The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20110023_Meeting Minutes_20111018 � tf � d� z3 �� I North Carolina Department of Transportation P pEHO[iH�q4 O� tr x � o D �Ar p�P 3FHrof rt�NSQ� NEPA/Section 404 Merger Team Informational Meefing October 18, 2011 NC 12 Replacement of Herbert C. Bonner Bridge (Bridge No. 11) over Oregon Inlet WBS No. 32635 TIP Project No. B-2500 Dare County �� I �1. i �1 r �� _ � .'rC.;,.. . " . �� ILT Meeting/NC 12 Dare County Scoping Meeting October 18, 2011 9:30am - 12 noon; NCDOT Board Room Draft Agenda NC 12 Dare Countv Scopins Meetins Meeting Purposes: • Understand the expected schedule/timeframes for determining the permanent repairs for NC 12 • Identify issues, constraints, and concerns associated with the alternatives for permanent repairs and transportation management along NC 12, at the I breach sites at the Pea Island Refuge and at Rodanthe • Identify specific actions and next steps to take, based on issues/topics raised during the meeting, that will help advance the decision making process 9:30 Introductions; Agenda Review 9:40 Opening Remarks - Jim Trogdon and Terry Gibson • Status of temporary repairs • Expected schedule for determining long term repairs • Purpose of Today's Meeting 10:00 Issues/Constreints at Pea Island - Round Table Discussion with Merger Participants � 11:00 Issues/Constraints at Rodanthe — Round Table Discussion with Merger Participants Summary of Input and Identification of Actions/Next Steps ; � NC 12 Dare CounN Scooine Meetine Discussion Questions - What are your agency's primary issues or concerns with the two sections of NC 12 that breached during Hurricane Irene? (These can be issues you've discussed in previous comments on the project's NEPA documents, or new issues resulting from the damage caused by Hurricane Irene.) - What are your agency's primary issues or concerns with the alternatives that have been developed to date at each of the two breach sites? - NCDOT has been charged with an accelerated schedule for determining the long-term solutions for the two breach sites. Do you have any comments or concerns about an accelerated schedule? What can your agency do to assist NCDOT in meeting its schedule? - The panel meeting to discuss coastal engineering and scientific recommendations on possible long-term solutions will be held on October 24-25. Does your agency have any questions that you'd like the panel to answer? , „ �,"/� �f�',,;f�Cs a� itita✓��, ,s/,.,� �( � � �Qnl, J'� (oc� r- � �� , Pt�' n � i / f5 "� WL , ��i�fti�`�� - ��,�,�,,, ��''�°`-�"''"r� � �� s�� , S� , �� , M,fibuh°'— — 5�,,.�, �r, h,;lt I (,�m� ' �a<'� • �� - �,,��-�..— , s�%�� Act (CA��IA), the National Wildlife Refuge System [mprovement Act of 1997, and the Clean Water Act. FHWA and NCDOT also will complete the appropriate NEPA documentation for each future phase of action in accordance with 23 CFR 77].129-130. Environmental conditions and the timing of each phase will be [hc primary factors in determining what type of NEPA documentation (a re-evaluation,a supplement,or a separate NI;PA process) is the most appropriate. The results of the coastal monitoring program, the updated shoreline erosion predictions, and the Refuge habitadNC 12 vulnerabiliry forecasting study will be used by NCDOT and FH WA, in consultation with representatives oCthe Refuge and the Merger'I'eam, to determi�e: when an environmental review Cor each indi��idual future phase of action will be initiated; the limits of the action area; potential actions that should be considered for the location; and measures to minimize and mitigate impacts. Based on prcvious NCD07'experience, (indings that may warcant initiating an environmental re��iew of a future phase include: • An area with weak dunes (e.g., low dunes that lack vegetatioo)that potentially requires higher levels of s[orm-rela[ed NC l2 maintenance activity, proximity of the dune [o NC 12, i and the rate dunes may be advancing towards NC 12 (this rccognizes that the £rcquency of dune maintenance is highest when a dune is less than 25 feet [7.6 meters] from the road); i • Signi ficant inereases in erosion rates over past trends; • Significant increases in NC l2 storm-related maintenance frequency or activiry over previous years; • A determination that the distance between the active shoreline (mean high water)and NC 12 wil] be below the critical buffer distance of 230 feet (70.1 meters) within the next [ive years; or • A determination [hat shoreline and dune conditions are such that the need for stonn-related maintenance is likely to escalate signifcantly in the next five years. As of the publication of this ROD, sections of the Canal "Lone, Sandbag Area, and Rodanthe `S' Curves hot spots (see Figure 2-7 of the GA) may already meet one or more of thc listed criteria. The Rodanthe `S' Curves Hot Spot was cspecially affected by a major storm event in November 2009 (Section 3.5.6 of the EA). 1'he coastal monitoring program will provide the information nceded to determine when future phases of action will bc initiatcd in these azeas. Selection ofFuture Phases for lmolementa[ion Once NCDOT and FHWA decide to initiate an environmental review of a later phase of the Selected Altemative in consultation with the Refuge, as described above, the study, selection,and finalizing of that phase will follow the provisions of the NEPA/Section 404 Merger Process that is currently utilized by NCDOT. f3ecause the purposc and need (Concurrence Point l) of the overall project will not change, NCDOT and FH WA will likely reconve�e the Merger 7'eam at Concurrence Point 2,the selection of detailed study al[ernatives. It is anticipated that future phases will be subject to various permitting requirements. NCDOT will be required to obtain and comply with all applicxblc permits prior lo beginning construction of future phnses. I � RernrdofDer.i.sio�� IS VCD07'Tl1 Proje�tNt�mberb-2500 Appendix B Description and Maps of the Parallel Bridge Corridor Alternatives Summary of Parallel Bridge Corridor Alternatives Parallel Bridqe Corridor with Nourishment: The Nourishment Alternative would maintain the NC 12 roadway in its current location through the use of beach nourishment and dune enhancement. Parallel 8ridqe Corridor with Road North/Bridqe South: The Road North/Bridge South Alternative consists of constructing a new section of roadway west of the forecasted 2060 shoreline. The road relocation section would extend approximately seven miles south from the end of the Oregon Inlet bridge. At the southern end of the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge and in Rodanthe, NC 12 would be relocated onto a bridge west of Hatteras Island. Parallel8ridqe Corridor with All eridae: The All eridge Altemative would relocate NC 12 onto bridges located west of the current roadway. The northern portion of the bridge would be constructed west of the forecasted 2060 shoreline and would extend from the end of the Oregon Inlet bridge to the beginning of a 1.8- mile stretch of existing roadway that will remain unchanged. The southern bridge portion of NC 12 would be constructed west of Hatteras Island and end in Rodanthe just north of the Rodanthe Historic District. This "Bridge South" section is the same bridge construction proposed in the Road North/Bridge South Alternative. Parallel Bridqe Corridor with Phased Approach: The Phased Approach Alternative would construct NC 12 onto a series of bridges within the � current NC 12 easement in four phases. Phase I is the construction of the Oregon Inlet bridge. At the southern end of NC 12, there are two alternatives: the Phased Approach/Rodanthe Nourishment Alternative and the Phased Approach/Rodanthe Bridge Alternative. The Rodanthe Nourishment Alternative would maintain the current location of NC 12 in the Rodanthe Area with the addition of beach nourishment in northern Rodanthe. The Rodanthe eridge Alternative would construct NC 12 as a bridge along its current roadway location in Rodanthe, ending