20110023_Environmental Assessment_20100609

Appendix A
NEPA/404 Merger Team
Concurrence Forms
A. NEPA/404 Merger Team
Concurrence Forms
CONCURRENCE POINT 2A (BRIDGING DECISIONS AND ALIGNMENT
REVIEW) AND CONCURRENCE POINT 4A (AVOIDANCE AND
MINIMIZATION) AGREEMENT - REVISED NOVEMBER 13, 2008 ............................. A-2
SECTION 404/NEPA MERGER 01 ISSUE BRIEF - US FISH AND WILDLIFE
SERVICE, RALEIGH FIELD OFFICE ................................................................................. A-3
SECTION 404/NEPA MERGER 01 ISSUE BRIEF - US FISH AND WILDLIFE
SERVICE, PEA ISLAND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ........................................... A-4
CONCURRENCE POINT 4A ABSTENTION BRIEF - NC WILDLIFE
RESOURCES COMMISSION ................................................................................................. A-5
CONCURRENCE POINT 2AAA NON-CONCURRENCE BRIEF - US
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND
ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES
SERVICE ................................................................................................................................... A-7
CONCURRENCE POINT 3 (LEAST ENVIRONMENTALLY DAMAGING
PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE) AGREEMENT - AMENDED
JANUARY 7, 2010 ..................................................................................................................... A-9
Bonner Bridge Replacement EA A-1 NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500
Section 404/NEPA Merger Project Team Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 2A: Bridging Decisions and Alignment Review and
Concurrence Point 4A: Avoidance and Minimization
Project No./TIP No /Name/Descr_ption:
Federal Project Number: DRS-2358(15)
WBS No. 32635
TIP Project Number: B-2500
Description: Replacement of the Herbert C. Bonner Bridge (Bridge No. 11) over Oregon Inlet in
Dare County
The Bonner Bridge Project Team has concurred on this date of November 13, 2008 with
the Bridging Decisions and Alignment recommendations/ Avoidance and Minimization
measures for Phase I of the LEDPA as stipulated in the merger team packet, dated
October 27, 2008, with the following additions:
Merger team members will be provided, prior to Concurrence Point 4B, with any
major changes in wetland/ SAV impacts based on updated designs.
The design-build contractor should minimize damage to wetlands/SAV/Oregon
Inlet from jetting spoils.
Table 2 currently shows temporary impacts from haul roads in SAV areas on
Bodie Island. NCDOT will not allow haul roads within SAV.
The Project Team also concurred that combined Concurrence Point 2A/4A merger
meetings should be held prior to the completion of the final design for each subsequent
phase of the Preferred Alternative.
USACE -rk&
NPS le=h
At ° .
USFWS-PINWR Abstain
NCWRC Abstain
NCDCM
Page 1 of 1
A-2
Section 404/NEPA Merger 01 Issue Brief
Submitted by: Gary Jordan, USFWS, Raleigh Field Office
1. Project Name and brief description: B-2500, NC 12 Replacement of Herbert C. Bonner
Bridge over Oregon Inlet, Dare County
2. Last Concurrence Point and Date: CP 2A/4A - November 13, 2008
3. Explain what is being proposed and your position including what you object to.
NCDOT purports that avoidance and minimization has been taken into account throughout
the development of this project. While the USFWS agrees that steps have been taken to
avoid potential impacts to certain resources, the USFWS believes, given the many
uncertainties, that avoidance and minimization measures may be insufficient for all potential
outcomes.
4. Explain the reasons for your abstention. Given the phased nature of the project over a
long period of time, unknown future conditions may not accurately reflect the assumptions
made for this project. There are uncertainties regarding the terminal groin, the timing of
future phases, the rate of shoreline erosion, the future funding stream, and several other
factors. To avoid confusion over our overall position on this project, we choose to abstain
from this specific decision point.
5. List any relevant laws or regulations that you believe would be violated or jeopardized
if the proposed action were implemented and explain the basis for violation. If the
project alignment should deviate from the existing 100-foot easement within Pea Island
National Wildlife Refuge, the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997
would be invoked.
6. What alternative course of action do you recommend?
A-3
Section 0/NEPA Merger 01 Issue Brief
Submitted by: Mike Bryant, USFWS, Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge
1. Project blame and brief description: B-2500, NC 12 Replacement of Herbert C. Bonner
Bridge over Oregon Inlet, Dare County
2. Last Concurrence Point and Date: CP 2A/4A - November 13, 2008
3. Explain what is being proposed and your position including what you object to.
NCDOT purports that avoidance and minimization has been taken into account throughout
the development of this project. Since NCDOT and the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) consistently state throughout the FEIS and Section 4f Evaluation that all bridge
construction and highway maintenance, including storm related maintenance will occur
within the existing right-of-way, they further purport that there should be no further direct,
indirect, or cumulative impacts on refuge resources. While the USFWS agrees that steps
have been taken to avoid potential impacts to certain resources, the USFWS believes, given
the many uncertainties, that avoidance and minimization measures may be insufficient for all
potential outcomes.
