20110023_Meeting Minutes_20081219

- moo
YEARS
To- November 13, 2008 Bonner Bridge Merger Team Meeting Attendees
From John Page, Parsons Brinckerhoff
Date December 19, 2008
Subject. Revised Meeting Minutes - November 13, 2008 Merger Team 2A/4A Meeting
for the Bonner Bridge Replacement Protect (TIP No B-2500)
Attendees
Gary Jordan USFWS - Raleigh Field Office
Bill Biddlecome US Army Corps of Engineers
Christopher A Mihtscher USEPA
Kathy Matthews USEPA
Ron Sechler National Marine Fisheries Service
Darrell Echols NPS - Cape Hatteras National Seashore
Clarence Coleman FHWA - NC Division
Ron Lucas FHWA - NC Division
Jim Gregson NCDENR - DCM
Cathy Bnttmgham NCDENR - DCM
Brian Wrenn NCDENR - DWQ
David Wainwright NCDENR - DWQ
Travis Wilson NCWRC
Renee Gledhill-Earley NCDCR - SHPO
Lon Kroll NCDOT - Secretary's Office
Beth Smyre NCDOT - PDEA
Brian Yamamoto NCDOT - PDEA
Rob Hanson NCDOT - PDEA
Michael Turchy NCDOT - Natural Environment Unit
Chris Rivenbark NCDOT - Natural Environment Unit
Elizabeth Lusk NCDOT - Natural Environment Unit
LeiLam Paugh NCDOT - Natural Environment Unit
Morgan Weatherford NCDOT - Natural Environment Unit
Doug Taylor NCDOT - Roadway Design
D R Henderson NCDOT - Hydraulics Unit
Bob Capehart NCDOT - Division 1
Rodger Rochelle NCDOT - Transportation Program Management Unit
Nilesh Surh NCDOT - Transportation Program Management Unit
Virginia Mabry NCDOT - Transportation Program Management Unit
Thomas Stoddard NCDOT - TIP Development Unit
Calvin Leggett NCDOT - Program Development Branch
A L Avant NCDOT - Program Development Branch
Lonnie Brooks NCDOT - Structure Design Unit
Mike Robinson NCDOT - Construction Unit
Over a Century of
Engineering Excellence
X00
YEARS
Page 2
December 19, 2008
Minutes November
Don O'Toole
John Page
Bobby Norburn
13, 2008 Merger Team 2A/4A Meeting for Bonner Bridge
NCDOT - Geotechmcal Engineering Unit
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Parsons Brmckerhoff
The meeting started at 3 00 p m in the Board Room of the NCDOT Transportation Building
Bill Biddlecome began the meeting by informing the attendees that the purpose of today's
meeting was to seek Merger Team concurrence on Concurrence Points 2A (Bridging Decisions
and Alignment Review) and 4A (Avoidance and Minimization) He then asked the attendees
to introduce themselves before turning the meeting over to Beth Smyre for NCDOT's
presentation of the Merger Meeting Packet
Beth Smyre said that the purpose of today's meeting was to seek concurrence only on Phase I
(Oregon Inlet bridge) of the LEDPA for the Bonner Bridge Replacement Project She also
noted that it was a combined 2A/4A concurrence meeting because a 2A agreement was never
signed by the Merger Team for the Parallel Bridge Corridor She said that she had two
versions of the concurrence form (i e , a short form that referenced the Merger Team Packet
and its findings and a longer form with space for listing the meeting agreements) that could be
used depending the team's preference and the outcome of today's meeting
Concurrence Point 2A Discussion
Beth said that the first topic to discuss related to Concurrence Point 2A was the bridge landing
on Bodie Island The design and alignment analyzed in the FEIS and shown in the Packet is
based on planning-level decisions, but the exact alignment will be developed by the Design-
Build contractor She asked if the agencies had any restrictions that they wanted to
recommend for inclusion in the Design-Build contract beyond what is already specified in the
FEIS, keeping in mind that NCDOT will require the contractor to design the bridge so that the
impacts will not be worse than those presented in the FEIS, but the design could be altered and
its location adjusted within the project's 1,000-foot corridor if there are opportunities identified
to further reduce impacts There were no suggestions for further restrictions beyond what is in
the FEIS on the Bodie Island side of Oregon Inlet
Beth said that the next topic to discuss related to Concurrence Point 2A was the bridge landing
on Hatteras Island She said that the alignment/design on Hatteras Island are limited by
keeping the bridge m NCDOT's existing 100-foot NC 12 easement David Wainwright asked
about the reason for extending Phase I by an additional 2,000 feet beyond that defined in the
FEIS Beth responded that it was designed to protect the southern bridge terminus by
