20110023_Information Letter_20091021

a
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE
GOVERNOR
To:
From
October 21, 2009
Bonner Bridge Merger Team Members
Beth Smyre, PE &JA41vtc'
Project Planning Engineer o
EUGENE A. CONTI, JR.
SECRETARY
Subject: NC 12 Replacement of Herbert C. Bonner Bridge, (Bridge No. 11). over
Oregon Inlet, Dare County, WBS No..32635, Federal-Aid No. BRS-
2358(15), TIP No. B-2500
Meeting Summary
A brief meeting with members of the merger team was held on October 15, 2009 for the subject
project. The following people were in attendance:
Scott McLendon US Army Corps of Engineers USACE
Bill Biddlecome USACE
Ron Sechler National Marine Fisheries Service MFS
Clarence Coleman Federal Highway Administration FHWA
Ron Lucas FHWA
Chris Militscher US Environmental Protection Agency USEPA)
Gary Jordan US Fish & Wildlife Service
Jim Hoadley NC Division of Coastal Management CDCM
Cathy Brittin am NCDCM
Renee Gledhill-Earley State Historic Preservation Office SHPO
David Wainwright NC Division of Water Quality CDW
Rob Hanson NCDOT- PDEA
Beth Smyre NCDOT- PDEA
The meeting was held in order to discuss concurrence on the Concurrence Point 3 (Least
Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative) amendment that was discussed at the
September 17, 2009 merger team meeting. A concurrence form was drafted and sent to the
merger team for review on October 5. As of the October 15 meeting, the USACE, USEPA,
NMFS, NCDCM, NCDWQ, and SHPO indicated to NCDOT that their respective agencies could
concur with the amendment, with all but NCDWQ stipulating that their concurrence was
dependent upon changes to the language of the amendment. The NCWRC stated it would abstain
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENTANO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE. WWW. NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH W ILLUNGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
B-2500 Meeting Summary
October 21 . 2009
from the agreement, while the NPS, USFWS-PINWR, and USFWS would not concur. The
NCDMF did not provide a position on concurrence.
During the meeting, the USACE raised a concern that the draft CP 3 amendment could be
interpreted as though only the alternatives previously studied will be considered for future
phases, when other alternatives may be more prudent based on actual conditions. The USEPA
and SHPO had indicated similar concerns with the amendment.
The USFWS stated that the agency would not concur with the amendment because it did not sign
the original agreement; this was consistent with statements by the NPS and USFWS-PINWR
included in emails dated October 14 and 15, respectively. The group determined that it would be
more prudent to send the amendment, incorporating any suggested changes from the team,
directly to the Merger Dispute Resolution Board (MDRB). The MDRB would then determine if
the amendment was consistent with the original August 27, 2007 agreement. It was noted that the
main change from the original agreement was that the Phased Approach/Rodanthe Bridge
Alternative would no longer be included in the Record of Decision as the LEDPA.
The team was asked to provide NCDOT with any final comments on the wording of CP 3
amendment. Once the form was revised, NCDOT would work with FHWA on arranging a;
meeting of the MDRB to discuss the amendment.