just north of the Rodanthe Historic District. Appendix C NEPA/404 Merger Concurrence Form Concurrence Point 2 Agreement-Alternatives to be studied in detail , , f �� > > 1 Section 404/NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement REVISED Concurrence Point No. 2 - Alternatives to be studied in detail in the NEPA document. (Revised Since 7/23/03) Proiect No.lTIP No./Name/Description: Federal Project Number: BRNHF-12(24) State Project Number: 8.1051205 TIP Number: B-2500 TIP Description: Replacement of the Herbert C.Bonner Bridge(Bridge No. 11)over Oregon Inlet in Daze County. Alternatives to be studied in detail in the NEPA document: The Project Team has concurred on this date of that addirional " environmental analysis wili be conducted on the Pazallel Bridge Altemative in addition to the Long Bridge Alternative (formerly known as Corridor 4, Rodanthe Area Endpoint 2) for the proposed Bonner Bridge replacement The project study lunits for both altematives will extend south to Rodanthe. USACE _l• ��P�_`�''��-9�°y NCDOT ." ;� .• . : __. . _ . _. i ' T� • `I �nloy .. , , - USE � ��. USFWS �, � •, ` �'' � ... . ._ .�.:- �. NCDWO. NCWRC �'�� :: ' �� l�� FHWA ' SHPO e-�e?- I'< NNIF NCDMF NPS _ _. NGDCM :; Ou.l�-� - — D-6 I� _� � i Sec�i�n 404/PI�PA 11�er�es �'r�jeet Tea�a RQee¢ea�g Ageeemeat � �i�IS.�s'l'6 Ctancurre�t�e FoPnt Pto. 2 - Altert�ative� t� be studied � �a aRettt�l in the 1KE�A d�cu�a�f. , (R�vtsed SY�ace 1/23/09) � ;Peogect I�o;/I'LP RfolName"/D��t�taun� � l+ed�rst Prajtct Namber: SRNH�-l2(24) S¢�se Peolect A7amberc 8.1 a51205 ' 'I1P Tdv�sbar: i3-ZS00 � T�IDeserip3lsn: Replaee�zfent of 4he Hathart C, $annor Brid�o(Bridge No, 11)a�ar —� Oregon inlet ia Dsre Covstry. Ala.�madves tc+ be studted in detail ia the NEPA dacument: � _ I Tho Projcct To� has caaa6ured on th�s date ef tt�at additsanal � eavixriamenwl aaalysis will ba tondvetad oa Shs Paratic]BridBe Alteanadve m edditioe to I lhe Lmutg BrSdge Alteenative (formatly.Tanwn ss Corridor 4, Rodaatae Area Fadpaint 2} fnr the praposed Hen�ner Bridge teplatetnem. ]'ba p:ojec� scudy liu�.ia for hoch � eltsmstives will extend soutb m Rodoatha. i , � , '` USacE _ . �. ._ _ . .. NCDOT�=� ' , .. ' I .__. __ _ ___ . , , � ! !'��j�� tl��lo ►} 'US�;2�3�''`a' f^,:1�%�'l�—... LTSFWE. ' ' . ,'... _ ..,.. . ,, � . . hiCD�vtZ,� NCWRC' ��-1 . ��p� ,�� ,� ' . : _„ '- � 1 SF7�D -� f�.�I�1� , . g�',4 _ � .. . ___. -- . _ _ , � ;/�-� ��, � �,„,;� � _ _ ; NCDMP_��/G��'..�'°""� i 1 NPS _ . . . _ _ - � . NCDCM � . I I i. i D-7 � � � t . ., � i � , • � Section 404/NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement REVISED Concurrence Point No. 2 - Alternatives to be studied in detail in the NEPA document. (Revised Since 7/23/03) , Proiect No./TIP No./Name/Descrintion: Federal Project Number: BRNHF-12(24) ( State Project Number: 8.1051205 ' TTP Number: B-2500 ' 'I'IP Description: Replacement of the Herbert C. Bonner Bridge (Bridge No. I 1) over i Oregon Irilet in Daze County. Altematives to be studied in detail in the NEPA document: The Project Team has concurred on this date of �� 3, zc!o� that additional environmental analysis will be conducted on the Parallel Bridge Alternative in addition to the Long Bridge Altemarive (formerly known as Corridor 4, Rodanthe Area Endpoint Z) for the proposed Bonner Bridge replacement. The project study limits for both altematives will extend south to Rodanthe. IUSACE, NCDOT 1 USEPA. LTSFW$ `� � e�� a��. ,��`�m�:,��.