20110023_Meeting Minutes_20081113

Merger Team Packet
10/27/08
North Carolina Department of Transportation
NEPA/Section 404 Merger Meeting
Concurrence Point 2A: Bridging Decisions and Alignment Review
and
Concurrence Point 4A: Avoidance and Minimization
November 13, 2008
NC 12 Replacement of Herbert C. Bonner Bridge
(Bridge No. 11) over Oregon Inlet
Federal-Aid Project No. BRS-2358(15)
WBS No 32635
TIP Project No. B-2500
Dare County

Merger Team Packet
10/27/08
NEPA/Section 404 Merger Meeting - November 13, 2008
NC 12 Replacement of Herbert C Bonner Bridge
(Bridge No 11) over Oregon Inlet
AGENDA
I Introduction
II Bridging Decisions and Alignment
III Impacts of Phased Approach/Rodanthe Bridge Alternative (Phase I)
IV Avoidance and Minimization
A Phase I Construction
B Bonner Bridge Demolition
V Project Schedule
Merger Team Packet
10/27/08
NEPA/Section 404 Merger Meeting
Concurrence Point 2A Bridging Decisions and Alignment Review
and
Concurrence Point 4A Avoidance and Minimization
November 13, 2008
NC 12 Replacement of Herbert C Bonner Bridge
(Bridge No 11) over Oregon Inlet
Federal-Aid Project No BRS-2358(15)
WBS No 32635
TIP Project No B-2500
1. Introduction
The NCDOT proposes to replace the Herbert C Bonner Bridge across Oregon Inlet in Dare
County Bonner Bridge, built across Oregon Inlet in 1962, is approaching the end of its
reasonable service life Bonner Bridge is part of NC 12 and provides the only highway
connection between Hatteras Island and Bodie Island The replacement structure would serve the
same function The Parallel Bridge Corridor with Phased Approach/Rodanthe Bridge Alternative
(Figure 1) has been identified as the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative
(LEDPA) This project is identified in the 2009 to 2015 State Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) as TIP Project No B-2500
The purpose of this meeting is to review the proposed Bridging Decisions and Alignment
(Concurrence Point 2A) and the proposed Avoidance and Minimization efforts (Concurrence
Point 4A) for Phase I (Oregon Inlet bridge) of the LEDPA
II. Bridging Decisions and Alignment
The representative alignment of the Oregon Inlet bridge is contained within a 1000-foot study
corridor, for the majority of its length, the bridge is centered within the study corridor The
alignment of the bridge on Bodie Island was selected in order to avoid impacts to the Oregon
Inlet Marina and Fishing Center parking lot, as well as the minimize disturbance to the entrances
of both the Marina and the Oregon Inlet Campground The alignment was also selected to
nummize impacts to wetlands and submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) on the western side of the
island The bndge alignment on Bodie Island and within much of Oregon Inlet could be altered
by the design-build contractor, if the contractor can establish that its proposed alignment further
mmmmmzes impacts
The alignment of the bridge on Hatteras Island, however, is restricted to the current 100-foot
easement that NCDOT has for maintaining NC 12 All bridge construction and traffic
maintenance must remain within this easement Therefore, any shifts made during the final design
of the bridge will still remain within the easement
During the Constructabmlmty Workshop in 2006, the expert panel on Geotechnmcal, Hydraulics, and
Coastal Engineering identified a potential threat from sound side erosion along Davis Slough
NCDOT has since monitored the area of potential vulnerability and deems it prudent to extend
the south terminus of Phase I an additional 2,000 feet, contingent on the availability of funds
This extension is shown in Figure 2 As with the rest of the LEDPA, the bridge would remain
within the existing 100-foot easement Extending the length of Phase I does not reflect a change
Merger Team Packet
10/27/08
in the overall design of the LEDPA, only that a portion of Phase II is going to be incorporated
into Phase I
III. Impacts of Phased Approach/Rodanthe Bridge Alternative (Phase I construction)
Tables 1 and 2 show the construction impacts to Oregon Inlet and to SAV and wetlands in the
Phase I project area, respectively The locations of the wetland and SAV impacts are shown in
Figure 2 The SAV is located just west of Bodie Island The impacts shown in Tables 1 and 2
reflect those of the representative alignment that was used for analysis in the Final Environmental
Impact Assessment (FEIS) The final impacts to Oregon Inlet, wetlands, and SAV, both
temporary and permanent, will be determined during final design and included in the permit
applications
behind Bodie Island)
Table 2. Phase I Wetland and SAV Impacts (Permanent and Temporary)
Wetland and S Vi ? acts
ac
Wetland ype
? WQ 've a
Isolate or Hatte as
Bodie
Cowa
atin or on-
Co hguous ill and lan
lan
Classification Riverine emp
haling
orar
em
l
p
y
ffic
oot
rint
P
aul Road
rea aintenance
A a Road Area
Wetland N/A Non Contiguous 0 47 1 50 0 03 4 23
(E2EM1) Rivenne
SAV (EIAB3) N/A Non- Contiguous 0 20 FAIR, 0 00 1 01
Riverine 4
