Date: September 8, 2010
12:30 PM to 1:50 PM
NCTA Board Room

Project: STIP R-2576 Mid-Currituck Bridge Study
Mid-Currituck Bridge Spotlight:
Bill Biddlecome, USACE
Scott McLendon, USACE
Brad Shaver, USACE
Gary Jordan, USFWS
Ron Sechler, NMFS (by phone)
George Hoops, FHWA
Cathy Brittingham, NCDENR-DCM
Kevin Hart, NCDENR-DMF (by phone)
Brian Wrenn, NCDENR-DWQ
David Wainwright, NCDENR-DWQ
Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Jennifer Harris, NCTA
Lonnie Brooks, NCDOT-Structure Design
Anne Gamber, NCDOT-Hydraulics Unit
Doug Taylor, NCDOT-Roadway Design
Scott Slusser, NCDOJ
Elizabeth Lusk, NCDOT-NEU
Bruce Ellis, NCDOT-NEU
Kathy Herring, NCDOT-NEU
Logan Williams, NCDOT-NEU
Matt Lauffer, NCDOT-Hydraulics Unit
Jose Luque, CDG-ACSID
Bernardo Palicio, CDG-Dragados USA
Jose M De Iturriaga, CDG-Dragados USA
Roy Bruce, CDG-Lochner
Brian Eason, CDG-Lochner
Ron Ferrell, CDG-PBS&J
John Page, PB
Don Brown, PB
Tracy Roberts, HNTB
Max Price, CDG-Wetherill Engineering
Neal Williams, CDG-Weeks Marine
Mark Redderodd, CDG-Weeks Marine
Persons Who Were Provided Materials but Were Unable to Attend:
Christopher Militscher, USEPA
Sara Winslow, NCDENR-DMF

Presentation Materials: (All materials posted on the TEAC website)
· Meeting Agenda
· Reasons for a Determination that ER2 is Not a Practicable Alternative to a Bridge Across
Currituck Sound (Handout 25)
· Mid-Currituck Bridge Stormwater Management (Handout 26)
· Construction Methodologies for Mid-Currituck Bridge (Handout 27)
· PowerPoint slides
· Elgin Sweeper Guide

Discuss agency comments on materials distributed at the August 10 meeting, as well as bridge stormwater management, bridge construction, and the practicability of ER2.

General Discussion:
The following information was discussed at the meeting:
· Big Picture – PB (John Page) gave a brief description of the steps NCTA is following to provide information needed for selection of a Preferred Alternative. He indicated that in August, funding was discussed, the focus on bridge corridors was narrowed to C1 only, and it was decided MCB2 could not be the Preferred Alternative or Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) because its impacts are greater than MCB4, it lacks public support and it could not be funded at this time.

NCTA met with the emergency management officials on August 19th. At this meeting, it was decided to identify reversing a center turn lane as the preferred hurricane clearance strategy, which is consistent with the comments received during the DEIS comment period on hurricane
evacuation from the public and USEPA. Today’s meeting addressed stormwater management and construction techniques for a Mid-Currituck Bridge. Next month’s meeting will address issues related to Maple Swamp. With regard to avoiding and minimizing NC 12 impacts, NCTA is pursuing an alternative design, which would reduce the amount of four lanes by two-thirds, which has been agreed to by NCDOT Congestion Management, NCDOT Division 1, NCDOT Roadway
Design, and emergency management representatives. The change would reduce community impacts and project cost. Groundwater and surface water studies for Maple Swamp are underway. Maple Swamp crossing options will be considered and discussed at the October
TEAC meeting. By the October meeting, all the information needed to make a preferred alternative decision should be available.

· August Meeting Comments – PB (John Page) noted no written comments on the August 10th meeting have been received. The floor was opened to anyone who had comments they wanted
to make regarding that meeting. NCDENR-DCM (Cathy Brittingham) commented on Handout 22, page 3, asking about the status of Currituck County’s request for a water pipe under the bridge.
NCTA (Jennifer Harris) responded that the county had inquired about the possibility of putting a water pipe on the bridge, but this issue has not progressed beyond the initial inquiry. NCTA cannot fund this and have not agreed to place a water pipe on the bridge. PB (John Page) added that the cost of the bridge would increase just for the added support structure necessary for the water pipe. He also noted that the county indicated that a pipe on the bridge would give them more flexibility in water distribution to respond to drought situations or other emergencies. Water supplies are adequate on the Outer Banks. NCTA (Jennifer Harris) said that the TEAC members would be kept apprised if anything changes with this. NCDENR-DCM (Cathy Brittingham) asked
if this would be discussed in the FEIS. NCTA (Jennifer Harris) stated that Currituck County only indicated that it would be useful to have the water pipe on the bridge, but they have not asked again nor given any more information than their initial inquiry. Other comments were solicited but none were provided. NCDENR-DCM (Cathy Brittingham) said that they had some technical comments on Handout 23 but that she would discuss outside of the meeting.

