20191744 Ver 1_App_B_20191220

APPENDIX B
Reference Letters

Project Tracking No. (Internal Use
16-12-0010
HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPES
r, NO SURVEY REQUIRED FORM
This form only pertains to Historic Architecture and Landscapes for this project. It
is not valid for Archaeological Resources. You must consult separately with the
Archaeology Group.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No:
County:
Caswell
WBS No.:
17BP.7.R.110
Document
Type:
MCC
Fed. Aid No:
N/A
Funding:
® State ❑ Federal
Federal
Permits :
® Yes ❑ No
Permit
Type(s):
NWP
Project Description: Replace Bridge No. 19 on SR 1771 (Dave Smith Road).
SUMMARY OF HISTORIC ARCHICTECTURE AND LANDSCAPES REVIEW
Description of review activities, results, and conclusions. -
Review of HPO quad maps, HPO GIS information, historic designations roster, and indexes was
undertaken on December 7, 2016. Based on this review, there are no existing NR, SL, LD, DE,
or SS properties in the Area of Potential Effects, which is 300' from each end of the bridge and
75' from the centerline each way. A manufactured home sits northwest of the bridge site and is
under fifty years of age. Bridge No. 19, built 1965, is not eligible for National Register listing.
There are no National Register listed or eligible properties and no survey is required. If design
Tans change, additional review will be required.
Why the available information provides a reliable basis for reasonably predictinz that there
are no unidentified sianiflcant historic architectural or landscape resources in the project
area:
HPO quad maps and GIS information recording NR, SL, LD, DE, and SS properties for the
Caswell County survey, Caswell County GIS/Tax information, and Google Maps are considered
valid for the purposes of determining the likelihood of historic resources being present. There
are no National Register listed or eligible properties within the APE and no survey is required.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
Map(s) []Previous Survey Info. ❑Photos ❑Correspondence
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN
NCDOT Architectural Historian Date
❑Design Plans
Historic Architecture and Landscapes NO SURVEY REQUIREU form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
Page 1 of 3

Anderson Ridge Rc1
D,.
O`
Checkmate Apiaries0
mBeaver C
,
a
tooa
�4
a
v
Pederson Ln
ru Q
ak,
S
a�
'
`
AndetsooLn
Hyco Church 0
tns
r
im Dave Smith Rd
1117fl
40,
446
tcroa
P
LD3�
OL
#
Uo
S
e� wl
e
Project Location.
Historic Architecture and Landscapes NO SURVEY REQUIRED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
Page 2 of 3

Project Tracking No.:
16-12-0010
oo NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED FORM'." '.
4. This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this project. It is not F
;t? valid for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must consult separately with the 0]
a .... /..:.....:� csl
Historic Architecture and Landscapes Group.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No: Br. No. 0019 County: Caswell
WBS No: 17BP.7.R.110 Document: M C C
F.A. No: N/A Funding: ® State ❑ Federal
Federal Permit Required? ® Yes ❑ No Permit Type: nw3 or nw14
Project Description: NCDOT proposes to replace Bridge No. 0019 over SR 1771 (Dave Smith Road) over
Lynch Creek in southeast Caswell County. While this is a state funded project, it will require a USACE
permit. Therefore, this is a federal undertaking and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
applies for archaeological review.
NCDOT Division staff provided useful information regarding the project, including the general nature and
scale of the undertaking, and made historic maps, deeds and plats available. We are appreciative of their
assistance. While preliminary design was not available for this review, enough information was provided
to establish an archaeological Area of Potential Effects (APE). The length is about 700 feet long and up to
150 feet wide, centered on the bridge. This allows for multiple designs, though a replace -in -place design
on the same alignment is expected. An offsite detour is available, therefore no on -site, temporary bridge
impacts are expected.
Much of the APE has already been modified by the construction of the existing SR 1771 and bridge. The
project area has been recently completely clear-cut to the north, and is otherwise surrounded by wooded
vegetation.
SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEW
Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions:
USGS mapping (Ridgeville) and aerial photography was studied (see Figures 1 and 2). The surrounding
topography is hilly with a meandering Lynch Creek.
The soils type present includes mainly Louisburg coarse sandy loam (LoE, 15-45 percent slopes) and to a
lesser degree, Riverview loam (RvA, 0-2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded) along the stream channel.
Sloped topography is generally much less desirable for human activity than more level soils. Contour
mapping (2-ft intervals, see Figure 2) show the nature of the terrain at the project APE and suggest some
fill was used during the last bridge construction (c. 1965) to build up the bridge launch over Lynch Creek.
Virtual drive -by was available using Google maps, though not Bing. A cleared utility easement is present
north of the bridge which contains aerial lines, though it is uncertain if other, buried utilities exist within
the APE.
The USGS mapping shows no cemeteries in the nearby vicinity of the APE, nor does GIS-based cemetery
data maintained by NCDOT archaeologist, Paul J. Mohler.
The Office of State Archaeology was visited in January, 2017 to review archaeological mapping and to
reference any known archaeological surveys and sites. This helps establish an archaeological context for
comparison. Very few archaeological environmental reviews are present in the general area. The only
"No ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED "form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
1 of 4

