Pilot Testing of the TCAPP Decision Guide and Related Capacity Products: Hoopstick Creek, South Carolina (2014)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Figure 2.3. Hoopstick Creek Bridge Replacement study area. (Sources: Google Maps and SCDOT.) Task 3: Agency Coordination Effort The purpose of the ACE task was to improve interagency communication and collaboration processes by using the environmental permitting/NEPA section of the TCAPP Decision Guide. A goal of this task was to align the key decision points and SCDOT’s project planning process to better involve external agency decision makers in the project planning process. Another goal was to receive input from agencies at points in the permitting process when their comments would be more specific and accountable to enable the SCDOT to make project adjustments and/or decisions. The intended result of this task was to improve environmental approval streamlining and eliminate redundant or unnecessary efforts. The ACE task included a project team and agency site visit to Hoopstick Creek on Johns Island, South Carolina, on September 27, 2013. The SCDOT provided maps of the study area (from ENV-4) and five alternative bridge and approach alignments over an aerial photograph. The project team and agency partners discussed each alternative and walked the study area to determine the potential effect on the surrounding environment. The discussion during the site visit identified several issues to be addressed in evaluating the alternatives; these included the surrounding salt marsh and tidal creek, proximity of an adjacent property owner and the ingress/egress, live oak trees, and location of power line utilities. The site visit was followed by a 21

meeting at SCDHEC-OCRM offices to discuss ENV-6 and ENV-7 from the TCAPP Decision Guide. ENV-6: Discuss Full Range of Alternatives The goal of this key decision was to identify a full range of possible project alternatives to meet the purpose and need. This step was of particular interest to the SCDOT because of permitting challenges when new alternatives are introduced late in the environmental process. Key outcome: The TCAPP Decision Guide was used during the meeting to identify partner roles and facilitate a brainstorming session to identify a full range of alternatives. The meeting was structured to allow for open dialog among the project team and partners. The USACE expressed concern about its role description in that it could not approve a full range of alternatives. The group also discussed the significance of TCAPP’s role descriptions for FHWA and the USACE. The FHWA approves a full range of alternatives that meet the purpose and need, while the USACE is guided in its decision by NEPA, permitting, and consultation requirements. There was discussion within the group about whether SCDHEC was a decision maker, since this agency provides a state permitting decision for the project. As a result of the key decision point ENV-6, the range of alternatives increased from five to eight for the project (Figure 2.4 and Figure 2.5). The SCDOT agreed to consider these alternatives, provided they met the purpose of and need for the project. 22

Figure 2.4. Full range of alternatives for Hoopstick Creek Bridge Replacement project. •Bridge remains structurally deficient •Road curvature and intersection do not meet current safety standards •Does not meet purpose and need No Build •Replace on existing alignment •10-mile detour on local roads with existing congestion Alternative 1 •Staged construction 30 ft to north to maintain traffic •Temporary impact to residential property Alternative 2 •Staged construction 30 ft to south to maintain traffic •No permanent utility impacts Alternative 3 •Temporary bridge to north; rebuild on alignment •Temporary impact to residential property Alternative 4 •Temporary bridge 50 ft to south •Temporary impact to utility lines; unsafe transitions Alternative 5 •Permanent bridge to north; demolish existing bridge •Permanent impact and take of residential property Alternative 6 •Permanent bridge to south; demolish existing bridge •Greatest impact to critical area •Impact to utility lines Alternative 7 •Rehabilitate existing bridge •Would require 10-mile detour •Road curvature and intersection would not meet safety standards Alternative 8 23

Figure 2.5. Full range of alternative alignments for Hoopstick Creek Bridge Replacement project. (Source: SCDOT, Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI), and Tidewater Environmental Services, Inc.) 24