extending it beyond an area that is currently showing increased soundside erosion
Cathy Brittingham asked whether or not retaining walls were going to be used on the bridge
landings for the Phase I bridge on Hatteras Island She said that retaining walls for Phase I are
shown on Figure 2-22 (page 2-104), and DCM is concerned about the use of retaining walls for
the proposed project DCM wants to further discuss retaining walls in terms of permitting for
Over a Century of
Engineering Excellence
-moo
YEARS
Page 3
December 19, 2008
Minutes November 13, 2008 Merger Team 2A/4A Meeting for Bonner Bridge
the project Beth agreed that further discussions on retaining walls would occur during design
coordination
Beth asked if there were any further comments related to Concurrence Point 2A There were
none She then asked if the agencies could agree on Concurrence Point 2A as presented in the
Merger Team Packet and there were no objections
Concurrence Point 4A Discussion
Oregon Inlet Dredging
Beth started the Concurrence Point 4A discussion with the first avoidance and minimization
topic in the Packet - Oregon Inlet dredging As stated in the Packet, she said that there would
be no dredging in SAVs, as well as no dredging to a depth greater than 8 feet
Darrell Echols requested that the NPS be added to the list of coordinating agencies shown in
the Packet related to the Design-Build contractor's development of dredging techniques and a
disposal plan to minimize harm to natural resources Beth responded that NPS would be added
to this list
David Wainwright asked about the use of dredge spoil for temporary impact wetland
mitigation Beth responded that the FEIS briefly discussed this use with respect to restoring
the elevation of affected wetland areas
Jim Gregson asked if there was a contingency plan to avoid any new areas of SAV that might
be identified before the start of construction Rodger Rochelle responded that the late 2007
SAV survey would be ground truthed and revised, if needed, prior to construction He also
said that it would be a contract requirement not to dredge in the SAV areas identified based on
this ground truthmg
Dredge Spoil Disposal
Beth began the discussion of the second avoidance and minimization topic in the Packet -
dredge spoil disposal Gary Jordan asked about the statement in the Packet that indicates "the
disposal of any excess material would be the responsibility of the contractor " Beth responded
that disposal of excess material would be the responsibility of the contractor, but that the
contractor would contractually have to dispose of this material in accordance with NCDOT's
Standard Specifications, permit requirements, and other applicable laws Ron Sechler asked if
the contractor would also consult with the appropriate agencies on excess material disposable
Beth responded that this would be the case, and also that further coordination on disposal
locations would occur at Concurrence Points 413 and 4C
Over a Century of
Engineering Excellence
=too
YEARS (ED
Page 4
December 19, 2008
Minutes November 13, 2008 Merger Team 2A/4A Meeting for Bonner Bridge
Use of Work Bridges/Haul Roads
Beth said that there would be no haul roads used in areas with SAVs, but the option for the
contractor to use haul roads through wetlands was being left open Work bridges will be used
in areas with SAVs
Ron Sechler asked if the construction could be "top down" in jurisdictional areas Rodger
Rochelle responded that there was no way to know for sure at this point because replacement
bridge span length could prevent the use of top down construction for most contractors
Rodger also said that an important part of the selection of the Design-Build contractor is the
environmental quality component of the proposal In other words, in selecting a contractor,
NCDOT will be looking closely at each contractor's proposed methods for minimizing impacts
to natural resources
Ron Sechler asked about the impacts of work bridges Brian Wrenn also asked if the haul
roads would be like causeways in terms of appearance and impacts Bill Biddlecome also
noted that Table 2 in the Packet indicates that there will be 2 4 acres of SAV impact because of
the Bodie Island temporary haul road Beth responded that there would be no fill from haul
