upland
® development. Through bio-filtration these wetlands remove suspended sediments and pollutants
such as oil and grease, pesticides, heavy metals, and excessive nutrients, thus providing water
quality maintenance functions needed for the continued production of NOAA-trust fishery
0 resources.
0
0
0 sJQa
0
Based on the preceding, an EFH assessment should be provided in the EA. The assessment
should include the following items:
1. A description of the proposed action;
2. An analysis of project related impacts on EFH and associated federally managed species (by
life history stages);
3. An evaluation of potential secondary development that may affect aquatic resources, including
EFH. This evaluation should include the effect of any increase in the amount, quality, and rate of
discharge of surface waters:
4. A determination whether this action would require mitigation consistent with the
Memorandum of Agreement Between the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department
of the Army Concerning the Determination of Mitigation Under the Clean Water Act Section
404(b)(1) Guidelines; and
5. A description of any proposed mitigation.
These comments do not satisfy your consultation responsibilities under Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. If any activity "may effect" listed species (e.g.
Shormose sturgeon) and habitat under NOAA Fisheries purview, consultation should be initiated
with our Protected Resources Division at the letterhead address.
Please address related comments or questions to the attention of Mr. Ron Sechler at our Beaufort
Office. He can be reached at 101 Pivers Island Road, Beaufort, North Carolina 28516-9722, or at
[phone].
Sincerely,
_ Miles M. Croom
Assistant Regional Administrator
Habitat Conservation Division
cc:
FWS, Raleigh
EPA, Whittier
0
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
t:.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NSTIDNAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Southeast Regional Office
Q 9721 Executive Center Drive North
Q St. Petersburg, FL 33702
[phone]; FAX [phone]
Q http:\\sero.nmfs.noaa.gov
Q OCT - 7 2004
® F/SER3:EH
Q Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Q Director, Project Development C .. '?
Q and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
® 1548 Mail Service Center r..• ,
® Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
s ?
® Dear Dr. Thorpe:
® This responds to your August 18, 2004, information request to the Regional Director .N'dt„i?,o?i3 S
® Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries), to assist you in evaluating potential environmental
Q impacts of the NCDOT project to extend SR 1163 (Old Georgetown Road) from SR 1184
(Ocean Isle Beach Road) to NC 179, in Brunswick County, North Carolina (State Project
0 6.23 1023, State TIP Project R-3432). Your letter was forwarded to the Protected Resources
Q Division.
0 Projects such as the one described in your letter occur well inland, thus do not affect federally-
listed species under NOAA Fisheries' purview; therefore, you do not need to inform or consult
Q with our Protected Resources Division (PRD). Similarly, if you determine that this project will
® not affect essential fish habitat (EFH), there is no need to consult with our Habitat Conservation
® Division (HCD). If you have questions on the EFH consultation process or wish to consult
pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act EFH consultation requirements, please contact Mr. Ron
® Sechler of our HCD office in Beaufort, North Carolina, at [phone].
'Q
® You should consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) on potential project impacts
® to species under their purview. NOAA Fisheries generally has jurisdiction over all Endangered
Species Act (ESA) listed species in the estuarine and marine environments, although jurisdiction
® over some marine species is shared with FWS. NOAA Fisheries has jurisdiction over sea turtles
Q in the water; however, when they are on land (e.g., during nesting), they fall under the purview of
Q FWS. Shormose sturgeon fall under the purview of NOAA Fisheries even though they spend
Q portions of their lives upriver. I have attached a list of species under NOAA Fisheries' purview
for the state of North Carolina.
Q
® For coastal NCDOT projects, sea turtles and shortnose sturgeon need to be considered, in
® addition to essential fish habitat. NCDOT projects which occur in or could indirectly
significantly affect the coastal environment (e.g., coastal construction projects such as bridges
Q r W
''4a.r?e.evw?F
Q
over rivers, estuaries, sounds, etc. where listed species may be present) should be consulted with
this office and HCD during the planning stage, prior to permitting, to minimize and where
possible eliminate potential project impacts to listed species and EFH. NCDOT is a designated
non-federal representative of the Federal Highways Administration (FHA), North Carolina
Division, to conduct ESA section 7 consultation with PRD pursuant to 50 CFR 402.08 (FHA
letter to NOAA Fisheries dated April 8, 2003).
If you have any questions regarding the ESA section 7 consultation process, please contact Eric
Hawk at [phone].
Sincerely yours,
David Bernhart
Assistant Regional Administrator
for Protected Resources
Enclosure (NC Species List)
cc: Ron Sechler - HCD
File: 1514-22. L.2. NCD OT
I/SER/2004/01100
2
Endangered and Threatened Species and Critical Habitats
under the Jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service
North Carolina
Listed Species Scientific Name ;Status Date Listed
Marine Mammals ?
blue whale Balaenoptera musculus _
Endangered 12102170
1enback whale [Balaenoptera physalus Endangered 12/02/70
;humpback whale 'Megaptera novaeangliae Endangered 12/02/70
-
'right whale Eubalaena glacialis Endangered i 12/02/7 0
sei whale Balaenoptera borealis Endangered 112/02/70
sperm whale
?i Physeter macrocephalas Endangered 2/02/70
,
----- Turtles -? --- -? - ? -
;green sea turtle Chelonit, nIydas IThreatenedi l 07/28/78
hawksbill sea nude 1Eretmochelys imbricata [Endangered 106/02/70
K,, --,-s rt .
emp dley sea turtle
Lepidochelys kempii
e
- I- -d
Endan-ger-ed
12/02/70
lleatherback sea turtle 1 Dermochelys con.acea [Endangered 06/02/70
loggerhead sea turtle !Caretta caretta
-- Threatened 1.07/28/78
--
--- Fish -- ------- 1 I
lshormosesturgeon 'Acipenserbrevirostrum [Endangered 03/11167

Species Proposed for Listing
None
Designated Critical Habitat
None
Proposed Critical Habitat
None
Candidate Speciesi'I Scientific Name
Fish
Atlantic sturgeon
dusky shark
night shark
sand tiger shark
speckled hind
Warsaw grouper
Acipens'er o.cyrhynchus o.xyrhynchus
Carcharhinus obscurus
Carcharinus signatus
Odontaspis tnttrus
Epinephehts drummondhayi
Epinephehts nigriuts
I. Green turtles are listed as threatened, except for breeding populations of green turtles in Florida and on the Pacific Coast
of Mexico, which are listed as endangered.
2. Candidate species are not protected under the Fndangered Species Act, but concerns about their status indicate that they
may warrant listing in the future. Federal agencies and the public are encouraged to consider these species during project
planning so that future listings may be avoided.