· Stormwater on Bridges – NCDOT (Matt Lauffer) described the Stormwater Runoff from Bridges report completed by NCDOT, US Geologic Survey, NC Division of Water Quality, NC State
University and others on stormwater runoff considerations on bridges throughout North Carolina. NCDOT (Matt Lauffer) requested the agencies provide to him any preferred focus areas for the study team’s planned presentation at the September 23 Interagency meeting. The report is available on the NCDOT website (http://ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/highway/hydro/BMP/default.html). NCDOT (Matt Lauffer) indicated that he could send a copy of the report via
e-mail if anyone needed it. Contact him at mslauffer@ncdot.gov.

· Handout 26 – CDG-Lochner (Roy Bruce) presented a strategy for Mid-Currituck Bridge stormwater management. Research into best practices resulted in finding that frequent bridge deck cleaning with state-of-the-art technology removes most of the pollutants. In the past 10-15 years, vacuum sweepers have improved and do a much better job than they once did. A video was shown of one particular manufacturer of a vacuum sweeper (though no manufacturing company is preferred). The manufacturer says that 90 to 97 percent of pollutants are picked up. The vacuum sweeper meets both PM10 and PM2.5 standards. Based upon the research done,
CDG-Lochner (Roy Bruce) believes this vacuum sweeper could be an effective tool, with frequent sweeping (weekly during the 13-week peak season), for the Mid-Currituck Bridge. CDG-Lochner (Roy Bruce) added that where the bridge crosses wetlands on the Outer Banks shoreline, the runoff would be captured and treated. Scuppers allowing direct discharge would be used along the remainder of the bridge. The Virginia Dare Bridge over the Croatan Sound uses the same approach.
The capital cost of this two-fold strategy would be approximately $1 million. The equipment would be replaced every 10 years. The operating cost of this vacuum sweeper is substantially lower than other options. In addition to being cost-effective, the vacuum sweeper meets the needs and is consistent with the stormwater on bridges report (described earlier by NCDOT [Matt Lauffer]).
NCDENR-DWQ (David Wainwright) asked if the vacuum sweepers lose efficiency over time. The manufacturer claims that as long as the equipment is maintained, they do not lose efficiency. NCTA through a contract with CDG would ensure the equipment is properly maintained and that sweeping occurs on schedule. NCDENR-DWQ (David Wainwright) asked if any debris would be pushed into the scuppers by the vacuum sweeper. CDG-Lochner (Roy Bruce) stated that the
manufacturer claims that they do not; the brushes when properly aligned would sweep the debris under the vehicle which would then vacuum up the debris and filter the air so that pollutants are not released into the air. NCDENR-DWQ (David Wainwright) asked if there was any research that was not from the manufacturer. CDG-Lochner (Roy Bruce) indicated he had studies from Seattle, MnDOT, and others. All of the research, however, has been done on city streets where, unlike a bridge, much of the runoff comes from adjoining land use rather than vehicles. NCDENR-DWQ (David Wainwright) raised the concern that whatever is not picked up by the vacuum sweeper goes into the sound. There are other things that affect turbidity and other
sensitive natural systems. CDG-Lochner (Roy Bruce) said that research on the water quality effects would be needed. NCTA would be amenable to research opportunities with universities and the agencies. NCDENR-DMF (Kevin Hart) asked about the nature of the three percent of pollutants that would not be picked up by the vacuum sweeper. CDG-Lochner (Roy Bruce) responded that he wasn’t sure what those pollutants were but that the frequency of sweeping could be adjusted more or less depending on its effectiveness to maximize what is picked up. He added that the vacuum sweeper would be stored on site at an NCTA facility, so it would be available 24 hours per day to be used by trained professionals so that it could be used at times such as traffic crashes, in advance of storms, etc. NCDENR-DWQ (David Wainwright) stated that stormwater rules are more stringent now than they were when the other coastal bridges were built. The Currituck Sound is a very sensitive area and is very susceptible to turbidity. The first 1.5 inches of rain water on new built upon area must be retained and treated. NCDENR-DWQ (Brian Wrenn) added that he was familiar with the NCDOT study and that there still would be pollutants left after sweeping that need to be treated. Reading the letter of the law, all of the pollutants should be treated, not just the sensitive wetland
areas on the east end of the bridge. He added that the sweeping is a great tool, but there would still be pollutants that would need to be treated. NCDENR-DWQ (David Wainwright) also stated that water would need to be piped off the bridge on the east and west ends except over open water. There was discussion regarding what was
meant by “open water.” NCDENR-DWQ (Brian Wrenn) noted that maps would need to be studied to determine where the SAVs are located. NCDENR-DWQ (David Wainwright) stated that bridge piping would need to be extended beyond the coastal marsh and include the SAVs.
NCDENR-DWQ (Brian Wrenn) said that while he was in agreement with the concept of partial capture and treatment, the details of what additional piping might be needed still need to be worked out. NCDENR-DWQ will provide comments. USACE (Scott McClendon) asked if it was required for the pollutants to be collected and treated.
NCDENR-DWQ (David Wainwright and Brian Wrenn) answered that it was. NCTA responded that they would be capturing and treating the runoff on the east end of the bridge. NCDENRDWQ (David Wainwright) asked for clarification on the environmental requirements mentioned on
page 6, fourth paragraph of Handout 26. CDG-Lochner (Roy Bruce) explained that with sweeping, it would not be necessary to treat those pollutants since they would be captured prior to being suspended in rainwater and released into the sound. NMFS (Ron Sechler) added that
the NCDENR-DWQ comments reflect their concerns as well.