Project Tracking No.:
16-12-0010
recorded archaeological site nearby is a cemetery (31Cs78) to the northwest along Sr 1004, John Oakley
Road, though it is some 4000 feet away and will not be affected. This cemetery is mapped on USGS
mapping, though there are no others in the immediate vicinity. Likewise, GIS-based cemetery data
maintained by NCDOT archaeologist, Paul J. Mohler, show no other nearby cemeteries.
Historic maps were examined. No structures were mapped nearby the bridge to be replaced in these earlier
maps. The detailed, accurate 1908 Caswell County Soils Survey (MC.020.1908h c.2) shows a crossing at
about the same location, though the road followed a somewhat different alignment further east and west
from Lynch Creek. Several midcentury county road maps show a similar road alignment and crossing,
though after the middle 1960s, maps (USGS Ridgeville 1968, Caswell County Highway Maintenance -
MC.020.1972n) shift to show the existing bridge was constructed and SR 1771 was straightened. The
current Bridge No. 0019 is documented as being constructed in 1965, likely replacing an older structure at
the same or closeby location. The old road alignment is apparent in modern maps and aerial photography.
Plat maps reference the earlier road, an old bridge and ford, drawn as coinciding or adjacent to the modern
roadway (Book 14 - Page 163, Book 6 - Page 161, Book 16 - Page 21). This suggests that the current road
and bridge are preceeded by at least two earlier crossing at approximately the same location. Often, this
type of roadway and water crossings modify the landscape in a way that would be damaging to any
archaeological sites that might otherwise be present.
For this undertaking, the proposed bridge replacement of the existing transportation facility, Bridge No.
0019, the project footprint is limited. The majority of the existing APE has been modified for the current
roadway and bridge, and likely previous crossings, too. The surrounding terrain is relatively hilly, a
topographic setting that generally would be passed over for sustained human activity. The expected small
size of new impacts, previous disturbances and soil types present within the APE suggest low expectations
for encountering newly discovered archaeological sites, especially any that may be intact and significant.
The project should be considered compliant with Section 106. No archaeological survey is recommended
for this undertaking as currently proposed.
Brief Explanation of why the available information provides a reliable basis for reasonably predicting
that there are no unidentified historic properties in the APE:
The scale and nature of the project is limited to replacement of an existing bridge with a new structure at
approximately the same location. While the archaeological APE is sized to accommodate different
alternatives, construction is expected to be constrained and an offsite detour is available. The APE appears
to have had three previous crossings, utility easement, clear cutting, and also a meandering creek, that likely
affected natural soil stratigraphy which would affect the integrity of an archaeological sites that might
otherwise be present. The hilly topographic setting, with sloped approaches towards the creek, is often
passed over for more attractive terrain for human activity. There are no known, documented archaeological
sites in the nearby vicinity. It is unlikely that intact, significant archaeological sites would be affected by
this proposed project. This federally permitted undertaking should be considered compliant with Section
106.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: ® Map(s) ❑ Previous Survey Info ❑ Photos ❑Correspondence
❑ Photocopy of County Survey Notes Other:
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST
"No ARCHAEOLOGY SUR VEY REQUIRED "form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
2 of 4

Project Tracking No.:
16-12-0010
4
m � { • a
w �d ea
O b`
� 1 f � 2 1'
Pe
At t
BE 0 Moo 01-9
Corbett
I/� "a- V—�, s � --�r�_��Iq �� ` 5� �r J �i; � `fir, � r��'+�•,('P `14 �1 . � L±! e� i�r_- — (•trt'lat'.LL � i� f_. U' � rSe_ 6 � � ,.
Cedar Grove
0 1,300 2,600 5,200 Feet - p�
CopyrfghtC 2�13 National Geograp a Soa -d b d EsI, R -; De 'orme Wlapmylndia •©�
' ;., r : -.. `„ t � ,•. "�" J ,,- ,� tU OpenSlreetMap contributoraand t GIS-us ,co zity i� •-- -
Figure 1. Vicinity of PA 16-12-0010, the proposed Bridge No. 0019 replacement along SR 1771 (Dave Smith Road) over Lynch
Creek in Caswell County shown on an excerpt of USGS mapping (Ridgeville). The APE is circled and shown in yellow.
"No ARCHAEOLOGYSURVFYREQUIRED "form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
3 of4