STArr ll
x'
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
. April 4, 1996
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook !? ?
Deputy State kstorlc P eservatton 0 Icer l
SUBJECT: Brunswick County, SR 1163 (Georgetown
Road) Extension from SR 1 184 to NC
179, State Project 6.231023, TIP R-
3432, 96-E-4220-0567
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
APR 10 1996
r1JVtSfCV
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
There are no known recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries.
However, the project area has never been systematically surveyed to determine the
location or significance of archaeological resources. We recommend that a
reconnaissance level survey be conducted of the new highway corridor to identify
the presence and significance of archaeological remains that may be damaged or
destroyed by the proposed project. Potential effects on unknown resources should
be assessed prior to the initiation of construction activities.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of
historical or architectural importance located within the planning area. We
recommend that no historic architectural survey be conducted for this project.
These comments are made in accord with G.S. 121-12(a) and Executive Order XVI.
If you have any questions regarding them, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
B. Church
T. Padgett
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 p?Q
•'4'V - 'f?''ll1 11?71
?J
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Belly Ray McCain, Secretary
September 23, 1996
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook I' -?J ??/'?
Deputy State Ustoric Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Extension of Old Georgetown Road (SR
1163) from SR 1 184 to NC 179, R-3432,
Brunswick County, State Project
6.231023, GS 97-0013
/!/C / I
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
C ??
p/VS ? s /99S
1 Q1n.-. .'., v
Thank you for your letter of August 7, 1996, transmitting the archaeological survey
report by Megan O'Connell concerning the above project.
During the course of the survey one historic archaeological site, 31 BW575"", was
located within the project area. Since this site is located outside the project's area
of potential effect, Ms. O'Connell has recommended that no further archaeological
investigation be conducted in connection with this project. We concur with this
recommendation since this project will not involve significant archaeological
resources.
These comments are made in accord with G.S. 121-12(a) and Executive Order XVI
If you have any questions regarding them, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: T. Padgett
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2607 ?j?
0
,. srn7r e. -(?
41 1
® North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
1. 51 Fr
O State Historic Preservation Office
Pans R. Sandbrck,\dmmi•vnur
A \lichacl 1. liaslec, Govcmor Office of Archives and I listo"
l,isbc(h C. I(vanz. Secman Division of I Iistoncal Resources
0 Jeffrey(, Co", oDeput)' Sccrelss David Amok, Director
A August 8, 2006
A
A MEMORANDUM
A TO: Gregory Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
A Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
0 FROM: Peter SandbeckmiQ! OR7p ?i ALV?
0 SUBJECT: SR 1163 Extension from SR 1184 to NC 179, R-3432, Brunswick County, GS 96-0033
0
A Thank you for your memorandum of June 27, 2006, concerning the above project.
A In 1996, Dlegan O'Connell conducted an archaeological survey of the proposed project area and submitted a
0 report entitled, Archaeological Study, Extension of Old Georgetown Road, Brunswick County, IVortb Carolina, TIP No. R-
0 3432, State Project No. 6.231023.
0 The survey documented only one site: a historic cemetery (site 31BW575**) located outside of the project's
A area of potential effect. In a September 11, 1996, letter from David Brook to H.E. Fick, we concurred with the
0 report's recommendation of no further archaeological investigation. As long as the current proposed route
conforms with the area previously surveyed, we continue to support a recommendation that no archaeological
investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
® We have determined that the project as proposed will not affect any historic structures.
® The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
0 contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763 ext. 246. In all future
0 communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
0 cc: SCH
0
0 - Lncmlon Mailing Addmss Telephone/Fax
O ADMINISTRATION 510, N. Hluunt Srreet, Raleigh NC 4,17 Mad Soma' Cenaq Raleigh 14C27699 4617 [phone]i 733-8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Rlnunt $rtcer, Raleigh NC 4617 ?lad Seowi Cenmr, Raleigh NG 2769'1-4617 [phone]/715-49111
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Plounr Strerr, Raleigh, u: 407 Mad service Cemen R do gh NC 276'Y1.4617 !919)73W.545/715.49n1
O
O
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Roger N. Schecter, Director
E) HNR
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, NC Division of Policy and Development
FROM: ' ac Steve Benton, NC Division of Coastal Management
SUBJECT: Review of SCH # -W- 057'7 DATE: Ff//G 1,7&
_ A Copy of All Comments Received by the SCH -Reviewer Comments Attached
is Requested
Review Comments:
_ This document is being reviewed for consistency with the NC Coastal Management Program pursuant to federal
law and/or NC Executive Order 15. Agency comments received by SCH are needed to develop the State's
consistency position.
Project Review Number (if different from above)
A Consistency position will be developed based on our review on or before
A Consistencv Determination document _is, or L. fray be required for this project. Applicant should contact
Steve Benton or Caroline Belhs in Raleigh, phone # [phone], for information on the proper document
/ format and applicable state guidelines and local land use plan policies.
V Proposal is in draft form, a consistency response is inappropriate. A Consistency Determination should be included
in the final document.
A Consistencv Determination document (pursuant to federal law and/or NC Executive Order 15) is not required.
_ A consistency response has already been issued.
Project No. Date issued
Proposal involves < 20 Acres or a structure < 60,000 Sq. Feet and no AEC's or Land Use Plan Problems.
_ Proposal is not in the Coastal Area and will have no significant impacts on any land or water use or
natural resource of the Coastal Area. ,
A CAMA Permit _is, or may be required for all or part of this project proposal. Applicant should contact
ul , phone # , for information.
_ A CAMA Permit _ has alreadv been issued, or _ is currently being reviewed under separate circulation.
Permit No. Date issued
Other (see attached).
State of North Carolina Consistency Position:
_ The proposal is consistent with the NC Coastal Management Program provided that all conditions are adhered to
and that all state authorization and/or permit requirements are met prior to implementation of the project.
The proposal is inconsistent with the NC Coastal Management Program.
Other (see attached)
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal opportunity Arfirmclive Action Employer 50% recycled/ 1 o% post-cona:mer paper
A'
A
A
A
A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
North Carolina
Michael F. Easley, Governor
September 28, 2004
September 28, 2004
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
NC Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC, 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Thorpe,
6 1VED
4
r r'. `.
OED ?. P
aGtyO= ?
A?U O'?F(k1?`t'4 Co
?o?`t4
Subject: Request for Environmental Input for SRI 163, Brunswick County, TIP No. R.3432
I have reviewed the Department of Transportation's (DOT's) written request for comments dated 8/18/04
and visited the site for the project referenced above.
The proposed extension of SR 1163 (Old Georgetown Road) from SR 1184 to NC 179 near Ocean Isle,
Brunswick County described in your request does not involve CAMA Areas of Environmental Concern
(AEC's). The proposed project will not require a CAMA Permit but will be processed by the Division of
Coastal Management through concurrence with a Consistency Determination to be submitted by the DOT
as part of any request for a federal permit. Stephen Rynas, DCM Consistency Coordinator, will review
this document and will generate the final concurrence with the document.
During the consistency review process, we may have additional comments on the project's environmental
impacts, and may place conditions on the final consistency determination concurrence to minimize any
environmental impacts. The information provided in this letter shall not preclude us from requesting
additional information throughout the review process, following normal program consistency
determination procedures.
Please contact me at [phone] or via e-mail at bill.arrington@.ncmail.net if you have any questions
or concerns. Stephen Rynas can be contacted at by phone at [phone], or via e-mail at
steahen.0mas(a ncmail.net.
Sincerely,
Bill Arrington, /
Transportation Project Coordinator- Field,
NC Division of Coastal Management
cc: Stephen Rynas, DCM
Steve Sollod, DCM
Jim Gregson, DCM
1638 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1638
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
A LF NCDENR
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Charles S. Jones, Director William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
® NCDAM
ENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor Charles S. Jones, Director William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
0 MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, NCDENR
FROM: Steve Sollod, DCM
DATE- July 17, 2006
0 SUBJECT: Proposal to Construct a Two-Lane Facility Extending SR 1163 (Old Georgetown
0 Road) from SR 1184 (Ocean Isle Beach Road) to NC 170 in Brunswick County,
TIP No. R-3432, Project Review No. 06-0380
The North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (DCM) has reviewed the scoping letter
regarding the above referenced project, which was submitted to the NC State Clearinghouse for
intergovernmental review. We offer the following comments, which should be considered in
preparation of an environmental document.
1. On March 10, 2005 a Section 404/NEPA interagency review team meeting was held for
Concurrence Point 1, Purpose and Need. Concurrence on Purpose and Need was not
reached. NCDOT's preliminary Purpose and Need was that the proposed project would
serve as a commuter route and direct travel route between Calabash and Shallote, as well as
0 to alleviate traffic congestion and improve safety. Agency representatives expressed
