20051608 Ver 1_Meeting Minutes_20050309

MEETING DOCUMENTATION
Irt~ , ~
Project: TIP B-2532 Alfred Cunningham Bridge Replacement Project Job # 37685
Meeting Location: Room 452 of The Highway Building Meeting Date: March 9~h, 2005
Subject: stormwater Requirements
Present:
Nicole Thomson, NCDENR, Division of Water Quality, Environmental Specialist
Vincent Rhea, NCDOT - PDEA, Project Manager
Anne Redmond, HNTB, Deputy Project Manager
Paul Barber, HNTB, Structural Engineer
Tracy Roberts, HNTB, Senior Transportation Planner
Discussion
After a brief round of introductions, Vincent Rhea explained that the purpose of the meeting was to gather
information on stormwater requirements that would be applicable to TIP B-2532.
Nicole Thomson stated that she is responsible for Divisions 1 through 5, which cover the eastern side of the state.
Project Description
Tracy Roberts explained that TIP B-2532 is located at the confluence of the Trent and Neuse Rivers in New Bern,
NC. The Bridge is approximately 1,800 feet in length, including a 220 foot swing-span bridge. The project is on
an accelerated schedule to ensure that construction of the new or rehabilitated bridge is complete by January 2010,
which is New Bern's 300 year anniversary.
Alternatives
NCDOT is currently evaluating the following seven alternatives:
1. Remove the existing bridge with no replacement.
2. Rehabilitate the existing bridge.
3. Replace the existing bridge with a bascule bridge.
4. Replace the existing bridge with avertical-lift bridge.
5. Replace the existing bridge with a tunnel.
6. Replace the existing bridge with ahigh-rise fixed span bridge that follows the same general alignment as
the existing bridge,
7. Replace the existing bridge with ahigh-rise fixed span bridge that curves into the Neuse River and
rejoins the New Bern mainland.
stormwater
Authored By: Tracy Roberts Issue Date: 3/30/2005
Copy To: Meeting Participants, File Page 1 of 3

Meeting Documentation (cont'd.) ~ ~~~
Project: TIP B-2532 Alfred Cunningham Bridge Replacement Job # 37685
Meeting Location: Room 452 of The Highway Building Meeting Date: March 9~', 2005
Mr. Roberts stated that stormwater from the existing bridge drains directly into the Trent River with no treatment. A
number of questions were asked of Ms. Thomson regarding DWQ's stormwater requirements.
Ms. Thomson stated the following:
- Grass swales and linear wetlands could be used to treat stormwater. Constructed wetlands are DWQ's
preferred method of treating stormwater, and were used on TIP R-2539.
- Under gutters could be used for stormwater conveyance on the bridge.
- The project is subject to the Neuse River Basin riparian buffer regulations. A 50 foot Buffer is required
along the top of the bank of the Trent River. However, in the case of bridges, the impacts are listed as
EXEMPT, which means no mitigation will be required but the impacts (both temporary and permanent)
need to be listed. Furthermore, with respect to the buffer rules triggering the need for 30 percent nitrogen
reduction, that would only apply IF the new bridge replacement has new impervious surface within the
buffer. Otherwise, if you maintain the current footprint (i.e., no new impervious surface in the buffer) you
would not need to worry about the 30 percent nitrogen reduction because the buffer rules would not be
triggered. Impacts would still need to be listed (i.e. temporary impacts for construction) and the area would
need to be revegetated/re-forested, but the impacts would be EXEMPT.
- The 50 foot Riparian Buffer is comprised of an inner 30 foot zone and an outer 20 foot zone. Reforestation
of native trees, shrubs and grasses will be necessary to mitigate impacts associated with removal of such
species. Planting of grass will be sufficient in areas that are currently being maintained as lawn.
- Refer to the stormwater BMP manual on DENR's website:
http://h2o. enr. state. nc. us/su/PDF_Fi les/S W _DocumentsBMP_Manual.PDF
- A 404/401 Water Quality Permit will be needed. An Erosion Sedimentation Control Permit will also be
needed. The US Army Corps of Engineers determines whether a Nationwide or Regional or Individual
Permit will be needed. Mr. Bill Biddlecome is the Corps contact for permitting questions.
- A pond cannot be placed under the bridge as this would impact the 50 foot Buffer.
- During removal of the existing bridge, all bridge piles would need to be removed from the water.
Installation of new piles would need to be calculated as an impact and mitigation may be required by the
USACE.
- Bridge Demolition BMPs must be followed.
- Stormwater issues may favor the fixed span alternatives.
- There may be LAMA Buffers if the area is part of an Area of Environmental Concern, such as if the area is
classified as a coastal wetland. If so, the 50 foot Neuse River Buffer would begin where the LAMA Buffer
ends.
- DWQ prefers that the bridge spans the entire buffer width. However, this would result in a greater intrusion
into the New Bern Historic District.
The following issues required additional information. Ms. Thompson agreed to discuss these issues with internal
DWQ staff and provide clarification post meeting*:
- What quantity of stormwater would need to be captured and treated?
- Would stormwater from the movable span, with its open joints, also need to be captured?
- Would an open grate on the movable span also require stormwater treatment? An advantage of an open
grate on the movable span would be its lighter weight as opposed to a concrete deck.
- What are the requirements for removal of TSS (total suspended solids)?
*Ms. Thomson sent an email dated March 9`h, 2005 that addressed the aforementioned questions. Her email is
Authored By: Tracy Roberts Issue Date: 3/30/2005
Copy To: Meeting Participants, Read, File Page 2 of 3

Meeting Documentation (cont'd.)
Project: TIP B-2532 Alfred Cunningham Bridge Replacement
Meeting Location: Room 452 of The Highway Building
appended to these meeting minutes.

