20160728 Ver 1_RE Bridges 132 and 221_20160822

Wrenn, Brian L
From:Wrenn, Brian L
Sent:Monday, August 22, 2016 12:39 PM
To:Thomson, Nicole J
Subject:RE: Bridges 132 and 221
I think it’s a good design and I don’t see the disadvantages to using it as a typical design for most floodplain benches. If
you can confirm by email that it will be used, then I don’t need to see the revised plans.

Thanks,
Brian Wrenn
919-707-8792 (office)
919-710-6516 (mobile)

From: Thomson, Nicole J
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 12:25 PM
To: Wrenn, Brian L <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Bridges 132 and 221

I was mistaken – your original email regarded only 221 with respect to the floodplain design.

Do you require a similar design on Bridge 132?

From: Wrenn, Brian L
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 12:23 PM
To: Thomson, Nicole J; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Bridges 132 and 221

Your 8/18 email stated that Br. 132 would have a similar floodplain design as 221. Have you gotten plan revisions for
this bridge as well?

Thanks,
Brian Wrenn
919-707-8792 (office)
919-710-6516 (mobile)

From: Thomson, Nicole J
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 11:33 AM
To: Wrenn, Brian L <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: FW: Bridges 132 and 221

Good morning!

I’m back in from the field and had some things waiting in my email for you. Please see the attached revised drawings
which include the detail showing the coir matting on the floodplain bench. I spoke to Galen about it when we were in
the field together this week and he said it was something that they (DOT Hydro) missed during their review – most often
he requires that a typical is shown on the plans which shows the floodplain bench lined with riprap and the coir matted
1

area for vegetation. We will try to do better in the future with grabbing these things during our review before we send
it out for permitting.

I’ve also asked for a similar revision to bridge 132 and I’ll forward it once I get it.

Thanks to you both!
Nikki

From: Nancy Scott \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 10:03 AM
To: Thomson, Nicole J
Subject: FW: Bridges 132 and 221

Updated drawings.

From: Dan Duffield \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 9:58 AM
To: Nancy Scott <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; 'Brandon Johnson'
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Michael Wood <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Bridges 132 and 221

N,

Something was turned off on the redlines, here are the redlines that match the permit drawings

D

From: Dan Duffield \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 12:20 PM
To: 'Nancy Scott' <[e-mail]>; '[e-mail]'
<[e-mail]>; 'Brandon Johnson' <[e-mail]>
Cc: 'Michael Wood' <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Bridges 132 and 221

N,

Find attached

Call me if you need to
Direct: 919.644.3144

Thanks,
D

From: Nancy Scott \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 11:13 AM
To: Dan Duffield <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; 'Brandon Johnson'
2

<[e-mail]>
Cc: Michael Wood <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Bridges 132 and 221

Ok, thanks Dan.

From: Dan Duffield \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 9:40 PM
To: Nancy Scott <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; 'Brandon Johnson'
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Michael Wood <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Bridges 132 and 221

N,

We can make the revision, to be honest, that one was approved and “then” they asked for coir fiber on the others, so I
think that is a very reasonable request.

We’ll update the plans and get you something tomorrow.

Thanks,
Dan

From: Nancy Scott \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 4:42 PM
To: '[e-mail]' <[e-mail]>; 'Brandon Johnson'
<[e-mail]>; 'Dan Duffield' <[e-mail]>
Cc: Michael Wood <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: Bridges 132 and 221

T/B/D, please see Nikki’s request below for a detail of the floodplain bench on Bridge 221.
Thanks,
Nancy

From: Thomson, Nicole J \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 2:25 PM
To: Nancy Scott <[e-mail]>
Cc: Michael Wood <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Bridges 132 and 221

Ok..I finally got something concrete on the T&E. There are like a million different people that handle it depending on the
funding source of the project, or if it’s design build or design-bid-build…I swear, I get more confused every day.

Going back to the questions Brian (DWR) had with respect to the bank armorning and flood plain benches: He’s feeling
better about the armoring question and will defer to the technical analysis of the design team on the amount of
armoring necessary to build a stable channel.

For Bridge 221, he requested a detail of the floodplain bench that shows/calls out the coir fiber matting. Tracey referred
to it in his email, but I double checked and everything that I have points to geotextile and rip rap. There’s nothing that
depicts coir fiber or even refers to it.

3

Thank you!

Nikki

From: Nancy Scott \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2016 12:44 PM
To: Thomson, Nicole J
Cc: Michael Wood
Subject: Re: Bridges 132 and 221

All I can think of that we have are the field scoping meeting minutes.

Nancy Scott
Three Oaks Engineering
Office: 919-732-1300
Mobile: [phone]

Sent from my mobile phone

On Aug 9, 2016, at 12:27, "Thomson, Nicole J" <[e-mail]> wrote:
I was hoping that maybe he had an email or something floating around. I will see what I can find here in
DOT – as of yet, nothing.

Nik

From: Nancy Scott \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2016 10:11 AM
To: Thomson, Nicole J
Cc: Michael Wood

Subject: FW: Bridges 132 and 221

Nikki, please see Tracy’s response to the T&E issue on these bridges.

From: Tracy Parrott \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 9:35 AM
To: Nancy Scott <[e-mail]>; 'Brandon Johnson'
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Michael Wood <[e-mail]>; 'Dan Duffield'
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Bridges 132 and 221

N,

We will review the hydraulic model data and provide a response on the amount of channel
improvements and rip rap that is proposed in the design.

Regarding the T&E work, this is NCDOT’s responsibility. Below are a couple of excerpts (pg 58-59) from
the Final RFP for the project:

<image002.png>

4

<image005.png>
<image006.png>

As has been the case on EDB projects, we have to prepare the permit drawings and quantify impacts
based on our design – which we have done. We are responsible for assembling all other permit
data/info for the application as supplied by NCDOT. However, NCDOT has provided and is responsible to
“re-verify and update………………..federally protected species, jurisdictional delineations, historic and
archaeological sites, and 303d (impaired a) streams.”

Thanks, TNP

From: Nancy Scott \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 9:08 AM
To: '[e-mail]' <[e-mail]>; 'Brandon Johnson'
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Michael Wood <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: Bridges 132 and 221

Tracy/Brandon,
Please see the attached emails regarding design of bridges 132 and 221. I’ll work on the T&E issue.
Thanks,
Nancy

From: Thomson, Nicole J \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 8:47 AM
To: Nancy Scott <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bridges 132 and 221

I left a message for you this morning, but figured I should follow up with an email. Please take a look at
the attached email discussions from USFWS, USACE and DWR.

The first relates to the T&E determinations related to the vegetative species (the coneflower and
sumac). If you recall, I asked for this information a few weeks ago and submitted what was
presented. Unfortunately, this isn’t enough. In short, saying there are no species based on a cursory
glance during the field meeting outside the flowering window isn’t enough for Gary. Do we have
anything else? Anything that address if there was habitat present or not?

The last set of emails is from Brian (DWR) and Dave (USACE) regarding the proposed rip rap armoring on
bridge 132. He is questioning the amount of proposed impact and if that much armoring is truly
needed. I responded to him that I suspected it was a construction/design need but still need something
more concrete (ha ha – no pun intended) from your side as the designer.

Feel free to call me if we need to discuss any of this.

Thanks!
Nikki

Nicole J. Thomson

Division Environmental Supervisor Assistant

Division Environmental Office

5

919-754-7806 Mobile

[e-mail]

PO Box 14996

Greensboro, NC 27415-4996

<image007.png>

Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the

North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

Spam
Phish/Fraud
Not spam
Forget previous vote

6