Loading...
2019-04-01 RM Exhibits Exhibit Book ALZ Page 2(0• 1 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, children are vital to our state's future success, prosperity and quality of life as well as being our most vulnerable assets; and WHEREAS, all children deserve to have safe, stable, nurturing and healthy homes and communities that foster their well-being; and WHEREAS, child abuse and neglect is a public responsibility affecting both the current and future quality of life of a state; and WHEREAS, parents need support and resources to help cope with stress and nurture their children to grow to their full potential; and WHEREAS, effective child abuse prevention strategies succeed because of partnerships created among citizens, human service agencies, schools, faith communities, health care providers, civic organizations, law enforcement agencies, and the business community; and WHEREAS, New Hanover County is committed to preventing child abuse and calls upon the citizens from all walks of life to increase their participation in efforts to support families, and thereby prevent child abuse and strengthen communities. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED by the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners that April 2019 will be recognized as "Child Abuse Prevention Month" in New Hanover County. The board calls upon all citizens, community agencies, father groups, medical facilities, elected leaders and businesses to increase their participation in our efforts to support families, thereby preventing child abuse and strengthening the community in which we live. ADOPTED this the 1st day of April, 2019. N HANOVER COUN 1 , nathan Barfi�f., Chairman ATTES : ii Ai/ —I ' -�A s to l i+ Ky it erleigh G. Cr AO ell, Clerk to the Board G\D.nts (.0111 Exhibit vii— Book /' Page 2101 New Hanover County Monthly Collection Report for February 2019 Current Year 2018-2019 Real Estate Personal Property Motor Vehicles Combined Scroll/Billed $ 144,541,910.34 $ 14,305,662.86 $ 7,322,058.35 $ 166,169,631.55 Abatements $ (39,136.84) $ (204,825.02) $ (243,961.86) Adjustments $ 7,725.64 $ 17,520.85 $ 25,246.49 Total Taxes Charged $ 144,510,499.14 $ 14,118,358.69 $ 7,322,058.35 $ 165,950,916.18 Collections to Date $ 143,533,430.48 $ 13,359,807.20 $ 7,322,058.35 $ 164,215,296.03 *Refunds $ 1,290,807.07 $ 54,464.18 $ 1,345,271.25 Write-off $ (178.60) $ (1,337.50) $ (1,516.10) Outstanding Balance $ 2,267,697.13 $ 811,678.17 $ - $ 3,079,375.30 Collection Percentage 98.43 94.25 100.00 98.14 YTD Interest Collected $ 146,963.08 $ 19,772.58 $ 43,271.06 $ 210,006.72 Total 2018-2019 Collections YTD $ 163,080,031.50 Prior Years 2008-2017 Real Estate Personal Property Motor Vehicles Combined Scroll $ 1,656,826.06 $ 3,938,196.24 $ 623,780.46 $ 6,218,802.76 Abatements $ (18,245.20) $ (65,286.01) $ (41.16) $ (83,572.37) Adjustments $ - $ 6,213.91 $ 6,213.91 Total Levy $ 1,638,580.86 $ 3,879,124.14 $ 623,739.30 $ 6,141,444.30 Collections to Date $ 482,627.88 $ 122,061.23 $ 8,863.99 $ 613,553.10 *Refunds $ 36,427.91 $ 6,789.89 $ 2,040.92 $ 45,258.72 Write-off $ (15,440.14) $ (122,656.02) $ (112,714.24) $ (250,810.40) Outstanding Balance $ 1,176,940.75 $ 3,641,196.78 $ 504,201.99 $ 5,322,339.52 YTD Interest Collected $ 66,979.89 $ 17,069.66 $ 4,467.27 $ 88,516.82 Total Prior Year Collections YTD $ 656,811.20 Grand Total All Collections YTD $163,736,842.70 *Detailed information for Refunds can be found in the Tax Office NE /OVER COON/ GoJ�Ty.NO� 4 T -` i`4.' 4 C1 I�/�, z 1� ., C14 to the .o. d �'t. sr. Date l': -r.,e. •FSTABLISHEO Exhibit 210 Book )J- -Page •2-1) New Hanover County Debt Service Monthly Collection Report for February 2019 Current Year 2018-2019 Real Estate Personal Property Motor Vehicles Combined Scroll/Billed $ 19,068,035.56 $ 1,836,377.17 $ 956,790.32 $ 21,861,203.05 Abatements $ (5,164.49) $ (24,068.55) $ - $ (29,233.04) Adjustments $ 1,019.48 $ 2,312.04 $ - $ 3,331.52 Total Taxes Charged $ 19,063,890.55 $ 1,814,620.66 $ 956,790.32 $ 21,835,301.53 Collections to Date $ 18,755,225.98 $ 1,709,488.26 $ 956,790.32 $ 21,421,504.56 *Refunds $ - $ 85.60 $ 85.60 Write-off $ (44.02) $ (188.67) $ (232.69) Outstanding Balance $ 308,620.55 $ 105,029.33 $ - $ 413,564.28 Collection Percentage 98.38 94.21 100.00 98.11 YTD Interest Collected $ 17,935.28 $ 1,962.82 $ 5,448.72 Total.2018-2019 Collections YTD $21,421,504.56 Prior Years 2008-2017 Real Estate Personal Property Motor Vehicles Combined Scroll $ 127,066.82 $ 146,688.45 $ - $ 273,755.27 Abatements $ (1,431.71) $ (4,100.04) $ (5,531.75) Adjustments $ 779.54 $ 779.54 Total Levy $ 125,635.11 $ 143,367.95 $ - $ 269,003.06 Collections to Date $ 49,287.39 $ 8,500.22 $ - $ 57,787.61 *Refunds $ 1,690.38 $ 315.08 $ - $ 2,005.46 Write-off $ (3.36) $ (4.30) $ - $ (7.66) Outstanding Balance $ 78,034.74 $ 135,178.51 $ - $ 213,213.25 YTD Interest Collected $ 4,431.50 $ 936.14 $ - $ 5,367.64 Total Prior Year Collections YTD $ 61,149.79 *Detailed information for Refunds can be found in the Tax Office NE / ANOVER COUN v)NTY. / GO i Np Z 1. LwillipprAlir, /1 ■ Cle it o t Bar A 3- 2 7 � e Date Exhibit V' Book T 24)./c. Page _New Hanover County Fire District Monthly Collection Report for February 2019 Current Year 2018-2019 Real Estate Personal Property Motor Vehicles Combined Scroll/Billed $ 8,602,206.69 $ 954,234.52 $ 550,141.21 $ 10,106,582.42 Abatements $ (4,486.98) $ 390.76 $ (4,096.22) Adjustments $ 5,481.38 $ 1,185.60 $ 6,666.98 Total Taxes Charged $ 8,603,201.09 $ 955,810.88 $ 550,141.21 $ 10,109,153.18 Collections to Date $ 8,467,379.56 $ 903,831.18 $ 550,141.21 $ 9,921,351.95 *Refunds $ 8.13 $ 8.13 Write-off $ (30.96) $ (134.76) $ (165.72) Outstanding Balance $ 135,790.57 $ 51,853.07 $ - $ 187,643.64 Collection Percentage 98.42 94.57 100.00 98.14 YTD Interest Collected $ 9,026.85 $ 659.97 $ 3,115.47 $ 12,802.29 Total 2018-2019 Collections YTD $ 9,934,146.11 Prior Years 2008-2017 Real Estate Personal Property Motor Vehicles Combined Scroll $ 94,703.45 $ 206,959.71 $ 34,838.04 $ 336,501.20 Abatements $ (642.60) $ 512.17 $ (130.43) Adjustments $ 920.49 $ 920.49 Total Levy $ 94,060.85 $ 208,392.37 $ 34,838.04 $ 337,291.26 Collections to Date $ 28,541.87 $ 9,045.79 $ 365.28 $ 37,952.94 *Refunds $ 574.80 $ 64.70 $ 639.50 Write-off $ (282.61) $ (4,995.41) $ (5,205.27) $ (10,483.29) Outstanding Balance $ 65,811.17 $ 194,415.87 $ 29,267.49 $ 289,494.53 YTD Interest Collected $ 3,859.90 $ 908.13 $ 233.91 $ 5,001.94 Total Prior Year Collections YTD $ 42,954.88 Grand Total All Collections YTD $ 9,977,100.99 *Detailed information for Refunds can be found in the Tax Office NE AN VER COUNTY ��OvN } .4, �;y O L co to he :oars 301 ? sz Date £SraELiSHE� Exhibit `t Book , Lt Pa er�1 �. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS MONTH PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, Sexual Assault Awareness Month (SAAM) calls attention to the fact that sexual violence is widespread and impacts every person in this community; and WHEREAS, the goal of SAAM is to raise public awareness about sexual violence and educate communities on how to prevent it. Rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment harm our community,and statistics show one in five women and one in 67 men will be raped at some point in their lives; and WHEREAS, child sexual abuse prevention must be a priority to confront the reality that one in six boys and one in four girls will experience sexual assault before the age of 18; and WHEREAS, on campus, one in five women and one in 16 men are sexually assaulted during their time in college; and WHEREAS, the theme of this year's Sexual Assault Awareness Month campaign is "I Ask." The campaign champions the power of asking for consent. Consent is a clear, concrete example of what it takes to end sexual harassment, abuse, and assault; and WHEREAS, the goal of the campaign is to empower everyone to put consent into practice; and WHEREAS, April is Sexual Assault Awareness Month and each day of the year is an opportunity to create change for the future. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT PROCLAIMED by the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners that April 2019 will be recognized as "Sexual Assault Awareness Month" in New Hanover County. ADOPTED this the 1st day of April, 2019. NEW H l'IVER COUNTY Jo '-an Barfie It r., Chairman O ATTEST: r. ‹ellazek, Ky berleigh G. rowell Clerk to the Board .v Exhibit y book X`L Page '24.4 (� G NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES WEEK PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, the College of Health and Human Services at the University of North Carolina Wilmington was established to make a positive impact on the health and quality of life in our community and beyond; and WHEREAS, Health and Human Services Week, a weeklong celebration of health and wellness, is one of the college's signature university-community events; and WHEREAS, through programming offered by students, staff, and faculty in the School of Health and Applied Human Sciences, School of Nursing, School of Social Work, the Center for Healthy Communities, and the Center for Workforce Development, the College will highlight fields of practice, offer updates in research, explore new skills and technology and educate ourselves and the community through creative, innovative, and free programming; and WHEREAS, community events include a variety of free programming ranging from yoga, art, and journaling to improving heart failure care, treating tobacco dependency, and diversifying clinical trial enrollment; and WHEREAS, we salute the College of Health and Human Services' goals of helping those in our local and global communities live healthier, more prosperous and empowered lives - rooted in the belief that every person should have equal opportunity to enjoy a long and healthy life. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT PROCLAIMED by the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners that April 1-6, 2019, shall be recognized as "Health and Human Services Week" in New Hanover County. ADOPTED this the 1st day of April, 2019. NEW HANOVER COUNTY �" j F' ,. a„ / / Lathan B.r ield/PC .it an r ' / ,ft' ... ATTEST: I , i ' a.!: � I .rig . - `` \ i ` I `''�/ K1 berleigh G.I rowell, Clerk to the Board G\(...D., 8 4 sc Exhibit .� Book ALT Page 2(0'5 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF LANDFILL CELL 8A WHEREAS, after due advertisement, bids were recorded by the Environmental Department at 2:00 p.m. on the 5th day of March, 2019, at the New Hanover County Environmental Management Department offices, 3002 U.S. Highway 421 N., Wilmington, North Carolina; and five (5) bids were received from qualified bidders; and WHEREAS, the bid tabulation shown for the five (5) qualified bidders includes the cost of the Construction of Landfill Cell 8A; and Bidder Bid Amount for Cell 8A Anson Contractors $2,560,092.45 Atlantis CGI $2,368,630.00 ES&J Enterprises, Inc. $1,869,185.00 T&K Construction $2,089,349.00 Wells Brothers Construction $2,019,986.16 WHEREAS, of these five (5) qualified bidders, ES&J Enterprises, Inc. submitted the lowest responsible bid for the Construction of Landfill Cell 8A in the amount of$1,869,185.00; and WHEREAS, a bid evaluation was completed by SCS Engineers P.C., determining that ES&J Enterprises, Inc. met the criteria for minimum experience as set forth in Section 00100 INVITATION TO BID; and WHEREAS, funds for this project are available in the capital project fund and as adopted in the fiscal year 2019 budget for the Environmental Management Enterprise Fund. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners hereby authorizes the award of the Construction of Landfill Cell 8A to ES&J Enterprises, Inc., and authorizes and directs the county to negotiate and execute a contract, the form of which shall be approved by the County Attorney. ADOPTED this the 1st day of April, 2019. NEW NOVER COUNTY OtiY•N, /I L T ona an Barfiel•/Ir■ airman r ATTE T: I 411-bT+s, 2 o K A-Heigh G. Cro II, Clerk to the Board 'FSTA81_15 - Y g EXHIBIT NO. 4 hart hickman Exhibit‘j ,� Book P"—J— Page 2�•�4� CURRICULUM VITAE STEVEN C.HART,PG Title: Principal Hydrogeologist Key Projects Expertise Provided support for litigation cases involving chlorinated Site Assessment and Remediation solvent, petroleum hydrocarbon, pesticides, metals, and other Site Evaluation/Due Diligence compounds. Project activities have included design and Contaminant Fate and Transport oversight of investigative activities during discovery, data Litigation Support/Expert Testimony review and evaluation, and expert witness testimony. Areas of expertise include hydrogeology, fate and transport, Experience Summary contaminant source identification, site assessment and Extensive experience evaluating soil, groundwater, vapor remediation, exposure potential, vapor intrusion evaluations, phase, sediment, and surface water contamination at industrial adequacy of response actions,and remedial methods and costs. facilities, commercial sites, RCRA and CERCLA facilities, bulk storage terminals, pipelines, landfills, waste ponds, and Project manager for negotiation and implementation of the underground storage tank sites. Extensive experience in technical components of a Consent Decree with EPA Region 4 evaluating groundwater and contaminant transport in varied for alleged violations of environmental laws at a specialty hydrogeological settings including fractured bedrock, karst, manufacturing facility and a separate wastewater treatment and unconsolidated sediments. Designed and implemented facility. Project activities include inspection and sampling of numerous investigative programs, monitor well networks, soil, multiple wastewater basins, preparation of work plans and groundwater and sediment/surface water sampling and analysis Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs) for sampling, plans, vapor intrusion evaluations, soil and groundwater horizontal drilling under basins, and extensive negotiations modeling, aquifer testing programs, and geophysical with regulatory personnel. investigations to assess potential sources of contamination,the extent of contamination, contaminant fate and transport, and Conducted assessments of petroleum and chlorinated solvent risks posed by affected media. Experience in designing contamination at hundreds of sites including