0 concerns that the project scope was too narrow and potential improvement of existing roads
0 may be preferable to a project on new location. .It was recommended that the study area be
expanded to include the towns of Calabash and Shallote. This should be further addressed in
the environmental document.
0 2. At this time, there is not enough information to determine if the project will impact CAMA
Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs) in the project study area. If a CAMA Development
and/or Dredge & Fill Permit is required for the project, then a formal DCM review of the
0 project to determine consistency with the State's Coastal Management Program will not
occur until a_CAMA Major Development Permit application is received. At that time, the
0 CAMA Major Development Permit application will be circulated to the State agencies with
an interest in the proposed project for review and comment. The consideration and
0 incorporation by NCDOT of the comments received during the NEPA/404 Merger Process
0 into the final project design should help to expedite the CAMA Major Development Permit
0 application review process.
0
400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557-3421
0 Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer-50% Recycled \ 100/6 Post Consumer Paper
Page 2
If a CAMA Development and/or Dredge & Fill Permit is not required for the project, then a
determination of consistency with the North Carolina Coastal Management Program will be
required for this project. Because North C-arolina's Coastal Management Program is
Federally approved, a number of activities are required to comply with the program's
enforceable policies even if those activities do not require Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA) permits under State law. This "Federal Consistency" authority exists under the
federal Coastal Zone Management Act. It applies to any activity that is in the coastal zone,
or affects any land use, water use or any natural resource within the coastal zone (even if the
activity occurs outside of the coastal zone), if the activity: is a Federal activity; requires a
Federal license or permit; receives Federal money; or is a plan for exploration, development
or production from any area leased under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. Such
projects must comply with the key elements of North Carolina's Coastal Management
Program. Federal Consistency requires that the applicant certify to the federal agency and DCM
that the proposed activity will be conducted in a manner that is consistent with the State's coastal
management program. This consistency certification includes a review of the State's coastal
program and contains an analysis describing how the proposed project would be consistent,
to the maximum extent feasible, with the State's enforceable coastal policies as mandated by
the requirements of Federal Consistency (15 CFR 930) and North Carolina Executive Order
#15. Information pertaining to the consistency determination should be included in the
environmental document.
4. All applicable CAMA Land Use Plans should be reviewed and the project evaluated against
the enforceable policies of these plans. This evaluation is a part of the Federal Consistency
requirements and this information should be included in the environmental document.
5. DCM's GIS-based wetland inventory and mapping data can be used to improve wetland
avoidance, minimization, alternatives analysis, impact assessment, and mitigation site
searches. The use of DCM's GIS-based wetland maps and data are recommended to be
included within the environmental document for this project.
We hope that you find these comments helpful and that they will be addressed during planning
and preparation of the environmental document for this project. During future interagency
project coordination and review, DCM may have additional comments on the project, and may
place conditions on any consistency determination or CAMA permit that is issued to minimize
impacts to coastal resources. The information provided in this letter shall not preclude DCM
from requesting additional information throughout the interagency project coordination and
review process, and following normal permitting and/or consistency review procedures.
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.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources A14 YA
Division of Environmental Management James B. Hunt, ,Secreta p E H
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., 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
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
0
0
0
0
Q
)EPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, Prct Number
AND NATURAL RESOURCES oje (D
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH County
Inter-Agency Project Review Response B Y 1) A I L
Project Name 6YvFJ<6i,6! CC . 1 111 ' Type of Project 501`x'•.!1`.
The applicant should be advised that plans and specifications for all water system
U improvements must be approved by the Division of Environmental Health prior to the award
of a contract or the initiation of construction (as required by 15A NCAC 18C .0300 et. se
For information, contact the Public Water Supply Section, (919) 733=2460.
This project will be classified as a non-community public water supply and must comply with
state and federal drinking water monitoring requirements. For more information the applicant
should contact the Public Water Supply Season, [phone].
If this project is constructed as proposed, we will recommend closure of feet of adjacent
waters to the harvest of shellfish. For information regarding the shellfishsanitation progra
in, the applicant should contact the Shellfish Sanitation Branch at [phone].
The spoil disposal area(s) proposed for this projectmay produce a mosquito breeding problem.
For information concerning appropriate mosquito control measures, the applicant should
contact the Public Health Pest Management Section at [phone].
The applicant should be advised that prior to the removal or demolition of dilapidated
structures, an extensive rodent control program may be necessary in order to prevent the
rodent control,
mration
contact the local health tdepanmentnor the Public eHealth Pest Management gSection at (919)
733-6407.
The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding thee
requirements for septic tank installations (as required under 15A NCAC 18A .1900 et. se
For information concerning septic tank and other on-site waste disposal methods, contact the
On-Site Wastewater Section at [phone].
The applicant should be advised to contract the local health department regarding the sanitary
?J facilities required for this project.
rc-t If existing water lines will be relocated during the construction, plans for the water line
I relocation must be submitted to the Division of Environmental Health, Public Water Supply
Section, Plan Review Branch, Parker Lincoln Building, Raleigh, North Carolina, (919) 733-
2460.
Reviewer
Section/Branch
Date
DEHNR 3198 (Remised 8/93)
A I
P'li
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Govemor
July 12, 2006
MEMORANDUM
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
TO: Chrys Baggett, State Clearinghouse Director
FROM: Michael P. Schafale, Natural Heritage Program nom' ?'C !P "^
SUBJECT: 06-0380 - Proposal to construct SR 1163 extension, Brunswick County. TIP No
R-3432
The delineated study area overlaps a Significant Natural Heritage Area known as Sandy Branch
Sand Ridge and Bay Complex. This area is rated as having Regional significance for its
exemplary longleaf pine natural communities, which include Wet Pine Flatwoods, Coastal
Fringe Sandhill, and Xeric Sandhill Scrub. Substantial wetlands in the form of Pond Pine
Woodland communities are also present. The significant area is in the northern portion of the
study area, and its boundary is readily marked by the edge of young pine plantations in the
western half of the study area.
In addition, two rare species are known from the immediate vicinity of the study area, though
they have not been observed within it. Rain lily (Zephyranthes simpsonii) is a globally rare
species that occurs in open areas just southeast of the study area. Northem pine snake (Pituophis
melanoleucus melanoleucus), listed as Special Concern in the state and a Species of Concern at
the federal level, is known from uncertain locations in the vicinity. It could be present in dry
sandy uplands. Surveys of potential corridors should include searches for these species, as'well
as for rough-leaf loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulifolia), Venus flytrap (Dionaea muscipula), and
other rare species that could potentially occur in the habitats present.
One
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601 NorthCarolina
Phone: [phone] • FAX: [phone] • intemet www.enr.state.nc.us
_ a 7n<t Grtcumar Panar Vatlt
oeM • in-/. affil
0
7
p' <
MEMORANDUM
July 13, 2006
To: Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator, Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental
Affairs
r;
From: Brian L. Wrenn, Transportation Permitting Unit, NCDWQ b?
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 (Di 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 River Basin Classification Stream Index No.
Jinny's Branch Lumber C;Sw 15-25-2-(10)
Shallotte River Lumber SA;HQW 15-25-2-16-1-(1)
DWQ has the following comments:
Project Specific Comments:
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) maybe 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.
N?on,?e Carolina
Transportation Pending Unit ?vWura!/g
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] Intemet: htto://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
d Z ' t,d Y
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
Jul )'1J.LUVU
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. -
3. 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 (I 5A NCAC 2H.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.
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.
A
0
0
`A
A
0
A
A
0
0
0
0
A
, '6' l
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 Stornrrvater 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.
urv i <vvu
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 DW Q 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
0
0 State of North Carolina
0 Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
0 INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
Reviewing Office:
Due
V Alter review Of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in
0 order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
Ouestions reoardine these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
(;
i
U All applications. information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Norma! Process
Regional Office.
O Time

O PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory time
limit)

0 Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of ?30 days
0 facilities, sewer system extensions. & sewer construction contracts On site inspection. Post application
0 systems not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual 190 days;
0 NPDES permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity On-site inspection. 90120 da s
r-
I permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities
rface waters
n
to stale s
d Pre application conference usual. Additionally. obtain permit to
construct wastewater treatment facility granted alter NPDES Reply
INfA,
?. .
argmg in
u
rsc time. 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
0 permit-whichever is later.
30 days
C
0 Water Use Permit Pre application technical conference usually necessary
fNlAl
7 days

L Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued
f
ll
115 days.
.
prior to the installation o
a we

0
-
e and Fill Permit
Dr
d Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property
owner. On-site inspection. Pre application conference usual Filling 55 days
F
,
` e
g may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of Bo day=_.
0 Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
_' Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement 60 days
tacdnies andfor Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21H.060 NIA 190 days'
open burning associated .,in subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 20.0520.
Demo!ilion or renovations at structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15A 60 days
0
r, NCAC 21) 0525 which requires notification and removal NIA
pimr 10 demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group - I
0 9 *9 737 0620 190 days.
?
??_, Com pie. Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 20.0800. ?
Tne Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & sedimematio
camret plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed, Plan filed .,in proper Regional Office (Land Quality Sect I at least 30 20 tlay
r d3:e before beoinnind ac b•nly. A fee Of 830 for the first acre and 520.00 for each addilional acre or part must accomoanv the plan 130 days'
CI Ti Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referenced Local Ordinance. 130 days;
On-site inspection usual. Surety bond tiled with EHNR. Bona amount
® Mining Permit varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land Any area 30 days
- mined greater than one acre must be permited. The appropriate bond 160 days
®
must be received before the permit can be issued,
North Carolma Burning permit On site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit 1 cay
®
- exceeds A days (NIA)
. Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit 22 On site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required if more 1 day
r
O - couri in coastal N.C. with organic soils Than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved Inspections
" (WAj
should be requested at least ten days before actual burn is planned.
90.120 axis
OL Oil Rehiring Facilities N:A IN:AI
If permit required. apoloahon 60 days before begin construction.
Applicant must Mile N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans. 30 eax>
1
01 Din S.JUty Peimil inspect construction. certify conslructron is according to EHNR dpucdv
ed plans. A1ay also require Permit under mosquito control program Ana (60 dr's;
0 a 404 pernut train Corps of Engineers An inspection of site is neces
nary to verily Hazard ClPssrfiealmn A mnumum lee of 520000 must ac
0
company the auulicalmn An addilionji pr OCessuig tee based on a
Ih9cenluge ar me total dialect Losl will be. regiunto uoan comule!iuri
V
•
Normal Process
T1me Alft
C
C
C
C
r-
L
C
tv
( statutory this
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS limit)
File surety bond of E5.000 with EHNR running to State of N.C. 10 days
Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well conditional that any well opened by drill operator small, upon (NIA)
abandonment. be plugged according to EHNR rules and regulations.
Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with EHNR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit 10 days
Application by letter. No standard application form. (NIA)
State Lakes Construction Permit Application lee based on structure size is charged. Must include 1520 days
descriptions d drawings of structure 8 proof of ownership (NIA)
of riparian property..
60 days
401 Water Oualily Certification NIA (130 days)
55 days
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development 5250.00 fee must accompany application (150 (jays)
22 days
CAMA Permit for MINOR development 550.00 lee must accompany application (25 days)
Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monuments need to be moved or destroyed. please notify:
N.C. Geodetic Survey, Box 276a7. Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Abandonment of any wells, if required. must be in accordance with Title 15A. Subchapter 2C.0100.
Notllication of the proper regional office is requested if "orphan" underground storage tanks (USTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
Compliance with 15A NCAC 21-1.1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required. 45 tlays
(NIA)
Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority):
r
S7?Z irlmc?/1'i4Y? ?vYlm
7
?
C
7I
, W f GC 1?
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regiona l Office marked below.
? Asheville Regional Office ? Fayetteville Regional Office
- 59 Woodfin Place Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Asheville, INC 28801 Fayetteville. NC 28301
[phone] (919) 4861541
? Mooresville Regional Office ? Raleigh Regional Office
919 North Main Street, P.O. Box 950 3800 Barrett Drive. Suite 101
Mooresville. NC 28115 Raleigh. INC 27609
[phone] (919) 7332314

