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.