The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutR-3116BD6-00042830.01/31822800 October 10, 2005 MEMORANDUM TO: Project File FROM: Kim Leight SUBJECT: Report of Merger Team Meeting, October 04, 2005, 10:30 A.M., North Carolina Department of Transportation, Transportation Building, Raleigh, North Carolina. NC 12 Transportation Improvements, Dare County. U =Project No. R-31.1`611, Hatteras Village Hotspot ATTENDEES (waiting for faxed list of attendees) pelidIng.. . John Conforti, NCDOT Brian Yamamoto, NCDOT Kim Leight, URS David Griffin, URS Michael Lindgren, URS Jeff Weisner, URS PURPOSE The purpose of the meeting was to obtain Concurrence Point No. 2, "Detailed Study Alternatives to be Carried Forward" for the above referenced project. Prior to the referenced meeting, the same concurrence point was discussed and obtained for R-3116A. DISCUSSION • Mr. John Conforti welcomed the attendees and described the purpose of the meeting. • Mr. David Griffin led the discussion beginning with a project history and briefing on the display materials. Specifically the mapping being presented depicted two sets of lines - one set (green) reflected the 2022 average modeled shoreline and respective centerline for NC 12 and the second set (red) reflected the 2022 worst case modeled shoreline and respective centerline for NC 12. The lines were based on modeled data received from FDH. • Mr. Griffin described the Hatteras Village hotspot (R-3116B) as being different than other hotspots due to the recent breach caused by Hurricane Isabel the nature of the island at that C:\DOCUME-1\CHRIST--1\LOCALS-1\TEMP\Meeting Minutes.doc 10/31/2005 Memorandum/Project File D6-00042830.0131822800 October 10, 2005 Page 2 location. The meeting then proceeding into the selection of alternatives meeting the interim solution guidelines. ALTERNATIVES The following alternatives were discussed preliminarily as meeting the purpose and need for the proposed action: -No-Build ("Do Nothing") Alternative -Beach Nourishment with Optional Dune -Several Build Alternatives • Roadway Relocation • Roadway Relocation with a Dune • Roadway Relocation with Subsurface Sandbags and a Dune • Roadway Relocation with Sheet Piling and a Dune • Roadway Relocation with Surface Sandbags and a Sand Covering • Bridge or Causeway -A Combination of the Above Alternatives The Build Alternatives involving subsurface or surface sandbags or sheet piling were immediately dismissed with the same reasoning as given during alternative selection for R- 3116D and R-3116E/F - "hard" features such as sandbags and sheet pilings are not considered compatible with the natural environment. A bridge alternative was discussed in detail with overall conclusion being that a bridge is a long- term solution and not suited to interim alternatives; however, cost estimates are needed before the bridging option can be dropped completely from the interim study. CONCERNS 1. NIPS was concerned that the interim solutions may linger around longer than the 10-15 years planned due to lack of funding and initiative after the interim is in place. Thus making what was selected as an interim solution serve as a longer term alternative. 2. EPA inquired whether the worst-case scenarios for 2022 would be discussed in the EA. NCDOT said no as this was not appropriate for the interim solution discussion - would be included with future long-term discussions. 3. COE re-iterated that there are two (2) mean high water (MHW) marks for their purposes - one (1) for Section 10 permits and one (1) for 404 permits. Be aware of the difference in the two marks. C:\DOCUME--1\CHRIST-I\LOCALS-I\TEMP\Meeting Minutes.doe 10/31/2005 Memorandum/Project File D6-00042830.01/31822800 October 10, 2005 Page 3 4. DCM was concerned about dune height and placement. URS presented data from FDH stating that dune maintenance would be necessary in some locations, but not all locations, and dune placement would need to be at a distance of 150' from toe of dune to shoreline. 5. USFWS spoke about considering node/internode placement and issues of sand compatibility with dredge spoil placement on the beach area. Their issues were presence of heavy minerals/metals; sand color; and fining of existing sand column. Color is becoming an issue due to the effect sand color and relative warmth has on nesting sea turtles and sex of offspring. Lack of adequate/compatible sand sources may be a fatal flaw for any nourishment alternative. USFWDS suggested that future studies should include cumulative analyses of available sand and consultation with USGS during the process. 6. Future schedule activities were briefly discussed, - specifically whether it is feasible to combine the Concurrence Points 2A and 3 meetings and - whether the upcoming EA will address all alternatives with the LEDPA being featured in the FONSI versus selecting and discussing the LEDPA in the EA itself. A draft permit application is required in order to obtain concurrence on a LEDPA. It was decided that the EA would contain discussion of all selected alternative and the LEDPA discussion would occur in the FONSI at a later date. Resulting in the following schedule: • EA (late Spring 2006) • Concurrence Point 2A • Public Input • Draft Permit Application • Concurrence Point 3 • FONSI CONCLUSIONS The following alternatives were decided as meeting the Purpose and Need for the proposed action and as such, will be carried forward for detailed study: • No Build ("Do Nothing") Alternative • Beach Nourishment with Dunes as Needed • Roadway Relocation with Dunes as Needed • Bridge or Causeway • Combination of these Alternatives C:\DOCUME--1\CHRIST--1\LOCALS- I\TEMP\Meeting Minutes.doc 10/31/2005 Memorandum/Project File D6-00042830.01/31822800 October 10, 2005 Page 4 C:\AOCUME-1\CHRIST-I\LOCALS-1\TEMP\Meeting Minutes.doc 10/31/2005