_External_ U-5706 Site 4 Structure Options

Carpenter,Kristi
From:Jay McInnis <[e-mail]>
Sent:Wednesday, June 05, 2019 7:05 AM
To:Teague, Jeff L; [e-mail]; Wilson, Travis W.; Matthews, Monte K CIV
USARMY CESAW (US); Norton, April R; Williams, Andrew E CIV USARMY CESAW (US);
Janet F. Robertson; [e-mail]; Sullivan, Roscoe L III CIV (US)
Cc:Kristin Maseman; Eason, Brian; Smith, Kenny; Howe, Tim; Devyn Lozzi; Andrew
Josupait; Tucker Fulle; Alex Kitching; [e-mail]; Kluttz, Alison
W.; Josh Dalton; Blakley, Reuben; King, Art C
Subject:\[External\] U-5706 Site 4 Structure Options
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]

Happy Wednesday everybody!

th
At the CP 2A meeting for U-5706 (Eastern Rockingham Transportation Study) held on May 7 at the NC Forest Service
office in Rockingham, we discussed investigating crossing options at Site 4, which is a new location crossing of North
Prong Falling Creek (no defined channel) and Wetland WU on both Alternatives 4 and 5. Below are screen shots of
Figures 3b and 4b from the meeting handout showing the site.

1

2

Gary and Travis asked we look at adding two dry culverts on either side of the recommended culvert to be used for
wildlife passage. The team agreed to look at three options, a bridge spanning the wetland, a shorter bridge, and the
3

recommended culvert along with the two dry culverts. The table below presents the cost and impacts to Wetland WU of
each option:

Alt. 4 Total Cost Wetland Impacts
Option 1 (615-foot bridge) $7,251,000 0.42 ac
Option 2 (140-foot bridge) $3,784,000 1.94 ac
Option 3 (Three culverts, $3,987,000 2.38 ac
1-3@12’x9’RCBC,
2-1@8’x8’ RCBC)

Alt 5 Total Cost Wetland Impacts
Option 1 (700-foot bridge) $7,927,000 1.05
Option 2 (140-foot bridge) $3,974,000 2.69
Option 3 (Three culverts, $4,748,000 3.30
1-3@12’x9’RCBC,
2-1@8’x8’ RCBC)

The costs listed above include construction and wetland mitigation costs. The long bridge doesn’t completely avoid the
wetland because the grade of the road had to be raised to provide clearance for the bridge, which resulted in some fill in
the wetlands. A bridge long enough to completely avoid the wetlands would, of course, cost more than the bridge
option presented.

Option 2 for both alternatives appears to be the best option. The 140-foot long bridge would provide opportunities for
wildlife crossing and would also affect less wetlands and cost less than Option 3 with the three culverts.

I recommend the merger team select Option 2 for this crossing for both alternatives. If the team is agreeable to this, we
will distribute the concurrence form to the team through Docusign.

Please let me know whether or not you agree with the selection of Crossing Option 2 (140-foot bridge) at Site 4, or if you
have any comments or need additional information.

Thanks,

Jay McInnis, PE
Director of Project Development/NEPA

5808 Faringdon Place
Raleigh, NC 27609
Office: 919-872-5115x1041
Direct: 984-204-1558
Mobile: [phone]

Proudly serving the Southeast since 1992

4