2001-02-15 Work Session
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
WORK SESSION, FEBRUARY 15, 2001 PAGE 436
ASSEMBLY
The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners held a Work Session on Thursday,
February 15, 2001, at 5:00 P.M. in Room 501, New Hanover County Administration Building, 320
Chestnut Street, Wilmington, North Carolina.
Members present were: Chairman Ted Davis, Jr; Vice-Chairman Robert G. Greer;
Commissioner Julia Boseman; Commissioner William A. Caster; Commissioner Nancy H. Pritchett;
County Manager, Allen O’Neal; County Attorney, Wanda M. Copley; and Clerk to the Board, Lucie
F. Harrell.
Chairman Davis called the meeting to order and announced that the Work Session had been
called to hear a status report on the Mason Inlet Relocation Project. He welcomed everyone present
and advised that since this was a Work Session, no public comments would be received.
County Manager O’Neal introduced Ms. Karyn Ericson, an engineer with Applied Technology
Management, and stated that she would present a report on current activities. He also noted that
many of the situations occurring with this project were entering into new territory not only for the
County but the Corps of Engineers and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. A great deal of patience has
been required from all parties involved with the project.
DISCUSSION OF MASON INLET RELOCATION PROJECT
Assistant County Manager Dave Weaver spoke on the importance of everyone understanding
how the Mason Inlet Relocation Project will be financed. He advised that the County will finance the
project up-front with use of the Beach Renourishment Fund, which is a portion of the Room
Occupancy Tax Account. The money will be reimbursed to New Hanover County through an
assessment to the benefitted property owners. Under this financing agreement, the taxpayers will not
contribute to the project.
County Project Engineer, Greg Thompson, reported that three bids were received at 3:00
P.M. on February 14, 2001, with a low bid of $4,985,076.51 being submitted by Koester Equipment,
Inc. The project was bid with two alternates:
Alternate A: The standard construction function with a notice to proceed for the contractor
to begin the work.
Alternate B: The contractor would break out the cost of mobilization to give the County an
option to move forward with the contractor’s equipment staged so final details could be
worked out before proceeding with the project.
Ms. Karyn Ericson reported on the initial environmental permitting phase and said as of this
date, the permitting process with the State is on hold because the Corps of Engineers must complete
its environmental assessment, which is being prepared from the environmental assessment that New
Hanover County submitted to the Corps of Engineers. A key component of the environmental
assessment document is the Biological Opinion, which is issued by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
After a meeting held yesterday, discussion was held on the remaining issues that must be completed
before the environmental permits can be obtained from the Corps of Engineers to finalize the
environmental document. The environmental document will be a draft document that will be prepared
within the next seven days. Once the draft document is completed, the Corps of Engineers will
distribute that document to the State of North Carolina for a decision to be made within 29 days. The
Corps of Engineers will then write the draft permit document. The time frame for the project is tight.
It was specified in the bid contract that New Hanover County has 90 days from the bid date to issue
a notice to proceed with the project. The County also has an option to add an additional 90 days
upon mutual agreement of the County and contractor.
Chairman Davis asked if the project was moving forward without the necessary permits.
Ms. Ericson explained that in the bid document and contract it was stipulated that the project
will not proceed unless all construction permits are received within the 90-day time frame.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
WORK SESSION, FEBRUARY 15, 2001 PAGE 437
Vice-Chairman Greer requested an explanation of what kind of review will be conducted by
the State once the environmental document is received.
Ms. Ericson responded that the State has 29 days to deny or issue the permits. There are two
permits, the Division of Coastal Management permit and the Water Quality Certification permit,
which are issued at the same time. The Corps of Engineers cannot issue a permit until the two
permits are issued by the State. Once the State issues the two permits, it is conceivable that the
Corps of Engineers will issue its permit within a week; however, the time frame for issuance of the
permit by the Corps is 120 days.
Vice-Chairman Greer asked what would happen to the sea turtle nesting season and piping
plovers if the Corps of Engineers waits120 days to issue the permit.
Ms. Ericson responded that she had been told by the Corps of Engineers that the permitting
process could be completed within 30 days. If the Corps recommends issuing the permit and one of
the other agencies, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service is not
satisfied with the recommendation of the Corps, this agency can request the U. S. Department of
Commerce to render a final decision.
Further discussion was held on the window of time to perform the dredging project. Ms.
Ericson explained that the starting date could move from April 1 to June 1 unless one of the agencies
should be dissatisfied. If this should occur, the issue of protecting manatees in summer months would
become a factor. After discussion with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, it was decided to add a
manatee protection section in the Biological Opinion. This would allow the project to proceed later
in the summer.
Ms. Ericson continued by saying that major environmental concerns are the piping plovers and
the nesting turtles. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service has a nest relocation project for the turtles
which will require moving six to ten nests during the summer months. The other concern is the
piping plover. A draft habitat protection plan has been developed by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service to monitor piping plover activities to avoid the breeding season of the most endangered Great
Lakes species. This plan will be included in the document showing designated habitat areas. Another
agreement with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the posting of educational signs regarding the
need to protect the piping plovers. Under the Endangered Species Act, the U. S. Corps of Engineers
becomes liable; therefore, if all requirements are not met, including the posting of signs, the Colonel
can personally be sued.
The dredging will be performed in certain sequences to minimize environmental impacts.