manufacturing vadose zone, vapor phase, and aquifer remediation systems facilities, gasoline stations, landfills, and bulk storage and including biodegradation enhancement and chemical oxidant distribution terminals. Projects have included contamination injection technologies, soil removal, soil vapor extraction, air assessment, vapor intrusion evaluations, source identification, sparging, bioventing, pump and treat systems, natural release timing, natural attenuation evaluations, exposure attenuation, and vapor intrusion mitigation methods. assessments, fate and transport evaluations, geophysical Experienced in Superfund site remedial investigations, assessments, risk evaluations, tank removals, and remedial feasibility studies and remedial designs, RCRA facility design and implementation. investigations and closures,and regulatory liaison. Manages/directs the design, installation, and operation of soil Credentials and groundwater remediation system at petroleum and M.S., 1989, Geology(Hydrogeology/Engineering Geology), chemical distribution terminals located across the US. Texas A&M University Compounds of concern include chlorinated solvents, chloro- B.A.(with distinction), 1986, Environmental Science, aromatics, aromatics, and petroleum hydrocarbons. Projects University of Virginia(Phi Beta Kappa) involve the assessment of potential areas of concern, natural attenuation evaluations, and the design and operation of air Association of Ground Water Scientists and Engineers sparging, pump and treat, injection, soil vapor extraction, Society of Environmental Forensics and/or bioventing systems. Professional Geologist,Alabama Managed an EPA Region 4 time critical removal action at a Professional Geologist,Arkansas former pentachlorophenol (PCP) formulation facility impacted Professional Geologist,Georgia with PCP and dioxins which had impacted adjacent stream Licensed Geologist,North Carolina sediments in a nearby residential area. Conducted assessment Professional Geologist,South Carolina and remedial activities pursuant to an EPA Statement of Work. Professional Geologist,Tennessee Activities included determining the source of the impacts, a Professional Geologist,Texas soil and sediment removal action, and follow up stream and Professional Geologist,Washington stormwater sampling to verify that the removal action was successful. Worked closely with EPA to develop an on-site treatment cell for the removed material to eliminate the costs associated with off-site disposal. Exhibit Book X'-t Page 2(9.4_ EXHIBIT NO. 1 From: "McCracken, Robert" <rmccracken @nhcgov.com> Date: March 20, 2019 at 1:02:14 PM EDT To: "david s fort @yahoo.com"<david s fort @yahoo.com> Cc: "Carroll, Kevin"<KCarroll @nhcgov.com>, "Willaford, Nancy"<NWillaford @nhcgov.com>, "Swan, David"<DSwan @nhcgov.com>, "Wilson, Chuck"<CWilson @nhcgov.com> Subject: Noise Measurements Good afternoon Mr. Fort. I am sending this to you for your records. Please find below the results of my sound level testing conducted today on sledge Rd. Feel free to call me in the future if you would like any further testing done after you have completed barrier fencing and/or pave the road. I would be more than happy to run additional tests at your request. Weather:48°-Overcast Location: Sledge Rd. 100 ft. off the gravel roadway with cleared land and no sound buffers with the instrument approximately 4 ft. above the ground. Instrument used: Extech Model 407768 Sound Level Meter Last Calibration: 30 minutes prior to use following the manufacturer's directions using the Extech Model 407766 Sound Level Calibrator. Dump Truck Dump Truck Chevy Silverado Speed Loaded Unloaded Pickup Truck 10 MPH 65.2 dB 15 MPH 63.9 dB 66.1 dB 53.2 dB 20 MPH 68.1 dB 68.8 dB Notes: -Ambient levels ranged from a low of 47.5 dB to a high of 51.4 dB from the wind and other environmental sources. -The highest reading from stop and start-up was 71.0 dB. Please feel free to contact me if you need anything further. Robert McCracken i Deputy Sheriff, Detective Sheriff- Detectives New Hanover County 104 North 4th Street Wilmington, NC 28401 (910)798-4233 p 1 (910) 772-7804 f www.nhcgov.com • n { S# � St .ti' 1` l 2•2 s h,R a yt r a .'. f tr y; M „fy+3 * t tilti •.q� t N7 •. dt r n.,. 4 , ^ �f', :.;*?"-41 ..t S•y .T 7 4Z .. • A ' .t '34 -' } om 1 ms a .� � * +^; ...• ..,:,,, :t., ,, �It,i°{ .♦ i Y * s•'+�.r.4 y .J ` L C� i. .. ;vs. \ n~ s 4 I j . R a ...:411t1,7- w ', y' ;sljf�c }. * : ... `x':�L 3 rt ,t, a' „d #`4•Yr wd n•'y` �ite :%"'T'� '* t M � �a y�� } J� -4 v . �1 " k.. r ?• � �•' a ay. . . t [' < r. 4 3 l _t.y r ( ; 'L ........ � . r • M ;...... ..,..p.rt ...A j�`ttl �;"! t 7# t��� -if"( �f� {Y 1„,-i+� -.. 3 • - :• iikL,tt y0 t yz*;:� 4441 . .• ��t a*�c.a �-r,� � ► • `si "�l +i Sly' yy {�t t t .4* �0 { 2 4..43 't •,7 4 " *t.. .£• `1 * •, ' -1!....A 44:.. �' i� �..r ; Ss t.'^ •edit. .. "3x �1Lk1,74- -.A.- 4 g 41,e'q.;e - .ti 4'.; e, t.; a.i _---1, ♦R! . " *z -. �' `t• ','t, , ' c � 1•y lit 4,4t1,eA ' ;f •�; F * . "' C..;,,[•2 +:t:y •' X11 - '. •;.e`;' '-X36 aai••. 4 '0510t SS 1K , ` Y� I - j `.$t.. + I;+ yY 3 Z alt t• 2' 'a,. w„ % +t�; ,.,s. t',,,...,:h43 - 4-104,,,,,01:. ..1t.,,,I.isit,',1:'•4.,:'2,.,,,:.•./:.1;4*.''',t,kj';� 07.E 4.1t +�n7 ."tf...:••— '��4*S! {:,_:zs.i:**:„:„.,?", 11;4,tt �'� `�- 'i.,y� a ., A. . . . . . .4..,..?. :„,.... , . '• tit t,.. r i r'�"''''A''-'1,'''' ‘, S c :i f • t a*i. e• t` y w Y . .--% PA�1 le y ..` 4 a t ' ,.. ter `' , „' f c ' + . 4t i �. t Sy * , _ i` a - t,. • '. , ., . , 2 ,, . ,.. -,..4.,...1', � ,,, , 7 , ,� 4• w r 4 .17 Y •. ••Ail' .....,,,EswirV.4., 3,..,,,7.1-.14!:i3- :,‘'.1'44,4 4'1'....4;'....1•;•'t.t.x,....,.0:-.C-.:* 1-1:,..:: . 1 948 ,,,, ' ' .4'' '44” ....:„141-34,-. ..... ..4,..,-4,..•.- -, „.. - , - -. p- , -- ,,,I..r.i ....,..-..-..., -.. .. -,..„,„...-......:,*-1:,:tt, :.-'p. ''-. g c .,tom I - } YF ! , " a ¢ >Lip 3p „ 3, {Nei y .,!" ".'�^� �A3 i a StC •3t, t 1« r : t `'. . , ,, ,fit ,t �... ..2:? ,,.-t, y,, •5„j , > s • i s ^ k . ,. . t . . . .--,.. - ‘-„, - T ''1%*.L"....' e ., itit „,.. v ...... ,„ . . ., . ,.....,.: 4.). 4.4,..,1 .... . . .., . . • ., ...=.,,,, ,., ,...,,s, .t ,o. , 4,..„ . _ ,. .i........t,,,,,i4i,„ . , .t.,,,,, ...,.4 , ,:.,...4; _. ...,_„.; _ . ii., , ..„,:.,..i.