20150955 Ver 1_Meeting Minutes_20101214

Meeting Notes FINAL VERSION RS&H Architects-EngineReffretwff.
ers-Planners, Inc.
Memorandum Architectural, Engineering, Planning and Environmental Services
NCDOT/RS&H Project Team
Meeting Date: December 14, 2010
Subject: NEPA/404 Merger Team Concurrence Point 2 Meeting for Topsail Island Bridge
Replacement Project TIP Project No. B-4929
Location: Board Room, NCDOT Highway Building
Attendees: Agencies:
Brad Shaver, US ACE
Christopher Militscher, US EPA
Ron Lucas, FHWA
Brian Wrenn, DWQ
Steve Sollod, DCM
Renee Gledhill-Earley, DCR-SHPO
Via Conference Call:
Jessi O'Neal, DMF
Consultants:
Chad Critcher, RS&H
Ken Herring, RS&H
Radha Krishna Swayampakala, RS&H
Jan Anderson, JKA
NCDOT:
Dan Holderman, Bridge Management
Rob Hanson, PDEA
Charles Cox, PDEA
Michele James, PDEA
Herman Huang, HEU
Lee-Ann Billington, HEU
Thomas Stoddard, TIP Development
Allen Pope, Division 3
Stonewall Mathis, Division 3
Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Lonnie Brooks, Structure Design
Randy Henegar, Hydraulics
Reggie Abbott, Right-of-way
Don Eggert, Cape Fear RPO
Tony Houser, Roadway Design
Shane York, TPB
Chris Rivenbark, NEU
Elizabeth Lusk, NEU
Tyler Stanton, NEU
Travis Wilson (NC Wildlife Resources Commission), Gary Jordan (US Fish and Wildlife
Service), Terens Knowles (US Coast Guard), and Ron Sechler (National Marine Fisheries
Service) were unable to attend the meeting.
A NEPA/404 Merger Team meeting for the subject project was held on December 14, 2010 in the Board
Room of the NCDOT Highway Building. The purpose of this meeting was to reach agreement on
Concurrence Point 2 - Detailed Study Alternatives Carried Forward.
Introductions: Mr. Brad Shaver opened the meeting and invited introductions from attendees. Mr.
Brad Shaver then explained the purpose of the meeting and introduced Michele James - NCDOT PDEA
Project Manager. Ms. Michele James welcomed the attendees, requested all the attendees to sign in
and introduced Mr. Chad Critcher with the consultant firm of RS&H.
Presentation: Mr. Chad Critcher offered additional Concurrence Point 2 packets and updated
Alternatives Evaluation Matrix including a Study Alternatives map to the attendees. Mr. Chad Critcher
then presented the PowerPoint presentation with the following outline:
Concurrence Point 1 Summary
Study Alternatives
Page 1 of 7
Community Outreach Summary
Community Feedback
Functional Design Alternatives Costs and Impacts Summary
Detailed Study Alternatives Carried Forward - Project Team's recommendations
Note: A copy of the PowerPoint presentation, updated Alternatives Evaluation Matrix and Study
Alternatives map are attached with these meeting notes.
Mr. Chad Critcher presented a total of 16 alternatives. These alternatives were divided into three
groups: northern, central and southern groups. The northern group consisted of Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5,
& 5R. The central group consisted of Alternatives 5A, 6, 7, and 10A. The southern group consisted of
Alternatives 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17. Mr. Chad Critcher methodically led a presentation of the
costs and impacts for each alternative beginning with the northern group. As he led the presentation,
he offered the Project Team's recommendation to "carry forward" or to "eliminate" each alternative.
After the presentation of the alternatives in each of the three groups, Mr. Critcher asked that the
question and answer discussion begin with the northern group alternatives, concurring on the northern
group alternatives to carry forward first, then proceed to the other two groupings in the same manner.
Questions, answers, and discussions are provided below:
Northern Group Alternatives:
Brian Wrenn inquired whether the alternatives carried forward would require any utility relocations. He
also asked, if they do require, whether that information was included in the Alternatives Evaluation
Matrix prepared for this meeting.
Chad Critcher responded that none of the study alternatives impact the large transmission poles
on either side of the Intracoastal Waterway. Some of the alternatives do impact the smaller
transmission poles but not to an extent forjustifying an alternative be eliminated.
Steve Sollod asked if the riparian wetlands shown in the figures and tables of the CP 2 packet are the
some as CAMA wetlands He also requested the NCDOT to continue their commitment to avoid impacts
to CAMA Coastal Wetlands on this project.
Tyler Stanton said that the riparian wetlands shown in the CP 2 packet are not the same as
CAMA wetlands. NEU will perform further investigation to provide the additional wetland
categories.
Christopher Militscher questioned why Alternative 4 would need to be carried forward in addition to