<�� _ . . �%�R NCDWQ NCWRC SHPO . FHWA � . _ - - �� N�- NCDMF. � _ _. - i ; NPS_- NCDCM _ � � � D-8 � '1 . �� • • �N . � i - I Section 404/NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement ' R,EYISED Concarrence Point No. 2 - Alternatives to be studied in detael in the NEPA document. � (Revised Since 7/23/03) ! Project No lTTP No./Name/17escription: � .. i Federal Project 1Vumber: BRNTI�'-l2(24} State Project Number: 8.105]205 � TIP Nnmben B-2500 � TTP Descripriou: Replacement of the Herber[ C. Bonner Bridge(Bridge No. 11) ovet � Ozegon Inlet in Dare County. Alternatives to be studied in detail in the NEPA document: � � The Project 7eam has concurred on this date of � ��"8 �that add'aUional environmental analysis will be conduded on the Paza11e1 Bridge Alternstive in addiflon to the Long Bridge Altemative (formerly know-n as Corridor 4, ltodanthe Area Endpoint 2) for the proposed Bonner Bridge replacement. The pmject study limits for both alternatives wi ll extend south to Rodanthe. USACE____ ___ __ . _ NCDOT USEPA _ _ � , USFWS - __ - _ . NCDWQ NCWRC SHPQ_ . _ . - - - - : FHWA• - -- --- - __ . ... ._ _ _ _ _ I NMF `NCDM�' -- -- �.� ;NPS .�1r�.�<ce.. , : , ; NCDCM _ � ¢ � . ' Gi`; '�c)'-f _. _ _ .,- ..... � D-9 � � � 1 ' - I Section 404/NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement REVIS,�D Concurrence Point No. 2 - Alternatives to be studied � in detail in the NEPA document. (Revised Since 7/23/03) Proiect No./"TIP No./Name/DescriptSon� Federal Project Number: BRNHF-12(24) Siate Project Number: 8.1051205 TIP Number: B-2500 '1'IP Description: Replacement of the Hcrbert C. Bonner$ridgc(Bridge No. 1 J) over Oregon Inlct in Dare County. Altexnatives to be studied in detail in the.NEPA_document: The project Team has concurred on this date of that additional environmental analysis will be conducfed on the Paralicl Bridge Altemative in addition to thc Long Bridge Altetnative (formerly knawn as Coaridor 4, Rodanthe Acea Endpoint 2) for the proposed Bonner Bridge replacemenL The pzoject limits for both aitematives wil] cxtend south to Rodaaihe. i USACE NCDOT USEPA US.FWS . , ��- . _. NCDW .: ._ i�- NCWRC - , _ .,__ '. . . . _ __ � . ._ �. SHPO FHVVA_ . __ - - �M� --- -- NCDMF �S - - NCDCM n-�o Section 404/NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement � REVISED Concurrence Point No. 2 - Alteraatives to be studied in detail in the NEPA document. (Revised Since 7/Z3/03) Proiect No.lTTP NoJNsme/Description: Federal Project Namber:BTLNC-TF"-]2(24) S�te ProJect IKumber: 8.1051205 TIP Number:8-2500 TIP Doscription: Replacement of the Herbert C. Bonncr Bridge(Bridge No. l l)over Oregon Inlet in Dere County. Alternatives to be studied in detail in the NEPA document: The Project Tesm has concurred oa ttus date ef �hat addifionsl envaonmeatal analysis wiA be conducted oa the Parallel Bridgo?iliemative Sn addiaon to the Long Bridge Alternative (formerly lrnown as Coiridor 4, Rodanthe Area Endpoint 2) for the proposed Bonner Bridge replacement Ihe project study liraiu for both eltematives will eutend south to RadAnthe. usacE �� : rrcnor � ' � usE��- , q i�;�o.� - '�,: _ �� p�_- UsFws r L! / rrcpwo rrcwxc =�a�� `! : SHPOS� I� FHWA.�_ , �- -" :-' ; . . - = : . 'NME.- --- - - - — . NCDIvIF� ° `_ r, NP NCDC141 ' S� _ ._—.- --_ _ _ � _ I I Il'� � 1 � PAST BONNER BRIDGE COMMENTS Elevation Letter,October 13, 2004: I • "...we do not concur with an altemative that will result in the construction of bridges that will ultimately ' be in the active wave zone of[he Atlantic Ocean. It is DWQ's opinion that the presence of bridges in the active wave zone of the ocean could result in a loss of existing uses." • "...[the]third potential problem with the proposed alternative relates to stormwater and stormwater treatment." 2005 SDEIS: � • "...based on these impacts, DWQ believes the issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification for the All Bridge and Road North/Bridge South alternatives would be extremely problematic,at best, and likely unpermittable, at worst" • "Include a discussion of potential wetland mitigation strategies." • "The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed methods of storm wa[er management. More specifically,it is suggested that stormwater not be permitted to discharge directly into streams or other surface waters." • "It is unclear what the source will be for the sand required for beach nourishment under the Parallel Bridge—Nourishment Alternative. Not only is the quantity of sand in question but also the quality of