roads in SAV areas, so NCDOT needs to determine why there are 2 4 acres shown in the table
[It was later determined that this is the unmigrtated impact, haul road instead of a bridge ]
David Wainwright asked about the use of turbidity curtains to linut turbidity with the
placement of haul roads Rodger Rochelle responded that turbidity curtains will work and that
some method will be prescribed to limit turbidity, but the method that the contractor will use is
not known at this time David asked what other methods are available Rodger responded that
he was not aware of any at this time
Chris Militscher asked if the SAV and wetland impacts from haul roads shown in Table 2 were
the maximum impacts that would be expected occur Beth responded that these amounts
should be the maximums and that the contractor would attempt to decrease the amounts, but
that this issue would be revisited during Concurrence Points 4B and 4C Rodger Rochelle
added that he expects these impacts will decrease, but there is a possibility that the contractor
could request to increase these amounts if a possible "trade-off' is identified for reducing
impacts in another area (e g , if the construction duration could be shortened by a year)
However, any such proposed trade-offs would be discussed in advance with the Merger Team
Bill Biddlecome again clarified that there should be no haul roads in SAVs, dust possibly in
wetlands
David Wainwright asked if the impact amounts in Table 2 included demolition Beth
responded that impacts from demolition were not included David asked if those impacts
would be temporary impacts only Beth responded that was the case
Chris Milhtscher requested that prior to the Concurrence Point 4B meeting the Merger Team be
provided information on the impacts that have changed since today's meeting so that they can
Over a Century of
Engmeenng Excellence
=r00
YEARS
Page 5
December 19, 2008
Minutes November 13, 2008 Merger Team 2A/4A Meeting for Bonner Bridge
adequately prepare for the Concurrence Point 4B meeting Beth responded that was acceptable
to NCDOT
Ron Sechler asked if work bridge pile impacts were included in the SAV impact amounts in
Table 2 Beth responded that work bridge piles were included
Bill Biddlecome said that he wanted to state for the record that the USACE wants all SAVs
and wetlands bridged to the maximum extent practicable
Chris Militscher asked about the timing for Phase II and whether or not the Merger Team was
concurring today on anything related to Phase II Beth responded that the Merger Team was
not concurring today on anything related to Phase II She also said that the proposed
concurrence form indicates that combined Concurrence Point 2A/4A meetings will be held
prior to the completion of the final design for each subsequent phase of the Preferred
Alternative Bill Biddlecome added that that was his recommendation Chris said this was
acceptable to him
Cathy Brittingham asked about the distinction between temporary and permanent wetland
impacts For example, with haul roads, are the impacts considered to be temporary or
permanent9 Beth responded that the impacts were considered to be temporary if they were
used only for construction (and subsequently removed), no matter how long the duration of the
activity, and not a part of the permanent roadway facility Cathy said that since the
construction is estimated to last for 4 years, is it really appropriate to consider these as
temporary impacts Bill Biddlecome responded that the permits can contain conditions
requiring that the temporarily impacted wetlands be restored and regain their previous
functionality, or else the impact would have to be mitigated He also did not agree that 1 to 1
mitigation was appropriate for this situation Bill said that the issue of permanent versus
temporary impacts needs to be discussed again at a later date once the amount of the temporary
impacts is better known Cathy added that the temporary wetland impacts would need to be
closely monitored in case they need to be reclassified as permanent impacts Ron Sechler said
that the same consideration applies to SAVs because it is not possible to predict how the holes
from temporary bridge piers will fill back in Chris Militscher agreed that the issue of
permanent versus temporary impacts can be dealt with later Rodger Rochelle said he does not
know how long work bridges and haul roads might have to remain in place, but he could ask
