Developing a Decision Model for Evaluating Transportation Alternatives in HighHazard Coastal Areas
A Research Proposal
By: Courtney Colwell, Roxanna Farshchi, Thomas Jenkins, Junghwa Kim
Dr. Lynn Maguire, Adviser
Signature: _
_______________________________
Andy Coburn, Associate Director Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines, Client
Signature: __
Andy Coburn______________________________
Masters project submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the Master of Environmental Management degree in
the Nicholas School of the Environment of
1
Duke University
2013
Introduction
State Highway 12 runs for 130 miles along a strip of barrier islands off the North
Carolina coast known as the Outer Banks (map 1). In many places, it is the only road
linking several towns to the rest of the Outer Banks and to the North Carolina
mainland. Along some stretches of roadway, the barrier islands are no more than about
357 yards wide, putting the road at high risk of flooding from the nearby ocean (Smith,
2008).
Map 1. NC-12 on the Outer Banks of North Carolina (Outer Banks Real Estate, 2010).
2
North Carolina’s unique geographical position on the Atlantic coast makes the state
a target for hurricanes (Smith, 2008). Since 1851 North Carolina has experienced 46 direct
hits from hurricanes, 13 of which are categorized as major (Landsea, 2010). While there is
still uncertainty about an increasing number of storms with climate change, the intensity of
hurricanes in the Atlantic is likely to increase (Pilkey, 2011). Given these factors, the Outer
Banks is not conducive to having a long-term static road structure and will likely
experience more issues related to such structures as time progresses.
Within the past decade, two hurricanes have breached the barrier islands and
destroyed the road, making parts of the Outer Banks accessible only by boat (Fig. 1). In
each instance, the breaches have either been refilled with sand or spanned with a bridge to
maintain the Highway 12 corridor (Morris, 2011).
3
Figure 1. Aerial photo of breaches in NC-12 after Hurricane Irene (NOAA, 2011).
The Herbert C. Bonner Bridge, which carries Highway 12, is an area of particular
concern. Completed in 1963, the bridge spans Oregon Inlet and connects northern
Hatteras Island (Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge) to Bodie Island (map 2), which then
connects to the mainland via NC-64 across the Roanoke and Croatan Sounds. Because
Bonner Bridge exists in a dynamic environment subject to constant wave action and
shifting sands, it has experienced rapid deterioration since its installation (Dean, 2012).
4
Map 2. Map of Bonner Bridge and Oregon Inlet (Southern Environmental Law Center (1), 2011).
Recently, environmental regulators in North Carolina signed off on a replacement plan
proposed by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to replace Bonner
Bridge in the general area it currently occupies. Many environmental groups, such as the
Southern Environmental Law Center, oppose this plan and would prefer to see the long
bridge alternative, which would circumvent the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge. The
replacement will cost roughly $200+ million, but still requires several permits before
building can begin (Associated Press, 2012). Since the 1980s, nearly $100 million has been
spent maintaining and rebuilding sections of NC-12. Hurricane Irene in 2011 caused at
least $10 million in damage and rebuilding does not present itself as a sustainable longterm plan (NCDOT, 2012). The rebuilding process is also complicated because of the many
stakeholders involved including, but not limited to, the following: NCDOT, National Park
Service (NPS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and local governments such as Dare
5
and Hyde Counties. With many stakeholders come different interests to protect, which
further confounds the decision making process.
To better maintain public access south of Oregon Inlet the Program for the Study of
Developed Shorelines (PSDS) would like to develop a decision making framework to
evaluate current and alternative methods for transportation in this area. PSDS, located at
Western Carolina University, “examines the scientific basis for managing developed
shorelines in a time of rising sea level and advocates for the development and
implementation of responsible strategies, plans, policies and actions that promote the longterm sustainability of our nation’s coastal ecosystems” (PSDS, 2012). The decision making
framework will assess multiple attributes of each alternative including economic,
environmental, and social feasibility.