„.. . imiti,,,z;.,:.,. ., .. Cape Fear Crossing STIP No. U-4738 � xt N psi{} A� 4 x} ' February 2019 • NCDOT has developed an assessment of sea level rise on the Cape Fear Crossing, State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Project U-4738.The project is a proposed, fully controlled access facility extending from the vicinity of US 17 Bypass and 1-140 in Brunswick County to US 421 in New Hanover County, including a crossing of the Cape Fear River.The Sea Level Rise Assessment for the Cape Fear Crossing evaluates locations across the project alternatives that would potentially be regularly inundated or at- risk for inundation due to sea level rise over an 81-year period (2019-2100). Below includes a list of active participants in the development of this assessment. North Carolina Department of Transportation(NCDOT) AECOM Technical Services of North Carolina ii)Sea Level Rise Assessment Cape Fear Crossing#U-4738 I February 2019 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1 1. INTRODUCTION 1-1 PROJECT OVERVIEW 1-1 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 1-1 2. METHODOLOGY 2-1 BACKGROUND 2-1 2019 Sea Level Rise Assessment for Cape Fear Crossing 2-1 USACE Sea Level Change Curve Calculator 2-1 NOAA Sea Level Rise Viewer 2-2 3. RESULTS 3-1 COMPARISON OF EXISTING CONDITIONS 3-1 Disclaimer 3-1 Recommendations 3-1 OVERVIEW OF ALL DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES 3-1 Low Scenario 3-1 Intermediate Scenario 3-1 High Scenario 3-1 ALTERNATIVE B 3-4 ALTERNATIVE M AVOIDANCE 3-7 ALTERNATIVE N AVOIDANCE 3-10 ALTERNATIVE Q 3-13 ALTERNATIVE T 3-16 ALTERNATIVE V-ARTERIAL WIDENING 3-19 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE 3-22 4. CONCLUSIONS 4-1 POTENTIAL IMPACTS 4-1 MITIGATION STRATEGIES 4-2 REFERENCES REF-1 iv I Sea Level Rise Assessment Cape Fear Crossing#U-4738 I February 2019 • Acronyms and Abbreviations BFE Base Flood Elevation CRC Coastal Resources Commission DSA Detailed Study Alternative DEM Digital Elevation Model FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency GIS Geographic Information Systems HOWL Highest Observed Water Level IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change MHHW Mean Higher High Water NCDOT North Carolina Department of Transportation NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration SLR Sea Level Rise STIP State Transportation Improvement Program USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USDOT United States Department of Transportation VLM Vertical Land Movement vi I Sea level Rise Assessment Cape Fear Crossing#U-4738 l February 2019 Executive Summary The Cape Fear Crossing, State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Project U-4738, is a proposed,fully controlled access facility extending from the vicinity of US 17 Bypass and 1-140 in Brunswick County to US 421 in New Hanover County, including a crossing of the Cape Fear River.The 2019 Sea Level Rise Assessment for the Cape Fear Crossing (Cape Fear Assessment) evaluates locations across the detailed study alternatives that would potentially be regularly inundated or at-risk due to sea level rise over an 81-year period (2019-2100). The Cape Fear Crossing, State Atmospheric Administration(NOAA). or soft buffers to hold back or reduce the Transportation Improvement Program pressure from the sea or the elevation of (STIP) Project U-4738, is a proposed,fully The three sea level rise (SLR) scenarios land surfaces or structures.In an effort to controlled access facility extending from include: reduce the potential impact of flooding the vicinity of US 17 Bypass and 1-140 • Low scenario(current mean sea level/ and storm surge on transportation in Brunswick County to US 421 in New 0 foot sea level rise) infrastructure,the expected sea level rise Hanover County, including a crossing of • Intermediate scenario(1 foot sea level can be a consideration used during final the Cape Fear River.The 2019 Sea Level Rise rise) design of the roads and structures. Assessment for Cape Fear Crossing (Cape • High scenario(5 foot sea level rise) Fear Assessment) evaluates locations According to the sea level rise projections across the project alternatives that would The assessment results based on these generated by the USACE and NOAA, potentially be regularly inundated or at- scenarios are displayed in Chapter 2 many of the proposed alternatives that risk due to sea level rise over an 81-year of the report in Figures 4 through 9. bound the Cape Fear River, Brunswick period(2019-2100). This report does not intend to predict River,Town Creek,and/or Alligator Creek specific points in time when sea level are vulnerable to inundation. The locations identified in the report rise will affect the alternatives. Rather, are chosen in relation to three different it aims to better visualize community- scenarios of sea level rise change. level impacts and generate discussions The scenarios chosen to model sea related to sea level rise. level rise projections to 2100 were computed using tide gauge projections The potential impacts of sea level (located in Wilmington, North Carolina) rise on roadway infrastructure may calculated by the United States Army include, but are not limited to, impacts Corps of Engineers (USACE). Using the on coastal water quality, evacuation, information provided in the USACE tool, natural systems, recreation, or roadway maps were created using Geographic efficiencies including mobility and Information Systems (GIS) sea level accessibility. Mitigating these impacts rise data from the National Oceanic may beaccomplished through structured ES 1 (Sea Level Rise Assessment Cape Fear Crossing#U-4738 I February 2019 1 . Introduction The following chapter provides an overview of the analysis that evaluates project alternatives in relation to projected changes in sea level rise. The 2019 Sea Level Rise Assessment DSAs due to residential and business the alternative,meaning access will be for Cape Fear Crossing (Cape Fear relocations,impacts to historic resources, controlled and no private driveways Assessment)evaluates locations across the and impacts to natural resources.The 6 will be allowed to connect directly to project alternatives that would potentially remaining DSAs include a new bridge the new roadway. Interchanges are be regularly inundated or at-risk due to crossing of the Cape Fear River. located at 1-140, US 17, NC 133, and sea level rise over an 81-year period(2019- US421. 2100).The design year for the proposed • Alternative B: This alternative begins project is 2040. at 1-140 and crosses US 17, travels • Alternative Q: This alternative begins between the Brunswick Forest and at the 1-140/US 17 interchange, Mallory Creek developments, and upgrades existing US 17 for PROJECT OVERVIEW crosses the Cape Fear River to end approximately pproximately 2 miles,then continues The North Carolina Department of at Shipyard Boulevard. Alternative on new location between the Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to B is proposed as a four-lane divided Brunswick Forest and Mallory Creek construct a new location project in freeway for its entirety, meaning developments, crosses the Cape Fear Brunswick and New Hanover Counties. access will be controlled and no River to connect at Independence The project is included in the 2018- private driveways will be allowed to Boulevard and upgrades US 421 from 2027 State Transportation Improvement connect directly to the new roadway. Independence Boulevard to Shipyard Program (STIP) as Cape Fear Crossing Interchanges are proposed at 1-140,US Boulevard where it ends. Alternative (STIP Project U-4738).The project would 17,NC 133,and US 421. Q is proposed as a six-lane arterial be a fully controlled access facility • Alternative M Avoidance (MA) and N widening typical section on US 17 and extending from the vicinity of US 17 Avoidance (NA): These alternatives a four-lane divided freeway typical Bypass and 1-140 in Brunswick County begin at the I-140/US 17 interchange section on new location.Interchanges to US 421 in New Hanover County, and travel south of Brunswick are located at US 17, NC 133, and US including a crossing