20170117 Ver 1_letter to Corps_20170126

i�.
�:w:
' �1_
,Z4
s �
�
T'ranspartation
October 14, 2016
Andrew Williams
Regulatory Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forrest, NC 27587
PAT McCRORY
Governor
NICHOLAS J. TENNYSCJN
Secretary
Subject: Bridge 13 in Moore County, SR 1102 over Aberdeen Creek
Dear Mr. Williams:
The attached email does a great job explaining why the subject bridge cannot be replaced with a
bridge. The email is from Andy Howell, PE, who is the Senior Water Resources Engineer with
SEPI Engineering and Construction.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you are in need of additional information. Thank you for
your time and consideration in dealing with this matter.
Sincerely,
.�. .
T.F. Welch, PE
Division 8 Bridge Program Manager
TFW:tfw
Attachment (5/2/16 email from Andy Howell)
cc: Art King, Division 8 Environmental Engineer
�Nothing Compares�_
State of North Carolina ( Department of Transportation � Division 8
902 N. Sandhills Blvd. ( Aberdeen, N.C. 28315
910-944-2344 T

Welch, Tim
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Ti m,
Andy Howell <[e-mail]>
Monday, May 02, 2016 1:54 PM
Welch, Tim
Cail, William G; Ben Crawford; Steve Scott
B-5758 Replace Br. #13 in Moore County
Good afternoon. Hope all is well with you. I just wanted to let you know that we have an update on the B-5758 project
in Moore County. We received the supplemental survey information from Greg Myrick's group, and unfortunately, we
have confirmation that several structures exist within the FEMA 100-yr floodplain. In fact, the elevations were a little
lower than what was depicted in the NCFMP LiDAR. That being the case, no rise will be allowed at this bridge
replacement site, upstream or downstream of the bridge (i.e. a CLOMR is no longer an option). We have exhausted
about every option we can think of to get a bridge to work here, and have not found a solution that works.
Therefore, the supplemental information indicates a culvert structure will be required. Due to the significant overflow
area over the road depicted in the FEMA flood study, it is important that we do all we can to maintain the existing low
road grade. For this reason, an aluminum box culvert should not be considered, due to the cover requirements which
would raise the road grade more than is desirable.
I discussed this project with Galen this morning, and it seems our best option will be to pursue a Cast-In-Place RCBC with
two low flow barrels to accommodate the active channel, and one floodplain barrel. Once we determine a preliminary
sizing, we will need to coordinate with Structures to a) let them know of the change in structure type, and b) determine
the required top slab thickness.
I will be in touch as soon as I have a preliminary size worked out, and we can decide how to proceed from there. In the
meantime, please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Please pass this along to anyone you think should
be included at this point. Thanks, and have a great afternoon.
Andy
C`�#r��d�r� f' � �
LN��1ti�R1�t� i
COM#T���Tl�N
Andrew M. Howell, PE, CFM � Senior Water Resources Engineer
SEPI Engineering & Construction
1025 Wade Avenue � Raleigh, NC 27605
Direct: 919.747.5839 � Cell: 919.306.0575 � sepien�ineerin�.com
Connect with us: linkedln � Twitter � Facebook
Confidentiality Notice: This message is intended only for the designated recipient(sj. It may contain confidential or proprietary information and may be subject to the
attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections. If you are not a designated recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you receive
this in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you.