? Washington Regional Office m01on Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue 127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Washington. NC 27889 Wilmington, NC 28405
1919) 9466481 [phone]
? WinstonSalem Regionai Office
8025 North Point Blvd
Suite 100
Winston Shcum. NC 77'00
10101 996 7011-
•
•
•
•
A
ie
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.?
4?? State of North Carolina ??i/?
Reviewing Office:
NCDENR Department of Environment and Natural.Resources
`16 40 -,Yd Due Date:
1 r3V rCC•
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS ProJectiNimber: 'r16 40 -?Y4) Due Date:
After review of this project it has been determined that the DEN.R permit(s) and(erapprovals indicated may need to be obtained in order fer this prefect
to comply with North Carolina Law. Questions regarding these permits should 'oe addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of this form.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Regional Office.
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or RE
N iMENTS Normal Process Time
(Statutory Time Limit)
? Permit toconstruct& operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction crawarstr
ti
uc
on
facilities, sewer system extensions&sewer systems contracts. On-site inspection. Post-application technicrence usual, 30days
not discharging into state surface waters
. (90 days)
? NPDES-permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity
On-site ins
.
preapplication
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to construwater treatment
discharging into state surface waters
90. 120 days
. facility-granted after NPDES. Reply time. 30 days after replans or issue (N/A)
of NFOES permit whichever is later.
? Water Use Permit Preapplication technical conference usually necessary
30 days
J
(N/A)
r
Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received andpermit issueo the
installation of a well. - 7 days
(15 days)
Dredge and Fill Permit Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparier
ty owner.
On-site inspection. Preapplication conference usual. Fillirequire Easement
SS days
to Fill from N.C. Department of Administration and Federe and Fill Permit. (90 days)
? Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15 A NCAC N/A

(2Q.0100, 2Q.0300, 2H.0600) 60 days
? Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be incompliance with 15 A NCAC 2D. 1900
? Demolition or renovations ofstructures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with -
15 A NCAC 20.1110 (a) (1) which requires notification N/A - 60 days
and removal prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos (90 days)
Control Group 919-733-0820.
? Complex Source Permit required under 15 A NCAC
2D.0800
? The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & sedimentation 20 da
s
control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Section) at least 30 y
(30 days)
days before beginning activity. A fee of $ 50 for the first acre or any part of an acre.
? The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referenced Local Ordinance. 30 days
? Sedimentation and erosion control must be addressed in accordance with NCDOTs approved program. Particular attention should be
given to design and installation of appropriate perimeter sediment trapping devices as well as stable stormwater conveyances and outlets.
? Mining Permit On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with DENR. Bond amountvaries with
type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any are mined greater than 30 days
one acre must be permitted. The appropriate bond must be received before (60 days)
the permit can be issued.
? North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C.Division of Forest Resources if permit exceeds4 da
s )day
y
(N/A)
? Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit-22 counties On-site inspection byNC.Division of Forest Resources required *if more than five iday
in coastal N.C.with organic soils. acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections should be requested (N/A)
at least ten days before actual burn is planned.'
? Oil Refining Facilities N/A 9o-120 days
(N/A)

PER,burS
01 Dam Safety Permit
Ell Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well
Geophysical Exploration Permit
State Lakes Construction Permit
401 Water Quality Certification
C]I CAMA Permit for MAJOR development
CAMA Permit for MINOR development
SPECIAL APPUCATICN PROCEDURES or REQUIREI,IEN T S
If permit required, applicaticn 60 days before begin constmcficn. Applicant
must hire N. C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans, inspect construction, cer;i F/
construction is according to CENR approved plans. May also require permit under
mosquito control program, and a 404 permit from Corps of ongiqneminers.
An inspection of site is necessary to verify Hazard Classification, imum
fee 01`5200.00 must accompany the application. An additional processing fee
based an a percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion.
File surety bond of 55,000 with DENR running to State of N.C. conditional that any
well opened by drill operator shall, upon abandonment. be plugged according
to DENR ru!es and regulations.
Application filed with DENR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit. Application
by letter. No standard application form.
Application fees based on structure size is charged. Must include descriptions
& drawings of structure & proof of ownership of riparian property.
N/A
Normal Protest Time
Statutory Ti, me limit)
30 days
(60 days)
10 days
(N/A)
10 days
(N/A)
15 - 20 days
(N/A)
55 days
(130 days)
60 days
(130 days)
22 days
(25 days)
S250.00 fee must accompany application
550.00 fee must accompany application
Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monument needs to be moved or destroyed, please notify:
N.C. Geodetic Survey, Box 27687 Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Abandonment of any wells, if required must be in accordance with Title 15A. Subchapter 2C.0100.
LI Notification of the proper regional affice is requested if '.orphan' underground storage tanks(USTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
with 1 SA NCAC 2H 1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required.
-x- I Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority)
\ Itcop8 -
?
'% 4? A
REGIONAL OFFICES
45 days
(N/A)
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
? Asheville Regional Office ? Mooresville Regional Office ? Wilmington Regional office
59 Woodfin Place
Asheville,N.C.28801 919 North Main Street
Mooresville
N
C
28115 127 Cardinal Drive Extension