ENV-7: Approve Alternatives to Be Carried Forward The purpose of the ENV-7 key decision is to narrow the list of alternatives to be carried forward for more detailed analyses. The SCDOT’s goal was to review the eight identified alternatives based on the environmental issues identified at the site visit and obtain approval from the partner agencies of alternatives to be carried forward. To meet permitting requirements, the alternatives approved to be carried forward included those that avoid and minimize impacts to natural resources to the greatest extent possible. Key outcome: The TCAPP Decision Guide was used during the meeting to identify partner roles and facilitate a discussion of which alternatives should be carried forward. The USACE reiterated that they cannot approve a list of alternatives to be carried forward; however, they will issue a 404(b)(1) letter if they feel a full range of alternatives has not been considered or if they feel that there is an alternative for non-water-dependent projects with decreased impacts. The SCDOT and partner agencies discussed whether Alternative 8 (rehabilitation) would meet the project’s purpose and need. Alternative 8 was eliminated because rehabilitation would not address the safety concerns in the road curvature and intersection with Plowground Road. The partner agencies felt unprepared to make a decision about the remaining alternatives because they did not know the project’s impact on the human and natural environment. The agencies requested a comparison of impacts for each alternative, including the no-build alternative. Further discussion led to elimination of Alternative 7 (permanent bridge to the south) because of the apparent increase in impacts to the salt marsh and essential fish habitat when compared with the other alternatives. The USACE suggested that permit applications should include a discussion of all alternatives and a brief mention of the alternatives that were eliminated from review. Permit applications should always describe why alternatives were eliminated. A final meeting was held at the SCDOT headquarters with the team and agency partners on December 3, 2013. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss project elements related to ENV-10 and ENV-12 from the TCAPP Decision Guide. Before the meeting, Tidewater and the SCDOT prepared a comparison of the alternatives’ impacts on public interest review factors. The information was provided to the agency partners 2 weeks before the meeting. ENV-10: Approve Preferred Alternative/LEDPA The purpose of this step was for the SCDOT and agency partners to approve a preferred project alternative using input from past meetings, agency decision makers, and the detailed information about potential impacts (Table 2.1). 25

Table 2.1. Impacts Analysis Impacts Alternative No-build #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 Replace on existing alignment and detour Staged construction (north) Staged construction (south) Temporary bridge (north) Temporary bridge (south) Permanent alignment (north) Permanent alignment (south) Rehab Public Interest Review Factors Economics Potential adverse impact: bridge failure Potential adverse impact: 10-mi detour No impact Aesthetics No impact Removal of live oak canopy will impact aesthetics No impact General environment No impact Minimal adverse impact; minimal beneficial impact (longer bridge Span) Minimal adverse impact Wetlands (in acres) Critical area 0. 0 0. 07 0. 17 0. 18 0. 08 0. 28 0. 08 0. 28 0. 07 Wetland 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 Fish and Wildlife Values Essential fish habitat No impact Minimal temporary and permanent impacts Minimal temporary impact Land use and property ownership No impact No impact No impact No impact Temporary impact to property access on Bohicket Road No impact Permanent impact to property access on Bohicket Road; SCDOT acquires 16. 4 acres No impact No impact 26

Impacts Alternative No-build #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 Replace on existing alignment and detour Staged construction (north) Staged construction (south) Temporary bridge (north) Temporary bridge (south) Permanent alignment (north) Permanent alignment (south) Rehab Floodplain values No impact New span wider and longer than existing; no impact No impact Navigation No impact Channel only navigable by small craft or kayaks; temporary impact during construction; no permanent impact Recreation No impact New bridge will contain sidewalks No impact Water quality No impact Bridge runoff will not affect shellfish beds No impact Safety (bridge, road curvature, and intersection meet safety standards) Adverse impact Concerns over detour on local roads with high ADTs Beneficial impact Beneficial impact Temporary adverse impact Beneficial impact Adverse impact Beneficial impact Adverse impact Needs and welfare of people Potential safety concern Adverse impact: 10-mi detour Beneficial impact Beneficial impact Potential safety concern No impact Potential safety concern No impact Potential safety concern Trees No impact Impact to live oaks No impact Note: Interest factors not affected by any alternative or not applicable: conservation, energy needs, cultural values, T&E (threatened and endangered), shoreline erosion and accretion, mineral needs, food and fiber production. 27

