The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20081706 Ver 1_Meeting Minutes_20060412 Final Minutes of the 30% Hydraulic Design Review (4b) Meeting on April 12, 2006 for B-4307, Warren County Participant: Team Members: Other Attendees Randy Henegar, NCDOT Hydraulics (present) Roy Girolami, NCDOT Structures Eric Alsmeyer, USACE (present) Paul Fisher, NCDOT Hydraulics Nikki Thomson, NCDWQ (present) Shawn Harris, NCDOT Hydraulics Bill Goodwin, NCDOT PD&EA (absent) Jeffrey Teague, NCDOT Roadway Travis Wilson, NCWRC (present) Rachelle Beauregard, NCDOT NEU Gary Jordan, USFWS (present) Logan Williams, NCDOT NEU Kathy Matthews, EPA (present) Chris Murray, NCDOT Division 5 David Harris, NCDOT REU (absent) Melissa Koltonski, NCDOT Div. 5 Tracy Parrott, NCDOT Division 5 (absent) Monte Matthews, USACE Glenn Mumford, NCDOT Roadway (present) Amy James, NCDOT ONE Clarence Coleman, FHWA (absent) Tracy Walter, NCDOT PDEA Chris Militscher, EPA (present) Donnie Brew, FHWA Erica McLamb, NCDOT NEU (present) Bryan Kluchar, NCDOT PDEA Laura Sutton, NCDOT Structures (present) David Chang, NCDOT Hydraulics The 4B meeting commenced at approximately 9:00 a.m. Randy Henegar (NCDOT Hydraulics Unit) began by providing an overview of the project noting that this stream has been identified as having a mussel habitat and that the project would fall under Section 7 restrictions. Comments were as follows: B-4307 1. Logan Williams stated that Dwarf Wedge Mussels were identified in the main channel both upstream and downstream of the bridge. 2. Gary Jordan noted that a Formal Consultation Meeting is needed for this bridge. This is a lengthy process which may involve multiple meetings and two written documents (Biological Assessment and Biological Opinion). Planning should consider the time necessary for this process. We will have to move the mussels "out of harm's way" prior to construction activities. The limits of this activity will be formally set at a later date, but would likely be under the bridge and a short ways upstream and downstream of the bridge. 3. Both Gary Jordan and Travis Wilson expressed a preference for the single span structure which does not need a temporary work bridge. 4. Eric Alsmeyer asked what it would take to zero-out the wetland impacts on this project. Laura Sutton responded that a longer bridge would require a thicker superstructure, thus raising the grade and creating a wider impact on the approach fill. A multiple-span structure would not only entail bent construction in wetlands, but also significantly increase total construction time. Both of which are problematic to the mussels. 5. Randy Henegar presented the results of a Detailed Cost Estimate between a single-span plate girder bridge and a two-span box beam structure. The two options were within $50,000 of each other. There was a general consensus that cost would not determine the selected option. 6. Nikki Thomson asked about Stormwater BMP's. Randy Henegar indicated that they would likely consist of preformed scour holes. Level Spreaders would be used where the topography will allow. No deck drains will be allowed on the bridge. 7. Nikki Thomson commented that in the Tar-Pamlico Watershed, the Buffer Impacts from the bridge structure will be "allowable." While the Buffer Impacts from the approach widening will be "allowable with mitigation." 8. Nikki Thomson also stated that DWQ has developed a form for the Summary of Buffer Quantities. Rachelle Beauregard volunteered to send a copy of the form to the Hydraulics Unit. 9. During the removal of the old bridge, the Contractor will be required to pull out the existing timber piles. In the event that the piles break off in this process, the Contractor will cut off the piles flush with natural ground. 10. The NCDOT Division 5 Construction Office will be provided the opportunity to review and comment on all project commitments associated with federally-protected mussel species during the life of the project. This shall include, but is not limited to, all consultation with federal and state regulatory agencies. 11. Wetland and Buffer Impact Summary Sheets were provided by the Hydraulics Unit for both bridge scenarios. These were provided at this time for comparative purposes. The final permit quantities may differ somewhat. 