Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20110023_Meeting Minutes_20090326 (2)-too YEARS To: From: Date: Subject: Attendees: March 26, 2009 Bonner Bridge Merger Team Meeting Attendees John Page. Parsons Brinckerhoff April 15, 2009 Meeting Minutes - Nlarch 26, 2009 NEPA/Section 404 Merger Team Informational Meeting for the Bonner Bridge Replacement Project (TIP No. 13-2500) Gary Jordan Pete Ben.jamin Mike Bryant Dennis Stewart Bill Biddlecome Scott McLendon Stacie Craddock Christopher A. Militscher Kathy Matthews Ron Sechler Mike Murray "Thayer Broili Clarence Coleman Ron Lucas Michael Dawson Rob Avers Amy Simes Jim Iloadley Cathy Brittingham Sara Winslow Brian Wrenn David Wainwright Travis Wilson Renee Gledhill-Earley Greg Thorpe Beth Smyre Brian Yamamoto Rob I-lanson Kristine O'Connor Missy Pair Michael Till chy Chris Rivenbark Elizabeth Lusk Kathy I Icrring Byron Kyle USFWS - Raleigh Field Off-ice USFWS - Raleigh Field OlTicc USFWS - NC Coastal Plain Refuge Complex USFWS - Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge US Army Corps of Ingineers US Army Corps of C?ngineers US Army Cotes of Engineers USE13A USFPA National Marine Fisheries Service National Park Service - Cape Hatteras National Seashore National Park Service- Outer Banks Goup FHWA - NC Division FHWA - NC Division FH WA - NC Division Fl-JWA- NC Division NCDFNR NCDFNR - DCM NCDFNR - DCM NCDENR - DMF NCDENR - DWQ NCDENR - DWQ NCDl,NR - Wildlife NCDCR - SHPO NCDOT- PDEA NCDOT - PDFA NCDOT - PDF.A NCDOT- PDEA NCDOT - PDEA Resources Commission NCDOT - PDFA NCDOT-Natural Environment Unit NCDOT- Natural Environment Unit NC_'DOT - Nattral Environment Unit NCDOT-Natural Environment Unit NCDOT- Roadwav Desicn Over a Century of Engineering Excellence -too YEARS 0 Page 2 April 15, 2009 Minutes: March 26, 2009 Merger Team Informational Meeting for Bonner Bridge Zak Hamidi NCDOT - Roadwav Design Dave Henderson NCDOT- Fydraulics Unit Jerry Lindsey NCDOT- Hydraulics Unit .lent' .lennings NCDOT - Division 1 Clay Willis - NCDO'I'-Division 1 Ray McIntyre NCDOT-TIP Development Unit Thomas Stoddard NCDOT -TIP Development Unit Debbie Barbour NCDOT- PI'ecoflStRIC6011 Victor Barbour NCDOT -Technical Services Mai kStaley NCDOT- RoadsideEnvironmentalUnit Rodger Rochelle NCDO'I'-'I ransportatiou Program Management Unit Nilesh Surti NCDOf-Transportation Program Management Unit Virginia Mabry NCDOT-Transportation Program Management Unit Lonnie Brooks NCDOT- Sit ucture Design Unit K. J. Kim NCDOT - Geotechnical Engineering Unit Sam Cooper CZR John Page Parsons Brinckerhoff Bobby NotbLll'n Parsons Brinckerhoff The mectin, started at 10:30 a.m. in the Board Room of the NCDOT'T ransportation Buildill" Bill Biddlecomc opened the meeting and asked the attendees to introduce themselves. tic then turned the meeting over to Beth Smyre. Introduction and Purpose of this Nleetin_ Beth said that today's meeting was an informational meeting and asked if everyone had a meeting packet. She said the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the possibility of revisiting the project's LEDPA decision; however, before NCDOT formally asks for concurrence, it wants to inform the Merger Team mcmhers on the reasons behind this possibility and get agency feedback. In addition NCDOT wants each agency to have an opportunity to take information from today's meeting back to discuss further with their management before any decision to change the LEDPA is made. Proiect Hislorr and Current Status Beth went through a brief summary of the LEDPA concurrence agreement (including the elevation process that occurred), the hEIS, and the Concurrence Point 2A/4A agreement for Phase I of the LEDPA, including the dates for each event. She also defined the LEDPA - the Parallel Bridge Corridor with Phased Approach/Rodauthe Bridge Alternative. Over a Century of Engineering Excellence -too .E ,0 Page 3 April 15, 2009 Minutes: March 20, 2009 Merger"feam Informational Meeting for Bonner Bridge Summan of Comments on the 2008 Final Environmental Impact Statement/Section 4(11 Evaluation Beth turned the meeting over to Clarence Coleman to discuss the agency comments received on the FEIS, noting Ihat a copy of all agency and NGO comments received were included in the merger packet. Clarence said that substantive agency and NGO comments were received on the FEIS, so NCDO'f/FI-I WA started to review and respond to these comments. I le said that the Record ol* Decision will