Problem
The problem to be addressed is how best to provide, manage, and maintain a viable
and reliable transportation corridor between Oregon Inlet and Rodanthe along the North
Carolina coast (map 2) over the next 50 years. As described above, the current method is
not ideal in this dynamic coastal environment, and a number of stakeholders are not
content with the status quo. The project will provide a decision analysis framework to
identify, evaluate, and compare strategies.
Objective
The objective of this project is to construct a decision analysis framework that
elicits, evaluates, and incorporates disparate stakeholder preferences along with objective
data to demonstrate the utility of various management strategies for providing continued
6
public access from Oregon Inlet to Rodanthe and areas south for the next 50 years. The
framework will allow decision makers, at the local and state level, to evaluate and identify
the alternative that best satisfies a number of critical criteria for providing continued
public access between Oregon Inlet and Rodanthe. This is particularly important for long
term management and when considering climate change adaptations. In addition to
eliciting stakeholder preferences and building a decision analysis framework, a study will
be conducted to identify the financial feasibility of implementation of each alternative. The
majority of this information will be collected through literature review and supplemented
by informational interviews with stakeholders.
To complement the decision framework and literature review, a policy analysis will
be conducted to formalize the social and political aspects of management of public
highways in dynamic coastal areas. The analysis will focus on defining the policy issue,
describing the legal mandates involved, identifying the human ecology of the relevant
policy processes, and analyzing the policy alternatives within the decision analysis
framework. Together these products will provide a comprehensive assessment of the
current management regime and possible alternative management approaches, while
integrating stakeholder preferences. This approach will allow future decision makers to
fully understand the social and political context of the issue and the tradeoffs associated
with each management alternative.
Background
Our problem and objective are highly interdisciplinary in nature, and thus a
background understanding of barrier island morphology, Outer Banks transportation
history, coastal transportation engineering, and multi attribute decision-making is
7
necessary. A survey of papers in these fields that relate to our project emphasize the need
for a clearer understanding of how decisions are made in the management of
transportation in our study area.
Barrier Island Dynamics
Facing the challenges of storms, waves, sea level rise, and erosion, coastal
communities around the world must innovate with new methods to provide transportation
and development in ways that minimize conflict with environmental threats and
ecologically sensitive areas (Davenport & Davenport, 2006). Highway 12 exists on a highly
dynamic barrier island that has been engineered for stability. In the 1930’s, the Civilian
Conservation Corps used bulldozers to build tall dunes along the Outer Banks as part of the
New Deal work programs. These dunes lack the ecological features of natural dunes
(Coastal Care, 2012). Magliocca et al. (2011) use simulation modeling to show the future
evolution of an artificially engineered barrier island similar to the Outer Banks. In fact,
many of the input parameters to the model come from the Outer Banks barrier island
network. They conclude that building artificially high dunes in order to protect inland
development actually places that development at higher risk of flooding. The engineered
dunes prohibit natural replenishment and migration of the island, putting it at further risk
from sea level rise and storm-induced overwash events.
Highway 12 History
The section of Highway 12 that is our focus area was constructed in 1952 through
Cape Hatteras National Seashore and Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge. Bonner Bridge
across Oregon Inlet was constructed in 1963 to facilitate access to eight villages south of
8
Oregon Inlet. This construction required dredging to stabilize the inlet channel. The
dredged sand dumped offshore into deep water resulted in loss of sand supply to the
southern edge of the inlet, and increased erosion rates on the northern end of Pea Island
(Riggs et al., 2008).
In 1989, a rock jetty was built to protect where Bonner Bridge comes ashore at the
south end of Oregon Inlet. The dynamic north end of the inlet and the stabilized south end
of the inlet have often resulted in rapid changes in the inlet bathymetry in the past 20 years.
The shoaling that is a direct result of the inlet stabilization has come close to interrupting
boat traffic in and out of Pamlico Sound. Also, the constant inlet shoaling and erosion has
taken a toll on the bridge pilings, many of which have required additional support in recent
years. This jetty interrupted sand delivery to the north end of Pea Island, requiring about
7.7 million cubic yards of sand delivered between 1989-2005. Despite the nourishment,
the north end of Pea Island continues to experience once of the fastest shoreline erosion
rates across North Carolina. (Riggs et al., 2008). Thus, Highway 12 has been relocated
westward in four locations where it is now adjacent to the Pamlico Sound shoreline (Riggs
et al., 2008).
