20081706 Ver 1_Complete File_20081117

A
Final Minutes of the 30% Hydraulic Design Review (4b) Meeting on April 12, 2006 for B-4307,
Warren County
Participant: Team Members:
Randy Henegar, NCDOT Hydraulics (present)
Eric Alsmeyer, USACE (present)
Nikki Thomson, NCDWQ (present)
Bill Goodwin, NCDOT PD&EA (absent)
Travis Wilson, NCWRC (present)
Gary Jordan, USFWS (present)
Kathy Matthews, EPA (present)
David Harris, NCDOT REU (absent)
Tracy Parrott, NCDOT Division 5 (absent)
Glenn Mumford, NCDOT Roadway (present)
Clarence Coleman, FHWA (absent)
Chris Militscher, EPA (present)
Erica McLamb, NCDOT NEU (present)
Laura Sutton, NCDOT Structures (present)
Other Attendees
Roy Girolami, NCDOT Structures
Paul Fisher, NCDOT Hydraulics
Shawn Harris, NCDOT Hydraulics
Jeffrey Teague, NCDOT Roadway
Rachelle Beauregard, NCDOT NEU
Logan Williams, NCDOT NEU
Chris Murray, NCDOT Division 5
Melissa Koltonski, NCDOT Div. 5
Monte Matthews, USACE
Amy James, NCDOT ONE
Tracy Walter, NCDOT PDEA
Donnie Brew, FHWA
Bryan Kluchar, NCDOT PDEA
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.
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.
'116.
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 for B-4307,
Warren County
Participant: Team Members:
Randy Henegar, NCDOT Hydraulics (present)
Eric Alsmeyer, USACE (present)
Nikki Thomson, NCDWQ (present)
Bill Goodwin, NCDOT PD&EA (absent)
Travis Wilson, NCWRC (present)
Gary Jordan, USFWS (present)
Kathy Matthews, EPA (present)
David Harris, NCDOT REU (absent)
Tracy Parrott, NCDOT Division 5 (absent)
Glenn Mumford, NCDOT Roadway (present)
Clarence Coleman, FHWA (absent)
Chris Militscher, EPA (present)
Erica McLamb, NCDOT NEU (present)
Laura Sutton, NCDOT Structures (present)
Other Attendees
Roy Girolami, NCDOT Structures
Paul Fisher, NCDOT Hydraulics
Shawn Harris, NCDOT Hydraulics
Jeffrey Teague, NCDOT Roadway
Rachelle Beauregard, NCDOT NEU
Logan Williams, NCDOT NEU
Chris Murray, NCDOT Division 5
Melissa Koltonski, NCDOT Div. 5
Monte Matthews, USACE
Amy James, NCDOT ONE
Tracy Walter, NCDOT PDEA
Donnie Brew, FHWA
Bryan Kluchar, NCDOT PDEA
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.
22-MAR-2006 10:37
r:\roodwa?\prot\b4307-rdv-tsh.dgn 09/08/1
s AT HY2Z21527
?CONTRACT: TIP .PROJECT. x-4307
w
0 0 0 7?
.a N ? ? 7F
0 N
w N
-0
O 'Tt y ?! C
'n O m O O 1? %%y?? (n y 0
%
2 o
z° o a yx o a ® i p
,b n
0 0 °v xOy\c y o
yb x b ?' cJ 14U,
C'm
?[l? p No No n 1, H ?+ rz ?'n
CN-. 'i 0< O Cl) ? m °o?
11 11 11 11 11 11
u +
.
C) C a. us a o ca ro y Q - y ?' ?
0 co
Q 'g N C03
O 1-0
ti O (> r ' =ML
O b
ON.
o y1 p C7 NAD 83.
O O y \
tz*,\V
C) a -71N
y C'
o -?-- It
to ?. c- cn C C
I,
:z t
CP.
C3 to
mmt? 14
=Q? ?? •p Q GTE
k
m? y? s
r N cc
CX)
hir
t r r
to r-
40
iiiu: ?
UA.
?0 a e r. ?? I to ` t? r- 1
e-s

A

03
o h o
? V
A
U

m rr

f-,
22-MAR-2006 10:37
r:\roadway\pro \b432O7_5d -typ.dgn 8/17/99
t? ? } 11
x
t4 :,t
ttl
O ?
y
C
b /,??
c
? Z o
O ?
H
n o ?O
oNy
Doi o? Ct
Y ? O? ? N h ? ? I I r? N
?.' ? lNJ 'ok? C? I 1
y I.
C4 cn
j"Z
Z o? ,? N x s6 ? `= Z I I s? ? N
a o o ??
w
1 1
1
r
GA tq ':-• ? ?' ? ? N
++ C SAS +o o SSS
y.+. +? o SIS y n SS1
+., ON ?,? a o R
x
ho ? ?
0 10
?? za ?? by
z 0
cz Q o+° `
o? .Q ?
o ,
z
z 0