Indicates area of SAV based on unpublished NOAA/DMF mapping and limited ground truthmg of imagery taken during
1985-1990 A survey conducted in September 2007 indicated that the current area of SAV coverage is similar to that
reported when previous mapping was conducted (NCDOT 2007)
The impact totals account for the additional 2000-foot bridge extension on Hatteras Island The
impacts do not include those due to the demolition of the existing Bonner Bridge
2
Table 1. Phase I Stream (Inlet) Impacts
Merger Team Packet
10/27/08
IV. Avoidance and Minimization
Avoidance
Avoidance was taken into account during the development of the entire LEDPA, including the
alignment of Phase I, however, wetlands are so pervasive in the project area that it is impossible
to completely avoid some impact Phase I of the LEDPA would avoid construction fill in
emergent intertidal wetlands and the productive aquatic bottom of the Walter Slough area to the
northwest
Minimization
A. Phase I Construction
The following is a summary of measures to be incorporated into the design-build contract for
Phase I that will further minimize impacts to wetlands and streams
Oregon Inlet Dredging
Dredging would likely be required in areas where the water depth is less than six feet in order to
provide sufficient water depth to float and move loaded construction barges Dredging would be
done to a depth of eight feet, which is deeper than absolutely necessary to float and move
construction barges, but is needed due to the dynarmc coastal conditions that exist in the project
area Dredging deeper than absolutely necessary would alleviate the need to frequently re-dredge
the channel
The contractor would coordinate with NCDOT, USACE, USFWS, NMFS, and NCDENR in
developing its dredging technique and disposal plan that would minirruze harm to natural
resources
General guidelines for developing a detailed dredging plan would be prepared by the contractor
and submitted to NCDOT for review and approval The following are dredged channel
dimensions and locations
• Maximum channel width = 120 feet,
• Maximum channel depth = 8 feet,
• Channel length shall be kept to the mimmum dimension deemed practicable, and
• Dredging is prohibited in areas of SAV
Dredge Spoil Disposal
The nondiscretionary measures outlined in the Biological and Conference Opinions (submitted by
/ the USFWS in 2008, included in Appendix E of the FEIS) for the LEDPA related to piping
V plovers specify that "all dredge spoil material excavated for construction barge access must be
used to augment either existing dredge-material islands or to create new dredge-material islands
for use by foraging plovers This must be accomplished as per the specifications of the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission " The appropriate location for disposal would be
determined based on the character of the materials dredged, the availability of disposal sites, and
coastal conditions near the time of construction Coordination on disposal locations will occur at
Concurrence Points 4B and 4C The disposal of any excess material would be the responsibility
of the contractor, who would be required contractually to handle and dispose of the material in
accordance with NCDOT's Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures, permit
Merger Team Packet
10/27/08
requirements, and local, state, and federal laws If needed, dredged materials could also be used in
the nutigation of temporary wetland impacts to return the wetland areas to their pre-construction
elevation
Use of Work Bridges/ Haul Roads
The contractor could use haul roads and work bridges for access to facilitate construction of the
replacement bridge corridor alternatives Delivery trucks and crawler cranes would use the haul
roads and/or work bridges to deliver and erect mayor bridge components such as piles, formwork,
and girder segments The potential use of a haul road is anticipated only west of Bodie Island
with the LEDPA The contractor would coordinate with the NCDOT, the USACE, the USFWS,
,? the NMFS, and the NCDENR in its development of a site access plan that would mminuze harm
to natural resources For example, haul roads would be protubited in SAV areas
Although a final approach would be developed by the contractor, it is anticipated that haul roads
would consist of a main road a maximum of 65 feet (19 8 meters) wide that is aligned parallel to
the new Oregon Inlet bridge alignment with pier access roads, or fingers, that are aligned
perpendicular to the main road The pier access roads would be a maximum of 40 feet (12 2
meters) wide and could be at each proposed pier location within the length of the haul road
The following are requirements would be used for construction and removal of haul roads
• Haul road material would be approved by the permitting agencies and NCDOT and could
consist of fill obtained from the inlet or sound,
• Turbidity curtains or other means would be implemented to minimize disturbance of the
sound bottom during placement of fill,
• Haul roads would be constructed with geotextile fabric or other available mechanisms to