Managing Highway Breaches
In 1974 North Carolina passed the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) to
preserve the natural beauty of the coast, while allowing for development (CAMA, 1984). To
make policy decisions CAMA provides for the creation of a panel known as the Coastal
Resources Commission (CRC), involving stakeholders from multiple sectors (CAMA, 1984).
If there is a breach in the highway an emergency meeting of the CRC is held to set
9
temporary rules and guidelines (NCDCM, 2010). During this time the CRC decides what
information must be collected before rebuilding a road including considerations for the
Dredge and Fill law. If it is determined that the existence of a new or migrated inlet
represents an extraordinary situation in which life or public safety is in imminent danger,
the Secretary may authorize DCM to issue special emergency permits that suspend the
normal processing and public notice requirements normally associated with such a permit
(NCGS 113A-119, 113-229), thereby significantly expediting permit issuance (NCDENR,
2004). This has become the norm; therefore, little, if any, thought is given to what else can
be done in these situations (NCDENR, 1974). Additionally, emergency CAMA permits must
be obtained at this time by the NCDOT (NCDENR, 1974). Emergency CAMA permits provide
the Coastal Resources Commission an avenue for post-disaster decision-making. They can
decide to whom and for what to grant a permit. These rules are integral to having flexibility
in the face of disaster.
The traditional solution to environmental threats has been to preserve Highway 12
in its current location through rebuilding, while alternatives such as relocating the more
vulnerable parts of the highway to a bridge and abandoning nourishment and dune
protection in the Pea Island NWR have been dismissed (FHA & NCDOT, 2010). The
decision making process in this unique area has the ability to affect a diverse group of
interested parties, and the ecosystem at large. Island residents and the tourism industry
depend upon safe and reliable transportation. The environment and the industries it
supports can be significantly impacted by decisions that support the transportation
network. Much is at stake here, and to account for it all when making future decisions
requires a comprehensive approach.
10
Multi-criteria tool
Coastal managers in Europe have demonstrated the effectiveness of a multi-criteria
analysis methodology to manage socially diverse and ecologically fragile coastal
ecosystems. This analysis identifies the different actors and stakeholders who affect and
are affected by management decisions. It seeks to elicit their values and preferences of
different management choices according to criteria developed by the researcher. The
researchers then develop a multi criteria tool to demonstrate the rating of these choices
compared with one another on a familiar scale.
On France’s Mediterranean coast, eroding shorelines threaten coastal development
in a lagoon and barrier island ecosystem. The area has traditionally been managed through
narrowly focused, engineering-based solutions that include shoreline hardening similar to
the Oregon Inlet jetty. Roca et al. (2008) applied a multi-criteria analysis to choose a new
methodology for accommodating the changing coastal ecosystem in Lido de Sete, France.
Wide stakeholder involvement was paramount to ensuring a balanced and informed
evaluation of shoreline management alternatives. The respondents tended to choose
adaptive shoreline management strategies that accommodated the region’s natural
morphology over the traditionally used hard engineering strategies that tried to fight
physical processes. The key learning point here was that having input from a broad range
of interested parties resulting in a less environmentally damaging outcome that addressed
the varying needs of the parties (Roca et al. 2008).
Similarly, a multicriteria analysis was used to identify new ways to manage an
estuarine system in northern Spain. Dredging done by a local shipyard was interrupting
11
sediment supply in the estuary, leading to conflicts between recreational users of the
estuary, industry, agriculture, and the health of the ecosystem overall. The analysis was
useful to break the traditional top-down approach of management decisions and to map
compromise solutions between parties that led to better social and environmental
outcomes (Garmendia et al, 2010).
