Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20110023_Merger Process Documentation_20090923 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE EUGENE A. CONTI, JR. GOVERNOR SECRETARY September 23, 2009 To: September 17, 2009 Bonner Bridge Merger Team Meeting Attendees From: Beth Smyre, PE Project Planning Engineer 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 Merger Team Meeting Summary A merger team meeting was held on September 17, 2009 for the subject project. The following people were in attendance: Scott McLendon US Army Corps of Engineers USACE) Ron Sechler National Marine Fisheries Service MFS Clarence Coleman Federal Highway Administration FHWA) Ron Lucas FHWA Chris Militscher US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA Kathy Matthews USEPA Rosemary Hall USEPA Mike Murray National Park Service PS Thayer Broili NPS Sara Winslow NC Division of Marine Fisheries CDMF Travis Wilson NC Wildlife Resources Commission CWRC Jim Gre son NC Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM Jim Hoadle NCDCM Cathy Brittin am NCDCM Renee Gledhill-Earle State Historic Preservation Office SHPO David Wainwright NC Division of Water Quality (NCDW ) Amy Simes NC Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources Jerry Jennings NCDOT- Division 1 Greg Thorpe NCDOT- Project Development & Environmental Analysis Rob Hanson NCDOT- PDEA Brian Yamamoto NCDOT- PDEA Beth Sm e NCDOT- PDEA MAILING ADDRESS: NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER RALEIGH NC 27699-1548 TELEPHONE: 919-733.3141 FAX: 919-733-9794 LOCATION: TRANSPORTATION BUILDING 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET RALEIGH NC WEBSITE:W NCDOTORG B-2500 Merger Team Meeting Minutes September 23, 2009 Phil Harris NCDOT- Natural Environment Unit Bruce Ellis NCDOT-NEU Elizabeth Lusk NCDOT- NEU Michael Turch NCDOT- NEU Karen Lynch NCDOT- NEU Steve Mitchell NCDOT- NEU Kathy Herring NCDOT- NEU LeiLani Paugh NCDOT- NEU Morgan Weatherford NCDOT- NEU Kerry Vallant NCDOT- Transportation Planning Branch Dave Henderson NCDOT- Hydraulics Lonnie Brooks NCDOT- Structure Design Don O'Toole NC Department of Justice Mark Lau isch NCDOT- Roadside Environmental Unit Virginia Mabry NCDOT- Transportation Program Management Victor Barbour NCDOT- Technical Services KJ Kim NCDOT- Geotechnical Engineering Harrison Marshall NCDOT- Human Environment Unit Ray McIntyre NCDOT- TIP Development Unit Thomas Stoddard NCDOT- TIP Development Unit John Page PB Representatives from the USFWS (Raleigh and Manteo offices) were not present. Part I: Discussion of Wetland Mitigation for Phase I The meeting consisted of discussion of anticipated impacts due to the construction of Phase I to wetlands, submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), and National Park Service (NPS) property; this was followed by a discussion of appropriate mitigation or conservation measures for each impact type. This project will follow a phased mitigation approach with the proposed phased construction of the preferred alternative. Impacts to US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) property will be discussed at a later date since. USFWS representatives were not in attendance. The Team reviewed Figures E-2g and E-2h from the FEIS and Table 1 from the merger packet that illustrated the biotic communities, including wetlands, which were delineated within the Parallel Bridge Corridor. Table 1 provides a range of impacts to identified wetland types including man-dominated, salt shrub, maritime grassland, overwash, maritime shrub thicket, reed stand, and CAMA wetlands of salt flat, brackish marsh, smooth cord grass, and black needlerush. The final impact numbers could change based on the final design and landing points of the bridge but will be within the same scale as reported on Table 1. The dominant species and quality of wetland was questioned for the man-dominated type on the table. The merger team would like to see the NCWAM types indicated. NEU will review the area called man-dominated and assess the type and quality of all wetlands according to NCWAM. 2 B-2500 Merger Team Mecting Minutes September 23, 2009 All agencies agreed that offsite wetland mitigation is not preferred for this project. FHWA questioned the use of existing wetland mitigation sites for offsetting impacts. USACE pointed to the exceptional quality and type of habitats associated with the Outer Banks as justification for alternative mitigation and allowed within the new federal mitigation rule. USACE noted that credits from existing wetland mitigation sites could eventually be utilized to compensate for impacts for Phase I. NPS requires that all impacts to Park Service property is mitigated within the park. Other agencies agreed that alternative mitigation or conservation measures would be acceptable. NPS suggested that a phragmites control program could be an appropriate mitigative measure using a 4:1 ratio. NCWRC recommended that any measures take into account site conditions and adjacent phragmites populations, which may require a larger treatment area other than what is dictated by ratios. Additional areas could be used to offset impacts from future phases of the roadway project. NCDWQ will have to discuss fulfillment of no-net-loss policy with their management. NCWAM has been suggested previously by NCDWQ as a method to demonstrate no-net-loss of functions through wetland enhancemeht.'NCDCM stated the Dare County Land Use plan requires 25% of the mitigation within the county. NEU will coordinate with the NPS to develop an appropriate, practicable phragmites control proposal for review by NCDOT and agencies as mitigation for wetland impacts. The Team reviewed the figure included in the meeting package that illustrated the SAV survey transects completed by NEU in June 2009. The survey results show that SAV coverage within the corridor averaged 27.7%, which equates to an estimated 1.68 acres of SAV impacts. Impacts from Table 1 were estimated using 25% average SAV coverage within the corridor. NMFS considers the SAV impact area to be the total amount of potential habitat within the corridor, not