4. Explain the reasons for your abstention. Given the phased nature of the project over a
long period of time, unknown future conditions may not accurately reflect the assumptions
made for this project. There are uncertainties regarding the terminal groin, the timing of
future phases, the rate of shoreline erosion, the future funding stream, the ability to confine
all construction and maintenance activities to the existing right-of-way, and several other
factors. To avoid confusion over our overall position on this project, we choose to abstain
from this specific decision point,
5. List any relevant laws or regulations that you believe would be violated or jeopardized
if the proposed action were implemented and explain the basis for violation. If the
project alignment or future construction and maintenance activities, (including storm-related
maintenance and whether an emergency or not) should deviate from the existing 100-foot
easement within Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge, the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997 would be invoked. This would likely result in need for additional
NEPA compliance.
6. What alternative course of action do you recommend? During the July 23, 2003 Merger
Team a unanimous agreement between state and federal agencies found the Pamlico Sound
Bridge Alternative to be a feasible and prudent avoidance alternative and agreed to further
study as the preferred alternative. All factors considered the Pamlico Sound Bridge
Alternative remains a feasible and prudent alternative. Another alternative would be to
consider a modern, high-speed ferry system as suggested by Dr. Stanley Riggs, et al. in his
publication "North Carolina's Coasts in Crisis: A Vision for the Future" is also
recommended.
A-4

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 9
MEMORANDUM
TO: Beth Smyre, Project Planning Engineer, NCDOT
NC Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
And
Bill Biddlecome, Merger Team Co-Chair, USACE
Washington Regulatory Field Office
P.O. Box 100
Washington, NC 27889-1000
FROM: David Cox, Technical Guidance Supervisor
Habitat Conservation Section
DATE: December 1, 2008
SUBJECT: Replacement of Herbert C. Bonner Bridge over Oregon Inlet in Dare County, North
Carolina, TIP number B-2500. Concurrence point 4a, project minimization:
Abstention Brief
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has selected the Parallel
Bridge Corridor with Phased Approach/Rodanthe Bridge Alternative as the Least Environmentally
Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA). On November 13, NCDOT presented the merger
team with avoidance and minimization measures intended to fulfill concurrence point 4a project
minimization. Due to the phased planning and construction of this project in combination with the
limited design associated with design build projects at this point in the planning process, impacts
are uncertain. The NCWRC does not believe adequate project minimization measures can be
accomplished until more detailed design and construction methods can be discussed. Therefore,
WRC will abstain from signing concurrence point 4a.
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
A-5
Bonner Bridge Page 2 December 1, 2008
Ec:
Chris Militscher, USEPA
Ron Sechler, NMF
Pete Benjamin, USFWS
Mike Bryant, USFWS-PINWR
Brian Wrenn, DWQ
Jim Gregson, DCM
Ann Deaton, DMF
Mike Murray, NPS
Clarence Coleman, FHWA
Renee Gledhill-Earley, SHPO
Melba McGee, DENR
A-6
""TES 91F
Bill Biddlecome
Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Southeast Regional Office
263 13th Avenue South
St. Petersburg, Florida 33701-5511
[phone]; FAX [phone]
http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/
December 5, 2008 F/SER4:RS/pw
Beth Smyre
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Issue Brief: National Marine Fisheries Service Non-Concurrence with Concurrence
Points 2A and 4A of Phase 1 of Replacement of the Herbert C. Bonner
Bridge over Oregon Inlet in Dare County
Dear Mr. Biddlecome and Ms. Smyre:
On November 13, 2008, NOAA's, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) participated in the Merger
01 Concurrence Team meeting in Raleigh, North Carolina, regarding phase 1 of the proposal by North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to
replace the Bonner Bridge (B-2500) over Oregon Inlet and associated improvements to North Carolina
Highway 12 through the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge (PINWR) to the town of Rodanthe on Bodie
Island. Phase 1 is limited to replacing the bridge over Oregon Inlet; later phases will address Highway
12. As a member of the merger team, NMFS exercised its option to abstain on Concurrence Point 2A
(CP-2A, Bridging Decision and Alignment Review) and Concurrence Point 4A (CP-4A, Impact
Avoidance and Minimization). NCDOT requested that NMFS provide an explanation for the abstentions.
Background
In the Final Environmental Impact Statement, dated September 11, 2008, for the project, NCDOT
selected the Parallel Bridge Corridor with Phased Approach/Rodanthe Bridge Alternative as the Least
Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA). As indicated in past letters from NMFS
and comments NMFS provided during meetings of the Merger 01 Concurrence Team, NMFS objects to
the LEDPA because we believe alternatives within the Pamlico Sound Bridge Corridor would meet the
project objectives in a manner that is less damaging to fishery habitat over the long term. Other resource
agencies have the same conclusion, although the logic for their conclusion differs from ours due to
differences in legislative authorities. NCDOT and FHWA selected the LEDPA after administration of a
deliberative, dispute resolution process described in the charter of the Merger 01 Concurrence Team.