of the Cape Fear Forest, then cross the Cape Fear 421. River. The project includes 6 detailed River to end at US 421. Alternative M • Alternative T:This alternative begins at study alternatives (DSAs), described Avoidance includes an interchange the 1.140/US 17 interchange,upgrades below. at Independence Boulevard and US existing US 17 for approximately 2 421, and upgrades US 421 north to miles,then continues on new location PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Shipyard Boulevard. Alternative N parallel to Wire Road, and crosses In 2016, NCDOT selected 12 alternatives Avoidance includes an interchange at the Cape Fear River to terminate for detailed study in addition to a No Shipyard Boulevard and US 421. Both at Shipyard Boulevard. Alternative Build Alternative. In 2017, regulatory alternatives are proposed as a four- T is proposed as a six-lane arterial agencies and NCDOT eliminated 6 lane divided freeway for the entirety of widening typical section on US 17 and 1-1 j Sea Level Rise Assessment Cape Fear Crossing#U-4738 l February 2019 I Study siNG S dmiai• CAPE FEAR CROSSING , : State Transportation !'.-:‘,..r.-!-, Improvement Program tv ,� ' Project No. U-4738 1440.6"-".441. �. ��}��� F ,b. ,� ,, , a Current Detailed ••.. �,, f , °��. Study Alternatives °' z, rn Legend (1� -''''''''...°,':`-‘4,,,!-.'.�r " � ate, r�f ' Alternative B ''F'-,.*.'' 3grd e �- 'R. �, a 4. --� Alternative M Avoidance ,. . 1 - '' `t°"' : k` : ' Alternative N Avoidance \. IA' } r a r � ' Alternative Q US 1 NC } � �� Alternative T — t r AlternativeVArterial Widening ii �( 4 . 7 �r ' � .�^7 & t -t' ' : ' ' Local s r, pay k. 9 h,t� p sa d. f :y!! '1':'..' tf^ t iSY^il � , � t —4.— Railroad Rivers and Streams Project Study Area ;� .t , � - ' L—J County Boundary _ S R P . a � n # ri- 4 awls ... , " e 0 6.5 I i, MJee : i 0 I 2 KAomn�ri *--- -`c'" Thn map��br rckrcnce ony. q1/40 I , Sourc n.NCOOT,NM0.NOAH NCO...Map,E'S j1 and AFCOH �f f ` ,y-� ceewry>•• A��COM )r Crossing it U-47381 February 20i 9 2. Methodology The following chapter details the methodology of the sea level rise assessment including background on the report, resources used for the assessment, and the SLR scenarios. BACKGROUND The report notes that sea level is rising In summary,the following three relative This section summarizes the reports along the North Carolina coast. The SLR scenarios are considered in the 2019 that informed the Cape Fear Assessment rate of sea level rise varies based on assessment and are mapped using data which include: the USACE Sea Level location, which is influenced by the from the USACE Sea Level Change Curve Change Curve Calculator and the NOAA vertical movement of the Earth's surface Calculator and the NOAA Sea Level Rise Sea Level Rise Viewer. (subsidence)and water movement in the Viewer: oceans such as the position and speed of • Low scenario(current mean sea level/ 2019 Sea Level Rise Assessment the Gulf Stream. 0-foot sea level rise) for Cape Fear Crossing • Intermediate scenario(1-foot sea level This assessment calculates the number of The report makes sea level rise rise) miles of project alternatives that would projections over the next 30 years • High scenario(5-foot sea level rise) potentially be regularly inundated or using tide gauge data from NOAA and at-risk due to sea level rise over an 81-year scenario-based global sea level rise USACE Sea Level Change Curve period(2019-2100).This assessment projections from the Intergovernmental Calculator examines three SLR scenarios that Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth The USACE Sea Level Change Curve represent the USACE's projected high Assessment Report (IPCC AR5 Report). Calculator is a readily accessible online scenarios for the current year(2019),the Tide gauge data is used to project future tool for obtaining relative sea level rise proposed project's design year(2040),and water elevations based on historical projections by year. It offers various the Calculator's furthest projection(2100). water level data using linear regression. parameters that a user may define based These USACE high scenarios will help to It is also used to determine rates of on project-related information. Some better visualize the projected changes in Vertical Land Movement (VLM), also examples of the information that may be sea level rise between 2019 and 2100. termed subsidence, along the North inserted into the Calculator include: Carolina coast. • Selected gauge This assessment pulled data from the • Critical elevations North Carolina Coastal Resources The IPCC AR5 Report includes several • Federal Emergency Management Commission(CRC)Science Panel that scenarios-based global sea level rise Agency (FEMA) Base Flood Elevation produced the North Carolina Sea Level projections. These scenarios are based (BFE) Rise Assessment Report(NC Assessment on tide gauge projections and include a • Project start year Report)in response to the North low scenario,medium scenario,and high • Interval year Carolina General Assembly Session Law scenario. Like the IPCC ARS, the USACE • Project end year 2012-202 and direction from the CRC. Sea Level Change Curve Calculator Elevations used in the sea level rise data The CRC specified that sea level rise includes projections divided into three include the Digital Elevation Model(DEM projections be developed for a 30-year similar categories (low, intermediate, [the baseline elevation; collected from timeframe,year 2045. and high scenarios). NOAA]), the mean higher high water (MHHW[the average height of each tidal 2 1 I Sea Level Rise Assessment Cape Fear Crossing#U-4738 I February 2019 newer I Vulnerability Map VULNERABILITY a . ,,,,...... 4 t ..• LCw ni • . 4144 .1. . aIIIIIIIIIIIIIr 1 , - Low-tying Areas al Area Not Mapped ..., . . . ,. 4 . . . I • 4 '. ... , 6 ,,..:;4 e• . , 0 ,* . , • .4 i ,., 4 ...... . .. .,. f * . 1. .. . „ . , ..-- . . . , 4, t i ,. ,. • i. . . . : . 4.- 3r Crossing#U 4738 I February 2019 3 . Results The Cape Fear Crossing alternatives were mapped with projected sea level rise data.The areas of concern are located along proposed roadway adjacent to the Cape Fear River, Brunswick River, Town Creek, and/or Alligator Creek. COMPARISON OF CONDITIONS would be to evaluate the NOAA sea level Low Scenario Based on Figure 3 in Chapter 2,all DSAs rise layers in respect to the OEMs for According to the low scenario (SLR 0 ft), and the No-Build Alternative would likely each alternative. If the sea level rises to Alternative MA contains the greatest experience inundation or be at-risk for a level higher than the proposed ground length of roadway that is projected to inundation under existing conditions. level of a constructed alternative, then flood at 0.42 miles.This scenario projects The maps displaying the SLR scenarios the alternative could be at-risk for that Alternatives B, NA, Q T, V-AW, throughout this report show that inundation in the future.The assessment and the No-Build Alternative are not some alternatives would potentially be of the sea level rise layer by foot will projected to significantly flood(roadway inundated, depending on the scenario determine the approximate year the lengths 20 feet or