some contractors for an estimated duration Cathy said that they have seen standard language
on haul roads in contracts in the past Bill reiterated that this issue would be dealt with in the
permitting process and that the permit would contain conditions for restoration of wetlands
Ron Sechler asked if SAVs in the Oregon Inlet area had been mapped recently Beth replied
that the most recent SAV mapping is from late-2007, however, the Design-Build contractor
will be provided with new aerial photography and required to ground truth the 2007 SAV
mapping
Over a Century of
Eng?neenng Excellence
-------too
YEARS
Page 6
December 19, 2008
Minutes November 13, 2008 Merger Team 2A/4A Meeting for Bonner Bridge
Brian Wrenn asked about the intent to het piles in open water He said that based on the NCSU
study that NCDOT references in the FEIS, betting causes a high volume of sediment to be
disturbed and introduced as turbidity into the open water, so why is the use of jetting in these
areas a project intent Mike Robinson responded that betting is required for the placement of
large diameter piles Ron Sechler added that piles for temporary work bridges are small
enough that betting is not required Brian asked if jetting would be needed for large diameter
piles even in wetlands because he is concerned about turbidity and smothering of vegetation
withjettmg The response was that jetting would be required for large diameter piles even in
wetlands Brian asked how the discharge would be handled so that areas can recover He
prepared a rough estimate that the betting spoil in Oregon Inlet for the replacement bridge
would fill approximately 22 dump trucks In addition, the spoil could spread-out and cover
adjacent SAVs Rodger said that it could be included in the contract and the permits to prevent
this from happening Brian wants to see a plan for betting operations that includes protecting
jurisdictional areas He added that there is good flow in Oregon Inlet, which will help, but
there is a lot of variability in the way that turbidity curtains function in areas with high water
velocities Bill Biddlecome asked if NCDOT could make a commitment to not betting
temporary bridge piles Rodger responded that NCDOT cannot commit to that at this time
Ron said that a post-construction assessment of impacts to SAV (that occur despite the Design-
Build contractor's minimization efforts) would have to be done because it is not possible to
precisely predict these impacts prior to construction The type of material that will be
disturbed (i e , sands versus fines) is also a concern about betting, but the material type is not
currently known
Protected Species Commitments and Retention of Portion of Existing Structure/Construction of
Fishing Pier
Beth Smyre said that the last two avoidance and minimization topics in the Packet related to
construction of the new bridge (protected species commitments and retention of portion of
existing structure/construction of fishing pier) are intended as reminders to the Merger Team
on how these topics are addressed in the FEIS and the Section 7 Biological Opinion She said
that the potential fishing pier would be discussed during the permitting process, but that there
is no specific plan for the replacement of the fishing catwalks as of yet Bill Biddlecome said
that the USACE is concerned that if no submerged structure was included within Davis
Slough, then Davis Slough could become the primary channel through Oregon Inlet and the
planned navigation zone for the new bridge would be rendered useless to vessel traffic This
would hurt the USACE dredging efforts in Oregon Inlet It was discussed that this issue would
be further discussed during the permitting process Bill also said that although the NCDOT
estimated the needed width for the navigation span of the new bridge in the FEIS, the USACE
has not yet decided how wide it needs to be One reason for this is that the navigation span
width cannot be accurately determined without knowing whether or not the terminal groin will
be left in lace Chris Milrtscher asked if the USACE is proposing that the groin be left in
lace Bill responded by referencing the language contained in the USACE's September 18,
008 letter to NCDOT which stated that the Wilmington District strongly recommends that the Rev's?d ??