A long-term consequence of the reactionary emergency response policies in North
Carolina might be that NCDOT and other stakeholders involved in the management of
Highway 12 may not consider other potential transportation methods. We believe we can
add to the history of success stories in coastal management by applying a multi criteria
analysis to the transportation problem of North Carolina Highway 12.
Methods
Multi Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT) is a method by which consultants may aid
decision-makers in determining and ranking their weighted values regarding the
alternatives and tradeoffs they face in a particular decision. In MAUT, individual
alternatives have an individual value known as their “utility,” and then are compared
against each other for their “weighted value” (Maguire, 2012). For example, there are three
cars available in a certain dealer. Each has a different utility to Joe, who is seeking a car
based on speed and price, which can be seen in table 1 below. MAUT allows Joe to compare
these individual utilities cross referenced with their natural ranked order (as a result of
which had the highest utility to lowest utility) and thus calculate the weighted value of each
alternative. Once the weighted values are obtained, the scale of “best” through “worst”
outcomes can be seen, and a car may be chosen.
Table 1. MAUT Chart.
12
Utility of Speed or
USpeed
Utility of Price or
Uprice
Vehicle 1
0
Vehicle 2
.5
Vehicle 3
1
1
.5
0
In our situation, we plan to develop a decision analysis framework based on a series
of questions asked of key stakeholders to determine what they want and require in terms
of access within the study area. Our questions will be based upon baseline necessities for a
general route to provide access to the Outer Banks south of Oregon Inlet – whether this
route can maintain ecological integrity, is financially feasible, is reliable, and can
accommodate rapid storm evacuation. Through this series of questions we will determine
what priorities exist, what criteria are most valued by stakeholders including NCDOT, NPS,
USFWS, and local governments and what tradeoffs are often made in the Outer Banks
transportation decision-making process. This will result in a multi-attribute decision tool
that will be used to evaluate the following transportation alternatives proposed by PSDS:
1) status quo (continuing reactive management), 2) floating bridge, 3) system of bridges
(long bridge from Oregon Inlet to Rodanthe), 4) high speed ferry system. Ultimately, the
decision analysis framework will illuminate the tradeoffs associated with each alternative
using the input from decision makers and stakeholders.
Aside from the general Nicholas School timeline for Masters Projects, our group
members will follow the project-specific time table below to take steps towards completing
the study.
Table 2. Group time table.
Task
Collect information for literature review
Submit proposal for final approval
Submit IRB proposal for approval
Individual
Everyone
Everyone
Roxanna
Due
Beginning of Classes
28 September 2012
5 October 2012
13
Identify stakeholders for interview
Work on individual focus areas*
Conduct interviews
Continue working on individual focus areas*
Input data into NVivo
Synthesize information and develop framework
Complete first draft
Courtney
Everyone
Everyone
Everyone
Roxanna
Everyone
Everyone
8-14 October 2012
8-28 October 2012
Late October - December
Late October - December
As interviews are conducted
January – early February
February 25
(*) To best focus our attention, we decided to divide the project into focus areas. Specifically, Courtney will focus on the
policy analysis, Thomas and Junghwa on the literature review and gathering factual information about the alternatives,
and Roxanna on managing the interview information. In addition, all team members will participate in conducting
interviews and developing the decision tool when all interviews have been completed. All team members are responsible
for editing products, supporting the team as a whole, and conducting additional research as needed.
Interview Process
When conducting interviews, two categories of questions will be administered.
There will be both opinion- and fact-based questions. While the opinion questions are
intended to help elicit the preferences within the decision analysis framework, the factbased questions will look to supplement the literature review in both constructing the
skeleton of the framework itself (through developing the questions) as well as the looking
at the feasibility of alternatives in the final analysis. Prior to administering the opinionbased questions, approval from the Institutional Review Board must be received regarding
the ethics of the questions, ensuring that these questions will not cause harm to those
interviewed.