[phone] ,
.
.
[phone] Wilmington, N.C. 28405

[phone]
? Fayetteville Regional Office
22 ? Raleigh Regional Office ? Winston-Salem Regional Office
5 Green Street, Suite 714 3800 Barrett Drive, P.O. Box 27687 585 Waughtown Street
Fayetteville, N.C. 28301
[phone] Raleigh, N.C.27611 Winston-Salem, N.C. 27107
[phone]
(3 36) 771-4600
? Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, N.C.27889
[phone]
0
l0
0
0
0
'0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Forest Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Stanford M. Adams, Director
11116
ID FE F1
Griffiths Forestry Center
2411 Old US 70 West
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
Marchl2, 1996
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Office of Legislative Affairs
FROM: Don H. Robbins, Staff ForesterAwye
SUBJECT: DOT EA Scoping for Proposed SR 1163 Road Extension on New Location in Brunswick
County, NC
PROJECT #: 96-0567 and T[P # R-3432
DUE DATE: 3-26-96
We have reviewed the above subject scoping document and have the following comments concerning
potential impacts to woodland:
Type of Information that we like to see in all DOT Environmental Documents to Address Impacts to
Woodland -
1. The total forest land acreage by types and merchantability aspects that would be taken out of forest
production as a result of new right-of-way purchases and all construction activities. Emphasis needs
to be directed towards reducing impacts, whenever possible to the following types of woodland in the
following order of priority -
a. High site index productive land that is currently under active forest management.
b. Productive forested wetlands.
c. Lower site index productive land that is currently under active forest management.
d. Unique or unusual forest ecosystems.
e. Un-managed, fully stocked woodland.
f. .Un-managed, cutover woodland.
2. The productivity of the forest soils as indicated by the soil series that would be involved within the
proposed project.
3. The impact upon existing greenways within the area of the proposed project.
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
4. The provisions that the contractor will take to sell any merchantable timber or woody material that is
to be removed. Emphasis should be on selling all wood products first, including energy chips. If
wood products cannot be sold, then efforts should made to haul the material off or run through a tub
grinder and turned into mulch. This practice is encouraged to accomplish the following -
a. Minimize the need for piling and burning debris during construction.
b. To reduce the danger of escaped fires and smoke on the highways.
c. Reduce smoke management problems to the traveling public.
d. Reduce smoke particles which can cause more fog to cover the highway when fog may not have
formed otherwise.
If any burning is needed, the contractor should comply with all laws and regulations pertaining to
debris burning.
5. The provisions that the contractor will take during the construction phase to prevent erosion,
sedimentation and construction damage to forest land outside the right-of-way and construction limits.
Trees outside the construction limits should be protected from construction activities to avoid:
a. Skinning of tree trunks by machinery.
b. Soil compaction and root exposure or injury by heavy equipment.
c. Adding layers of fill dirt over the root systems of trees, a practice that impairs root aeration.
d. Accidental spilling of petroleum products or other damaging substances over the root systems of
trees.
Efforts should be made to address the above items and to reduce impacts to woodland. We would hope
that the improvements would have the least impact to forest and related resources in that area.
pc: Warren Boyette - CO
Bob Houseman - D8
File
DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION
March 25, 1996
Memorandum
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: Stephen Hall '411
SUBJECT: Seeping -- Georgetown Road Extension, Shallotte
REFERENCE: 96-0567
A Natural Heritage Priority Area, the Sandy Branch Sand Ridge and Bay Complex, is
located along the entire north side of the proposed project. This site contains a cluster of
high quality natural communities, including Coastal Fringe Sandhills, Xeric Sandhill Scrub,
Wet Pine Flatwoods, and Pond Pine Woodland. Although no rare species of plants or
animals have been recorded from this site itself, the Natural Heritage Program database
contains a record for pine snake (Pitttouphis m. melanoleucus), formerly a C2 Federal
Candidate species and state listed as Special Concern, from the undeveloped area just south
of the proposed project.
Large tracts of coastal habitats such as are present in this area are becoming increasingly
scarce due to development. We are concerned that this project will not only contribute to
habitat fragmentation in the vicinity of the natural area but will induce significant secondary
impacts. For these reasons, as well as the wetland impacts mentioned in the document, the
Division would like to see other alternatives considered that avoid transecting this sensitive
area.
t..
July 14, 2006
MEMORANDUM
PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Howard N. Lee, Chairman
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION June St. Clair Atkinson, ED.D., State Superintendent
W WW. N C PUB L I C SC 1100 LS. ORU
TO: Gregory J. Thorpe, Director
NC Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
?Jf
FROM: Steven M. Taynton, Section Chief, School Planning J
REc
r fd
?N1CPMcMt Aa??'?
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
Enclosed is a response from Wilson County Schools in regard to the above referenced inquiry.
ST/pr
Enclosure
SCHOOL PLANNING - DIVISION OF SCHOOL SUPPORT www.schoolclearinghouse.org
6319 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-6319 919.807.3554 Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
i®
j0 . Pamela Ray_ Fwd: NCDOT Query- National Environmental Policy Act __ _?_ Page 1
i0
0
0 From: Steve Taynton
0 To: pray
Date: 7/13/2006 3:08 pm
® Subject: Fwd: NCDOT Query- National Environmental Policy Act
Pam,
10 Would you take the below info and forward it to the appropriate DOT official
0 Thanks,
0 Steve
0 >>> "Stephen Miley" <[e-mail]> 7/13/2006 2:57 pm >>>
0 Steve,
0 We have reviewed the NCDOT proposal to extend SR 1163 fro NC1184 to NC179 and determined that this
project will have a positive and favorable impact on our school bus routing. The extension would reduce
®
ride times on several routes.
® Please let me know if you need any additional information.
0 Steve Miley
0 Stephen H. Miley
0 Executive Director
® Brunswick County Schools
Operations
0 910.253.2846
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
' North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh North Carolina 27604-11$$, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovenunental Affairs, DEHNR
FROM: David Cos, Ilighway Project Coo a
Habitat Conservation Prograni
DATE: March 29, 1996 JJ
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) regarding fish and wildlife concerns for SR 1163 (Georgetown
Road) extension, from SR 1184 to NC 179, Brunswick County, North
Carolina, TIP No. R-3432, SCH Project No. 96-0567.
This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. H. Franklin Vick of the
NCDOT lot 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 project, and our comments are provided in
accordance with provisions of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A-
1 et seq., as amended; 1 NCAC 25).
We met with Mr. Marc Hamel, the project engineer on February 20, 1996 to
review any specific information regarding the proposed project. Aerial photographs and
USOS quadrangle maps showed the project area to be a mosaic of Carolina bays, sand
ridges Lund streatrihead pocosins. These habitats routinely support rare species of plants
and animals nnany of which are federally listed.
Further study of the aerial photography revealed that an area south of the
proposed alignment was disturbed and was a viable alternative. We feel that NCDOT
should focus on this area and should drop the proposed area. With impacts to federally
listed species likely, significant wetland impacts and destruction and fragmentation of
important wildlife habitat certain, we oppose the alignment as shown on the
accompanying maps. The NCWRC does not approve permits to impact wetlands when
upland alternatives to these impacts clearly exist.
In addition to specific conunenls above, our general informational needs are
outlined below
;®
® NCWRC.HCP,FALL:; LAKE
,®
V
,A
.0
O
O
O
A
0
0
A
U
'O
O
e
0
Memo
TEL: 919-52E-9,3"_'9 Har 2ti'9F15:21 No.01Ci R.03
March 29, 1996
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
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
and.
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. 0. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
2, Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the project. The need for
channelizing or relocating portions of streams crossed and the extent of
such activities.
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 envimmnental document, and all project sponsors should
be identified.
Thwik you for the opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages for
this project. If 1 can further assist your office, please contact me at [phone].
North Carolina ?yJildlife Resources Conucassion_?
y1ENIORANDUM ieicbard5. Haa:ii:o::. Exece;i e Di;ctt, r
TO: Melba McGee fairs, D NR
Office of Legislative and Irtergo rear:=entai At
FROM: Travis Wilson, Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: July 17; 2006
SUBJECT: Response to the start of study notification fren. tLe N. C. Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) regarding fish and wriidlife concerns for the
proposed extension of SR 1163 (Old Georgetown Rd) from SR 1184 to
NC 179 in Ocean Isle, Brunswick County; North Carolina. T'1P No. R-
3432, SCH Project No. 06-0380.
This memorandum responds to a request from Gregory J. Thorpe of the NCDOT
for our concerts regarding impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from the
subject project. Biologists on the staff of the N. C. W,'iidlife Beso *ces c0 -11Ission
!NC`,WRC) have reviewed the proposed improvements. Our comments are provided in
accordance with certain provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.
4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Ac*. (48 Stat. 401; as amended; 16
l'.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 car, be developed through consultation witli:
The Natural Heritage Pro-'ran'
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
1615 Maii Service Center
FR ???? cco?°L°_?r5 ES ?2t °.22Z;L:; L2
1®
0
0
0
0
A
Memo
Rale;gL;N. C. 27699-1615
[phone]
WWlt' ncsparks.nednhe
and,
July 17, 2006
NCDA Plant Conservation Progrzm
P. O. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the proiect. The need for
channeiizing or relocating portions of streans crossed and the extent of
such activities.
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 idenff:cation may be
accomplished through coordination with tae U. S. A-my Corps of
Engineers (COE). If the COE is not consulted; the person delineating
wetlands should be identified and criteria listed.
4, Cover type maps showirg acreages of upland wildlife habits: impacted by
the proposed project. Potential borrow sites should be included.
5. The extent to which the project will resin; 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 iosses.
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
Ls 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

