RE_ Proposed Bridge to Culvert Replacement - Bridge #97 in Hertford County

Carpenter,Kristi
From:Wilson, Travis W.
Sent:Friday, June 11, 2021 11:56 AM
To:Williams, Paul C
Cc:Ward, Garcy
Subject:RE: Proposed Bridge to Culvert Replacement - Bridge #97 in Hertford County
WRC does not request an in water work moratorium for the replacement of bridge 97 in Hertford County.

-----Original Message-----
From: Williams, Paul C <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 9, 2021 9:27 AM
To: Wilson, Travis W. <[e-mail]>
Cc: Ward, Garcy <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Proposed Bridge to Culvert Replacement - Bridge #97 in Hertford County

Travis,

On the previous correspondence, I neglected to ask if an in-water work moratorium for AFSA would be required for this
project. Please see attached map and let me know if the moratorium would be required.

And to follow-up with the previous email, NCDOT will be replacing this bridge with a bridge.

Thanks,

Paul C. Williams, Jr.
Division Environmental Officer
Division One
NC Department of Transportation

[phone] office
[phone] mobile
[phone] fax
[e-mail]

113 Airport Dr.
Suite 100
Edenton, NC 27932

Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed
to third parties.

1

Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third
parties.

-----Original Message-----
From: Wilson, Travis W. <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, April 9, 2018 2:46 PM
To: Williams, Paul C <[e-mail]>
Cc: Ward, Garcy <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Proposed Bridge to Culvert Replacement - Bridge #97 in Hertford County

Looking at the size of the system, it's in the same ballpark as what I've seen NCDOT go bridge to culvert on. Typically in
this scenario the driving issue with using a culvert is so they don't have to raise the elevation of the road to get their
preferred 3 feet of vertical clearance for bridge inspections. My preference in the coastal plain has been for NCDOT to
use the large aluminum arch pipes, they tend to allow the stream and floodplain bench to form inside the structure
instead of separating them into two culvert cells. The attached photos are of two separate structures, the Craven one is
the largest I've seen. If they push for the double barrel box, they need to install a sill at the natural height of the
floodplain bench on the upstream and downstream side of one barrel and backfill that barrel with natural material. In
this case I'm assuming sand.

-----Original Message-----
From: Williams, Paul C
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2018 2:51 PM
To: Wilson, Travis W. <[e-mail]>
Cc: Ward, Garcy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Proposed Bridge to Culvert Replacement - Bridge #97 in Hertford County

Travis,

NCDOT is scoping a bridge replacement in Hertford County on a UT to the Meherrin River. It's a 35 ft. long bridge, and
the preferred replacement structure is a double barrel, cast in place, reinforced concrete box culvert. Photos 9890 -
9896 are on the downstream side of the bridge, and 9897 - 9903 are on the upstream side of the bridge. Photos 9904
and 9905 are about 300 feet downstream of the bridge.

When the scoping meeting was held this week and they proposed the culvert structure, I had some concerns. We
haven't had many bridge-to-culverts in this Division, and the only one I've been involved with was on a canal system a
few years ago. Hydro indicated that double 10' W X 7' H culverts would maintain the same hydraulic flow as the existing
bridge. Their alternative was to go back with a bridge structure.

Do you have any comments for this project's location and the preferred culvert structure?

Thanks, and please give me a call if you have any questions.

Paul C. Williams, Jr.
Environmental Specialist
Division One
NC Department of Transportation

[phone] office
2

[phone] mobile
[phone] fax
[e-mail]

113 Airport Dr.
Suite 100
Edenton, NC 27932

Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed
to third parties.

Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third
parties.

3