nummize erosion,
• Haul roads would be constructed to prevent leakage or seepage of liquid materials associated
with construction equipment from entering adjoining waters or wetlands,
• Haul roads would be removed and disposed of in accordance with NCDOT and permitting
agency requirements, and
• After a haul road is removed, the entire area covered by the haul road would be re-vegetated
as directed by the NCDOT
As a result of haul roads or dredging not being used in areas of SAV, work bridges would be needed
at some locations along the construction of the new bridges in the inlet or sound Structural and
geotechmcal design of the work bridge components would be in accordance with the latest edition
of the NCDOT Structure Design Manual The contractor would design the work bridges for actual
construction equipment live loads and would coordinate the work bridge design with the proposed
bridge erection sequence A work bridge design also would comply with OSHA requirements The
following are requirements for construction and removal of work bridges
• Work bridges would be constructed to numnuze or prevent leakage or seepage of liquid materials
associated with construction equipment from entering adjoining waters or wetlands, and ,
4
Merger Team Packet
10/27/08
• Work bridges, including their foundations, would be removed and disposed of in accordance
with NCDOT and permitting agency requirements
Protected Species Commitments
Conservation measures and reasonable and prudent measures specified for the LEDPA in the
USFWS' Biological and Conference Opinions document (Appendix E of the FEIS) as well as
measures included in the August 4, 2008 concurrence letter from the National Marine Fisheries
Service (page A-63 of Appendix A of the FEIS) would be implemented
Retention of Portion of Existing Structure/ Construction of Fishing Pier
In a letter to NCDOT dated September 18, 2008, the US Army Corps of Engineers asked the
NCDOT to explore the option of leaving approximately 1,200 feet of the existing Bonner Bridge
adjacent to Hatteras Island in place This action would be designed to prevent Davis Slough from
becoming the prevailing interior channel The USACE also proposed that if the existing bridge is
not left in place, that a similar submerged sub-structure be implemented If no submerged
structure was included within Davis Slough, then the USACE is concerned that the planned
navigation zone would be rendered useless to vessel traffic The USACE would then require a
longer navigation zone that would extend to the south end of the bridge
As was mentioned in Chapter 8 of the FEIS, NCDOT received comments during the public
hearings regarding the retention of fishing access on the north end of Hatteras Island NCDOT is
exploring options for retaining fishing access at the southern end of the bridge Current options
include using a portion of any traffic maintenance or work bridge needed by the contractor for
construction, constructing a boardwalk under and around the new bridge, or leaving a portion of
the existing bridge in place
B. Bonner Bridge Demolition
Use of Work Bridges/ Haul Roads
For access to Bonner Bridge for demolition equipment, a work bridge likely would be used over
wetlands on Bodie Island Use of a temporary haul road could be requested if it is demonstrated
that such access would not result in permanent impacts to marsh communities because these
communities do not have an underlying organic subsoil, or if the cost of constructing and
dismantling a temporary work bridge is so high that it would not be practicable to employ that
methodology
As part of the demolition plan, the contractor would identify limits and dimensions of proposed
haul roads, work bridges, and/or work barges required for bridge demolition work Wetland and
SAV areas would be identified in the demolition plan Temporary work bridges could be required
to span over the SAV and wetland areas, or a "top down' or overhead work method could be
considered to protect SAV and wetland area
V. Protect Schedule
The following is the current schedule for the mayor project milestones as of October, 2008
Final Environmental Impact Statement September 2008
Record of Decision December 2008
Design/Build Let June 2009
0 12
b ?J
i r
O
0 111
\;rrrnnal64'ilcl/il? ? ?
? Reltr?'?
0
q
iJ
O 4
12
LEGEND O
Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge
i Ponds
Approx. Potential Future Breach Location
Phase I
Phase II
Phase III
Phase IV
0 1 2KM
?RODANTHE
2 Miles
I Sudie Payne Road
1
PARALLEL BRIDGE CORRIDOR WITH Figure
PHASED APPROACH/RODANTHE BRIDGE ALTERNATIVE
v
Proposed Bridge
Proposed Bridge within Wetland or
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Community
JURISDICTIONAL COMMUNITY LEGEND
NC Division of Marine Fisheries
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Data
National Marine Fisheries Submerged
Aquatic Vegetation Data
?.. Black Needlerush
Brackish Marsh
Man-Dominated
Maritime Grassland
Maritime Shrub Thicket
Open Water
Overwash
Reed Stand
Salt flat
r Salt Shrub/Grasslands
Smooth Cordgrass