just the areas with presence of SAV. This area would be a maximum of 6.04 acres within the right-of-way of Phase I. NEU can refine this acreage by eliminating non-habitat areas such as mud, silt, and deep water areas. Other State agencies would not require any additional mitigation than required by the NMFS. NCDWQ requested SAV mapping of corridor prior to construction. Removal of the existing bridge may result in impacts also. Bridge demolition techniques will be discussed at 4B and 4C meetings. NEU will provide an estimate of the total SAV habitat area, impacts due to shading, and impacts due to fill. NCDWQ discussed construction techniques that could increase impacts, such as jetting piles. The dispersion of material could smother SAV beds. A recent study funded by NCDOT discusses the range of effects. If preventive or clean-up measures are not undertaken, the impacts would be considered permanent. Removal of the existing bridge could be used as on site mitigation of SAV impacts, with consideration given to impacts from bridge demolition. NPS questioned the lack of certainty of SAV habitat restoration by bridge removal. However, the same lack of certainty exists with impacts of the new bridge. NEU will provide an estimate of the potential SAV habitat area under the existing bridge. B-2500 Merger Team Meeting Minutes September 23, 2009 NEU discussed offsite, out-of- kind mitigation of SAV impacts by oyster reef construction. The SAV mitigation panel recommends funding research as a priority. Restoring SAV beds can be problematic in such dynamic environments. SAV tends to be opportunistic and will populate habitat areas as they develop. NMFS will be open-minded and suggested current USACE dredging projects and other civil works projects as potential cooperative opportunities to restore SAV habitat. Dave Lekson (USACE) should be contacted for additional mitigation opportunities. NCDOT should show due diligence in reviewing onsite mitigation and conservation measures. Other measures were suggested for wetland mitigation including restoration of piping plover habitat, control of vegetation encroachment, and enhancement of fisheries. NCDCM also referred to the Coastal Habitat Protection Plan for targeted areas and measures. All mitigation pursued should take into account any Section 7 measures. Part Il: Discussion of Draft Preferred Alternative_Partnership Agreement The purpose of this portion of the meeting was to discuss the draft (dated September 8, 2009) Preferred Alternative Partnership Agreement that was developed to address how decisions on future phases of the project would be made. The intent of the agreement was to identify the responsibilities of all agencies that must be involved before NCDOT can move forward on future phases and to state protocol for how alternatives for future phases will be evaluated. The agreement was developed based on the suggestion from the USEPA during, the, May 21, 2009 merger team meeting that an adaptive management strategy that deferred. . decisions on later phases would best fit this project, due to the unpredictability of the environment within the project area. Although the team decided to revise the LEDPA/Preferred Alternative decision during the May 21 meeting, no concurrence form was signed. The group discussed whether the Partnership Agreement was necessary in the current context of the Merger Process; several agencies felt that a Merger Process concurrence form would be more appropriate. Some members of the team expressed concerns about not having the authority to sign a Partnership Agreement on behalf of their agency; however, they were authorized under the current Merger agreement to sign a concurrence form. The concept of adaptive management, first mentioned during the May 21 merger team meeting, was discussed. The Department of Interior's Adaptive Management is a policy for, how to manage a resource over time to achieve a desired outcome. Several agencies questioned whether an adaptive management plan should be stipulated in any agreement. The team determined that a Partnership Agreement was potentially more appropriate for the USFWS and the NPS (as managers of the federal lands along the NC 12 corridor) than to the other members of the merger team. USEPA suggested that the US Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution, an independent and impartial federal program in Arizona, could assist in the development of a Partnership Agreement between the transportation and federal land agencies. The Department of Interior has an Office of Collaborative Action and Dispute Resolution that could also be utilized. B-2500 Merger Team Meeting Minutes September 23, 2009 The team discussed revising the draft Partnership Agreement into a Merger Process concurrence form, which would amend (not conflict with) the Review Board agreement that was signed on August 27, 2007. The concurrence form should include the following: Recognition that the Review Board agreed that Phase I should proceed as soon as possible; - Review the amount of studies of the project area that have been completed to date; - Recognize the available solutions for later phases that were studied; - Explain why the team agreed during the May 21 meeting that decisions on the later phases of the project could be postponed; and - An additional formalized agreement should be pursued with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service that provides additional information on how decisions about later phases will be made. It was also noted that some discussion may be needed about what would trigger NCDOT and FHWA to reconvene the merger team for future phases. USEPA mentioned that the tenets of the existing draft Partnership Agreement should be included within the Record of Decision for the project. NCDOT asked that the team provide any comments on the existing draft Partnership Agreement as well as any comments on what would trigger the merger team's involvement on future phases by Friday, September 25. NCDOT and FHWA will draft a concurrence form _ with the above stipulations and send it to the merger team for review.