include responses to all comments, but today's meeting will focus on several issues that FI IWA believes need further discussion with the Merger 'I'can) based on the FE IS comments. Clarence said that the firs) issue he wanted to discuss was the FEIS' Section 4(f) analysis. The Department of Cultural Resources (DCI2) commented that there would be a substantial impairment to the Rodanthe Historic District as a result of the LEDPA. FH WA interpreted this comment to mean that DCR disagreed with the conclusion in the FEIS that there would not be a constructive use of the historic district with the LEDPA. DCR also commented that they disagreed with the FEIS determination that there would be no constrictive use of the Refuge. DCR's comment indicates that, based on the LEDPA's impacts on the Refuge as documented in the FEIS, they believe that there would be a constructive use of the Refuge. In addition, the DOI commented that any of the Parallel Bridge Corridors would violate Section 4(f), and they also believed that there Would be a constructive use of the Refuge Finally. Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) also commented that they disagreed with the constructive use analvsis in the FE IS. Clarence said the second issue that he wanted to discuss was Refuge access with the LEDPA. "I'hc DOI and several other agencies commented that they were concerned over the public's loss of access to the RelLgc with the LEDPA. The third issue that Clarence wanted to discuss evas the Ilnurc disposition of the terminal groin. SE LC commented That the FEIS did not adequately assess the impacts of rcnwving the groin with the LEDPA, and that this issue had a direct relationship to the project. Certification ofNC 12 Right-of-Wav. Clarence discussed that FHAV'A requires NCDO"f to ccrtily that the right-of-way/easement is legal for federally-funded projects under FHWAjurisdiction to (i.e., to make sure the state.has rights to the easement). He said that this process typically occurs once the NEPA process is completed, but based on the FEIS comments FHWA thought it should occur now. 'I'herelbrc. NCDOT conducted a substantial amount of additional research into the history of the INC 12 casement through the Refuge and NCDOT's rights to this casement. Clarence also said that basal on the property deeds and other Icgal dOCLnllcuts discovered during the additional research, FH WA decided to reevaluate the applicability of Section 4(t) with respect to The Refuge for the proposed projecT. 'fhe reason for this decision is that FI IWA believes that the Over a Centi Engineering loo .fi' 0 Page 4 April 15, 2009 Minutes- March 26, 2009 Merger Team hiformational Meeting for Bonner Bridge research revealed an evolutionarv relationship between NC 12 and the Refuge that could alter the Section 4(f) analysis for the Refuge in the FEIS. Clarence reiterated that despite rumors to the contrary. the genesis for this effort was the right-of way certification process. Renee Gledhill-Early asked if the re-evaluation of Section 4(f) was related only to the 4(1) use of the Refuge as refuge (i.e., the re-evaluation does not relate to other possible uses of the Refuge that qualify it lot Section 4(0 protection). Clarence indicated that the Refuge is being re-evaluated as a refuge and as a historic resource under Section 4(f). Clarence discussed that the Road Notch/Bridge South Alternative is being re-examined as the potential Prefened Alternative for several reasons. lie discussed that the cost is less and that DCR preferred the Road North/Bridge South over the LEDPA because keeping NC 12 at-grade would be preferable for maintaining the integrity ofthc historic landscape of the Refuge. Terminal Cruin Clarence discussed that FHWA and NCDO"f want to keep the terminal groin with any Parallel Bridge Corridor alternative to protect the southern end of the replacement Oregon Inlet bridge on Hatteras Island. However, SELC is concerned with what they believed to be the FI IS' lack of analysis related to the impact of removing the terminal groin. Clarence said that the FEIS includes discussion of this issue, but if further analysis of removing the groin is needed, the analysis would need to consider all pertinent related issues for all of the detailed study alternatives, including the Pamlico Sound Bridge Corridor. Two such issues are Section 106 and Section 7 with respect to threatened and endangered species impacts (critical