Questions will be initially asked of a variety of stakeholders, including NCDOT,
National Park Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and local government officials,
recommended by PSDS, with differing views on the subject area. They in turn will be asked
to give additional expert contacts with opinions differing from their own in the area. This
“snowball effect” will allow the team to obtain a wide sample of opinions and interviews. If
there are enough interviews and information to evaluate, the software tool NVivo will be
used to organize and evaluate both the factual and opinion based information. Roxanna will
14
be the only team member working on NVivo to organize and evaluate the interviews
conducted in order to maintain uniformity for software analysis reasons. In the case that
there are not enough interviews to effectively utilize NVivo Software, Microsoft Word will
be used to organize and evaluate the interviews.
15
Format of Report
We expect that our decision making framework, delivered in the form of a written
report, will be used primarily by coastal managers when faced with complex decisions
regarding development in coastal areas. This framework will be comprehensible to
managers, scientists, government agencies and other coastal stakeholders so that it may be
used by a variety of parties. By making this framework clear and understandable we hope
to facilitate conversation between these various participants. We hope to foster a decision
making process that compares concise alternatives that can be evaluated based on uniform
aspects. We also hope that the framework we develop can be applied for similar coastal
problems in other areas.
Outline
A. Introduction
a. Problem Description
b. Project Goals
B. Materials and Method
a. Literature Review
b. Interview Process
c. Description of Multi-Attribute Utility tool
C. Results
a. Factual implications of alternatives
b. Stakeholders’ preferences of alternatives
c. Development of Decision Theory Tool
D. Discussion & Conclusion
16
Source and Amount of Support
We will require access to computers and software to run our multiple attribute
analysis which we will obtain at the Nicholas School and the Duke University Marine
Lab. To enable communication amongst the group members and our client we will use a
combination of telephones, Skype and the teleconference room located in the Nicholas
School. Any additional support we may require will be discussed in advance with both our
adviser and client.
Faculty
Our faculty adviser is Dr. Lynn Maguire who will provide guidance and support
throughout the duration of the project. Our client is Andy Coburn, the Associate Director of
the Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines at Western Carolina University.
17
References Cited
Associated Press. (2012, 09 20). NC environmental regulators ok Outer Banks bridge. The
Sacramento Bee. Retrieved 2012/09/28 from
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/09/20/4838495/nc-environmental-regulators-oks.html
Bozorgnia, M., Lee, J., Raichlen, F., (2010) Wave Structure Interaction: Role of Entrapped Air on
Wave Impact and Uplift Forces, Coastal Engineering, Retrieved 09/26/2012 from
http://journals.tdl.org/ICCE/article/viewFile/1358/pdf_107
Coastal Care. (2012). Sand dunes. Retrieved 2012/4/02 from http://coastalcare.org/educate/sand
dunes/
CSO (2008) The Role of Coastal Zone Management Programs in Adaptation to Climate Change,
Second Annual Report of the Coastal States Organization’s Climate Change Work Group,
Retrived 09/26/2012 from http://www.coastalstates.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/
CSO-2008-Climate-Change-Report2.pdf
Davenport, J., Davenport, J. L. (2006). The impact of tourism and personal leisure transport on
coastal environments: A review. Estuarine, Coastal, and Shelf Science, 67(1-2), 280-292.
Dean, C. (2012/03/05). A North Carolina lifeline built on shifting sands, New York Times. Retrieved
2012/04/05, from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/science/highway-12-outerbanks-lifeline-is-under-siege-by-nature.html?pagewanted=all.
Department of Defense, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (2003). Project management plan dare county
beaches (PWI 012835). Retrieved 2012/04/05, from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers website:
http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/hatteras-ocracoke/ProjectMgmtPlan.pdf.
Douglass, S. L. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. (2006). Wave
forces on bridge decks. Retrieved from Office of Bridge Technology website:
http://www.southalabama.edu/usacterec/waveforces.pdf.
Garmendia, E., Gamboa, G., Franco, J., Garmendia, J.F., Liria, P., and Olazabald, M. (2010). “Social
multi-criteria evaluation as a decision support tool for integrated coastal zone
management.” Ocean & Coastal Management, 53, 385-403.