12. All in attendance agreed to proceed with the single-span plate girder structure. No further comments were recorded. Draft Minutes of the 30% Hydraulic Design Review (4b) Meeting on April 12, 2006 fidd~ Warren County Participant: Team Members: Other Attendees Randy Henegar, NCDOT Hydraulics (present) Roy Girolami, NCDOT Structures Eric Alsmeyer, USACE (present) Paul Fisher, NCDOT Hydraulics Nikki Thomson, NCDWQ (present) Shawn Harris, NCDOT Hydraulics Bill Goodwin, NCDOT PD&EA (absent) Jeffrey Teague, NCDOT Roadway Travis Wilson, NCWRC (present) Rachelle Beauregard, NCDOT NEU Gary Jordan, USFWS (present) Logan Williams, NCDOT NEU Kathy Matthews, EPA (present) Chris Murray, NCDOT Division 5 David Harris, NCDOT REU (absent) Melissa Koltonski, NCDOT Div. 5 Tracy Parrott, NCDOT Division 5 (absent) Monte Matthews, USACE Glenn Mumford, NCDOT Roadway (present) Amy James, NCDOT ONE Clarence Coleman, FHWA (absent) Tracy Walter, NCDOT PDEA Chris Militscher, EPA (present) Donnie Brew, FHWA Erica McLamb, NCDOT NEU (present) Bryan Kluchar, NCDOT PDEA Laura Sutton, NCDOT Structures (present) David Chang, NCDOT Hydraulics The 4B meeting commenced at approximately 9:00 a.m. Randy Henegar (NCDOT Hydraulics Unit) began by providing an overview of the project noting that this stream has been identified as having a mussel habitat and that the project would fall under Section 7 restrictions. Comments were as follows: B-4307 1. Logan Williams stated that Dwarf Wedge Mussels were identified in the main channel both upstream and downstream of the bridge. 2. Gary Jordan noted that a Formal Consultation Meeting is needed for this bridge. We will also have to move the mussels "out of harm's way" prior to construction activities. The limits of this activity would be formally set at a later date, but would likely be under the bridge and a short ways upstream and downstream of the bridge. 3. Both Gary Jordan and Travis Wilson expressed a preference for the single span structure which does not need a temporary work bridge. 4. Eric Alsmeyer asked what it would take to zero-out the wetland impacts on this project. Laura Sutton responded that a longer bridge would require a thicker superstructure, thus raising the grade and creating a wider impact on the approach fill. A multiple-span structure would not only entail bent construction in wetlands, but also significantly increase total construction time. Both of which are problematic to the mussels. 5. Randy Henegar presented the results of a Detailed Cost Estimate between a single-span plate girder bridge and a two-span box beam structure. The two options were within $50,000 of each other. There was a general consensus that cost would not determine the selected option. 6. Nikki Thomson asked about Stormwater BMP's. Randy Henegar indicated that they would likely consist of preformed scour holes. Level Speaders would be used where the topography will allow. No deck drains will be allowed on the bridge. 7. Nikki Thomson also stated that DWQ has developed a form for the Summary of Buffer Quantities. Rachelle Beauregard volunteered to send a copy of the form to the Hydraulics Unit. 8. During the removal of the old bridge, the Contractor will be required to pull out the existing timber piles. In the event that the piles break off in this process, the Contractor will cut off the piles flush with natural ground. 9. During the Field Inspection, NCDOT Division 5 Construction Office will review the standard environmental conservation measures outlined in the permit for applicability to this project. Any issues will be resolved at that time. 10. Wetland and Buffer Impact Summary Sheets were provided by the Hydraulics Unit for both bridge scenarios. These were provided at this time for comparative purposes. The final permit quantities may differ somewhat. 11. All in attendance agreed to proceed with the single-span plate girder structure. _No further comments were recorded. This is a Draft Document and is the understanding of the Hydraulics Unit of what was discussed at the meeting. If any attendee would like to add a comment or change the wording of a comment, please contact Paul Fisher by Monday, April 24, 2006. If no comments are received by that time, a Final Document will be issued to all attendees.