ti
? ?
a y
y
eQ3

z C
H
? Ki

b

H h

y

d
a

9/17
V q la III /
q4
O I? ,I Z 6 y9g5
?i?ZI II' M?qe
Q?0 r,
(1??? w O ??p1
Go EX.S
/ f °SN og O$ O + N / O N
vC. l/erv^I ?J ? I l ?
I I ? I ?1 Q
SBg7sa6 Bel N I I i ° I / ? / /' ? ..
?n Y' tv ?OS4? / / / /
n L lea/
c
I
+oo oe I ° i o OW
v
0 0
A
/ ?7U
`D- - -O 4 ?I rl I RPA O
to b r? ?I ib '~ou
?/ ? Q s ?? I -. I? ? I g
m I =i
3- A a
41 ?7\
?C
'z^ ?G
IZZ
mc.
txj y
iu,
0
t?
?y
rx
0
?b
Cp
w
Z *

C

Hss,y?sw sY/- _ /
s
?I?
110
y b
Q
N
4Ni y
o
I°
V
x
SA
?
OY0
'

:5 O
NND s
I ? yrn?mi- '
NyO.iN ?S
?? yOO f .. S!
cTn ' ? sc
I ?? g
Icy O N'
al a ?' ? ? ?b
y
I" -vc,

7 Q
10
y b
vJ
a ?
0
n
°o
o
w
0
V

IS
cnw
a.vv,FV.?eS / l 1
20
n
I (f ???CC C g 3z 7
(? U xr so ZK
O my
n l(? / any p? Z
(- /4?
?? o
04.dgn
SJ1.
ti
w
? tx? y ??
0
•? O
?b
Cp
w
IK. a
0

' Uvb II:L
INOy\pro b43©J_rd?_pfl.dgn
F
O O O O O O O O
I,-
5/? A/99
? a

O ?
O
O V
O O O O O O O O
tz

I ??"II

a N
t
il ?,,
'N

W
!z

I

h t?II?'ll h??
Ul ? W'
lh +
?g
V

00
R
4 li

1 t

F H A
?!Q
y
Q Q

F„
C-1 1-0

???]]] HI-
T 1 H
hnr??
II 11 q h
_

O 1
cq
? ?

y

N ?
y

-

N 77
N rA

T RT

w
O

O

ILL

O
O
O
O
O

................ .
?IN
N1 g
O~?hZa
N+?
14
?9.
0
b o
ro ., 4
g tom'" S O ? ? ?
7 r.
z c.,

C?

Nro

Z
4
V

ro ?