0 0.25 0.5 0.75 KM
0 0.25 0.5 Mile
I>
J
.p.
rT.

i
lye
O
.J-
ell
<1
r1_1
m
Yi
1
'ice-

Note: Weiland communities within the project area were delineated through interpretation of July 12, 2002 color aerial photographs and field verification during May and June 2003. Data from the NMFS and the DMF were combined to create
a map of submerged aquatic vegetation in the project area. Data supplied by the NMFS was pholc4terpreted from 1988 and 1990 aerial photography. The DMF data was generated from boat surveys conducted between 1995 and 2001.
Figure
WETLAND COMMUNITIES - PHASE I 2a

0 0.25 0.5 0.75 KM
' ,;'
0 0.25 0.5 Mile
i,
Rr
e
l
I.
O
O
?O
f1
Proposed Bridge
Proposed Bridge within Wetland or
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Community
JURISDICTIONAL COMMUNITY LEGEND
NC Division of Marine Fisheries
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Data
National Marine Fisheries Submerged
Aquatic Vegetation Data
Black Needlerush
-'' Brackish Marsh
Man-Dominated
Maritime Grassland
Maritime Shrub Thicket
Open Water
Overwash
Reed Stand
Salt Flat
Salt Shrub/Grasslands
Smooth Cordgrass

'tl t . f.
t=
T? S1 ? 1
j '.
i
Moth.

i'
¦
?.J
'v
r IT Ilk
.r:
fir` 3i
t- y
k
Nm: Wetland communities within the project area were delineated through interpretation of July 12, 2002 color aerial photographs and field verification during May and June 2003. Data from the NMFS and the DMF were combined to create
a map of submerged aquatic vegetation in the project area. Data supplied by the NMFS was photo-interpreted from 1986 and 1990 aerial photography. The DMF data was generated from boat surveys conducted between 1995 and 2001,
WETLAND COMMUNITIES - PHASE I Figure:
2b
i . eLa
iN
v a a
.,A
LL ?r
??
?j