nF?FRZCC TF FS :OT 9007/LT/L0
Brunswick County Planning
P.O. Box 249
20 Referendum Drive N.E.
` •' Bolivia North Carolina 28422
`? 7 1 1:9u
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 20, 1996
TO: Jimmy Varner, County Manager
FROM: G. Wade Horne, Planning Director
RE: Department of Transportation Project 6.231023 -
Georgetown Road Extension
This project was included. in our 1995 Countywide TIP Program. We
support this project in order to lighten the traffic counts on NC
179 as it presently exists. I have been in contact with the
Department of Transportation officials regarding. our position on
this project. Our primary concerns with this project being
constructed deal with the wetlands that could be damaged.
1' If I can be of any further assistance,
please let me know.
do i. w
TF,LF.PHONF.'[phone] • NC WATTS 1-800-621-0609
10
.®
,®
I
I®
0
0
;®
,®
1®
1480 Harbour Dr.
Wilmington, NC
28401
910-395-4553
FAX [phone]
Serving Local
Co emment In the
Nodh Carolina. -
Counties of
Bons wick.
New Hanover
and Pander
!7AR 2 7 1996
A -
CAPE FEAR
COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
REGIONAL CLEARINGHOUSE
N.C. INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
REVIEW AND COMMENT FORM
This office received the attached information about a proposal which could affect your
jurisdiction.
If you need more information contact the applicant directly.
If you wish to comment on this proposed action, complete this form with comments
and return to this office by: March 28. 1996 .
If no comment is received by the above date, it will be assumed you have no comments
regarding this proposal.
State Application Identifier # 96-E-4220-0567
Commenter's Name Jimmy Varner Title County Manager
* Representing z r k f) S Lt;1 Ck C0 X17 +v
(local government)
* Address
?- N C D 2 LI a-,)-
* Phone: ?? I D) a 5 3 4 331 Date
* PLEASE COMPLETE
NOTE: If you wish to review the entire document pertaining to the project
mentioned above, please telephone Bonnie Marrero at the above
number. RECEIVED
Bonnie Marrero APR
Executive Secretary/Office Manager
N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
An apol Oppa?Wy/Af/bmotlre A6ftn/AaA Employer
PROGRESS
C®PERATION
TOWN OF CALABASH, NORTH CAROLINA
Post Office Box 4967 a 882 Persimmon Road a Calabash, NC 28467
Administration: [phone] a Building Inspector: [phone] a Far: [phone]
Web Address: w ,.townofcalabashnc.com a Email [e-mail]