Alternatives 5 and 51? He also commented that the Evaluation Matrix shows that Alternative 4 would
have higher property, stream, and wetland impacts.
Charles Cox and Chad Critcher indicated that the Project Team would like to.study at least one
alternative to the south and one alternative to the north of the current bridge location (offset
from the Surf City Central Business District). If Alternatives 5 and 5R encounter a fatal flaw, then
Alternative 4 is the only option remaining in the northern group.
Impacts to the private marina could result in the elimination of Alternative 5; likewise, the
property impacts along Roland Avenue may result in the elimination of Alternative 5R. These
two Alternatives (5 & 5R) also include a roundabout at the island landing. Drainage issues may
Page 2 of 7
present an issue to these alternatives. The Project Team considers Alternatives 5 and 5R as one
alternative with minor adjustments.
Christopher Militscher inquired whether the feedback received during the Citizens Informational
Workshop #2 (C/W #2) process was from business owners or residents He thought that the residents
would prefer the new bridge away from the Central Business District (CBD) to avoid congestion.
Chad Critcher and Jan Anderson answered that the feedback was from both the permanent
residents and the business owners in the area.
Steve Sollod indicated that in the figures, Alternative SR appeared to impact a row of houses, not
impacted by Alternative 5; however, the Alternatives Evaluation Matrix shows the some number of
residential impacts for both the alternatives.
Jan Anderson responded that the houses Steve Sollod is referring to are trailers in the
Blackbeard's Campground. They are not permanent houses, instead they are vacation houses
for seasonal residents.
Steve Sollod said that Alternative 5R would impact the water access of several properties along Roland
Avenue. He also asked if there was any thought to providing water access under the new bridge, or
developing the area near the bridge with water access.
Chad Critcher, Jan Anderson, and Allen Pope indicated that the water access on the back side of
the properties along Roland Avenue is private access. The Soundside Park has a public boat
access, remaining unchanged under Alternative 5R. Some redevelopment options exist in this
area, either under the bridge or near the current bridge (to be removed under Alternative 5R)
and the details of this redevelopment would need to be explored as the project moves forward.
Charles Cox and Chad Critcher asked the Merger Team if they were in concurrence with carrying forward
Alternatives 4, 5, and 511 into Detailed Design and eliminating Alternatives 2 and 3. The Merger Team
verbally agreed with no further discussion.
Central Group Alternatives:
Renee Gledhill-Early indicated that the existing bridge was eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places. She inquired as to if the Project Team had considered any options to improve and keep
the existing bridge.
At Chad Critcher's request, Don Holderman provided the following summary of the rehabilitation
alternative:
• The State Bridge Management Unit (SBMU) estimated that the suggested repair/
rehabilitation work would cost approximately $13.5 million.
• This repair/rehabilitation option will extend the life of the bridge by approximately 25 years.
• Even after the repair/rehabilitation, this bridge will still be "functionally obsolete" and be
classified as "fracture critical" due to the swing span being a truss.
Page 3 of 7
• The suggested repair/rehabilitation option will increase the sufficiency rating of this bridge
to approximately 28.
• It should be noted that the FHWA requires the bridge sufficiency rating be improved to at
least 80 in order to qualify for the Federal Highway Bridge Program funds, the funds NCDOT
normally utilizes for this type work.
• The suggested repair/rehabilitation work will necessitate the bridge being out of service for
approximately nine months. This would require constructing a detour bridge, which would
cost an additional $10-12 million.
• In summary, the SBMU does not recommend this option.
Chad Critcher and Ron Lucas added that even with these improvements, the rehabilitated bridge
would not meet the Purpose and Need of this project.
Renee Gledhill-Early asked if there was significant support for the rehab option from the community.
Chad Critcher, Jan Anderson and Don Eggert responded that the Project Team received feedback
with support for another moveable bridge but not specifically a rehab option.
Christopher Militscher questioned why Alternative 9 was eliminated before presenting to the Merger
Team.
Chad Critcher explained that Alternative 9 was a high-level fixed bridge option, which resulted in
significant impacts to the Soundside Park property. The FHWA would not consider these
