20220552 Ver 1_WRC Comments_20220427

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Cameron Ingram, Executive Director

Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

April 27, 2022

Lori Beckwith
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801

Dave Wanucha
NCDEQ, DWR
450 Hanes Mill Road, Suite 300
Winston Salem, NC 27105

Dear Ms. Beckwith and Mr. Wanucha,

SUBJECT: Comments on GP/WQC Application for Replacement of Bridge 80 over UT North Deep
Creek on SR 1512, Yadkin County
BR-0109, DWR 20220552 ver.1

The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Division 11 applied for a General 404
Permit and 401 Certification for stream and wetland impacts to replace bridge number 80 on SR 1512
over a UT to North Deep Creek in Yadkin County. I visited the project site on April 21, 2022.
Comments on the application from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) are
offered in accordance with applicable provisions of the state and federal Environmental Policy Acts (G.S.
113A-1through 113-10; 1 NCAC 25 and 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c), respectively), the Clean Water Act of
1977 (33 U.S.C. 466 et seq.), and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667d).

The project will impact small streams and wetlands along a UT to North Deep Creek (C). This includes
relocation of 95 feet of a small stream along the western bridge approach. The project will also eliminate
some credits from a mitigation bank that borders right-of-way on both sides of the road. Compensation
for the stream credit losses has already been coordinated with the Interagency Review Team.

BR-0109 Page 2 April 27, 2022
Yadkin County
The NCWRC supports the incorporation of rip rap-free benching with the new bridge design. Passage by
small wildlife under the structure should increase here because the bridge bisects two developing riparian
restoration areas.

The NCWRC recommends that NCDOT evaluate the use of coir matting and vegetation instead of rock
lining on the upper portion of the stream relocation at Site 2. The lower portion of the shifted channel
will incorporate an existing unlined and relatively flat swale. The plating may be proposed solely because
of the channel shortening and the projected increased slope/erosive velocity of the stream, in which case it
should remain as designed. However, it may be partly needed due to removal of a basin/check and the
energy dissipation it provides in the existing ditch-line (Sta 27+60-85 L). If the basin could be shifted as
needed for the new bridge, then the grated inlet and 18” pipe, and correspondingly the channel armoring,
may not be needed. Or, instead of retaining the basin, a rock-lined ditch comparable to the opposite side
of the road may be possible and would provide the energy dissipation before storm discharges reach the
stream. The stream impacts for this relocation are already being compensated for, however this minor
minimization may be worth considering since the impact is to a stream that will remain contiguous with a
mitigation bank.

Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide recommendations on this project. Please contact me
at [e-mail] or [phone] if you have any questions about these comments.

Cordially,

Dave McHenry, NCWRC Western DOT Coordinator

ec: Michael Turchy, NCDOT ECAP