habitat for the endangered piping plover has been federally-designated behind the groin since the LEIS %vas published). Based on the current groin permit, it appears that the groin would have to be removed with the Panilico Sound Bridge Corridor, but h'hl WA is currently coordinating with USFWS on whether rn' not this would be the case. It needs to be determined if it is possible to gel a new permit to retain the groin. if needed, with any of the detailed study alternatives. Clarence said that further coordination With USFA4?S is nccdcd in the next few weeks on NF,PA and other related issues related to retaining the groin with tile LEDPA. Section 106 Cuordinaliun Clarence said that there was a Section 106 coordination meeting between FH\VA. NCDOT. and the Section 106 consulting parties last'Iliesday (3/24/09). '1 he reason for the meeting was to discuss DC'R's comments on the FEIS related to impacts to the Rodanthe l fistoric District. DCR's comments led 1:1-IbVA and NCDOT to take a closer look at the inconsistencies in the locations of the NC 12 termini in Rodanthe between the parallel Bridge Corridor alternatives and the Punlico Sound Bridge Corridor alternatives (i.e., the Pamlico Sound Corridor alternatives were designed to avoid the historic district as deftied in the Supplement to the SDEIS, whereas- the Parallel Bridge Comdor uhcrnatives were defined based on an earlier district boundary and while avoiding the district's old boundary, they did encroach on the uver a cent Engineering -too YEARS o Page 5 April 15, 2009 Minutes: starch 26. 2009 Merger Team Informational sleeting for Bonner Bridge 9. revised boun(tary). Clarence said that in order to address this inconsistency, the NC 12 termini in Rodanthe for the Phased Approach/Rodanthe Bridge, Road North/Btidge South, and All Bridge alternatives have been redesigned to slay out of the historic district. He said that as a result of these design changes, it was agreed at the Section 106 meeting that now there would be "No Adverse Effect" on the historic district with the phased Approach/Rodanthe Bridge. Road North/Bridge South, and All 131 idge alternatives. Beth discussed the design changes in more detail, and copies of the new designs were also included in the meeting packet. Clarence noted that these new designs are an outcome of the Section 106 coordination process and will apply no matter which alternative is chosen as the LEDPA. Clarence said that the proposed project's effects on the Refuge were also revisited at the Section 106 meeting, but no revised concurrence was made related to impacts on the Refuge. He said that it is a fact that NC 12 has been moved four times within the Refuge with no documented significant environmental impacts. He also said that a FONSI was completed on the last road relocation in the Refuge in the 1990s. However, additional Section 106 coordination will continue since no revised concurrence was reached. FHWA agreed to gather some additional information, including drawings, and then get back with DCR to further discuss impacts on the Refuge. At the Section 106 meeting, it was agreed that the adverse effects determination in the FEIS for the Coast Guard Station still applies for all alternatives. In addition, an agreemeiWwas reached on the use of a temporary staging area at the Coast Guard Station for Phase 1. Next Steps • Preparation of draft revised Section 4(t) analysis by F11WA - FHWA is revising the FEIS' Section 4(f) analysis based on the new right-of-way data generated by NCDOT's additional research on the NC 12 easement. Mike Murray asked if the Merger Teanh would have a chance to review and comment on the revised Section 4(f) analysis once it is completed since it includes new information- Clarence responded that they would. Review of new right-of-way data and draft timeline by FHNVA, NCDOT and D01, followed by distribution of data to Merger Team- FH WA has sent information on the right-of way agreements to USFWS and DOI. who will vcrifv the validity of the data before it is distributed to the other Merger Team members. FI-1 WA and NCDOT also have prepared a draft timeline of the history of the NC 12 casement through the Refuge and past agreements (i.e., the evolutionary relationship between NC; 12 and the Refuge discussed previously), which also has been sent to USFWS and DOI for their concurrence and/or feedback before it is distributed to the rest of the ,Merger Tcam. Ultimately, the NC Attorney General and agcucy lakvyer:s may have to meet to discuss the official tinhclinc before the issue can be finalized. Clarence said that the additional data and the timeline are factors in.dctermining the applicability of Section 4(I) with respect to the Refuge. Bill Biddlecome asked if this issue only related to the applicability of Section 4(f) and not Over a Century of Engineering Excellence too YE 1k Page 6 April 15, 2009 Minutes: March 26. 