?d6Ttl1 l'FiY0:1?l:l 1'ZI ?1Tnleni t?,i i1:1nSj)Oli1CTOIi
lien Pone
-
\' -_:iliir=Coil. _\C _0 -rill
Dcar i.1r. Popa:.
RECEIVED
DIVISION ENGINEER
THIPID DIVISION
FEB 21 2005 i$'
Cm
?. Mur. nnam? -.
vers. 7eU. ?
?r.
a Erjv. Supr. _
CC
a
Duiabn W Hpfrwayg
1 - r"r o, al I LasjL'oaru UI coil"L-,1o .crc I: d IL91 c- ,M, . -7II1
,ure n'an ,ollaUun - eeij: thal :.
1. rnjncrt n fluat in or .d " Ytw i 1'- i,. ` - -
? - -' T.: 1
iT +,Cl' TOa•? ij iV Li:C. L'?e COn6tTUCi'ft TQ it. u_ na. GI tii e:idLi -'uc:r - ....
-. ? r St- :)! 1C: 'A't?r.r.Gi a X111 Rl. J 1 in ilz w(? and :?t_ jJUTC'- Si2C^lltJ '.COL?tl OS T ? - i % :ail'.
a. ,?
jiLS111or.11 of Bru S11'iiC l?-0ITII?illllh' 1. i.I1c?C gt t+7 ;i".
t jl?lais uiia iGtl11 L i• ? .? :d5 ail c in cj -ed of
ut 1 rl NoL. carry Lrunsvdc: Coun z into Ih_
t'.._..., an 7y .:f :11.1S..l.YS Tin. '1df1.ticn. aS e, /l:i TnwnL monies at a, Lo.-- 1l c r.. ?1 ... 1. 1 mryenr
1.: 1.; ys; r:t il,i a:i'Cadv b,,- in -placc.
- ?' i !). 'It C-:4?l.ir *7.? luJIl> Iat IT.C -_..? OF T
sr`on C.? tV =4.. _?
.'31 It ti.. .,f;h 1 l.'v- ..
)1- S?.-i?: l.c'. rAr:, it I)i'_s..:? _ .x
r` .. ..1?...; -•?'.L t.;rTi..i: ; t.r,l, :F Lepl',?e._.Gl t C71 718Tli 1 on l-
a _. i Y?.--iii'or tY the a

JUL-0J-200b 10:4b PDS
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
9103952684
STATE NUMBER: 06-E-4220-0380
DATE RECEIVED: 06/29/2006
AGENCY RESPONSE: 07/24/2006
REVIEW CLOSED: 07/29/2006
CLEARINGHOUSE COORD REGION 0
CAPE FEAR COG
1480 HARBOUR DRIVE
WILMINGTON NC
A
A
REVIEW DISTRIBUTION
CAPE FEAR COG
CC&PS - DEM, NFIP
DEHNR - COASTAL MGT
DENR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
DEPT OF AGRICULTURE
DEPT OF CUL RESOURCES
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT INFORMATION
APPLICANT: NCDOT
JUL
2006
rte;
VED
TYPE; State Environmental Policy Act
ERD: Stoning
P02
DESC: Proposal to construct a two-lane facility extending SR 1163 (Old Georgetown Road)
from SR 1184 (Ocean Isle Beach Road) to NC 179. TIP No. R-3432
The attached project has been submitted to the N. C. State Clearinghouse for
intergovernmental review. Please review and submit your response by the above
indicated date to 1301 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-1301,
if additional review time is needed, please contact this office at [phone].
AS A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED:

7 NO COMMENT
COMMENTS ATTACHED ?(AIC 1L)6''LL(,/L _( LaxA cAgL
r .
SIGNED BY:
1
DATE:

TOTAL P.02
P. 02102
APPENDIX C
RELCOATION/DISPLACEMENT
POLICIES
NCDOT's Relocation/Displacement Policies
NCDOT's policy regarding relocations involves providing assistance to those affected by
transportation improvements per the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Properties
Acquisition Policies Act. All alternatives under evaluation will result in the displacement of
homes and/or businesses. Some residents in the DCI Study Area appear to be low-income. If so,
and if they are displaced, the Last Resort Housing Program established by the Federal Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (PL 91-646) may be used.
The Division of Highways offers a Relocation Assistance Program to help minimize the
effects of displacement on families and businesses. The occupants of the affected residences or
businesses may qualify for aid under one or more of the NCDOT relocation programs.
It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement housing will be
available prior to construction of state and federally assisted projects. Furthermore, the North
Carolina Board of Transportation has the following three programs to minimize the inconvenience
of relocation:
• Relocation Assistance
• Relocation Moving Payments
• Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement
The Relocation Assistance Program provides experienced NCDOT staff to assist displacees
with information such as availability and prices of homes, apartments, or businesses for sale or rent
and financing or other housing programs. The Relocation Moving Payments Program provides for
payment of actual moving expenses encountered in relocation. Where displacement will force an
owner or tenant to purchase or rent property of higher cost or to lose a favorable financing
arrangement (in cases of ownership), the Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent
Supplement Program will compensate up to $22,500 to owners who are eligible and qualify and up
to $5,250 to tenants who are eligible and qualify.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in accordance with the
Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public
Law 91-646), and the North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-18). The
program is designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in relocating to a replacement site
in which to live or do business. At least one relocation officer is assigned to each highway project
for this purpose.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced families, individuals,
businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations for relocation advisory services without
regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The NCDOT will schedule its work to allow
ample time prior to displacement for negotiations and possession of replacement housing that
meets decent, safe, and sanitary standards. The displacees are given at least a 90-day written notice
after NCDOT purchases the property. Relocation of displaced persons will be offered in areas not
generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and commercial facilities. Rent and sale prices
of replacement property will be within financial means of the families and individuals displaced,
and will be reasonably accessible to their places of employment. The relocation officer will also
assist owners of displaced businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations in searching
for and moving to replacement property.
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will receive an
explanation regarding all available options, such as (1) purchase of replacement housing, (2) rental
of replacement housing, either private or public, or (3) moving existing Owner-occupant housing
to another site (if possible). The relocation officer will also supply information concerning other
state or federal programs offering assistance to displaced persons and will provide other advisory
services as needed in order to minimize hardships to displaced persons in adjusting to a new
location.
The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate the displacee for the
costs of moving personal property from homes, businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm
operations acquired for a highway project. Under the Replacement Program for Owners, NCDOT
will participate in reasonable incidental purchase payments for replacement dwellings such as
attorney's fees, surveys, appraisals, and other closing costs and, if applicable, make a payment for
any increased interest expenses for replacement dwellings. Reimbursement to owner-occupants
for replacement housing payments, increased interest payments, and incidental purchase expenses
may not exceed $22,500 (combined total), except under the Last Resort Housing provision.
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not to exceed $5,250, to rent a
replacement dwelling or to make a down payment, including incidental expenses, on the purchase
of a replacement dwelling. The down payment is based upon what the state determines is required
when the rent supplement exceeds $5,250.
It is the policy of the state that no person will be displaced by the NCDOT's state or
federally assisted construction projects unless and until comparable replacement housing has been
offered or provided for each displacee within a reasonable period of time before displacement. No
relocation payment received will be considered as income for the purposes of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1954 or for the purposes of determining eligibility or the extent of eligibility of any person
for assistance under the Social Security Act or any other federal law.
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement housing is not
available, or when it is unavailable within the displacee's financial means, and the replacement
payment exceeds the federal/state legal limitation. The purpose of the program is to allow broad
latitudes in methods of implementation by the state so that decent, safe, and sanitary replacement
housing can be provided. Last Resort Housing may be used if necessary.