Mason Creek will be the last portion of the dredging project. The first step in the sequence is
dredging the new inlet, excavation of the sand, and placement of the sand on Figure Eight Island. The
sand in the sedimentation basin will also be excavated and moved to Figure Eight Island. The second
step will be to close the existing inlet with stockpiled sand. The final step will be to dredge Mason
Creek.
The following cost projections for the Mason Inlet Relocation Project were presented:
Project Costs 2001-2002
Construction (Bid Price)$4,985,076
Design, Permitting & Construction$ 799,500
Inlet Corridor - Purchase$ 300,000 (less $40,000)
Construct Mitigation Area (5.3 acres)$ 133,000*
Monitoring (pre-and post-construction)$ 198,070
Total Cost$6,414,646
* Figure Eight Island will pay costs for sand placement of 90,000 cubic yards
at $580,000.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
WORK SESSION, FEBRUARY 15, 2001 PAGE 438
Project Costs 2002-2003
AIWW Dredging Cost (Fund)$ 350,000*
Monitoring (4 events)$ 195,330
Total Cost$ 545,330
* AIWW Dredging Costs are estimated based on worst case of shoaling.
Project Costs 2003-2004
AIWW Dredging Cost (Fund)$ 350,000*
Monitoring (2 events)$ 122,140
Total Cost$ 472,140
AIWW Dredging Cost (Fund)$ 350,000*
Monitoring (2 events)$ 122,140
Total Cost$ 472,140
*AIWW Dredging Costs are estimated based on worst case of shoaling.
Project Costs 2004-2005
Maintenance at Year (375,000 cubic yards) $2,187,500
Permitting & Construction$ 250,000
Monitoring (2 events)$ 67,625
Total Cost$2,505,125
A lengthy discussion followed on protecting the Great Lakes piping plover and the required
monitoring to perform the survey. This survey will require documenting the number of piping plovers
once a week for all of New Hanover County with the exception of Carolina Beach and Kure Beach.
The purpose of the survey is to decide on the best time for the Corps of Engineers to dredge the new
inlet. The dredging season could be shifted to the winter months. The County is requesting the
Audubon Society to monitor the birds at a cost of $38,000 per year. Once the survey is completed,
this document will be considered for scheduling in the next dredging season.
Discussion was held on how the property owners will be assessed for the maintenance of the
new inlet. County Attorney Copley explained that an initial assessment will be charged to all
benefitted property owners for the relocation of the inlet. After the project is completed and the
actual figures are known, each benefitted property owner will be assessed for a period of three years.
Once the maintenance project begins, whether every three or five years, an assessment will be charged
to the benefitted property owners after each maintenance project once the actual cost has been
determined.
Assistant County Manager Weaver informed the Board that after reviewing the estimated cost
of the project, it was determined that the figures have increased and the sample assessments to the
benefitted property owners will be higher than estimated.
Further discussion followed on whether the benefitted property owners were aware of the
maintenance assessment. Mr. Frank Pinkston, representing the Mason Inlet Preservation Group,
informed the Commissioners that the benefitted property owners were aware from the beginning of
the project that maintenance assessments would be required as well as an assessment for relocation
of Mason Inlet. The residents feel that maintenance costs will be supported from the sale of sand to
either Figure Eight Island or north Wrightsville Beach.
Ms. Ericson advised that high quality beach sand is a sellable commodity and can bring in a
considerable sum of money.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
WORK SESSION, FEBRUARY 15, 2001 PAGE 439
Mr. Bill Raney, representing the Figure Eight Island Homeowners Association, advised that
if maintenance is needed, the residents of Figure Eight Island would agree to purchase the sand with
no involvement by the County.
Commissioner Pritchett asked if the County could sell sand to a private entity instead of a
local government.
Ms. Ericson responded that the State will require a survey of the mean high water line before
the sand can be sold. Only the sand placed above the mean high water line will be private sand, which
is approximately 10-20% of project volume.
After discussion of the proposed project modifications with various agencies, staff will be
considering the following steps:
1. The County could grant the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service an extension of 60 days for
completion of the Biological Opinion, subject to the condition that the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service is willing to begin the time clock now for the beginning of the appeal process. By
beginning the 120 day appeal clock now rather than when the final permit is issued, the
County can be more assured that an April project date is feasible.
2.The County can begin the project from April through June to meet concerns of the U. S. Fish
and Wildlife Service over the piping plovers. This delay would be acceptable to the County
because the project could still be completed before hurricane season and before further
deterioration of the sandbags located at Shell Island. This delay would also remove the
jeopardy aspect from the Biological Opinion, which would allow the State to issue a positive
consistency determination.
3. The above actions would allow for a less restrictive Biological Opinion with regard to the
Incidental Takings Statement to be issued by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
4. The Corps of Engineers and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service have tentatively endorsed the
plan. The state and other federal agencies appear to be willing to work with the County.
After commenting on the complexity of the project with numerous parties and interests
involved, Ms. Ericson offered to answer questions.
Vice-Chairman Greer expressed concern for the way in which the Mason Inlet Relocation
Project had been handled by the federal government. This is a project that was conceived in 1996
because it was needed as soon as possible to protect homes. The property owners have been willing
to pay for the project so the channel can be placed in its original location. The process has taken five
years and the County is still jumping through hoops. It is almost impossible to comprehend the man
hours and dollars that have been spent in permitting and approving this project.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Davis expressed appreciation to Ms. Ericson for an excellent presentation and he
adjourned the meeting at 6:20 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Lucie F. Harrell
Clerk to the Board