Handout 27 – CDG-Lochner (Roy Bruce) presented the construction techniques discussed in Handout 27. The three types of potential construction techniques are barge based, temporary
construction trestle, and top down construction. Barge based can only be done in water depths 6 feet or greater. Where there is less than 6 feet of water depth, either temporary construction trestle or top down construction would need to be utilized, or the area would need to be dredged to 6 feet. Pile setup considerations were discussed, and each of the seven options/combinations of construction techniques were presented. Pile setup time heavily influences construction time if
top-down construction is used. As each set of piles is placed one must wait 2 to 30 days before the weight of caps and superstructure can be added. With barge and trestle construction, multiple sets of piles can be placed before the cap and superstructure is added. With top down, the foundations must be built in sequence so construction essentially stops during the set-up time, lengthening the construction period. NMFS (Ron Sechler) asked where the disposal sites would be for dredging spoil. CDG-Lochner (Roy Bruce) stated that there were five options currently being examined for potential disposal sites, but nothing has been decided. Some of the options include using the dredged material to raise the elevation of the Currituck Sound bottom near SAVs to encourage more SAV growth, refilling the dredged areas, using spoil as top dressing, or placing it in an old borrow site on US
158. However, more study would need to be done to determine what would be the best option.

NCDENR-DCM (Cathy Brittingham) stated she had many questions, but because the meeting was nearing its end, she would submit these at a later date so that we could move to the discussion of the practicability of ER2. She did ask if the SAV locations mapped were from the 2007 USACE survey. CDG-Lochner (Roy Bruce) stated that they were. NCDENR-DCM (Cathy Brittingham) wanted the more recent 2010 NCDOT SAV survey to be used; CDG-Lochner (Roy Bruce) noted that the data from the 2010 survey would be folded in once available.
NCDOT NEU (Bruce Ellis) indicated that the SAV field work has been completed. He noted that the SAV study was not being done specifically for the Mid-Currituck Bridge project and its corridor.
NCDOT (Lonnie Brooks) asked if there were any pile alternatives were considered besides steel piles. CDG-Lochner (Roy Bruce) answered that concrete was examined, but NCTA was leaning toward using the steel piles; no final decision on pile type will be made until completion of ongoing geotechnical studies. NCDENR-DWQ (David Wainwright) asked what the cost difference was between the two. CDG-Weeks Marine (Neal Williams) answered that steel is cheaper and the
equipment to install it is smaller. CDG-Lochner (Roy Bruce) added that it was easier to transfer steel to the site.

· Handout 25 – PB (John Page) presented information on why NCTA believes ER2 is not a practicable alternative. In NCTA’s opinion ER2 is logistically unavailable and incapable of being
implemented for four reasons (see details in PowerPoint slide). More detail is presented in the handout. PB (John Page) asked the TEAC members to provide comments within the next 30 days.

· Wrap up/Next Steps – NCTA (Tracy Roberts) presented the next steps in the process. USACE (Scott McClendon) stated that USACE was struggling with the issue of funding and the state legislature defining project locations. PB (John Page) noted that the project has a long history of being planned as a toll project. It was listed as being funded by other sources in the State Transportation Improvement Program in effect with the 1998 Draft Environmental Impact Statement was released. The General Assembly authorized NCDOT to charge tolls on the bridge in that same period. There are system wide effects that need to be taken into account. NCDENR-DCM (Cathy Brittingham) noted that early in the current study, NCDOT was taking a systemwide approach to project planning. PB (John Page) stated that this is what was done in developing and assessing alternatives in the DEIS. The only road improvement for the project area in the State Transportation Improvement Program is a NC 12/US 158 interchange. It is funded for planning only.

NCTA (Tracy Roberts) thanked the attendees for their participation and adjourned the meeting at
1:50 PM.