Subject: FW: NCDOT Division 7 - Start of Study Notifications
-----Original Message -----
From: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (US) [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2018 10:13 AM
To: Jackson, Rebecca F <[e-mail]>
Cc: Norton, April R <[e-mail]>; Powers, Tim <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: NCDOT Division 7 - Start of Study Notifications
Becca,
Thank you for your Start of Study Notification email, dated 1/26/2018, for the following bridge replacement projects:
Alamance Co. - Bridge No. 164 on SR 1113; Bridge No. 128 on SR 2369; Caswell Co. - Bridge No. 19 on SR 1771; Bridge
No. 108 on SR 1156; Guilford Co. - Bridge No. 52 on SR 1332; Bridge No. 224 on SR 3000; Bridge No. 235 on SR 1005;
Bridge No. 240 on SR 3285; Orange Co. - Bridge No. 99 on SR 1723; Rockingham Co. - Bridge No. 23 on SR 2430; Bridge
No. 166 on SR 1360.
Please accept my apologies for the delay in my response. Unfortunately it appears that an incorrect email address was
used for my contact information, and I did not receive the above referenced correspondence until April Norton
(NCDWR) forwarded it to me. Please note that my correct email address is: [e-mail]
Your email requested that my agency provide any information that would be helpful in evaluating potential
environmental impacts of the projects. We have reviewed the information you submitted, any information in our
permitting database, as well as remotely sensed resources including aerial photography, County Soil Surveys, LiDAR, and
USGS topographic maps. Further, delineations of potentially jurisdictional aquatic features (i.e. wetlands, streams, open
waters) were completed by Ecosystem Planning & Restoration (EPR) and submitted to the Corps and NCDWR for
verification on 4/6/2018; eight of these sites were reviewed by the Corps and NCDWR in the field.
In general, based upon a review of the above referenced information, the construction of these projects is likely to
impact streams and/or wetlands within the work corridor. Please be aware that discharges of dredged or fill material
into jurisdictional waters of the United States are subject to our regulatory authority pursuant to Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act, and thus would require Department of the Army (DA) permit authorization. The type of DA
authorization required (i.e., general or individual permit) will be determined by the location, type, and extent of
jurisdictional area impacted by the project, and by the project design and construction limits. Until additional data is
furnished which details the extent of the construction limits of the proposed projects, we are unable to provide specific
comments concerning DA permit requirements or a recommendation of alternatives.
That said, the Corps recommends replacing bridges with bridges to avoid and minimize impacts to streams. Typically,
bridge -to -bridge replacements can be authorized by Nationwide Permit (NWP) 3 for Maintenance (likely without
requiring a PCN). If accompanied by appropriate justification of avoidance and minimization, replacing bridges with
culverts could potentially be authorized by NWP 14. Projects involving larger magnitudes of impacts to wetlands or
streams may require authorization via NWP 23 (if accompanied by a CE), General Permit (GP 31), or an Individual Permit.
Below I have included pertinent project -specific comments based on completed aquatic resource delineations and field
verifications:

Bridge No. 164 on SR 1113 (Alamance): Stream SB in the northeast quadrant of the study area runs parallel to SR 1113.
We recommend that project design involving any road realignment, widening, or shoulder improvements occur on the
west side of the existing road to avoid the potential for high magnitudes of stream impacts.
Bridge No. 19 on SR 1771 (Caswell): All four quadrants of the study area have wetlands in close proximity to the existing
road and bridge; this includes a wetland that extends under the existing bridge on the west side of Lynch Creek. Further,
a small stream exists along the base of the road fill slope in the southeast quadrant of the study area. We recommend
that project design involving any road widening or shoulder improvements be held to the minimum necessary, as even
small adjustments to the existing fill slope would result in large impacts to wetlands and/or streams.
Bridge No. 52 on SR 1332 (Guilford): Stream SA in the southwest quadrant of the study area runs parallel to SR 1332. We
recommend that project design involving any road realignment, widening, or shoulder improvements occur on the east
side of the existing road to avoid the potential for high magnitudes of stream impacts.
Bridge No. 224 on SR 3000 (Guilford): Wetlands are prevalent in all quadrants on the west side of South Buffalo Creek.
We recommend that project design involving any road widening or shoulder improvements be held to the minimum
necessary on the west side of South Buffalo Creek, as even small adjustments to the existing fill slope would result in
large impacts to wetlands.
Bridge No. 235 on SR 1005 (Guilford): Streams SA, SB, and SC occur on the eastern and western extremes of the study
area. We recommend that project design involving any road realignment, widening, or shoulder improvements occur
only in the vicinity of the existing bridge, in order to avoid impacts to these streams on the outer fringes of the study
area.
Bridge No. 240 on SR 3285 (Guilford): Wetlands are prevalent in both quadrants on the north side of Little Alamance
Creek (Stream SA). We recommend that project design involving any road widening or shoulder improvements be held
to the minimum necessary on the north side of the existing bridge, as even small adjustments to the existing fill slope
would result in impacts to wetlands.
Bridge No. 23 on SR 2430 (Rockingham): Replacing Bridge 23 itself could likely occur without requiring DA authorization,
if the disturbance limits do not include aquatic resources. However, if larger interchange improvements are proposed in
this area, impacts to Candy Creek (Stream SA) and/or the Haw River (Stream SC) and adjacent wetlands are likely. Note
that beaver activity in Candy Creek (Stream SA) on the south side of SR 2430 has increased the extent of wetlands in this
area. Further, the Haw River (Stream SC) floodplain in the northern extent of the study area includes large areas of
wetlands. As such, any road realignment, widening, or shoulder improvements along the length of SR 2430 would likely
result in large impacts to wetlands. If larger interchange improvements are proposed (rather than simply replacing the
bridge), the project may benefit from inclusion in the Merger Process.
Bridge No. 166 on SR 1360 (Rockingham): Streams SB on the east side of SR 1360, and Stream SD and adjacent wetlands
in the southwest quadrant of the study area, run parallel to SR 1360. We recommend that project design involving any
road realignment, widening, or shoulder improvements occur in these areas to avoid the potential for high magnitudes
of stream and wetland impacts.
Hopefully this information is useful. If you have any additional questions please let me know.
Sincerely,
Dave Bailey
David E. Bailey, PWS
Regulatory Project Manager

Environmental
Quality
February 1, 2018
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
LINDA CULPEPPER
Interim Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Rebecca Jackson, NC Department of Transportation
FROM: April Norton, NC Division of Water Resources, Central Office
SUBJECT: Scoping Review of NCDOT's Proposed Bridge Replacement Project: Bridge 19, Caswell County
In reply to your correspondence dated and received January 26, 2018 in which you requested comments for the above
referenced projects, the NC Division of Water Resources offers the following comments:
Project -Specific Comments:
WBS Element 17BP.7.R.110 — Replace Bridge No. 19 over Lynch Creek on SR 1771, Caswell County
1. Lynch Creek is classified as class C waters of the State. NCDWR is concerned with sediment and erosion impacts
that could result from this project. NCDOT shall address these concerns by describing the potential impacts that
may occur to the aquatic environments and any mitigating factors that would reduce the impacts.
2. If foundation test borings are necessary; it shall be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is approved under
General 401 Certification Number 4132/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey Activities.
3. If a bridge is being replaced with a hydraulic conveyance other than another bridge, the NCDWR believes the use
of a Nationwide Permit may be required. Please contact the US Army Corp of Engineers to determine the required
permit(s).
4. If the old bridge is removed, no discharge of bridge material into surface waters is allowed unless otherwise
authorized by the USAGE. Strict adherence to the Corps of Engineers guidelines for bridge demolition will be a
condition of the 401 Water Quality Certification.
5. Whenever possible, NCDWR prefers spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not require work within
the stream or grubbing of the stream banks and do not require stream channel realignment. The horizontal and
vertical clearances provided by bridges allow for human and wildlife passage beneath the structure, do not block
fish passage and do not block navigation by canoeists and boaters.
6. Bridge deck drains shall not discharge directly into the stream. Stormwater shall be directed across the bridge
and pre-treated through site -appropriate means (grassed swales, pre -formed scour holes, vegetated buffers, etc.)
before entering the stream. Please refer to the most current version of NCDWR Stormwater Best Management
Practices.
7. If concrete is used during construction, a dry work area shall be maintained to prevent direct contact between
curing concrete and stream water. Water that inadvertently contacts uncured concrete shall not be discharged to
surface waters due to the potential for elevated pH and possible aquatic life and fish kills.
8. Bridge supports (bents) shall not be placed in the stream when possible.
_" Nothing Compares `-
State of North Carolina I Enviromnental Quality
I617 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617