less).According to the applied. When each SLR scenario is roadway segment is projected to flood. USACE, this scenario could potentially applied to the DSAs, Alternative V-AW occur in 2019(Figure 2). experiences the greatest impacts along OVERVIEW OF ALL DETAILED the facility. Intermediate Scenario STUDY ALTERNATIVES Alternative V-AW contains the greatest Disclaimer Figures 4 through 18 display all three length of roadway that is projected to The data and maps used in this report projected SLR scenarios with an overlay flood during the intermediate scenario illustrate the scale of potential flooding. of all DSAs. (SLR 1 ft) at 1.34 miles. Alternatives B, They are being used to identify general Q, and T contain the shortest projected areas of potential flooding and do not Alternatives that cross the Cape Fear roadway lengths to flood; each at 0.01 account for erosion, subsidence, or River, Brunswick River,Town Creek and/ miles. According to the USACE, this future roadway construction beyond the or Alligator Creek may be vulnerable to scenario is projected to occur around Cape Fear Crossing Project.The content future inundation.According to existing 2040, the design year for the proposed of this report should be used only as a water canditions, based on current data project(Figure 2). screening-level tool for project decisions, from the National Hydrography Dataset and roadway features should be verified (NHD), none of the alternatives are High Scenario with site visits.Both the USACE Sea Level Projected to Flood if water levels remain Alternative V AW contains the greatest Rise Curve Calculator and the NOAA Sea constant. The calculated roadway length of roadway projected to flood Level Rise Viewer should only be used as lengths of each alternative that are during the high scenario(SLR 5 ft)water planning reference tools. projected to flood do not include the marks at 5.93 miles.Alternative T contains proposed bridge lengths over the Cape the shortest length of roadway projected Recommendations Fear River or Alligator Creek (see Table to flood at 0.44 miles. According to the The next step to finding specific areas 3). These bridges are expected to be USACE, this scenario could potentially that could be threatened by inundation constructed at heights that will exceed occur around 2100(Figure 2). the height of projected sea level rise. 3 1 I Sea Level Rise Assessment Cape Fear Crossing#U-47381 February 2019 ri'ew Map iv CAPE FEAR CROSSING ! :. 'I. State Transportation ,,N ,. * Improvement Program . 44 ' r ;; Project No. U-4738 "Si w 3. x.. t% . l�a $ . i fi E m NOIldr __.4 � ./ t � ' xya � R a,44% " n4 "-. t 4 xy . ----4 < `S 'qr` Cl .i w � • �, yaa t, t 4 - of I,* pylz1 i t � x M *.t� T' t � ;�8 • ilti Y Overview Map" �ti'.� N. a +a ea + 1' s �, Y r� > it¢� Legend i.-- 4-1^- �' a Alternative B a �ry Alternative M Avoidance Alternative N Avoidance 4,,,.. i,... ,,, 4,.,..., ,..,..,.,,,,,,, .. . ,,'t-7,1;',1-. , x -*f g . Alternative Q � t�.r 4V j�,}/'r8,011e.- ' Alternative 7 � s, 0 ( >, AkernativeVArterial Widening �' .4 {�tt +�� k Y'i'p 4 1 fl "i 40 4. .Y: f Local iii "' tip, ' � c"' t(' ' x —� Railroad �x Itt, - r ` a 1.--, ,.'9"` t 'y 1 ,. t r'r r' Streams. ,,4,c4.7 2,'`1,'41.V 4114"et.T.6::'',1 Y• ' ' Low Rivers Sea Level and Rise Scenario " c , - ,,, 2 '' i, Intermediate Sea Level Rise Scenario •4° 0 , # , • = r c s °'� `;w" " : High Sea Level Rise Scenario•' y 7d t `r'- Project Study Area u >' - ,�' County Boundary $ � i ' ,. - 421 , � 4.. -' 0 0-S I 1S M.i., o. . '� o••41, 0 I 2 KJomaurs a ■ M1 This mtty n fer reference aNy. 1 Soirrcee:NCDOCNHD.NOAA,NCOn.Map ESN! . ` ■ ) end AECOM. t ,i A_:COM i ,.1.vary-.I , it Crossing#U-4738 J February 2019 native B "` CAPE FEAR CROSSING ,' State Transportation Improvement Program IlifIllOr Project No. U-4738 0 , -.,sli Y,few i Y .. ad i .rte s$r M \ 4• +}j• +, ` . ' Alternative B l i� "K i p a �+� .) :'; . ,,`,, # x y I Legend 1 Alternative B ., .\ ‘---A.,;.„.'.- '' ,-:"Artik." ,,'. , .. .‘k.>. r�,: 1'� ' 'ti j .,, , t Local ''^ } ,t{ '� a —�— ::: nd Streams*t ice' :��°�, '' r Low Sea Level Rise Scenario < �^ {, Intermediate Sea Level Rise Scenario y ' .71.. t _ *. High Sea Level Rise Scenario ��---' '� f ` Project Study Area :tom #{ _ / � '. County Boundary 0.j d '4 1, A d 1Jry " '"ra i - S 1 Tc ✓ Vj yi 4l „ y 1�� _ . A / 1 Iw1 � a ..am ' .. 'tz 0 OS 1 S Kies t 0 1 2 wlometen This nap if bf nhrencrt o'iy. L. * Sources NCOQT,NHO.NOAH NCOncMap.ESRI and AECOM. 'f ''''f Minna A=COM 3r Crossing#U 47381 February 2019 ALTERNATIVE M AVOIDANCE Alternative MA, represented by a royal blue line in Figure 7, is roughly 43.33 miles tong. The proposed Cape Fear Bridge length for this alternative is 3.11 miles long.During the low SLR scenario, the alternative will have 0.42 miles of roadway underwater. This alternative is projected to have the greatest amount of roadway underwater during the low scenario. The intermediate scenario predicts that the alternative will have 0.58 miles of flooded roadway. The high scenario projects that 1.62 miles of roadway would potentially be inundated by 2100.Areas along Alternative MA that are at-risk for inundation are identified in Figure 8.The majority of these areas are marked to the west of the Cape Fear River,on NC 133 (River Road),and north of Town Creek. Table 5:Inundation Length along Alternative M Avoidance Proposed Cape Intermediate Proposed Total Low Scenario High Scenario Alternative MA Length Fear Bridge (SLR 0 ft) Scenario (SLR S ft) Length (SLR 1 ft) Length 43.33 311 0.42 058 1.62 (Miles) Note:These lengths are based on the proposed mainline,side streets,ramps and loops.The low,intermediate,and high scenario data is based on projected sea level rise data from NOAA.AECOM,2019. 3 7 1 Sea Level Rise Assessment Cape Fear Crossing$1 U-4738( February 2019 voidance Scenarios . .Ow ::.;..-, _I ,„,i.._ F Al ea Level Rise-Scenario �• rt 4,, . s r` R ...., . S l' .# 1, . 111 *' ' t "" a le 1 t t J ligh d . ea Level Rise Scenario ° ` ° ' C i r ... i _, tie 1�.� `1 . 11 r _. ' it, C Ikall . ,{ 1" • . • i Low Sea Level Rise Scenario 4...,,' t' 1 ,/.. .1641,66.:01 Intermediate Sea Level Rise Scenario �, High Sea Level Rise Scenario �� • /-1 ...le a 'as A 's►w.`s, i /i it Crossing#U 4738 I February 2019 • ?id vorr cirri. CC* lig CAPE FEAR CROSSING„,;,."4 y State Transportation Improvement Program Project No. 0-4738 . r „ Z 4, • �"�J � : Alternative N Avoidance . ./' i h:,�• , Brld� ", + " SS .•'4 Legend dy _ � , � ' .» # *� ',° Alternative N Avoidance uS H :- it.r " i s- a 7 , •"!. v ,��r +:'E `Y,. a .i•�5,; i. NC , ,, +444 k� . Local a l t Railroad r p_ �S�t�7o"� 1� Rivers and Streams istitit ;�. ...01,.,!,,,t-, ; _ Low Sea Level Rise Scenario•i, �-zFr" i �y.