impacts as de minimis Section 4(f) impacts. Tony Houser added that this alternative would result
in significant access issues for Soundside Park and other businesses along Roland Avenue.
Steve Sollod stated that the Department of Coastal Management would not support Alternative 9, as it
would result in significant impacts to the coastal wetlands.
Christopher Militscher indicated that the Alternatives Evaluation Matrix shows Alternative 10A with less
than 0.1 acres of impact to the park property. He asked why this alternative was recommended to be
eliminated.
Chad Critcher and Ron Lucas indicated that the FHWA would not consider this alternative as a de
minimis Section 4(f) impact. This alternative would divide the park into two parts, resulting in a
significant visual impact.
Brad Shaver and Renee Gledhill-Early inquired whether there would be enough vertical clearance to
accommodate the vehicular traffic under the bridge in the park. Brad Shaver also added that there is
not much usage under the bridge in this area of the park.
Chad Critcher indicated that the vehicular traffic can travel under the bridge; however it would
be NCDOT's right-of-way and therefore is not preferred. Ron Lucas visited the park and spoke to
people in the area before concluding that Alternative 10A would not be a de minimis Section 4(f)
impact. Initially, the Project Team was unsure, but after further investigation, the Project Team
recommends dropping this alternative.
Christopher Militscher stated that the Project Team will need to maintain documentation on why the
Alternatives 1, 8, 9 and 12 were eliminated early in the process.
Page 4 of 7
Renee Gledhill-Early asked why the Project Team is recommending to carry forward Alternatives 5 and
5R, but drop 5A.
Chad Critcher explained that Alternative 5A received low support from the community as it is a
moveable option away from the existing bridge. The feedback received by the Project Team
indicated that for a moveable bridge option, the community preferred in-place replacement.
Charles Cox added that Alternative 5A would also cause impacts to the channel connecting the
Intracoastal Waterway to the private marina.
Dan Holderman stated that Alternatives 6 and 7 would require a temporary detour bridge. He
also added that the NCDOT does not prefer any usage of the right-of-way under the bridge,
whether it is for parking, pedestrian traffic or vehicular traffic. He is also not in favor of any
alternatives going through the park.
Charles Cox stated that the Project Team would like to carry forward at least one moveable
bridge and one high-level fixed bridge alternatives into detailed design. Based on the detailed
design and associated impacts, these alternatives will be evaluated at Concurrence Points 2A
and 3.
Christopher Militscher inquired which alternative received the Town of Surf City's support.
Chad Critcher responded that the Town of Surf City approved a resolution supporting
Alternative 7 as the preferred alternative for the study location.
Christopher Militscher said that he is in favor of carrying Alternatives 6 and 7 forward for detailed design.
Charles Cox and Chad Critcher asked the Merger Team if they were in concurrence with carrying forward
Alternatives 6, and 7 into Detailed Design and eliminating Alternatives 5A and 10A. The Merger Team
verbally agreed with no further discussion.
Southern Group Alternatives:
Christopher Militscher questioned why Alternative 10 would need to be eliminated.
Ron Lucas responded that this alternative would cause impacts to the Soundside Park and would
become a Section 4(f) impact. Under Alternative 10, the Soundside Park will be divided into two
parts. Carrying this alternative forward would be a waste of effort.
Brad Shaver said that he understands the Section 4(f) impact, however, he does not understand carrying
Alternative 17 forward, which would result in more wetland impacts than Alternative 10.
Chad Critcher explained that the wetland impact shown for Alternative 17 for the most part are
a result of the modifications to the Roland Avenue tie-in on the mainland side. This tie-in was
shown differently in Alternatives 10 and 17. During the preliminary design, the Project Team
will evaluate these tie-ins and minimize the impacts as much as possible. Ron Lucas added that
the FHWA will also review Alternative 17 closer as the project moves forward.
Page 5 of 7
Steve Sollod asked how Alternative 17 would impact the park property.
Chad Critcher responded that Alternative 17 would span across the park on the backside, which
is an unusable section of the park.
Renee Gledhill-Early inquired how the bridge would be accessed for routine maintenance and inspection
activities.
Allen Pope answered that in situations like this, the routine activities are usually performed in