Over a Century of
Engineenng Excellence
-700
YEARS
Page 7
December 19, 2008
Minutes November 13, 2008 Merger Team 2A/4A Meeting for Bonner Bridge
terminal groin remain in place as an essential feature of the new Oregon Inlet bridge for the
reasons stated in the letter Bill also responded that it was his interpretation that without the
terminal groin being left in place, the USACE would be unable to identify a Navigational Zone
to NCDOT
Chris Militscher said that Dave Henderson had told him about the recently approved AASHTO
report on designing bridges in an ocean environment titled "Guide Specifications for Bridges
Vulnerable to Coastal Storms " Chris requested that NCDOT provide the Merger Team with a
copy of this report Dave Henderson said that the report is 55 pages long, but the published
version was not available yet because it had dust gone to the publisher Beth Smyre said that
any Merger Team member that wants a copy should send her an e-mail request
Demolition of Bonner Bridge
Beth Smyre said that the final Concurrence Point 4A topic in the Packet related to avoidance
and minimization was the demolition of Bonner Bridge She said that the commitments on
access for construction also applied to demolition of the existing bridge
Beth asked if there were any further questions on Concurrence Point 4A
LeiLani Paugh asked about the comment in the USACE FEIS comment letter related to
questioning NCDOT's proposed use of Ballance Farm as a wetland mitigation site Chris
Militscher said that EPA had the same comment as USACE on the proposed use of Ballance
Farm Bill Biddlecome responded that the Ballance Farm site could be used for mitigation of
fresh water wetland impacts, but that it may not be appropriate for mitigation of salt water
wetland impacts LeiLam said that NCDOT needs to discuss this issue further with the
USACE because a portion of Ballance Farm had been reserved for wetland mitigation for the
subject project Cathy Bnttmgham added that DCM also had not decided for sure if Ballance
Farm was appropriate for wetland mitigation for this project, but that they preferred on-site
mitigation She said she was not sure whether or not NCDOT had exhausted possible on-site
mitigation options, but she would like NCDOT to further investigate on-site options Ron
Sechler said that he shared the same concern about not using on-site wetland mitigation It was
discussed that the SDEIS included possible on-site mitigation sites, but these sites were
removed from the FEIS in favor of the Ballance Farm site Darrell Echols said that there could
be appropriate on-site wetland mitigation options in the National Seashore on Bodie Island
Bill Biddlecome said that USACE has some ideas for on-site mitigation that they want
NCDOT to further investigate LeiLam said that this issue could be discussed further at a
separate meeting between NCDOT, USACE, and DCM, but that NCDOT would like to resolve
it as soon as possible Beth said this discussion would be included in the meeting minutes and
that NCDOT would follow-up with the USACE
Beth Smyre asked if there were any further questions on Concurrence Point 4A Hearing no
further questions, she asked the Merger Team which concurrence form they wanted to use (i e ,
Over a Century of
Engineering Excellence
-r00
YEARS
Page 8
December 19, 2008
Minutes November 13, 2008 Merger Team 2A/4A Meeting for Bonner Bridge
the short form or the longer form with space for adding specific topics from today's meeting)
Bill Biddlecome responded that Table 2 in the Packet needed to be updated to correctly reflect
the impacts to SAVs from the Bodie Island temporary haul road