2009 .lager Team Informational Meeting for Bonner Bridge compatibility. Clarence responded that the issue only relates to Section 4(t) (i.e., compatibility is a separate issue). • Continuation of Section 106 coordination. • NCDOT and FHWA will continue to examine the Road North/Bridge South Alternative as a potential Preferred Alternative. Next Bonner Bridge Nlerger'Feant Meeting will he held on iVlay 21, 2009- Clarence said that the next proposed Merger Team Meeting has been pushed back four April 16 to May 21 (i.e., to the next regularly scheduled meeting on May 21, 2009) in part becanse of the outcome of the Section 106 meeting, but also4o allow the timeline to be 1711alized and then subsequently to allow all oI'tlie Merger Team agencies to have time to review the timeline before the nieetimu. Question and Answer Pete Benjamin said that lie doesn't understand the timeline argument with respect to Refuge Section 4(f) applicability- it doesn't seen relevant. He would like something in writing from FHWA related to where they are going with this issue. Mike Bryant asked who within his agency has the information that Clarence referenced because lie has not seen it. Mike said he has only seen the map that was being used as a display at today's meeting which shows the year in which various parcels were transferred fioni the slate to the Refuge. Clarence said that he had been told that the DOI solicitor has the new right-of-way information cold is reviewing it. In addition. he thought that tabular information listing resources for the new data was e- mailed last Monday to Mike, and possibly to Pete, but Clarence will confirm that DOI has received the intended information. He also said that he wanted to make it clear that FHWA's research and conclusions are not the final word. rather FFIWA is looking for DOI to agree with FH WA's findings and/or provide missing elements. He re-iterated that ultimately lawyers front the stale. PH WA, and the DOI would likely be involved in dctcrmining a final conclusion. In response to a continent, Clarence said that no one with F-I IWA has claimed that N'CDO'I' has the 62ht to move NC 12 wherever they want within the Refuge. At this point. h1IWA and N'CDOT arc simply speculating that the extensive collaboration between the state and the DOI that has occurred over the years, as exhibited in the documents gathered in NCDOT's research back to the early 1900s. may indicate that Section 4(1) does not apply for moving NC 12 within he Refuge due to joint planning. hlowcvcr, it was discussed that it has yet to be determined whether or not the passing ol'the National Wildlife Rel'uge System Improvement Act in 1997, which brought about the requirement for Refuge compatibility determinations, would impact the historic process that has been followed lot- relocatin.- NC 12 within the Refuge (i.e.. the process prior to 1997 that became evident based on the new right-of-wav data gathered). Over a Century of Engineering Excellence too Ir.., PD Page 7 April 15, 2009 Minutes: March 26. 2009 Merger Team Informational Meeting for Bonner Bridge Travis Wilson asked for clarification as to whether or not the tiered EIS that had been planned for implementing the multiple phases of the current LEDPA (the Phased Approach/Rodanthe Bridgc Alternative), for which it had been assumed that all alternatives for maintaining NC 12 through the Refuge (i.e., nourishment, relocation on road, and relocation on bridge) would be kept available for Phases 11 to IV, would still keep these additional options for future phases if the Road North/Bridge South is selected as the LEDPA. Clarence responded that the other options would remain available. He said that Phase I (the new Oregon Inlet bridge) would be basically the same for any alternative at this point. including extending the bridge to the south across the northern-most hot spot on Hatteras Island, but beyond that the best option (based on future impact analyses) at the time the project is ready