While this process did not resolve the dispute, it did provide NCDOT and FHWA with the information
that they believe is sufficient to select the LEDPA and move on to the next planning steps. While NMFS
maintains its support for the Pamlico Sound Bridge Corridor, we are satisfied that NCDOT and FHWA
administered the dispute resolution fairly and that our concerns were duly considered when NCDOT and
FHWA selected the alternative they believe to be in the overall public interest.
A-7
CP-2A (Bridging and Alignment) and CP-4A (Avoidance and Minimization)
Due to use of a design-build strategy for construction of the bridge over Oregon Inlet, all the information
necessary to determine that adequate avoidance and minimization of impacts has occurred is unavailable
at this time and deferred to later steps of project implementation. Based on this uncertainty, NMFS
cannot agree that adequate impact avoidance and minimization measures have been included until more
information on project design and construction methods are vetted by the Merger 01 Team. We note,
however, that while construction of a new parallel bridge across Oregon Inlet would impact estuarine and
marine habitats, including salt marsh, intertidal flats, and submerged aquatic vegetation, NMFS believes
these impacts could be adequately mitigated, and we will work diligently with NCDOT, FHWA, and
stakeholder agencies to develop the studies and plans necessary to complete the sequential mitigation
process for the bridge across Oregon Inlet.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this Issue Brief. Related questions or comments should be
directed to the attention of Mr. Ronald Sechler at our Beaufort Field Office, 101 Pivers Island Road,
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516-9722 or at [phone].
Sincerely,
/ for
Miles M. Croom
Assistant Regional Administrator
Habitat Conservation Division
cc: (via electronic mail)
EPA, Chris Militscher <[e-mail]>
FWS, Gary Jordan <Gary_Jordan@f vs.gov>
NCDCM, Cathy Brittingham <[e-mail]>
COE, Scott McLendon <[e-mail]>
NCWRC, Travis Wilson <[e-mail]>
-2-
A-8
Section 404/NEPA Merger Project Team Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 3 - Least Environmentally Damaging
Practicable Alternative (Amended)
Proiect No./'TIP No./Name/Description:
Federal Project Number: BRS-2358(15)
WBS No. 32635
TIP Project Number: B-2500
Description: Replacement of the Herbert C. Bonner Bridge (Bridge No. 11) over
Oregon Inlet in Dare County
Least Environmentally Damaging, Practicable Alternative:
The following agreement serves as an amendment to the August 27, 2007 Merger Dispute
Resolution Board agreement and is based on discussions at merger team meetings held on
May 21, 2009 and September 17, 2009. On _I gol o , the Merger Dispute
Resolution Board agrees with the following:
® Phase I of the project will be the construction of the replacement bridge over
Oregon Inlet within the Parallel Bridge Corridor as soon as possible.
® Phase I of the project does not meet purpose and need of the project, and thus
additional phases of work will be needed to meet purpose and need.
® NCDOT and FHWA have completed NEPA studies on a broad range of
alternatives within the Parallel Bridge Corridor; these alternatives include
bridging, roadway relocation, and beach nourishment.
® Each of the Detailed Study Alternatives within the Parallel Bridge Corridor has
been adequately assessed for impacts to the natural and human environments.
® The best available science has been used to forecast shoreline erosion and
potential inlet formation locations. However, it is difficult to reasonably and
accurately predict future storm events and their magnitude, intensity, and
duration. Extensive coastal engineering studies have been completed to date.
Because of uncertainty regarding future storm events, additional coastal and
natural resource data will be collected and analyzed to evaluate the available
range of alternatives for future phases.
® At this time, there is no formally prescribed alternative for the remaining phases
of the project south of Oregon Inlet. One or more of a combination of options,
drawing from the alternatives previously studied, as well as any other alternatives
determined at the time to be reasonable, practicable and feasible, will be
evaluated, designed, and finalized prior to the implementation of actions beyond
Phase I. Any option will be evaluated and selected with multi-agency input and
concurrence as part of the Merger Process. The agencies do agree that permits
will not be granted for the remaining phases of work until their applicable laws
and regulations have been satisfied.
Pagel of 2
A-9
B-2500 Concurrence Point 3 (Amended)
® NCDOT and FHWA will pursue an additional formalized Partnership Agreement
with the USFWS and NPS to develop protocols and long-term strategies to follow
prior to the implementation of future phases of the project.
® NCDOT and FHWA will reconvene the merger team when the data collected as
part of the coastal and natural resource monitoring indicate that action on a future
phase should occur.
® This amendment does not change the intent of the original August 27, 2007
Merger Dispute Resolution Board agreement beyond the understanding that the
Phased Approach/Rodanthe Bridge Alternative is no longer considered and
identified in the Record of Decision (ROD) as the LEDPA.
The signatures of the sponsor agencies below signify agreement to the above points:
Manly Wilder,
Chief Deputy Secretary, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources

Terry GibsonD
State Highway Admipisqutor, North Carolina Department of Transportation
tS. Kenneth Jolly,
Chief, Regulatory Division,
Wilmington District, United States Army Corps of Engineers
/AIq 77
Edward T. Parker,
Assistant Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration- North Carolina
ivision
A-10
Page 2 of 2