Chris Militscher said that he was concerned about the earlier DWQ comment related to the
amount of jetted material that will be generated in Oregon Inlet He realizes betting is
unavoidable, but he wants language included in the Design-Build contract related to use of
Best Management Practices to minimize betting impacts In addition, a commitment to clean-
up and restore the area could be included Cathy Brittingham said that potential impacts from
betting were not quantified in the FEIS Chris responded that these impacts cannot be
accurately estimated in advance Dave Henderson said that the sidecast dredging that is
currently being used by USACE to maintain the Oregon Inlet channel has similar impacts to
the proposed jetting for inserting bridge piles (i e , sand is scooped up and thrown into the
inlet) He asked if there was any evidence that sidecast dredging was causing negative
impacts Bill Biddlecome responded that there was currently no information on negative
impacts from sidecast dredging Cathy said that DCM's real concern is not jetting in open
water, but rather near SAVs and wetlands It was also discussed that the type of material betted
is of concern (i e , if the deeper subsurface material consists of fines, that will be of more
concern than betting of sandy materials)
Based on the above-referenced discussions, Beth Smyre updated the concurrence form to
include the following specific issues from today's meeting
Merger Team members will be provided, prior to Concurrence Point 413, with any mayor
changes in wetland/SAV impacts based on updated designs
The Design-Build contractor should minimize damage to wetlands/SAV/Oregon Inlet from
betting spoils
Table 2 currently shows temporary impacts from haul roads in SAV areas on Bodie Island
NCDOT will not allow haul roads within SAV
Each agency's decision on concurrence for Concurrence Point 2A/4A is listed below and is
also shown on the attached concurrence form
• USACE - concurrence provided
• USEPA - concurrence provided
• NCDWQ - concurrence provided
• SHPO - concurrence provided
• NMFS - abstained from concurrence
• NPS - concurrence provided
• USFWS-PINWR - abstained from concurrence
• NCDOT - concurrence provided
• USFWS - abstained from concurrence
Over a Century of
Engineenng Excellence

=moo
YEARS (ID
Page 9
December 19, 2008
Minutes November 13, 2008 Merger Team 2A/4A Meeting for Bonner Bridge
• NCWRC - abstained from concurrence
• FHWA - concurrence provided
• NCDMF - not represented at meeting (concurrence later provided)
• NCDCM - concurrence provided
The agencies abstaining from concurrence will provide further written documentation on their
reasons for abstaining
With respect to the upcoming project schedule, Beth Smyre said that the Design-Build contract
is planned to be awarded in June 2009 The Concurrence Point 4B meeting will likely be held
in the Fall of 2009 Rodger Rochelle said that NCDOT would be the "go-between" for the
agencies and the Design-Build contractor He added that there would be no direct contact
between the agencies and the potential contractors during the pre-bidding process unless a
NCDOT representative is present
Bill Biddlecome then adjourned the meeting
file no 3301-2 7 2
J \PLANNING\Bonner SDEIS\Stakeholder Involvement\Merger Meetings\4-08 Merger Meeting - Concurrence Point 4A\Bonner
Merger Team 4A Meeting Minutes (revised final 12-19-08) doe
Over a Century of
Engineenng Excellence
RE B-2500 CP2A/4A Meeting Minutes
Subject. RE B-2500 CP2A/4A Meeting Minutes
From. "Smyre, Elizabeth A" <bsmyre@ncdot gov>
Date- Fri, 19 Dec 2008 11 28 05 -0500
To: "Gary_Jordan@fws gov" <Gary_Jordan@fws gov>, "Biddlecome, Bill"
