US 221 Rutherfordton Bypass

R-2233B Stonecutter Crk Tributary Bridging

Subject: R-2233B Stonecutter Crk Tributary Bridging
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:11:27 -0400
From: Jay McInnis <[e-mail]>
Organization: North Carolina Department of Transportation
To: Jameelah El-Amin <[e-mail]> ,
Marla Chambers <[e-mail]>,
Marella Buncick <[e-mail]> ,
Brian Wrenn <[e-mail]>,
renee gledhill-earley <[e-mail]> ,
[e-mail], Chris Militscher <[e-mail]>
CC: "Roger D. Thomas PE" <[e-mail]>,
"Brian P. Robinson" <[e-mail]> ,
"John (Jay) W. Twisdale, Jr., PE" <[e-mail]> ,
"Brett M. Feulner" <[e-mail]>,
"Carla S. Dagnino" <[e-mail]>

At the October 15, 2007 CP2A meeting for the proposed US 221
Rutherfordton Bypass (TIP Project R-2233B), one of the locations
we discussed was site 5, the crossing of Stonecutter creek and a
tributary to Stonecutter Creek.
At this location, the proposed bypass is approximately 30 feet
higher than SR 2101 (Thunder Road). Due to this difference in
elevation, a bridge will have to be provided to carry the
proposed bypass over Thunder Road. Stonecutter Creek runs
parallel to Thunder Road and is approximately 45 feet away from
Thunder Road at its closest point. The tributary to Stonecutter
Creek (Stream 1E) is approximately 180 feet away from Stonecutter
Creek at the centerline of the median of the proposed bypass.
The tributary flows into Stonecutter Creek west of the proposed
bypass.
The design for the proposed bypass presented at the CP2A meeting
showed a bridge spanning both streams and Thunder Road. DOT
staff discussed the possibility of changing the alignment of the
bypass to avoid the tributary. The merger team concurred we
would either bridge or avoid the tributary to Stonecutter Creek.
Following the meeting, Roadway Design looked at an alignment to
avoid the tributary. This realignment would take six more homes
than the original alignment, so we do not recommend realigning
the proposed bypass to avoid the tributary.
Hydraulics also looked at the tributary following the meeting and
realized it is small enough it can be conveyed in a 42-inch
pipe. Hydraulics recommended we investigate shortening the
bridge and piping this tributary to Stonecutter Creek. Roadway
estimated costs for the original design and a design with a
shorter bridge.
Bridging the tributary would require 870-foot long bridges. If
the tributary was piped, the bridges could be shortened by 180
feet to 690 feet. Shortening the bridges would require piping
approximately 569 feet of the stream.
The construction cost of the originally proposed 870-foot long
bridges would be $10,800,000.
The construction cost of the shortened bridges would be
$10,200,000. This construction cost includes the additional fill
1 of 2 5/13/2008 7:53 AM

R-2233B Stonecutter Crk Tributary Bridging

required and a 48-inch pipe for the stream. Stream mitigation
for the 569 feet of impacted stream would add approximately
$280,000 for a total cost of $10,480,000.
We recommend shortening the proposed bridges. Shortening the
bridges by 180 feet and piping the tributary would save at least
$320,000, in addition to future maintenance costs for the
additional 180 feet of bridge.
I've discussed this proposed change with many of you by phone. A
question I was asked was related to the availability of stream
mitigation in this area. This project is in the Broad River
Basin. There is currently a surplus of approximately 10,000 feet
of stream mitigation for this basin, after taking into account
the entire TIP. A second question was whether or not the stream
could be relocated. Due to topography, it would be very
difficult to relocate the stream.
This tributary to Stonecutter Creek was designated Stream 1E in
the information provided at the CP2A meeting. The channel of the
stream is four to six feet wide and the bank height is one to
three feet.
Please review this information and let me know if you concur with
shortening the proposed bridge at Site 5 and piping the tributary
to Stonecutter Creek. If you believe we need to meet to discuss
this further or have questions, please let me know. If everyone
is in agreement with this change, we'll modify the concurrence
form and catch up with everybody for signatures.
Thanks,
Jay McInnis
NCDOT-PDEA

2 of 2 5/13/2008 7:53 AM

I SITE 5 - ALTS. 3 & 6
s
ols 1s I
l~rI+1Z
Z
I
STREAM 2C 40,
>f
{
GT: I(STONECUTTER CRKo)

I

W

rf

WETLAND E-C

i
STREAM E S

-L3- POC Sto, 707-f91,05=
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
_ OF TRANSPORTATION
-Y1 POT Sto• 31 (92.19 STREAM 3-2 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
(STONECUTTER C R Q 0 50 100
. ~ FE~~~~~~ US 221RUTHERFORDTON BYPASS
ET RUTHERFORD COUNTY
TIP PROJECT R-2233B
ZL

/ SITE 5 -ALT, US74A
I ,
27+15.72
sta. ~ J
ly~y

P
[STREAM7LC
I I Z~lz
= (STONECUTTER CRKo) ~
~ I

C ,

F

w
I - - W

WETLAND E C

STREAM IE

o
929 I, o
'jO 3o NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT

Std, ZkOZ, STREAM 3 - 2 C°% OF TRANSPORTATION
DMSION OF o~ I I PROJECT HIGHWAYS
\ 77 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
P 5~0•
A(STONECUTTER CRI 00 50 100
v, v~ US 221RUTHERFORDTON BYPASS
FEET R
UTHEFORD COUNTY
I TIP PROJECT R-22338

9 9

890 ee 9l~ ~I I

\ " 9r' 96

e
e 9

it
046

\,r
:tee

Z.H
i
R
\r'
-L L;

~92 ~ ~ 11 FI 3 ~ '\r
rn~! CO 8.

I r i t I t
i

Ijl; ! /ice I I

~ a

8 -0

A It

CP~-

I
i
I ~ is
I „
:

mga
i I
:
i

i
1A
u I; I\~ it 1
I
QJ8 I ~ i l .
oob-
i 1
j 1 r
i I
IA.
\ ~tib