Job # 37685
Meeting Date: March 9`'', 2005
General
DWQ opposes an open grate on the bridge which would allow stormwater to run directly off the bridge without
treatment. An open grate for sidewalks may not be practical, as it may be not be conducive to pedestrian traffic
(shoe soles getting stuck in grate openings, etc.).
Paul Barber stated that barges would likely be used rather than temporary bridges during construction. Ms.
Thomson stated that DWQ prefers the use of barges.
Action Items
Vince Rhea agreed to provide HNTB a copy of NCDOT's BMP Guidelines for Bridge Demolition & Removal.
The foregoing constitutes our understanding of the matters discussed and the conclusions reached. If there are any questions,
corrections, omissions, or additional comments, please advise the authorwithin five working days after receipt of these minutes.
Authored By: Tracy Roberts Issue Date: 3/30/2005
Copy To: Meeting Participants, Read, File Page 3 of 3

1
imap://nicole.thomson%40dwq.denr.ncmail.net @cros.ncmail.net:143/f...
From: Nicole Thomson ([e-mail])
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 9:42 PM
To: Vincent J Rhea, P.E.; Tracy Aoberts; Anne Redmond; Paul Harber
Subject: R-2532 issues
Hello again.
I have Calked about this project with John Hennessy and I think if I clarify a few points, some things will make more sense.
There are 2 separate issues at work here; the By EEez Rules and the State Sto nmwatez Permit. What makes it confusing is they are both on the same project and both are mandated by
So, a if flow spreader will not work (or level spreader or pre-form scour hole), then DoT needs to look at options for 308 nitrogen removal before directly discharging to the Rig
However, the issue of triggering the Buffer Rules and requiring 30a Nitrogen removal CAN be avoided very simply. Do not widen the roadway in the buffer. If you keep your bridge
For the Slate Stormwater Permit you will need to contact Bradley Bennet who is the Supervisor for the Stormwa[er Unit at 919-733-5083 ext. 525. Ne may be able to answer some of
Now, with respect to the joints where the swing span or bascule span or the lift span, DoT must still catch and treat ALL the stonmxater, open joints not withstanding. The scorn
with respect to the Buffer concerns, any area that is not currently under impervious surface will need to be re-vegetated/re-forested if impacted during bridge construction. IE
My suggestion ra that DoT's Hydraulics Unit needs to be brought rnto these discussions to determine how to treat the stormwater from this bridge. The above mandates give you the
I hope my above explanation clarifies the different permits/rules that are rn effect. If you need anything else, please feel Eree to call.
Nikki
Nicole Thomson
Environmental Specialist III
NC Division of Water Quality
Transportation Permitting Unit
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: (919) "133-6893
1 of 1 3/30/2005 3:51 PM

~ ~~Q
~° ..•-m,
~ Mt ~s
Cl4M W'
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY 1501 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, N.C. 27699-150.1 LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
8 March 2001
MEMORANDUM TO: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Assistant Branch Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
FROM: Bruce O. Ellis, CLM, PWS, Unit Head
Natural Systems Unit
SUBJECT: Submersed Aquatic Vegetation Survey, for US 17 Neuse
River Bridge Relocation, and Trent River Bridge Widening,
Federal Aid Project No. BR-OOOS(33), State Project No.
8.1170801, Tip No.s B-2531 and B-2532.
ATTENTION: Alice Gordon, Environmental Specialist
Natural Resources, Permits, and Mitigation Unit
REFERENCE: 1. Memorandum: Results of Submersed Aquatic Vegetation
Survey, by NCDOT environmental specialist, Robin Little,
06 October 1994.
2. Memorandum: Submersed Aquatic Vegetation Survey,
for US 17 Neuse River Bridge Relocation, and Trent River
Bridge Widening, Bruce O. Ellis Environmental Specialist,
02 October 1997.
The following memorandum provides the results of a submersed aquatic
vegetation (SAV) survey for the subject project.. The survey was conducted on August 14
and 15, 2000 by NCDOT natural systems specialists Bruce Ellis, Dale Suiter and Mary
Frazer, and members of the NCDOT dive team, Bill Lotz, James Talacek and Allen
Hancock.
The August 2000 SAV survey was conducted to determine impacts fo SAV's as a
result of the subject project. Prior surveys were conducted in August 1994, prior to
project construction and in June 1996, after construction was initiated. Surveys between
1996 and 2000 were disrupted by inclement weather (i.e., hurricanes), and hazardous
diving conditions due to project construction.
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]