<william j biddlecome@saw02 usace army mil>, Chris Mihtscher <mihtscher chris@epa gov>,
"Matthews Kathy@epamail epa gov" <Matthews Kathy@epamail epa gov>, "Sechler, Ron"
<Ron Sechler@noaa gov>, "Darrell _Echols@nps gov" <Darrell_Echols@nps gov>, "Coleman, Clarence"
<clarence coleman@fhwa dot gov>, "Lucas, Ron" <ron lucas@fhwa dot gov>, Jim Gregson
<jim gregson@ncmail net>, Cathy Brittmgham <Cathy Brittmgham@ncmail net>, Brian Wrenn
<brian wrenn@ncmail net>, David Wainwright <David Wainwright@ncmail net>, Travis Wilson
<Travis Wilson@ncwildlife org>, Renee Gledhill-Earley <Renee Gledhill-Earley@ncmail net>, "Kroll, Lori A"
<lkroll@ncdot gov>, "Yamamoto, Brian F" <byamamoto@ncdot gov>, "Hanson, Robert P" <rhanson@ncdot gov>,
"Turchy, Michael A" <maturchy@ncdot gov>, "Rivenbark, Chris" <crivenbark@ncdot gov>, "Lusk, Elizabeth L"
<ellusk@ncdot gov>, "Paugh, Leilani Y" <lpaugh@ncdot gov>, "Weatherford, Morgan D"
<mdweatherford@ncdot gov>, "Taylor, Bryan D" <bdtaylor@ncdot gov>, "Henderson, David R"
<denderson@ncdot gov>, "Capehart, Bob" <bcapehart@ncdot gov>, "Rochelle, Rodger D"
<rdrochelle@ncdot gov>, "Surti, Nilesh" <nsurti@ncdot gov>, "Mabry, Virginia G" <vmabry@ncdot gov>,
"Stoddard, Thomas S" <ttoddard@ncdot gov>, "Leggett, Calvin W" <cleggett@ncdot gov>, "Avant, Al"
<aavant@ncdot gov>, "Brooks, Lonnie I" <Ibrooks@ncdot gov>, "Robinson, Michael S" <mrobmson@ncdot gov>,
"OToole, Donald T" <dtotoole@ncdot gov>
CC: Mike Bryant <mike_bryant@fws gov>, "Dennis_Stewart@fws gov" <Dennis_Stewart@fws gov>, Sara
Winslow <Sara Winslow@ncmail net>, "pages" <pagej@pbworld com>, "Mike_Murray@nps gov"
<Mike_Murray@nps gov>
All-
The Corps requested two changes to the minutes of the November 13 CP2A/4A meeting, attached is an updated set
of minutes reflecting those changes
Please let me know if you have any questions Hope everyone has a safe and happy holiday season,
Thanks,
Beth
Beth Smyre, P E
Project Planning Engineer
NC Department of Transportation
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
[phone] ext 333
From: Smyre, Elizabeth A
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 4 28 PM
To: 'Gary_Jordan@fws gov', Biddlecome, Bill, 'Chris Militscher', 'Matthews Kathy@epamad epa gov', Sechler, Ron,
'Darrell_Echols@nps gov', 'Coleman, Clarence', Lucas, Ron, 'Jim Gregson', 'Cathy Brittingham', 'Brian Wrenn', 'David
Wainwright', Travis Wilson', 'Renee Gledhill-Earley', Kroll, Lori A, Yamamoto, Brian F, Hanson, Robert P, Turchy,
Michael A, Rivenbark, Chris, Lusk, Elizabeth L, Paugh, Leilani Y, Weatherford, Morgan D, Taylor, Bryan D, Henderson,
David R, Capehart, Bob, Rochelle, Rodger D, Surti, Nilesh, Mabry, Virginia G, Stoddard, Thomas S, Leggett, Calvin W,
Avant, Al, Brooks, Lonnie I, Robinson, Michael S, OToole, Donald T
Cc: 'Mike Bryant', 'Dennis _Stewart@fws gov', 'Sara Winslow', 'Page, John', 'Mike_Murray@nps gov'
Subject: B-2500 CP2A/4A Meeting Minutes
All
Attached are the meeting minutes from the November 13 Bonner Bridge CP2A/4A meeting Also attached is a copy
of the final signature form along with the issue briefs from those agencies that abstained
1 of 2 12/29/2008 7 50 AM
RE B-2500 CP2A/4A Meeting Minutes
If you have any questions about these, please let me know'
Thanks,
Beth
Beth Smyre, P E
Project Planning Engineer
NC Department of Transportation
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
[phone] ext 333
Bonner Merger Team 4A Meeting Minutes (revised final 12-19-08).pdf
Bonner
Merger Team
Content-Description. 4A Meeting
Minutes
(revised final
12-19-08) pdf
Content-Type: appltcatton/pdf
Content-Encoding. base64
2 of 2 12/29/2008 7 50 AM