20110023_Merger Process Documentation_20090831

,
Potential Summary of Merger 01 Dispute Resolution Board Meeting
8.27.2007
Issue: Concurrence Point') -Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable
Alternative (LEDPA)
Bonner Bridge : O-_2S_00_:9
The Sponsoring Agencies (hereafter referred to as agencies) of Merger 01
have reached concurrence on an approach to advance the Bonner Bridge
project and provide a replacement of the Bonner Bridge essentially within
the same alignment or with minor changes to the current alignment as
presently outlined in the Parallel Bridge alternates.
- The agencies concur that a Final Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement needs to address all comments received to date and a
Record of Decision completed as soon as possible.
- Concurrence on this point does not imply that state or federal
permits or other approvals for this activity will be granted: rather, it simply
means that the agencies agree that, given the information provided, the
Phased Approach/Bridge. Alternative can be identified as the LEDPA in the
NEPA/404 document.
The environment in the study area is complex and constantly changing. The
ability to predict the effect of Mother Nature's future impact on the study
area is extremely difficult to quantify. The shoreline alone is continually
moving and unexpected storms will exacerbate the uncertainties. The
environment present today can be changed overnight by Mother Nature.
The environment outlined in an environmental document at the time of
approval will likely change before permits are requested.
Based on the information available to the agencies as of today, the agencies
concur in the following:
The Pamlico Sound Bridge corridor is not practicable,
based upon cost estimates, and thus is not the LEDPA.
The Parallel Bridge Corridor contains various
alternates, all of which include a short parallel
replacement structure adjacent to the existing Bonner
Bridge. The agencies concur that Phase I of the project
should be to construct the replacement bridge within
this corridor as soon as possible. Every possible effort
needs to be made for the bridge touchdown point to stay
within the existing alignment on Pea Island. The
agencies agree, based upon the it fornation available
today, Phase I should be advanced through the Merger
'O1 Process in order to insure applicable permits and
other approvals can be granted when requested by
NCDOT.
Phase I alone as outlined above does not meet purpose
and need of the project and thus additional phases of
work will be needed to meet purpose and need.
The agencies concur that the remaining phases of work
present substantial challenges before the appropriate agencies
will be satisfied in order to grant applicable permit and
approvals. It will be incumbent on NCDOT to provide the
necessary information to the permitting agencies to satisfy
their needs before permits and approvals are granted.
At the time of permit application, all reasonable, practicable
and feasible alternatives will be considered and evaluated for
each phase. This evaluation will include avoidance,
minimization, and compensatory mitigation considerations for
each selected alternative.
The NCDOT should finalize the Supplemental Draft EIS and
address all comments to date. It is expected that the Phased
Approaclr/Bridge will be identified in the Record of Decision
as the LEDPA. The agencies today are concurring this
alternate is the LEDPA, but,with the clear understanding that
no permitting agency is bound by this concurrence to grant
permits or approvals for the entire LEDPA. To reiterate, the
agencies believe Phase I needs to be advanced through Merger
'01. Remaining phases beyond Phase I are more problematic
from a permitting aspect given the information available
today. These remaining phases of work in the Phased
Approach/Bridge Alternative indicate work on Pea Island will
be done within the existing easement via the construction of
short bridge segments, or other alternatives as determined at
that tirne. The agencies concur, based on the information
available today, they can not conclusively say that permits or
approvals will or will not be granted for these additional
phases. The agencies do agree that permits will not be granted
for these remaining phases of work until their applicable laws
and regulations have been satisfied. The agencies are reaching
concurrence on this approach for the purposes of advancing
the project to a ROD but are making it clear the remaining
phases of work may need further study after the ROD but
before any permits or approvals are granted.
One of the basic principles of Merger 01 is found in Paragraph B of the
Memorandum of Understanding that states: .
Regulatory/Resource Agency participation in this process does not imply
endorsement of a transportation plan or project. Nothing in these procedures
is intended to diminish, modify, or otherwise affect the statutory or
regulatory authorities of the agencies involved. In the event of any conflict
between this process and other statutes or regulations, the statutes or
regulations control.
The Signatures of Sponsor Agencies Below Signify Agreement To the
AboZZJ4?-,? e PoinWi
lliam G. Laxton,
Deputy Secretary, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources
William F. Rosser
State Highway Administrator,
S. Kenneth Jolly
Chief, Regulatory Division,
of Engineers
North Carolina Department of Transportation
ngton District, United States Army Corps
Donald J. Voelker
Assistant Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration North
Carolina Division