for implementation could still be chosen for future phases. FHWA regulations allow the ROD to he revised as lone as all alternatives being considered for the revised ROD were carried forward for detailed study in the FFAS. Beth added that based on the estimated costs fix the project, any alternative will now have to be phased. For example, the Road NorthBridge South Alternative is anticipated to be two to three phases. with the new Oregon Inlet bridge as he first phase. She added that later phases could change to other alternatives based on future conditions in the Refuge. Mike asked if there would be a Supplemental EIS for changes to future phases of the LEDPA. Clarence said that a Reevaluation would be done of the ROD to determine if there were any new significant impacts and that would be the catalyst for possibly doing a Supplemental BIS. Chris Militscher asked if the Section 404 permit would be phased. Scott McLendon responded that the permit would be phased, but the impacts for all phases would be considered in issuing the initial permit so that hopefully the maximum impacts for all phases are known in advance. Scott asked why the Road North/Bridge South Alternative would be chosen because it has much greater wetlands impacts. Clarence responded that part of the reason was related to the access issues comments from the DOL as well as concerns over elevated structures (because of aesthetics) through the Refuge from other commenters. 7n addition, as lie discussed previously, NC 12 has been relocated al-grade several limes through the Refuge with no identified significant impacts. Dennis Stewart commented that we need to keep in perspective that this relocation would be much longer than previous relocations. Clarence said that it was still a fact that all previous relocations had been handled with FONSIs (or possibly lesser environmental documents). Scott asked for clarification on whelher*or not Section 4(f) and the new casement data were the primary reasons behind the Merger Team being asked to possibly consider changing the LEDPA to the Road North/Bridge South Alternative. Clarence responded that based on the new data 171 i WA is rc-analyzing the applicability of Section 4(f) to the Refuge because it may not appIv to the Refuge as a refuge, but it may still apply to the Refuge as a historic site. He also noted that the Road North/Bridgc South Alternative would cost substantially less to build than the Phased Approach/Rodanthe Bridge Alternative (approximately 5500 million less based on the most recent cost estimates). Over a Century of Engineering Excellence too YEA fl.S Page S April 15, 2009 Minutes: March 26. 2009 Meig Tearn Informational Meeting for Bonner Bridge Clarence said that the DO] commented that the Pamlico Sound Bridge Corridor may be feasible and prudent to build, so the LEDPA would violate Section 4(f). Based on this comment, Phi WA is looking at the issue ol'prudence again and this will be part of the new Section 4(t) analysis. He added that FhI WA believes that it has already been proven that the long bridge is not practicable and USACF. had agreed with this conclusion by signing the Review Board agreement. Scott commented that if PHWA determines again that the long bridge is not prudent, that means that it cannot be built under Section 4(I), but that determination would not apply to Section 404. (Note: Prudence is an PHWA decision tinder Section 4(f)). The Corps has already agreed that the Pamlico Sound Alternative is not practicable, consistent with Section 404 b(1) Guidelines. Clarence agreed but added that he hoped USACF would consider PH W A's Section 4(t) determination that the alternative could not be built in their Section 404 decision. Brian Wrenn asked if there would be any other design changes with the redesigned Road North/Bridge South Alternative that would affect the impact numbers in the FEIS. Beth said that two additional design cham,es that are being considered with the Road North/Bridge South Alternative are extending the new Oregon Inlet bridge approximately 2,000 feet to the south (as with the Phased Approach) and possibly shifting the Road North pail of the project to try and reduce wetland impacts. Any possible shifts to the alignment to reduce wetland impacts would be discussed further with USACF and NCDENR, including bridging opportunities. She said that these other potential design changes had not been finalized yet, but any additional