"Top-Down" approach. If land access is possible, the NCDOT would need right-of-way to access
the bridge.
Brad Shaver asked whether there is a mitigation option for Section 4(f) impacts on Alternative 10.
Ron Lucas responded that there is a possibility but only if we could prove that there was no
other prudent alternative which would meet the "Purpose and Need Statement".
Christopher Militscher inquired as to where the piers would be located under Alternative 10 near the
Soundside Park.
Chad Critcher showed Alternative 10 renderings and explained the pier locations in this area.
Rob Hanson said that if the FHWA is convinced that Alternative 10 would result in Section 4(f)
impact, the NCDOT can not legally recommend carrying this alternative forward.
Christopher Militscher and Renee Gledhill-Early stated that the community liked this alternative the best
and asked if the Project Team would study this alterative more and if needed, drop at Concurrence Point
3. They also asked whether Alternative 17 would cause visual impacts to the park Christopher Militscher
added that his understanding was that for the Bonner Bridge project, the Preferred Alternative resulted
in section 4(f) impacts.
Chad Critcher stated that Alternative 17 would impact an unusable section of the park property.
The visual impacts caused by Alternative 17 are very minimal compared with the visual impacts
on Alternative 10. Charles Cox added that even after eliminating Alternative 10, there will be
seven alternatives for detailed study.
Rob Hanson added that even if the wetland impacts caused by Alternative 17 are not reduced,
the NCDOT would recommend Alternative 17 over Alternative 10 due to the FHWA's ruling on
the section 4(f)/de minimis impacts.
Renee Gledhill-Early asked why the Project Team eliminated Alternative 9 but not Alternative 10 earlier.
Charles Cox explained that Alternative 9 had definite section 4(f) impacts to the park. With
respect to the impacts on Alternative 10, the Project Team was undecided until after visiting the
site. Upon visiting the site in October, 2010, the FHWA determined that Alternative 10 would
not be a de minimis Section 4(f) impact.
Christopher Militscher said that Alternative 4 had four business impacts, but the Project Team still
carried it forward. He wanted to whether that would be considered as o fatal flaw or not.
Page 6 of 7
Tony Houser answered that the Project Team will minimize the impacts for Alternative 4 in the
preliminary design.
Renee Gledhill-Early suggested the FHWA to prepare a memo summarizing the Section 4(f lde minimis
impacts associated with Alternative 10, if it is not a significant effort. Brad Shaver requested the NCDOT
to further differentiate the CAMA, riparian, and non-riparian wetlands and re-calculate the wetland
impacts for these different categories for Alternatives 10 and 17.
Ron Lucas said that the FHWA will prepare a memo. Charles Cox added that the Project Team
will update the wetland information as well.
Steve Sollod inquired whether the Project Team considered connecting Alternative 11 directly to the CBD.
Chad Critcher and Radha Krishna Swayampakala explained that the Project Team considered this
option, however did not pursue it as it would result in much longer bridge and higher impacts
compared with Alternative 17.
Charles Cox and Chad Critcher asked the Merger Team if they were in concurrence with carrying forward
Alternatives 11, and 17 into Detailed Design and eliminating Alternatives 13, 14, 15, and 16. The Merger
Team verbally agreed with no further discussion.
Once the Merger Team reviews the FHWA's section 4(f)/de minimis impacts memo for Alternative 10
and the updated wetlands information, a decision will be made whether to carry forward or eliminate
Alternative 10. The official Concurrence Point 2 form will be signed subsequent to the Alternative 10
review.
If any recipient of the meeting notes would like to add comments or feels a comment is erroneous or
needs to be expanded, please feel free to contact Michele James at [phone] ext. 233 or by email
at [e-mail].
Comments will be received through February 15, 2011. After such date, the meeting notes herein along
with subsequent implemented comments will be considered final and an accurate record of the
Concurrence Point 2 meeting.
Copies to:
Meeting Attendees
Travis Wilson, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Gary Jordan, US Fish and Wildlife Service
Terens Knowles, US Coast Guard
Ron Sechler, National Marine Fisheries Service
Attachments:
Concurrence Form
PowerPoint Presentation
Meeting Handouts (Updated Alternatives Evaluation Matrix and Study Alternatives map)
X:\P\1039608000\Correspondence and Co-unication\Agencies\Dec 2010 CP 2 Meet ing\ Dec-2010 CF 2 Meeting Summary Final.doc
Page 7 of 7
1/27/2011
Y..
1/27/2011
2
1/27/2011
1/27/2011
1/27/2011

