U-5706_Final CP2A Meeting Summary_2019 05 07.pdf

MEETING SUMMARY
Merger Meeting — Concurrence Point 2A
TIP No. U-5706
Eastern Rockingham Corridor Study, Richmond County, NC
Date .................... May 7, 2019
Time .................... 10:00 a.m.
Location ............. NC Forest Service Office, Rockingham
Purpose .............. Review and discuss hydraulic recommendations for Detailed Study Alternatives
Attendees:
Name
Organization
Email Address
Monte Matthews
USACE
[e-mail]
Ross Sullivan
USACE
[e-mail]
Gary Jordan
USFWS
[e-mail]
Travis Wilson
NCWRC
[e-mail]
Janet Robertson
Lumber River RPO
[e-mail]
Jeffrey Teague
NCDOT — Division 8
[e-mail]
Art King
NCDOT — Division 8
[e-mail]
Reuben Blakley
NCDOT — Division 8
[e-mail]
Jay McInnis
Ramey Kemp
[e-mail]
Andrew Josupait
Ramey Kemp
[e-mail]
Devyn Lozzi
Ramey Kemp
[e-mail]
Sandy Smith
Axiom Environmental
[e-mail]
Josh Dalton
Sungate Design Group
[e-mail]
Kristin Maseman
Lochner
[e-mail]
Tim Howe
Lochner
[e-mail]
Brian Eason
Lochner
[e-mail]
Kenny Smith
Lochner
[e-mail]
Joining Via Conference Call:
Name
Organization
Email Address
Amanetta Somerville
USEPA
[e-mail]
April Norton
NCDWR
[e-mail]
Summary of Discussions
Lochner provided a meeting handout that included an overview of the project's three Detailed Study
Alternatives (DSAs), information about their preliminary impacts, and information about their preliminary
hydraulic recommendations. Lochner also provided a handout that showed the preliminary designs for
each of the three DSAs.
Following opening remarks by Monte Matthews and Jay McInnis, and introductions by attendees, Kristin
Maseman reviewed key project information and Tim Howe reviewed the DSAs, noting the locations of the
major hydraulic crossings and recommendations for hydraulic structures at each site. There are five
major hydraulic crossings —three on Alternative 1 and one each on Alternative 4 and Alternative 5.
Page 1

MEETING SUMMARY
Merger Meeting — Concurrence Point 2A
TIP No. U-5706
Eastern Rockingham Corridor Study, Richmond County, NC
Key points discussed at the meeting were:
1. Hydraulic Sites 1 and 2 — These sites are on Alternative 1, and both are pipes. There were no
comments on either of these sites.
2. Hydraulic Site 3 — This site, on Alternative 1, has an existing box culvert, and existing FEMA
mapping indicates that this location on Long Drive is overtopped by 100-year flood conditions.
The current recommendation is to retain and extend the existing box culvert, but there is a
question regarding whether the culvert should be replaced instead of extended. Gary Jordan
asked whether a decision should be made regarding extending or replacing the culvert before the
merger team discussed CP 2A. Jay McInnis explained the merger team could discuss both
possibilities. Josh Dalton mentioned the existing culvert has a sufficiency rating of 99 out of 100
and was built in 1987. The Structures Management Unit typically agrees with extending culverts
this new with this high a sufficiency rating.
3. During discussion about this site, it was noted that there do not appear to have been any recent
situations where Long Drive was overtopped by floodwaters, even during last year's hurricane. It
was also noted that under existing requirements for secondary roads, it is sufficient for the culvert
to be designed for a 25-year flood event. It may be sufficient to retain and extend the existing box
culvert. It was also discussed that no change was suggested to the hydraulic recommendation
for this site.
4. Hydraulic Sites 4A and 4B — A new box culvert is the current recommendation at each of these
two sites, which are where Alternatives 4 (Site 4A) and 5 (Site 413) cross a large wetland area.
Monte Matthews asked if bridging the entire wetland had been considered. Jay McInnis explained
the required hydraulic structures are all that are being presented to the merger team at this point.
Bridging the entire wetland would cost around one million dollars. Agency representatives asked
about possible strategies to further minimize impacts in this area. Travis Wilson with NCWRC and
Gary Jordan with USFWS noted they are primarily concerned with ensuring wildlife can continue
to successfully cross this area, suggesting the project team investigate possible modifications that
would allow for increased opportunities for wildlife movement. These modifications could include
replacing the proposed box culvert with a bridge or adding additional culverts. The culverts
should be large enough (8' x 8') that wildlife will use them and should allow some natural light
(long, dark tunnels are not appealing to some species). It was agreed the project team would
develop three options for each of the two alternatives in this area —a bridge that would span the
entire wetland area, a shorter bridge, and a scenario that would retain the existing recommended
culvert, adding one additional culvert to the north and one to the south. The project team will
develop relative cost estimates for each of these options and provide this information to the
Merger Team.
5. Environmental Justice — Amanetta Somerville with USEPA asked for clarification about the types
of impacts to the potential Environmental Justice communities along the DSAs. Kristin Maseman
explained Alternative 5 would likely result in direct impacts to properties in the Philadelphia
community, along with connectivity/cohesion impacts, and Alternative 1 would result in direct
impacts to properties in the low-income, high percentage minority areas along Long Drive. She
also noted that Alternative 4 is likely to have less impacts to potential Environmental Justice
communities than the other two DSAs. Monte Matthews and Kristin Maseman discussed that the
project team should use EPA's Environmental Justice tool to assess this issue in greater detail.
6. Concurrence — The agencies are satisfied with the hydraulic recommendations for sites 1, 2, and
3. After the project team provides the Merger Team with the relative costs of the additional
Page 2

