Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout19910156 All Versions_Complete File_19900325MEMO DATE: - TO: SUBJECT: <.11 r-- 1 I `J From: d;,aSTATF'4 - ?-CLti-,?? ,?L<L.-,-?G J '?. D?"v-?,.?;.ltJ ?s"?? North Carolina Department of Environm t, r. Health, and Natural Resources Printed on Recycled Paper w L?I?CJ SUNSET BEACH TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION P.O. Box 421, Shallotte, North Carolina 28459 0 # J"?? lam' March 25, 1990 Dr. George Everett •i': %`,? ?r it " Director, Division of Environmental Manageme 512 N. Salisbury St. AP \ w 2 P. 0. Box 276819 E } Raleigh, NC 27611 MAR 1990 Dear Dr. Everett, cG? CI an ??? h; 111111kas We the Board of Director of the Sunset Beach ayers Association, Sunset Beach, NC, are writting you in the sincere hope that you and your organization will review the circumstances involved in the permitting process for the 65 foot high rise bridge that is proposed to replace the pontoon swing bridge at Sunset Beach, NC. We are enclosing information which we feel explains some of our concerns and describes our position on the bridge. We feel that there has been a continuing failure on the part of the North Carolina Department of Transportation to update CAMA permits in keeping with continuing engineering changes and a failure to address the effects on the environment. We are therefore asking that a detailed review of this project be made, once final engineering plans are available, and that another Environmental Assessment Study be conducted in order to responsibly assess the impact that this entirely different project will have on our fragile environment. It is interesting to note that dispite all the opposition to this bridge and in light of the 276 million dollar shortfall, as projected by the Governor and the State Legislature, the date for opening the bids for the bridge has been moved up to September 18, 1990. Please give us as much assistance as possible in helping us in our effort here at Sunset Beach to save our sounds, marshes and wetlands. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sinc ely, - Clete Waldmiller, President SBTA For the Board of Directors POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION IN LETTER TO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROJECT HAS BEEN A MOVING TARGET SINCE ITS INCEPTION 1982 - PUBLIC HEARING AND IMPACT STUDY ON FIRST PROPOSAL 1985 - PUBLIC HEARING ON NEW ALTERNATIVES (SAME OLD IMPACT STUDY) 1990 - WHOLE NEW ALIGNMENT AND THE INCLUSION OF A MAJOR DREDGING PROJECT NO PUBLIC HEARING AND NO NEW IMPACT STUDY WATER QUALITY 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION NO. 2282 ISSUED OCTOBER 24, 1988 WITHOUT EVEN HAVING FINAL ENGINEERING DATA CAMA PERMIT 6-89 ISSUED WITHOUT ANY WATER RUNOFF CONTROL REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS NO FINAL ENGINEERING DATA QUOTE FROM J.T. PEACOCK, JR., P. E., STATE HIGHWAY ENGINEER - DESIGN "THE DRAINAGE AT EACH END OF THE PROPOSED BRIDGE WILL BE COLLECTED AND DISCHARGED THROUGH FLUMES WITH 12 INCH DRAINS. ON THE OCEAN END, THE DISCHARGE WILL OCCUR ON BOTH SIDES OF THE PROPOSED ROADWAY AND WILL FLOW ACROSS APPROXIMATELY 30 FEET OF MARSH BEFORE ENTERING BIG NARROWS. ALONG THE REST OF THE CAUSEWAY, THE HIGHWAY RUNOFF WILL CROSS BOTH GRASSED SHOULDERS AND FILL SLOPES BEFORE ENTERING THE MARSH. "ON THE MAINLAND END OF THE BRIDGE, THE SLOPE DRAINS WILL DISCHARGE IN A GRASS DITCH AND FLOW APPROXIMATELY 600 FEET TO THE OUTLET OF THE GOLF COURSE POND." THIS POND DRAINS IMMEDIATELY INTO A SLOUGH UNDER THE ROAD AND IMMEDIATELY INTO THE MARSH. WETLANDS IMPACT INCONSISTENCIES CAMA PERMIT: DREDGED 4.9 AC FILLED 1.4 AC RESTORED 2.6 AC COAST GUARD PUBLIC NOTICE 5-676 "THE LOSS OF APPROXIMATELY 11 ACRES OF WETLAND DUE TO DREDGING AND FILLING WILL OCCUR. THE AMOUNT ... DIFFERS FROM THE AMOUNT PUBLISHED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT. THIS CHANGE WAS VERIFIED VIA A TELEPHONE CONVERSATION ON AUGUST 10, 1988, BETWEEN NC DOT AND THE COAST GUARD." WATER QUALITY QUOTE FROM J. T. PEACOCK "RESEARCH HAS SHOWN THAT TWO OF THE MORE EFFECTIVE METHODS OF PURIFYING HIGHWAY RUN-OFF IS BY FLOW