Key outcome: The group agreed that current processes do not establish a time to formally approve an alternative. The SCDOT asked the partner agencies if it was possible to obtain approval of a preferred alternative at this step in the process. The USACE stated it does not issue approval of alternatives. The USACE will issue a public notice for a project to obtain other stakeholder input. Comments received during the public notice may introduce additional project alternatives. The SCDOT informed the group that Alternative 3 (staged construction to the south) was its preferred alternative. The Questions to Gather Stakeholder Interests were used to identify any partner concerns with the preferred alternative. The USACE expressed concern with selecting a preferred alternative because of inadequacies in the provided alternatives analysis information. Ultimately, none of the partner agencies formally approved Alternative 3 as the preferred alternative. The USACE also recognized the challenge of translating the alternatives analysis information from the field to paper. The USACE decision makers reviewed the information and needed additional detail to support the selection of the preferred alternative. For example, the SCDOT could provide additional details about why an adjacent landowner’s access could not be adjusted to support Alternatives 2 and 4. Based on the discussion spurred by the TCAPP Decision Guide, the SCDOT obtained suggestions about the level of detail and documentation to include in future permit applications. ENV-12: Reach Consensus on Avoidance and Minimization The purpose of the ENV-12 step was to discuss avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures that could be taken to further reduce the impact associated with the preferred alternative. The SCDOT’s Regional Program Group 1 design managers presented an overview of SCDOT’s roadway design process. This presentation was used to discuss the design considerations, site constraints, and avoidance and minimization measures they consider in roadway design. Key outcome: The following avoidance and minimization measures were proposed by the SCDOT: • Increased shoulder slope (reducing shoulder width), from preferred 6:1 to 4:1 and 2:1; • ESO request for a design exception on bridge shoulders, from 10 ft to 6 ft (under review); • Piles not placed in channel, when feasible; • Removal of material from under existing bridge; and • Lengthening of bridge. Questions about purpose and roles from ENV-12 in the TCAPP Decision Guide were not helpful in achieving agreement about the avoidance and minimization measures. The partner 28

agencies could not approve avoidance and minimization measures without a detailed analysis of how much the impact would be reduced. Due to agencies’ limitations in approving the avoidance and minimization measures specific to the Hoopstick Creek project, the project team discussed how such measures should be addressed in permit applications. The SCDOT and partner agencies also discussed the anticipated compensatory mitigation for the Hoopstick Creek project. Impacts to the salt marsh critical area would likely be mitigated by debiting credits from the SCDOT’s approved Huspa Creek Mitigation Bank. While mitigation is available for the Hoopstick Creek project, the SCDOT and partner agencies recognize the need for compensatory mitigation to offset future projects in the state. Many SCDOT projects do not have local banks to service mitigation needs, which results in the SCDOT having to propose and perform permittee-responsible mitigation. The SCDOT hopes to avoid project delays when mitigation from banks is unavailable in certain watersheds. Compensatory mitigation has been an ongoing point of discussion among the SCDOT and agencies, specifically the USACE, for some time. It was during the ENV-12 step evaluation that the idea for a mitigation workshop was conceived. For projects in South Carolina, mitigation is a real threat to stall projects. In the TCAPP Decision Guide, the section Environmental Review/NEPA Merged with Permitting includes a detailed discussion of mitigation processes and requirements. After further discussion with the USACE, it was thought that a workshop on mitigation in the state could benefit both agencies and the public. The SCDOT proposed to sponsor and host the workshop if the USACE would agree to present information specific to mitigation requirements in the state. As a result of the discussions held at the final meeting, the SCDOT, USACE, and FHWA partnered to host a mitigation workshop on April 10, 2014. The purpose of the workshop was to promote the establishment of new wetland and stream mitigation banks in South Carolina. The goal of the workshop was to inform the public about mitigation requirements, agencies’ roles in determining what is acceptable mitigation, and what is expected in a mitigation proposal. Key leaders from the SCDOT and FHWA outlined the demand for mitigation credits and why more banks are needed, while the USACE discussed federal mitigation regulations, state guidelines, and information needed for sufficient mitigation proposals. Private mitigation bankers, consultants, landowners, conservation organizations, and nonprofit organizations were invited to attend. More than 135 people attended the mitigation workshop. Consultants and mitigation bankers made up over 70% of the organizations in attendance. The SCDOT anticipates that the mitigation workshop will result in greater understanding and transparency of mitigation needs and guidelines within the state. In the long term, the SCDOT anticipates increased development of mitigation banks in watersheds with the greatest mitigation needs. 29