0
d . surf
w V'o?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
File
October 3, 2003
Karen B. Capps, PE
Project Development Engineer
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Subject: Replacement of Bridge No. 4 on US 401 over Shocco
Creek, Warren County, State Project No. 8.1411001 F. A.
Project No. BRZ-401(145), TIP No. B-4307
A scoping meeting was held for the subject bridge replacement on August 19,
2003 in the Roadway Design Conference room. The following people were in
attendance.
Bill Goodwin PDEA Michael Summers Bridge Maintenance
Karen Capps PDEA Tinnette Hales Right of Way
Eric Alsmeyer USACOE Jay Woolard Traffic Control
Glenn Mumford Roadway Design Jaime Adrignola PDEAIPICS
Tim Gardiner PDEA/PICS John Pilipchuk Geotechnical
Michael Ellington Program Development Roy Girolami Sturcture Design
Randy Henegar Hydraulics Derek Bradner Location & Surveys
Kirby Warrick Right of Way BenJetta Johnson Traffic Engineering
GENERAL PROTECT INFORMATION
Current Schedule Document:
Right of Way:
Construction:
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
August 2004
August 2005
August 2006
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: VVWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
Bridge No. 4 was originally built in 1934. It is 71 feet long and 21.3 feet wide. The
bridge is posted at 28 tons for single vehicle and 37 tons for TTST's. The sufficiency
rating for the bridge is 49.3 out of a possible 100. The approach roadway width is
approximately 19 feet with 6-foot grass shoulders.
Traffic Information US 401 is classified as a Rural Major Collector with a posted speed
limit of 55 mph. The current ADT is 1600 vpd and the projected 2025 ADT is 3400 vpd.
There are currently 3% Duals and 2% TTST's. There are six school bus trips across the
existing bridge daily. The school expressed concerns about detouring the buses if the
road is closed. They would like for NC DOT to provide a turn around place, suitable for
a bus, on both sides of the bridge. Additionally, advanced notice will be required for their
coordination efforts.
Accidents
There have been no accidents reported in the project vicinity in a recent three-year study
period.
Cross Section of New Bridge According to March 2000 Bridge Policy
Based on the NCDOT Bridge Policy, the minimum typical section for the proposed
bridge should be able to carry two 12-foot lanes with 3.0-foot offsets.
Possible Offsite Detour
There is an offsite detour available for this project. It utilizes SR 1614 and SR 1620.
However, it should be noted that the roadway width is less than the width found on
US 401 and it is through an area that is residential in nature. If this detour is used, the
road closure time for replacing the bridge should be kept to a minimum. The detour is
approximately 3.2 miles in length.
SCOPING COMMENTS
Division 5 stated that SR 1614 could be used as an offsite detour and that the bridge on
this route was currently being replaced. There are beaver swamps with wetlands both up
and down stream of the bridge. The proposed design may need to look at raising the
elevation of the proposed bridge. The project is located in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin.
There are known populations of mussels in Shocco Creek downstream from the existing
bridge. Michael Summers, Bridge Maintenance, asked if US 401 or the existing bridge is
part of the North Carolina Moving Ahead Program (NCMA). The project list for NCMA
was checked and does not include either the road or the bridge as part of this program.
Warren County Emergency Services indicated that a road closure on this project would
not create emergency response concerns for the county. They request at least one (1)
month advance notice on when construction will start and the length of time the road will
be closed.
The Geotechnical Unit has no concerns on this project at this time.
The National Marine Fisheries Service stated that there are on NMFS trust fishery
resources located on at this project site. Normal environmental concerns apply.
The Wildlife Resources Commission stated that there are recorded populations of
Dwarf wedge mussel and Tar spinymussel downstream of the project site. Further mussel
surveys will be required and appropriate coordination with USFWS and NCWRC.
The Division of Water Quality has not commented on the project to date.
The Division of Parks and Recreation stated that this project has the potential to impact
rare sedge.
The Division of Marine Fisheries has not commented on the project to date.
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service stated that they have significant concerns pertaining to
listed mussels in the project area and that a Section 7 field meeting should be scheduled
as soon as possible.
The North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources Mary Pope Furr, Office of Human
Environment has indicated that the existing bridge could potentially be eligible for designation
on the Historic Bridge Survey. The State Historic Preservation Office has also stated that the
existing bridge is noted as having historical or architectural importance. Further studies will be
required in order to determine eligibility.
The Natural Resources Technical Report The project falls within the Tar-Pamlico
River Basin and will be subject to riparian buffer rules. Shocco Creek is classified as C
NSW.. There are no Watershed Critical Areas or water resources classified as High
Quality Waters, Water Supplies, or Outstanding Resource Waters within 1.0 mile (1.5
km) of the project area. The project area does contain jurisdictional wetlands. There are
known populations of the dwarf wedge mussel located downstream of the project site.
Both the dwarf wedge mussel and the Tar spinymussel are protected species in Warren
County. The biological conclusion is unresolved for these two species. Therefore,
mussel surveys will be required on this project and Section 7 issues resolved before the
project can proceed.
The Location Surveys Unit stated that there are no visible utilities in the project vicinity.
However, there is a marker located on the western side of the existing structure that reads
"Carolina Telephone and Telegraph Company Exchange Boundary."
The Hydraulics Unit recommends replacing the existing bridge with a 135-foot (41.1-m)
bridge at the existing bridge location and with approximately the same low chord
elevation. If an onsite detour is used, the detour structure should be 135 feet (41.1-m) in
length and located downstream of the existing structure.
The NC DOT Rail Division stated that there are no rail interactions on this project.
The Community Impact Assessment Report stated that while county officials were
concerned about the proposed bridge replacement and how it would impact the citizens,
they also desire safer bridges for carrying school buses. The report also requests that
school bus turnarounds be provided during construction. It is recommended that a public
involvement plan be worked out with sensitivity to the makeup of the surrounding
population. A citizen education component may need to be added to lessen any potential
negative psychological impacts of the project.
ALTERNATES FOR EVALUATION
The following alternates were cared forward for further study.
Replace the existing bridge with a new bridge in the same location and at
approximately the same low chord elevation. The new structure should be
approximately 135 feet in length. Traffic will be detoured offsite using SR 1614 and
SR 1620.
Roadway Design will have the preliminary plans and construction costs estimates to
PDEA by January 2004.
ALTERNATES ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER STUDY
1. Replace the existing bridge with a new bridge in the same location and low chord
elevation while maintaining traffic onsite with a temporary detour.
2. Replace the existing bridge with a new bridge on new location while maintaining
traffic on the existing structure during construction.
Both of these alternates were eliminated due to environmental concerns.
NEXT STEPS
1. PDEA will send the wetland delineation files to Roadway Design and the Hydraulics
Unit.
2. PDEA will request a right of way estimate for the project.
3. PDEA will schedule mussel surveys for the project.
4. PDEA will meet with the Public Involvement/Community Studies Unit to devise
some form of public involvement for the project.
5. PDEA will coordinate with Division 5 to assess the need for the detour route to be
upgraded. Coordination will include cost estimates and possible environmental
impacts on the detour route of widening are required.