If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, the site shall be graded to its preconstruction contours and
elevations. Disturbed areas shall be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and appropriate native woody species
shall be planted. When using temporary structures the area shall be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area
with chain saws, mowers, bush -hogs, or other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact
allows the area to re -vegetate naturally and minimizes soil disturbance.
10. Sediment and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water resources must be implemented and maintained
in accordance with the most recent version of North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design
Manual and the most recent version of NCS000250.
11. All work in or adjacent to stream waters shall be conducted in a dry work area unless otherwise approved by the
NCDWR. Approved BMP measures from the most current version of NCDOT Construction and Maintenance
Activities manual such as sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams and other diversion structures shall be used to prevent
excavation in flowing water.
12. Heavy equipment shall be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in order to minimize
sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into streams. This equipment shall be
inspected daily and maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants,
hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
13. In most cases, NCDWR prefers the replacement of the existing structure at the same location with road closure.
If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour shall be designed and located to avoid wetland impacts,
minimize the need for clearing and to avoid destabilizing stream banks. If the structure will be on a new
alignment, the old structure shall be removed and the approach fills removed from the 100-year floodplain.
Approach fills shall be removed and restored to the natural ground elevation. The area shall be stabilized with
grass and planted with native tree species. Tall fescue shall not be used in riparian areas.
Thank you for requesting our input. NCDOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification requires
that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality standards are met and designated uses are not
degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact April Norton at (919) 707-
9111 or April.NortonC&NCDENR.gov.
Sincerely,
�Z I
Electronic copy only distribution:
David Bailey, US Army Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Field Office
File Copy

L—,-] North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission �
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
February 6, 2018
MEMORANDUM
TO: Rebecca Jackson
Transportation Planner
FROM: Travis Wilson, Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
SUBJECT: Division 7 Bridge Replacements
Biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
information provided and have the following preliminary comments on the subject project. Our
comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act
(42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667d).
Our standard recommendations for bridge replacement projects of this scope are as follows:
1. We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not require work
within the stream and do not require stream channel realignment. The horizontal and vertical
clearances provided by bridges allows for human and wildlife passage beneath the structure, does
not block fish passage, and does not block navigation by canoeists and boaters.
2. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream.
3. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the stream.
4. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.
5. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed back to original
ground elevations immediately upon the completion of the project. Disturbed areas should be
seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and native tree species should be planted with a spacing of
Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

PAGE 2 FEBRUARY 6, 2018
not more than 10'x10'. If possible, when using temporary structures the area should be cleared
but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, bush -hogs, or other mechanized
equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact, allows the area to revegetate naturally and
minimizes disturbed soil.
6. A clear bank (riprap free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of the steam
underneath the bridge.
7. In trout waters, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission reviews all U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers nationwide and general `404' permits. We have the option of requesting additional
measures to protect trout and trout habitat and we can recommend that the project require an
individual `404' permit.
8. In streams that contain threatened or endangered species, NCDOT biologist should be
notified. Special measures to protect these sensitive species may be required. NCDOT should
also contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for information on requirements of the
Endangered Species Act as it relates to the project.
9. In streams that are used by anadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy entitled "Stream
Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12, 1997)" should be followed.
10. Sedimentation and erosion control measures sufficient to protect aquatic resources must be
implemented prior to any ground disturbing activities. Structures should be maintained
regularly, especially following rainfall events.
11. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil within 15
days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
12. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area. Sandbags,
rock berms, cofferdams, or other diversion structures should be used where possible to prevent
excavation in flowing water.
13. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in order to
minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into streams.
14. Only clean, sediment -free rock should be used as temporary fill (causeways), and should be
removed without excessive disturbance of the natural stream bottom when construction is
completed.
15. During subsurface investigations, equipment should be inspected daily and maintained to
prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other
toxic materials.
If corrugated metal pipe arches, reinforced concrete pipes, or concrete box culverts are used:

PAGE 3 FEBRUARY 6, 2018
1. The culvert must be designed to allow for aquatic life and fish passage. Generally, the culvert
or pipe invert should be buried at least 1 foot below the natural streambed (measured from the
natural thalweg depth). If multiple barrels are required, barrels other than the base flow barrel(s)
should be placed on or near stream bankfull or floodplain bench elevation (similar to Lyonsfield
design). These should be reconnected to floodplain benches as appropriate. This may be
accomplished by utilizing sills on the upstream and downstream ends to restrict or divert flow to
the base flow barrel(s). Silled barrels should be filled with sediment so as not to entrap wildlife
or support mosquito breeding conditions. Sufficient water depth should be provided in the base
flow barrel(s) during low flows to accommodate fish movement. If culverts are longer than 40-
50 linear feet, alternating or notched baffles should be installed in a manner that mimics existing
stream pattern. This should enhance aquatic life passage: 1) by depositing sediments in the
barrel, 2) by maintaining channel depth and flow regimes, and 3) by providing resting places for
fish and other aquatic organisms. In essence, base flow barrel(s) should provide a continuum of
water depth and channel width without substantial modifications of velocity.
2. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed to remain dry
during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage.
3. Culverts or pipes should be situated along the existing channel alignment whenever possible
to avoid channel realignment. Widening the stream channel must be avoided. Stream channel
widening at the inlet or outlet end of structures typically decreases water velocity causing
sediment deposition that requires increased maintenance and disrupts aquatic life passage.
4. Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed in a
manner that precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures should be
professionally designed, sized, and installed.
In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same location with road
closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be designed and located to
avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to avoid destabilizing stream banks.
If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old structure should be removed and the approach
fills removed from the 100-year floodplain. Approach fills should be removed down to the
natural ground elevation. The area should be stabilized with grass and planted with native tree
species. If the area reclaimed was previously wetlands, NCDOT should restore the area to
wetlands. If successful, the site may be utilized as mitigation for the subject project or other
projects in the watershed.
Project specific comments:
Replacement of Bridge # 164 over Stinking Quarter Creek on SR 1113 in Alamance
County: NCDOT should replace this bridge with a bridge, standard recommendations
apply.
• Replacement of Bridge # 235 over Big Alamance Creek on SR 1005 in Guilford County:
NCDOT should replace this bridge with a bridge, standard recommendations apply.

PAGE 4
FEBRUARY 6, 2018
• Replacement of Bridge # 108 over Country Line Creek on SR 1156 in Caswell County:
This portion of Country Line Creek is designated as Significant Aquatic Habitat by the
NC Natural Heritage Program. Our records also indicate the potential for listed species
to be present within the project area, including: Triangle floater (Alasmidonta undulata:
state T) and Creeper (Strophitus undulatus: state T). NCDOT should follow the Design
Standards for Sensitive Watersheds during the design and construction of this project.
We recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. WRC also request to be contacted
prior to construction to conduct a mussel relocation within the project footprint. Standard
recommendations apply.
• Replacement of Bridge # 166 over Prong Paw Creek on SR 1360 in Rockingham County:
NCDOT should replace this bridge with a bridge, standard recommendations apply.
• Replacement of Bridge # 19 over Lynch Creek on SR 1771 in Caswell County:
NCDOT should replace this bridge with a bridge, standard recommendations apply.
Replacement of Bridge # 99 over New Hope Creek on SR 1723 in Orange County:
Immediately downstream New Hope Creek is designated as Significant Aquatic Habitat
by the NC Natural Heritage Program. Our records also indicate the potential for listed
species to be present within the project area, including: Eastern creekshell (Villosa
delumbis: state SR) and Notched rainbow (Villosa constricta: state SC). NCDOT should
follow the Design Standards for Sensitive Watersheds during the design and construction
of this project. We recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. WRC also request to
be contacted prior to construction to conduct a mussel relocation within the project
footprint. Standard recommendations apply.
• Replacement of Bridge # 128 over Cane Creek on SR 2369 in Alamance County:
NCDOT should replace this bridge with a bridge, standard recommendations apply.
• Replacement of Bridge # 240 over Little Alamance Creek on SR 3285 in Guilford
County: NCDOT should replace this bridge with a bridge, standard recommendations
apply.
• Replacement of Bridge # 52 over Deep River Tributary 1 on SR 1332 in Guilford
County: NCDOT should replace this bridge with a bridge, standard recommendations
apply.
• Replacement of Bridge # 23 over US 29 on SR 2430 in Rockingham County: NCDOT
should replace this bridge with a bridge, standard recommendations apply.
• Replacement of Bridge # 224 over South Buffalo Creek on SR 3000 in Guilford County:
NCDOT should replace this bridge with a bridge, standard recommendations apply.
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding bridge
replacements, please contact me at [phone]. Thank you for the opportunity to review and
comment on this project.