�"�a � �y�3` t� � •�� ¢ �x T. s z . a t ,� Intermediate Sea Level Rise Scenario r ° "``� y, , High Sea Level Rise Scenario / ° r r % -4xT 14,1%-i• a f- �/�' , f `.r © Project Study Area Rti County Boundary 8 _l, i' e cst M s a' T $ ta 7 gay f s +,' ;y �"= 0 0S I S M,k y \ .. "' "'RRR 6 I 2 Kiwnercn 1 4 Yb a s rckrence o Sources:NC NHD.NOM NCOncMap.ESN ,...... and AECOM ` - February 2019 A=C'OM 1. r it Crossing it U 4738 1 February 2019 ALTERNATIVE Q Alternative Q represented by a yellow line in Figure 11,is roughly 32.62 miles long.The proposed Cape Fear Bridge length for this alternative is 3.10 miles. During the low SLR scenario,the roadway is not projected to flood.The intermediate scenario predicts that the alternative will have 0.01 miles of flooded roadway.The high scenario projects that 0.61 miles of roadway would potentially be inundated by 2100.Areas along Alternative Q that are at-risk for inundation are identified in Figure 12.These areas are primarily located to the west of the Cape Fear River,on NC 133(River Road). Table 7: Inundation Length along Alternative Q Proposed Cape Intermediate Proposed Total Low Scenario High Scenario Alternative Q Length Fear Bridge (SLR Oft) Scenario (SLR 5 ft) length (SLR 1 ft) Length 32.62 3.10 0 0.01 0.61 (Miles) • Note:These lengths are based on the proposed mainline,side streets,ramps and loops.The low,intermediate,and high scenario data is based on projected sea level rise data from NOAA.AECOM,2019. 3-13(Sea Level Rise Assessment Cape Fear Crossing#U-4738 I February 2019 • re Q Scenarios low . 411111V-i / ;ea Level Rise Scenario • f 1 I } lir _ \. •+ L t l t r` i ..1 e r , fi 4 1 - "I, ' , . Pl.".74.".„, lit ligh '13 ea Level Rise Scenario _ .s ii, il t r� 1 r ; ► \ ... ____,,Atit'*- - - r, , . ilt f A iw Sea Level Rise Scenario 0 X41 . 1 " eermediate Sea Level Rise Scenario 4 - 1 gh Sea Level Rise Scenario 0 3 1 -. • ,. it Crossing#U 4738(February 2019 rnative T um ` I{- °' '.— ,.%M ;. CAPE FEAR CROSSING ry t State Transportation Improvement Program 4'..,i,,' 4,,, . ,g( � `� ;'; Project No. U,4738 1 �% ' . K elk Ali ` ..wie..r. y . }♦ Y yr. y V� ` 7 *- s d }< 1 ` ' iF ..4„4,.',41�' _1_lk r. "'' �' ;...:04t4., ' Alternative T 1: J 1 .ww+ s+ . n R s }'�!j( ,,..,mo 1�?•.... �_ .r` <. x'.•i. �}!1k My � .y glf'€ •,�5 ��c.. ktf} lt'{ � i ;. 1 Legend ;' "' Alternative T 4- ,..; '',sr 1,1«a �'' t; r� ;„ ' £ .r Local ,r,- is f�.r o e k �l� t .,..;13 gd' .a�x (•may^ r ; n. '1:' ' # -+— Railroad 4,:- y#..y, r t£L.,,,4**." r v •s r 1 �',r,, � 1 Rivers and Streams„....,: ilk. .,� ;j` ,a'” -,,', ; x b :°.' ;: Low Sea Level Rise Scenario ��• ��": °SY ` Intermediate Sea Level Rise Scenario $; r a High Sea Level Rise Scenario I fir- 4� `-�.� ;� ����. °�: ` r�` ‘TA''''� �� � ,��, I, 1 Project Study Area n sx L_J County Boundary t d -. :' :fir rit' ,,tr . �, £d} s 1 s f: A\ '-'‘. At Y aC v r ' /f) . y w ` t,, 9. -; Fr '......1 ' ' ''',i: : ,- :4;5;=-'41'i*,,,„ ' - ,. • / -a ,..,......1, ..., . - , ,:.1,,,,,-.., . ,o ,, ,,. ,e , 0_ ' ", 4rill 0 DS 15Mky 0 s i► 1 ., ;t,, .... y S TM Aq b A.rMaranca ' Sources.NCDOT,Nr. NOAh NCOnsP% ESN and AECOM. f FebrvuT]d.9 ArliC`OM ;CrosCrossing#U-4738 February 2019 sing ALTERNATIVE V-ARTERIAL during the high scenario.Areas along WIDENING Alternative V-AW that are at-risk for Alternative V-AW,depicted by a coral inundation are identified in Figure 16. line in Figure 15,is roughly 29.78 miles These areas are primarily located to the long.The combined total length for west of the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge, both the proposed Cape Fear Bridge near the proposed interchanges,and and the Alligator Creek Bridge for this to the west of Alligator Creek.The area alternative is 1.09 miles.During the surrounding the proposed interchanges low SLR scenario,the roadway is not between Alligator Creek and the Cape projected to flood.The intermediate Fear River are vulnerable to inundation scenario predicts that the alternative during both the intermediate scenario will have 1.34 miles of flooded roadway. and the high scenarios.This large This alternative is projected to have portion of land is likely to be completely the greatest amount of roadway underwater by 2100.Precaution should underwater during the intermediate be taken by assessing the proposed scenario.The high scenario projects that heights of these roadways. 5.93 miles of roadway would potentially be inundated by 2100.This alternative is also projected to have the greatest amount of roadway underwater Table 9:Summary of Cape Fear Crossing Alternative%/-Arterial Widening Proposed Cape Intermediate Proposed Fear&Alligator Low Scenario High Scenario Alternative V-AW Length Creek Bridge (SLR 0 ft) Scenario (SLR 5 ft) Lengths (SLR 1 ft) Length (Miles) 29.38 1.09 0 1.34 5.33 Note:These lengths are based on the proposed mainline,side streets,ramps and loops.The low,intermediate,and high scenario data is based on projected sea level rise data from NOAA.AECOM,2019. 3 19 1 Sea Levet Rise Assessment Cape Fear Crossing #U 47381 February 2019 • .Alternative 4S ';,°it '„` CAPE FEAR CROSSING E , r �' State Transportation Improvement Program I (-7). = rt ` . :: . _ ff----p.,\ 4 i , ",,;. .. Project No U-4738 ' ,. . • 1 -,4 033 _'�''� cape �,' , No-Build Alternative Memorial Bridg ''N �: e. Legend ' _ • No-Build Alternative .,�' Ir�° US _. t' * ,`'` — NC . it e*''. .. \\ 1 §it/ { t i 11'9 .-,.i,�x�l�'*t Local a;t P; ,4' ' t Railroad r x tlii J �.~ ! t t k� fit. �t Rivers and Streams N. 'It'"`� '+` i MN Low Sea Level Rise Scenario '� � Intermediate Sea Level Rise Scenario -\f'”'-':'.;,.I'',:.,`;k:,)4 t!\""',',F.'..'.'i1 i...•,,„..V,k..\. C, . -,i'; k > 1 f¢ �i High Sea Level Rise Scenario sJ I ` Project Study Area ,t r ' xY i r.--] County Boundary r ',?;',,, ,-). „.,_,..,.,,_ 4 c.sc,..fr , . . . air , , V• 4 , ` f�r 1 O ff` yy. F . /F ,� t ` {..: 1 ' i'.'j . jam , { E� D; try. {tJf# C, 1 0 ; 7 1. {} .,- ,�F':- L; 't' 0 0.5 I !S►�ies f .- d »y - . , r 0 I 2 Kdmmn ae h 4. »- „" in mop of for reference only 4 t ti Saen:es:NCDOT.NH4 NOM NCOs? .ESRF °"• - and AECOM. y k{ t z„ . .y, .,,,t i A� ... 1 Fete,.Yfn;i `y .e� r Crossing#U-4738 I February 2019 no I or 1 1 : ati i ' I* , Ili if-'72, L _ %i " 4 pa I 1 ' ; pOp�" ? th - 1 1111101111% ,°'mo q�: b �, I ' i s ' • •LOCK alp ItJill.itrica i- ; ` L _ .v :i I t ilk \1\`\\\\ -.. ck C.r�•:tvcCcn '.SrTInDC,"Cape FearRv r 3-25 I Sea Level Rise Assessment Cape Fear Crossing#U 4738 I February 2019 vegetation, including protected species. MITIGATION STRATEGIES Report,the"goal in planning is to match Flooding and storm surge can also Mitigating the impact of sea level rise the selected elevation with a level of result in contamination of buildings on transportation infrastructure may acceptable risk for a particular project and stormwater runoff, impacting be accomplished through structured or (road,bridge,hospital,etc.)based on the surrounding coastal water quality and soft buffers to hold back or reduce the expected range of water levels."It is also ecology. Impacts on the natural system pressure from the sea or the elevation important to consider design strategies have the secondary impact of erosion of land surfaces or structures. Based for roadway support infrastructure (i.e., that deteriorates and potentially washes on potential impacts to the Cape Fear road bed and drainage) that would out soil that supports roads and bridges. Crossing DSAs, mitigation strategies potentially be regularly or permanently Scour can also occur when floodwater may or may not be incorporated into the inundated. To mitigate risk, raising passes around and deteriorates columns, selection and design of a final alternative. the road