20141132 All Versions_Email_20080919

R -2501 concurrence meeting
Subject: R -2501 concurrence meeting
From: Rob Ridings <rob.ridings a)ncmail.net>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 08:38:59 -0400
To: Polly Lespinasse <Polly.Lespinasse @ncmail.net>
Polly,
Well that was interesting... a whole meeting and they didn't actually sign any
concurrence forms.
Basically the consensus was that no one had been on -site in so long that they couldn't
make any firm decisions. (CCE strongly felt it was needed to make decision on at
least Structure 7.) They will contact all team members to try to schedule a site
meeting to see the wetlands, streams, etc.
Here's some highlights of what was discussed:
Structure 1 - Because of the interchange over it, a bridge would be too complicated &
expensive.
Structures 3, 4, 7, 8 - Impacts for bridges weren't significantly less because the
proposed bridges wouldn't go over the entire wetland, but would just have a "hydraulic
opening ". Going over the entire wetland for these sites would make the bridges cost
astronomically more. (In the millions.)
At 4, team seemed to understand that a very long bridge may be difficult here, but EPA
is strongly pushing for narrower medians to reduce footprint.
At 7, there would also be bridging of railroad and US 74 ... creating difficulty of
making bridge longer (spacing between bridges).
At 8, this proposal is more about wildlife passage than reducing impacts. (Gary and
Travis are pushing for some here, and would make decision in field.)
Structure 5 - ramps and interchange would make bridges difficult.... require multiple
bridges. And yes, that 300 feet between the two culverts would be protected and not
impacted. WRC suggests baffles for velocity reduction in the long culvert.
Structure 6 - These are extensions of existing culverts & pipes... current ones
relatively new (74 bypass project).
Let me Know if you have any other questions,
Rob
of 1 9/24/2008 9:44 AM