changes would be included in the information packet sent out prior to the nest meeting so that the Merger Team would have an opportunity to discuss the changes at the meeting. Brian asked if design changes would also be considered for the other Parallel Bridge Corridor alternatives. Beth said that further design changes would probably only be looked at for the Road North/Bridge South Alternative because the Phased Approach had already been improved as much as possible at this point and the focus is now on possibly pursuing the Road North/Bridge South as the new LEDPA. Brian commented that he hasn't heard suflicientjustification tir pursuing the Road North/Bridge South Alternative when the wetlands impacts are so significantly higher. lie added that he thought the other alternatives should also be looked at further for reclucirw impacts rather than focusing on customizing one alternative. lie said that it would be difficult for DENR to permit one alternative when there are other alternatives on the table that have tower impacts. Scott agreed that it would be difficult for the USACF to justify changing the LEDPA based on just looking at changes to one alternative without also looking at improving the other ahernatives. Pete asked if the May 21 meeting would he a concurrence meeting. Clarence responded that it possibly would be a concurrence meeting. Pete said that he wants to be provided information that fully "connects the dots" as to how the decision was made to consider moving away from the Phased Approach as the LEDPA. Clarence said that a package would be put together to more fully explain to the Merger Team members why the Road North/Bi idge South over a cent, Engineering 100 YE ' Page 9 April 15, 2009 Minutes: March 26. 2009 Merger Team Informational Meeting for Bonner Bridge Alternative is under consideration as the new LEDPA. and that this information would be provided before the next meeting. Pete requested a one month advance notice with the informational packet for the next meeting. Bill said that he is still confused as to how compatibility tits into the current decision-making process to pursue the Road North/Bridge South Alternative. Clarence said compatibility is not PHWA's decision. Mike responded that compatibility is still a major issue that would apply unless something takes away DOI's rights to part of the property within the Refuge. Bill asked if compatibility was being considered in parallel with the other issues that were discussed today. Clarence responded that the attorneys are considering this issue. Scott asked if a decision on compatibility would be made prior to the next Merger "(earn meeting. Mike responded that he was not sure. I-lejust knows that theDO1 solicitors had asked for all ol'the relevant project information, including the new data, so that they can have an informed discussion. Bill said that he thought the attorneys should make a decision on compatibility before the next meeting. Mike said that he cannot make a compatibility determination now, but he could render a new opinion once he has more information or new direction from DOI. Clarence again summarized the action items that need to occur prior to the next Merger Team meeting: • All documentation related to the new data and timelines need to be reviewed by the PI-IWA, NCDOT, and DOI attorneys and finalized, and then provided to the Merger Team members prior to the meeting. • Refuge management needs to provide an indication on their jurisdiction related to compatibility once the agency attorneys have reviewed and provided comments on the new data and timeline. Scott asked if the compatibility action item was appropriate. Mike responded that compatibility determinations usually take place after the NEPA process has been completed, but in the past draft cicterminat ions have been made to help explain USPWS' position. As far as he knows, USPWS still considers the NC 12 easement through the Refuge to be the easement shown in the PHIS, bill we will have to wait and see if the new data changes anything. Cathy Brittinghant asked if the learn members would be provided a sunttnar_v ol'today's meeting. Beth responded that meeting minutes would be prepared. Bill Biddlecome then adjourned the meeting. nle no.: 3301-2.7.2 . J fl-l- A,NNI Olnonner SDENSmkeholdCl' InvolcenlcnlAYl ergenbleelings?}?19 ,bla'_er %lectingAn(inncr Alei vcr'I-coin Meeting ?%linltlcs 0-26-09)- lin:ddoc u ver a Lens Engineering