THROUGH NATURAL MARSH LANDS OR ACROSS GRASSES AREAS. BOTH OF THESE METHODS ARE BEING UTILIZED IN THE PROPOSED SUNSET BEACH REPLACEMENT. WILMINGTON STAR NEWS EDITORIAL 3/22/90 Consumer Ciwsader. bear Consumer Crusader. The ocean kept ruining our state road on the riorth end of Topsail Island, so we agreed to let a developer build a new road farther from the breakers. That way we got a new road free and he got a string of oceanfront lots that should net him a lot more than the $5 million he paid to move the road. Here's the problem: The developer - Roger agge - was supposed to build dams and ditches end such along the road, to keep rainwater from running into the sound and polluting the oysters and clams. (You know how these environmental- fists whine about that sort of thing.). Well, he didn't. And we didn't notice it . until:, how. Our people from the Department of Transporta- tion had gone out and looked at the project and baid it was all right; so we accepted the road and took over the cost of maintaining it. We didn't liotice that 18, concrete dams and some ditches yvere missing, or that dunes had been damaged or that sand had washed into the marsh. Now that we have noticed, we think Mr. Page phould pay to have the job done right. We also think he should build the last mile of road, which )e hasn't done yet. We think if he doesn't do what we want, we should fine him - either $2,500 for ell the violations or maybe $2,500 for each one; our lawyers aren't sure which. Can you please help us get Mr. Page to do the right thing, or figure out how much we ought to line him if he won't? 6 Confused in Raleigh dear Confused: What turnip truck did you fall off or Ever hear of caveat emptor - "let the buyer beware"? You made the arrangements with the developer. You knew he and his associates laven't won any prizes from the Sierra Club. You should have made sure he did the job right ,before you accepted the road. And you mean to tell one you don't know whether you can fine him ;$2,500 per violation or $2,500 for the whole mesa? 4 I figured e'Republichn administration would be :running your state like a business. In this case, pit's running the Department of Transportation dike a Romanian driveway paving outfit. Sip ??? /, W. J?. -Runt AND COMPANY, INC. R AWARD FOR EXPORT T EXPANSION EXPORT 1210 EAST MAIN STREET • SUNSET BEACH, NORTH CAROLINA 28459 March 19, 1990 Mr. William G. Marley, Jr. N.C. Department Of Transportation P.O. Box 25201 Raleigh, N.C. 27611-5201 Dear Mr. Marley: RE: PROPOSED SUNSET BEACH BRIDGE. Thank you for your letter of March 17, 1990 in reply to my letter of February 5, 1990 concerning the replacement of our bridge here at Sunset Beach. 919-579-2124 First, information has been presented disproving your statement of cost effective. No one from the NCDOT has presented any cost effective figures. You surprise me by indicating that the DOT is concerned about cost effectiveness. Second, for some unknown reason our fairly new bridge requires continual and expensive maintenance. It is not hard to understand. At any rate you yourself put your finger right on how bad your inspection and engineering has been for years. I would like to add thatour first bridge here at Sunset was privately owned, built with blacksmith shop engineering, and just like the copies of the ones you have made. It was operated by two gents that were known to drink. The bridge always operated slick as a whistle, year in and year out. A maintenance crew was unheard of. Because these two old gents cared, they were more dependable than your whole system. Third, I live on this island and have owned my home here for over thirty years. When you talk about bridge damage, storm tides and emergency service preventing evacuation, you are just plain blowing smoke. Four, you state your planners and engineers are aware of our delicate environmental condition surrounding the bridge site. Thats all you do state, they are aware, what are you doing to protect it, not harm it. Why don't you state what will really happen to our thousands of acres of prestine marshland, spawning grounds, and the inland waterway? What will happen when you dump pollution poison from thousands of automobiles, collected on over two acres of concrete on your bridge, concentrated, and washed right into the middle of our marshland and waterway? Are you still trying to say you are helping us and not hurting us? We care, we don't want to pay such a price for a bridge we don't need. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT V. Page Two- Mr. William G. Marley, Jr. ' Fifth, I have read your old impact study. When will you make an unbiased study of this new bridge with all its changes. You have made all kinds of changes. You have relocated the bridge and increased the amount of wetland impact from 2 to 11 acres without an update to an 8 year old impact study. Both Federal and State funds are allocated for this unwanted and unnecessary bridge. I feel, like many others, you owe the people of this state and the Federal Government a true and independent impact study. A study that considers the concern of the people, the environment, if it is cost effective, and if it is necessary. You would do well to learn how to put a tight string on the taxpayers purse. Last, I was really ashamed to read the so called impact study letters when each and all replied in essence, 'I don't see anything wrong'. The one letter I liked best was the one in which our one and only Boat Launching Facility was completely wiped out with just a letter stating it was 'unofficial', and another calling it an 'allowed trespassing'. This is our only boat landing, it was on the scene before DOT even knew there was a road down here. Thousands of people use this boat launching facility. It is a natural launch area and it is beyond you in knowing how to replace it. In fact you have stated you would not replace it. Most everyone connected with ramming this bridge down the throats of the property owners here have written letters with the same old untrue worn out phrases, the same as you have used. All of you must use the same letter pool. Your statements are never backed up with facts. When the people here wrote rebuttals concerning the truth and rejecting the bridge, the same old phrases showed up in the mail. It seems you have been programmed that cement is progress. If you paved all of Raleigh you would still be wondering what to do next. In case you would like to know, this bridge project was started in 1982. No one, No one, contacted the Town Of Sunset Beach, the ruwn council, or any other official about this project, unless it was done in a back room. You see vk?ht I mean about ramming it. On march 14, 1990 the first DOT official walked in the town hall to see if the town would, or could, pay for the utility changes for the bridge. You people really have class. Since you will have to hire an outside firm to design your bridge, why don't you bite the bullet and get an outside firm to do a true and up-to-date impact study. The people of Sunset Beach and all the other taxpayers are entitled to a true impact study. V1 Page Three- Mr. William G. Marley, Jr. The reasons given for trying to put a bridge at Sunset are not the true reasons. For over thirty years we have gotten along fine with our bridge. Then all of a sudden all of these terrible things are going to happen to us if we don't put in a new bridge. It gives me a warm feeling that this adminstrations love and deep concern care enough to gather us all under its protective wing and deliver us out of harms way. And just think, these are people I don't even know, nor want to know. The majority of the members of the Sunset Beach Taxpayers Association, representing over five hundred members and their families have voted consistantly against this unwanted and unnecessary bridge. The smoke coming out of 1taleigh didn't seem to blind any of these folks. Why don't you open your eyes to those you are suppose to represent, they have been telling you very politely they don't want your bridge. Si4 r .G. Hunt -' AX WGH/mk cc: The Honorable Terry Sanford, U.S. Seantor The Honorable James Martin, Governor Mr. Thomas Harrelson Mr. B.T. Pollard Mr. George E. Wells, P.E. Mr. J.T. Peacock, Jr., P.E Mr. D.J. Bowers, P.E.