MEETING SUMMARY
Merger Meeting — Concurrence Point 2A
TIP No. U-5706
Eastern Rockingham Corridor Study, Richmond County, NC
hydraulic options for sites 4A and 413, the Merger Team should be able to reach concurrence
without holding another meeting.
7. Proiect Schedule
■ State EA — Summer 2019
■ Public Meeting — Fall 2019
■ CP 3 and 4A — Early 2020
■ Right-of-way Acquisition — 2020
■ Project Let - 2021
Action Items
1. The project team will develop relative cost estimates for the additional hydraulic options for sites
4A and 4B and provide this information to the Merger Team.
Status:
The project team developed the relative cost estimates for three additional hydraulic options for
sites 4A and 48 and distributed this information to the Merger Team —Option 1 would replace the
original box culvert with a 615-foot bridge, Option 2 would replace the original box culvert with a
140-foot bridge, and Option 3 would add additional culverts. These are reviewed in detail in the
attached e-mail.
The Merger Team concurred with the incorporation of Option 2, the 140-foot bridge option, in lieu
of the original box culvert option, for each of these two sites. Option 1 was determined to not be
practicable due to its high estimated cost. Impacts for Option 2 will be carried forward for
consideration at Concurrence Point 3.
On June 17, the Merger Team signed the Concurrence Form reflecting this change, along with
the original hydraulic recommendations for sites 1, 2, and 3, on June 17.
(Meeting Summary Prepared By: Kristin Maseman, 5/8/19; Revised 6/18/19)
Page 3

Maseman, Kristin
From:
Jay McInnis <[e-mail]>
Sent:
Wednesday, June 5, 2019 7:05 AM
To:
Teague, Jeff L; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 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:
Maseman, Kristin; Eason, Brian; Smith, Kenny; Howe, Tim; Devyn Lozzi; Andrew Josupait;
Tucker Fulle; Alex Kitching; [e-mail]; Kluttz, Alison W.; Josh
Dalton; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject:
U-5706 Site 4 Structure Options
Happy Wednesday everybody!
At the CP 2A meeting for U-5706 (Eastern Rockingham Transportation Study) held on May 71h 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.

LEGEND
Project Altemative Corrloor
Existing Parcel Boundary
Proposed Rlghl Of Way
Hlstorle Propert 0oundary
(NR Llstedl llgIN)
0 Proposed Caiistructlon Llmlth
—is— Jurlsdlctlonal Stream Llnes
0 Delineated Wetlands

LEGEND
0 Project Alternative Corridor
Existing Parcel Boundary
Propose-d RIgh1 Of Way
HlstorIc property boundary
(NR I Isted;Fllglble)
0 Pr000sed Covistrijeflon Llmlts
—is— Jurlsdlctlonal Strearn Llges
0 Dellneated wetlands
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

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,
1-3@12'x9'RCBC,
2-1@8'x8' RCBC)
$3,987,000
2.38 ac
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,
1-3@12'x9'RCBC,
2-1@8'x8' RCBC)
$4,748,000
3.30
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
VAMEY
EMP
1 0 IATEE
h4Y6F4 RTAT�G RI LRGINICR}
5808 Faringdon Place
Raleigh, NC 27609
Office: 919-872-5115x1041
Direct: 984-204-1558
Mobile: [phone]
Proudly serving the Southeast since 1992

DocuSign Envelope ID: 4041 CC3A-F9FF-4883-86CE-1 133B396CABC
NEPA/4O4 MERGER TEAM MEETING AGREEMENT
Concurrence Point No. 2A: Bridging Decisions and Alignment Review
PROJECT NO./TIP NO./ NAME/DESCRIPTION:
Federal Aid Project Number: NA
State Project Number: WBS Element 50157.1.1
TIP Project Number: U-5706
TIP Description: Eastern Rockingham Corridor Study — Proposed new connector
between US 74 Business and SR 1909 (Richmond Road)
The purpose of the project is to provide direct connectivity between commercial areas along US 74
Business and residential areas northeast of central Rockingham and reduce conflicts between through
traffic and local traffic on Long Drive.
The Project Team concurred on this date of June 14, 2019, with the following structures on the
major stream/wetland crossings along the project alternatives:
SITE
STREAM
WETLAND ID
HYDRAULIC
STRUCTURE
1
Hitchcock Creek Tributary 2
N/A
1 @ 66" RCP
2
Hitchcock Creek Tributary 1
N/A
1 @ 66" RCP
3
N. Prong Falling Creek
WAF
3@12'x8' RCBC*
4A
N. Prong Falling Creek
WU
140-foot bridge
4B
N. Prong Falling Creek
WU
140-foot bridge
*-Existing culvert. It is expected the existing culvert can be retained and extended.
US Army Corps of Engineers
US Environmental Protection Agency
US Fish and Wildlife Service
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
NC State Historic Preservation Office
NC Division of Water Resources
Lumber River Rural Planning Organization
NC Department of Transportation
DocuSigned by:
". L A _ll/ 6�17/2019
311178cFo4nrAn1 U,t,U/
EDocuSigned by: �p
Q,Ma,liLt 6U s0641t V� 119
dA37nAQFDd574nR
Docusigned by: 6/14/2019
_)U c�a.NA A,
5n1BADR77Cd9d52
DocuSigned by:
6/14/2019
'Craves WASOA,
31585DOB682E436...
gneby:
DocuSid
��
EDocuSigned by: 6/17/2019
03BAC6376A6340D...
DocuSigned by:
_. _ 1 96k 6V, 7/2019
AAF�F95F21FFRQ4R7
DocuSigned by: 6/17/2019
7nRRFnSF6RD0474