Jin, J and Meng, B (2011) "Computation of Wave Loads on the Superstructures of Coastal Highway
Bridges", Ocean Engineering, 38(17-18), pp.2185-2200
North Carolina Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. (2010). Record of
decision for NC 12 replacement of Herbert C. Bonner Bridge (B-2500). Retrieved from NCDOT
website: http://www.ncdot.gov/projects/bonnerbridgerepairs/.
Kittinger, J., Ayers, A. (2009). Shoreline armoring, risk management, and coastal resilience under
rising seas. Coastal Management, 38, 634–653.
18
Landsea, C. (2010). How many direct hits by hurricanes of various categories have affected each
state? Retrieved 2012/04/15, from http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E19.html.
Magliocca, N. R., McNamara, D. E., & Murray, A. B. (2011). Long-term, large-scale morphodynamic
effects of artificial dune creation along a barrier island coastline. Journal of Coastal Research,
27(5), 918-930. Retrieved 2012/04/15, from
http://go.galegroup.com.proxy.lib.duke.edu/ps/i.do?action=interpret&id=GALE%7CA2668
44003&v=2.1&u=duke_perkins&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&authCount=1
Maguire, L. (2012, February). Utility Assessment. Online Lectures at the Nicholas School of the
Environment, Duke University, Durham, NC
Morris, R. (2011/10/01). N.C. 12 reopens after construction whirlwind, The Outer Banks Voice.
Retrieved 2012/04/06, from http://outerbanksvoice.com/2011/10/10/n-c-12-reopensafter-construction-whirlwind/.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. (2012). N.C. 12 Recovery Efforts. Retrieved
2012/04/15, from http://www.ncdot.gov/travel/nc12recovery/.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2011/09/28). Hurricane Irene Breaches Outer
Banks. Retrieved 2012/04/15, from
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=51960.
Coastal Area Management Act of 1974 Organization and Goals 7 CFR § 113A-104 (1984).
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Coastal
Management. (2004). Disaster response and procedures manual. Retrieved 2012/04/08 from
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management website:
http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us/Hazards/manual.pdf.
Outer Banks Real Estate. (2010). Outer Banks Real Estate. Retrieved 2012/04/15, from
http://www.outer-banks-real-estate.net/.
Overton M., Fisher J., (2005) NC Coastal Highway Vulnerability North Carolina State University,
Retrieved 09/30/2012, from
http://www.ncdot.gov/doh/preconstruct/tpb/research/download/2002-05finalreport.pdf
Pilkey, O. (2011). Global climate change: A primer. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines. (2012). About PSDS. Retrieved 2012/04/15, from
http://www.wcu.edu/26472.asp.
Riggs, S., Culver, S., Ames, D., & Ames, D. (2008). North Carolina's coasts in crisis: A vision for the
future. Unpublished raw data, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, Retrieved
2012/04/05 from http://www.geology.ecu.edu/NCCoastsinCrisis.pdf
Roca, E., Gambao, G., & Tabara, J. D. (2008). Assessing the multidimensionality of coastal erosion
risks: public participation and multi criteria analysis in a Mediterranean coastal system.
Risk Analysis, 28(2), 399-412.
19
Smith, C., Culver, S., Riggs, S., Ames, D., Corbett, D., Mallinson, D. (2008) Geospatial analysis of
barrier island width of two segments of the Outer Banks, North Carolina, USA:
Anthropogenic curtailment of natural self-sustaining processes. Journal of Coastal Research,
24(1), 70-83.
Southern Environmental Law Center (1). (2011/09/30). Retrieved 2012/04/15, from
http://www.southernenvironment.org/images/maps/bonner_bridge/bonner_bridge_irene_
inlet1.jpg.
Southern Environmental Law Center (2). (2012/04/04). Retrieved 2012/04/15, from
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, (2005),
Sabine Pass to San Luis Pass, Texas. Shoreline erosion feasibility study, Retrieved
2012/04/16, from http://www.erdc.usace.army.mil.
Zemlys P., Fröhle P., Gulbinskas S., Davulienė L. (2007) Near-shore evolution model for Palanga
area: Feasibility study of beach erosion management. Geologija. Vilnius. No. 57. P. 45–54.
20