sand. Finer partides from nornsuitable sand can change the physical habitat of the beach face and swash zones and choke out the invertebrate population.To some extent, this has already occurred in the Refuge due to beach renourishment using sand dredged from Oregon Inlet....Using unsuitable sand would be detrimental to the Refuge due to negative impacts on the invertebrate population which would is the primary food source of the migratory bird population in the Refuge....TO tha[end, the uncertainty of the potential water quality impacts associated with dredging operations for additional sand sources should be considered." Mee[ing Minutes, May 23, 2007: • "John Hennessy said that DWQ could concur with the Oregon Inlet bridge component of the Phased Approach Alternative, but not the components of the Phased Approach south of Oregon Inlet(i.e., bridges that would be located in the ocean in the near future).John added that they are not necessarily opposed to the concept of the Phased Approach, rather they have concerns about the potential impacts of bridges in the ocean." Meeting Minutes, Marth 26, 2009: . "Brian commented that he hasn't heard sufficient justif cation for pursuing the Road North/Bridge South alternative when the wetlands impacts are so significantly higher. He added that he thought the other - altematives should also be looked at further for reducing impacts rether than focusing on customizing one al[ernative. He said that it would be difficult for DENR to permit one alternative when there are other alternatives on the table that have fewer impacts." � Mee[ing Minutes, May 21, 2009: • "Brian Wrenn said that the Road North/Bridge South alternative may not be permittable based on high wetland impacts when there are other alternative s with lower wetland impacts." � 1 ' � ?�� ,� : , — �`�: ,�� . � ° C�O o ``�� ` \ � �2 �. � � Q � O . �J _ � ; �. � � o , - . ° `, J r..,r-,,,,, ��: �y. ��,��.,,;,:; n�,,,��.� , , - � 4- - L Dunes 10 feei /.� f3 0 meters)high �� r� iT / /'1''� l� } b� r �� '�\ 1 V" 0 �. /� � ��=: �i � i ;� O� �., ,. ,.� �2 '; � 1 � 1 ,\ I ' t f �� LEGEND Pey I�larv�'1Jrihon�tl Wtldl�,l�Nehmr.. Dnn�as 10Iee: � 882Ch N�.'�'�IiShn�2i11 !fi 7 melec:J hiyh � Dunes Ponds — New BnC�.ie � ��tl"' � RODANTHE t i i igure �AR��.L�I BRiC�� f"ORR��QR WITH NO�IRISH�ViEE'T -�_ g � -- - ') / W �\� / n � �a�V O l�\�\ �. (r � 'y1 � � \` _ o ` _ ' Q �,. a; G `�. n z' � - _v / ��n��,,,,d � �. . ,. ,,. �;! 4Gildlrfr � (:J�r;r � 1 Dunes 10/eet !�i (3.0 meters)h�gn �' �' �,�L � i � ` b' . � a, �I� , �7 °� \ � ��; �� o �. � , � o� i �,:;� a��z�� `�, � � � LEGEND " 1 Pea IslanC(dallon�l Ndldlaa Hefuge � 0 �unes (tuWm needj --1 Ponds � New Roadway �--� Ncw Bridge �� = � RODANTHE I PARAL!E!. BRID[iE ��RRIC Of' W�TH NG ? 2 RE� Of AT�ON ' ic;ure � ��J RO�� ` �RTHI"3'�� )GE S"�R�?� �i '_1 `� � n � � �� . i �� . � J ,\ i. V \\�� i ��. n �� l``,` -`. � � i. � V f O � =� `� . r. 3= _. 'la� \., r . ..��,"� � _ �. o !, /� o _ � o y �'•`� , P<<ih:,��.i �,�� V1Niu�nii 11�r,hJ. � � Q� A R</q,� ri � � 0��,� r � � G f 4�J �� ' Q � �I ` 1 llmlVli6 0 �21 r,i��,�d I l ��r LEGEND � Pea Islai�d Na�ionel Wiltllife Reluue 'onds i ,Jew Roatlway ` ---- New Bridge �\ ��"' , � RODANTHE FARF;L� �L 3R1.)C m C�JRF�ID')�4 tiNIT'�i f 'C � 2 Fi�EL7�AT10.�1 Fiyure � N ALG �`�-�F� �'DGE � �p l L�. I JI{''� . ._. _. _ !'�')) �`��_��\ ` /. -�. `\,\`,\`\ // �� '� •L c�� ` �� , ?�C �� O . r (� � - � � � Q �. - \ _� �� ; '. � . o t I. �Q ` ; .p / \� l. � °�C� � ,� . ° '�2 � ,;,t,�,,� �� o , �o Jl \� � l: �� t � r. M �I J �\ \ � �f a�� % �� ..... 7.. `; � c'�'� !i.u,�. .,�. �� 2 �Y� T� � LEGEND _ 1 Pe�d Island Nahon,vl Wildlife Refupe — � Ponds t i � — Beach Nourishment(ROdanthi� NuurishmeN Alternative onlyl Approx. Potential Polure Breach Loc�iUOn ��O � Phas�°I - � Phasrll EndolFOtia�i:''e � Nouna,hmer,f A![Br'm kr:u Ph35P.I II � Ph��s� IV , 6icl ot RoUantbF- ��'� i endyeane,�ar,�.�e RODANTHE �� .i��,��,.��0��7 �AR.4L°_EL BR: DC E CORbiIGQR WI'.'H f ic�ure ?` �ASE� Q ? �ROA�'� f _21