elevation using fill material footings, pilings,or slabs, increasing soil is best suited for infrastructure that erodibility.Impacts of flooding on natural Structured of Soft Buffers will experience flooding but not wave systems can have indirect effects on Structured protection against sea action; for infrastructure that will the social welfare and health of human level rise include: hardened shorelines experience both flooding and wave populations because of contamination reinforced with bulkheads, breakwaters, action, constructing bridges and other from runoff or cross contamination from floodwalls, levees, revetments, or elevated structures is most appropriate. comingled sewage or other pollutants. seawalls. These help minimize or retain flooding, dissipate wave action, The expected sea level rise can be a Impacts on Recreation and/or stabilize the shoreline and consideration used during final design of Impact to recreation may occur when sea alleviate erosion. Natural protective the roads and structures,in an effort to level rise results in permanent flooding features include: soft shorelines such reduce the potential impact of flooding of access routes to entertainment areas, as berms, dune systems, marshes, and storm surge on transportation including beaches or boardwalks. This natural beaches, or wetlands. These infrastructure. can have secondary impacts on the help break waves, absorb wave energy, wellbeing of a community including its restore marine habitat, and reduce economy and quality of life. flooding or impacts from storm surge. Examples of hybrid coastal defense Impacts on Roadway Efficiency include: waterfront parks, artificial reefs Sea level rise that results in flooding can or wetlands, constructed breakwater cause stress to pavement, bridge joints, islands,or coastal morphology alteration disrupt traffic, impede construction, or (modification of the depth and contour wash out soil or culverts that support of the ocean floor to change storm surge roads. These impacts may shorten the dynamics). life of roadway infrastructure,reduce the overall efficiency of a roadway system, Structured shorelines, soft buffers, or may incur more frequent and/or or hybrid mitigation strategies may robust maintenance or infrastructure help alleviate the impact of flooding reinforcement. Impacts to roadway and storm surge from sea level rise on efficiency can have indirect effects on transportation infrastructure. the local economy. Roadway repair and upgrades of magnitude, safety of Elevated Land or Structures roadway users and workers, and overall Constructing roadways on fill or elevating access and mobility are factors that structures based on expected sea level contribute to roadway efficiency. rise may reduce the risk of flooding or storm surge on roadway infrastructure. According to the NC Assessment 4-2 ISea Level Rise Assessment Cape Fear Crossing#U-4738 I February 2019 . S . r �'# * Kr ,.s ii, L . . , . ° . `• �r ` ` ' p T . y.i'Y c . f{ i � , 'U„ �J "� ,,..a w * % .lib � �. . r „ • rf' p i . J a k�f J $ t 1 . 1 t e M r K yr/ .'i' # .H3 ,yY' t `` . * '. i t 4 3 ,-% a i i_. L b ,Aby S iT t'B'^' _ w � - y X ♦ y , t 'i• vitie Alt b 1.14'iti.,*. •• T.` .- 5 , ,; • v i w , �,1 e .s f Sr b sit ' frt , • - t. - g* '‘. 4 --ir _ -1 ' 14-14.4 if -, 'e, . .' . ,,,fr.',../ 1*/ , -.i , ,, ,,,, t 0 I, i.,..,...itii., ,....: iti.,4; i.2.4..,..„71,,fr, fr.,401...ti, . 01* ,A,,,,,r;?... , .._ , , ;It 4.‘ -4,. -- #, . _ ,, ,, ,..1,4,,,e,-;z,, A ,� is 4 L' 'r 1 s r n . „ d r 7. a?` 'At 4,,A',,,, ''.. *4...,,, 4:±:;:,.0,1 7,1,. ' iv;:tt, ;,, 4.;* itit: � .. ', -. w. f:i • . ( tf< x r;, 2, 7 4 t., , Ar * . i`x r�. -----Th ' :k,i..i :', -,.ef ,r. f f. {, a •4 • ,,J¢'T ..14 +.Y n. ,. ity X.r1 R. ++ a. .w...:4,....= y i . 8 } ..• J_ - -- X4,1 \ , » , -.i� r ti ° .�Y4 S r r ` t fOt �� 7 ,.yam° ,�i h 1`.4 �.: \ i I ..1 4 , .1 ,:. , 1‘ 4..,..., it \ li 69. 1 erg r i (s.s..tt 471., I i' ,. t, 4 i u..... .." '..._.5- . . . \ i ..- ''''-— "--- 1 _/y i 01 li. li -. '1111"4"ki kk. .a' •4 I 1 i 1 144.. . 111 II 1.1 .(1/4,,,,,, t EXHIBIT NO. 5 Exhibit � f j�E Book Xi;Z Page -�""`' EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1UAT'oN SERVICES • Streamline Evaluation was engaged to determine the impact an active sand mine would have on home values in adjacent neighborhoods. • We researched the locations of sand mines,with an emphasis on mines adjacent to single-family residential developments,as they would be more statistically relevant due to the larger sample size. • Other types of mines(gravel,stone,etc.)and other types of mining(such as fracking or wet mining)were not researched,as the noise,types of equipment and processing vary greatly from surface mining,such as the proposed subject mine. • Sand mines in New Hanover County were identified, but were not in close enough proximity to residential development to be significant,or had limited inconsistent mining operations. Three sand mines in Horry County were selected along with one mine in Brunswick County which offered the most comparability to the subject. • Our analysis begins in 2009,which is a post-crash recovery period in which market appreciation would be anticipated over a longer time period. • The subdivision adjacent to sand mining operations is identified as the"sample subdivision"and subdivisions within close proximity,but far enough to be unaffected by the mining noise,traffic,etc.,are identified as the "comparative subdivisions." • The sales volume and average sales price from each year within the sample subdivision,comparative subdivisions and Horry County were tabled and graphed for comparison. Active mining periods were also identified within this data in an effort to show a percent change on an annual basis and to track short-and long-term trends during these mining periods. • Only one of the four sample subdivisions analyzed had a haul road which passed residential homes with a minimal buffer area,similar to the proposed sand mine operation. • After analyzing the data,there appeared to be no significant economic impacts on home values.Although some volatility existed during periods of active mining in the sample subdivisions,volatility was also observed in the comparative subdivisions which means this volatility can not be solely attributed to the mining operations. • None of the sample subdivisions experienced more than one single year of percentage decline in value,and this decline was offset within two years or less by continued increases. • Comparing the percentage change in average home values from the year prior to the start of mining operations to the last year of mining operations,three of sample subdivisions had increases on par with the comparative subdivisions and the County. In the one instance where the average value increase in the sample subdivision was less than the County,it was still on par with the comparative subdivision. • Observing a single data point in an analysis may lead a casual observer to believe the property values are negatively impacted, but an observation over the mining periods(which ranged from 4 to 8 years in the mines selected for comparison)does not appear to negatively impact the property values.