1/27/2011
1/27/2011
1/27/2011
1/27/2011
1/27/2011
10
1/27/2011
11
1/27/2011
12
1/27/2011
13
1/27/2011
14
1/27/2011
15
n
„'1
O o
rJ 0 0
rl O'.
l0
l0 o
O E E
7 O
Q M D O w w
G m E
J

N - i xi E
V C
m a
w
7
O

?
N n,
?
?
c ? t
n o o
O
n n
1
D 4?
? ?, ? N ?
t M
w?
L
j a t .;
N c
C
0
?

Q a
^-1 n
.-1 o rv
? O
N ?
O ..
M ' -?

O
N
}µ j?
?? a o
?
N
? N ? ?
O
o E
N O _? L , D
Q ` ? O

?
T
N O
m
m

f
_ vry
O
K E E
? ? 3
=

Q O .-? O.
M 1D G
V
N y? ?

O c
G
Q NI ? O : n oD

ry G ?
O O
O. ? V Ol O ? O N ? ? v ` m= N
7 Q O O a p Oi
`? Ol V
`T T
n Z ? V
O to M ?n v
?
?
?
o
o O
?
m
o
m
o
E m

0 7

K t j
Q ` T Ov O

n l N M ?- .? N O 1

d
o v o
N

-
O
L
o ,o
o
C ? N l0 ? m ry h ? ? ? m a W
`y Q M O S w
L
t N -
0
z

"'
o

"'
E
ro o o H N t D N N v
.- -I N N a
Q O ? w

N
a
vi
.?
a E
n ? .
. a
rv "1 ?
v
E

n
c
a,
E

L ?
o
m
W
O

n
?
C
,
?
w
D L

N
w

-
= ?
w
Y ?
? j C
r ? m m m w ? y
r ? w w E w v w tLi in c
.w. •p m a ? lw a
1 > •o ? m ?_
O w ^ t; U
i N
m
u w
R > w
= o
E c
' °
w o
E E c
o
E D
L
E 10
m
m ? Q

u o
? E
N
N a
C E E
C?
? ,,,
,+ o
0 = c° Y? a ^ L a S

w
m
m
w
n
w
o E
E
_°
v
?; u
-- C j 7 m _ V
zz? L 17 v u O E E >
w c # _
- N V
D c c
-
O. C w C 2 m K V C Y, w ri ?L C
a S L ? ° . J w
a
O Kc?
C c°
w m en c
w .Y
C E
O "
?S 'LL 7 2 O
T ' p V a
O n
7 O O
V "' '? w w O O m E U CO t Z m Q? m ? n > d V -?' d

4 d m d Ll 2 V 2 L
-
Z
V -
'
d Y
? 10 d
O. 6
? U V
V t
L Y Y
C
v
O
a
0
w
m
d
O
00
w
10
m
a
E
d
w

m
.V
O
m
0 w
F-
?
w

w
w
1O
v
c
m
p V
a o " n
a w

O
O.
° E
'

w v w ,L., Y
w
c
V w
v a v E
v ? v o
C O y a E
c w
w N
to O '? ?' 1O n a
m D
o ? d o a
? ?
w w w a w ->
v

w Y w
t 3
m vl ? V _ O

?
C
a
° > o
w m

L m
w
a
.L. a m " N
o ? c o ?
c _
w
a '^ c w d
01 o n a u ?
o 0
? > u m
D > o Y.
w c
w a s
m u c
E
n ._ o ? A o
1O
0 oa m E v °
•
E n c ..

°
Y E
E n

E m
"
C w w °1 o.
Z E
w w
m v v v
a
y y w w?
K ? ? N N
..

v
y0
K
ORIGINAL CONCURRENCE POINT 2
FEBRUARY 17, 2011 DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES CARRIED FORWARD
NEPA/404 Merger Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point 2: Detailed Study Alternatives Carried Forward
Project Narrle/Description: Topsail Island Bridge Replacement, Pender County, NC
TIP Project No.:s 4929
Federal Aid Project No.: BRSTP-50 N 0)
WBS No.: 40233.1.1
Detailed Study Alternatives Carried Forward
Detailed study alternatives to be carried forward are Alternatives 4, 5, 5R, 6, 7, 11, and 17 for
the referenced project.
USACE ? e ^ 2 IS ?1 NCDOT
'?J USEPUSFWS

NCDCR?_
-
FHWA
USCG
/ ?zCil
NCDWQ
NCWRC---? ?
NCDCM
NCDMF NMFS
NORTH CAROLINA TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION T.I.P. No. B-4929
FEBRUARY 2011