20141328 Ver 1_Mit Plan Draft eApproval Letter_2013-02009_20150302

March 2, 2015
Regulatory Division
Re: NCIRT Review and USACE Approval of the Thomas Creek Restoration Project Mitigation Plan;
SAW-2013-02009; NCEEP Project # 96074
Mr. Tim Baumgartner
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Dear Mr. Baumgartner:
The purpose of this letter is to provide the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(NCEEP) with all comments generated by the North Carolina Interagency Review Team (NCIRT)
during the 30-day comment period for the Thomas Creek Restoration Project Mitigation Plan, which
closed on January 18, 2015. These comments are attached for your review.
Based on our review of these comments, we have determined that no major concerns have been
identified with the Draft Mitigation Plan, which is considered approved with this correspondence.
However, several minor issues were identified, as described in the attached comment memo, which must
be addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan.
The Final Mitigation Plan is to be submitted with the Preconstruction Notification (PCN)
Application for Nationwide permit approval of the project along with a copy of this letter. Issues
identified above must be addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan. All changes made to the Final
Mitigation Plan should be summarized in an errata sheet included at the beginning of the document. If it
is determined that the project does not require a Department of the Army permit, you must still provide a
copy of the Final Mitigation Plan, along with a copy of this letter, to the appropriate USACE field office
at least 30 days in advance of beginning construction of the project. Please note that this approval does
not preclude the inclusion of permit conditions in the permit authorization for the project, particularly if
issues mentioned above are not satisfactorily addressed. Additionally, this letter provides initial
approval for the Mitigation Plan, but this does not guarantee that the project will generate the requested
amount of mitigation credit. As you are aware, unforeseen issues may arise during construction or
monitoring of the project that may require maintenance or reconstruction that may lead to reduced
credit.
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter, and if you have any questions regarding this
letter, the mitigation plan review process, or the requirements of the Mitigation Rule, please call me at
919-846-2564.
Sincerely,
Todd Tugwell
Special Projects Manager
Enclosures
Electronic Copies Furnished:
NCIRT Distribution List
Jeff Schaffer, NCEEP
Chris Roessler, Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
TUGWELL.TODD.JASON.1048429293
2015.03.02 12:01:40 -05'00'
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:

CESAWͲRG/TugwellFebruary12,2015


MEMORANDUMFORRECORD

SUBJECT:ThomasCreekͲNCIRTCommentsDuring30ͲdayMitigationPlanReview

PURPOSE:ThecommentslistedbelowwerepostedtotheNCEEPMitigationPlanReviewPortal
duringthe30ͲdaycommentperiodinaccordancewithSection332.8(g)ofthe2008Mitigation
Rule.

NCEEPProjectName:ThomasCreekRestorationProject,WakeCounty,NC

USACEAID#:SAWͲ2013Ͳ02009
NCEEP#:96074

30ͲDayCommentDeadline:18January,2015

GinnyBaker,NCDWR,14January,2015:
1.TheThomasCreekRestorationProjectproposes7yearsofmonitoringinSection9but
only5yearslistedonTable6.1,thecreditreleaseschedule.Pleasechangethecredit
releasetableto7yearsorclarifywhythisprojectshouldbefor5yearsofmonitoring.
2.ThemappedsoilunitsfortheprojectarelistedasWoAinTable4.1butappeartobe
CrC,CrC2,WsE,andWsC2primarilywithsomeWoA.Hasthesiteoverallboundaryor
soilscoverageshifted?Pleaseclarify.
3.Pleasecorrectthefollowingtableandfigurereferences:page2Ͳ1,thirdparagraph
changeFigure2to2.2andFigure2.7to2.8,page2Ͳ2,thirdparagraphchangeFigure2.5
to2.4.
4.Pleaseprovideafigurethatdisplaystheintermittentandperennialsectionsofeach
reach.Reach3isproposedtobe1067withaP1restorationapproachforthemajorityof
thereach(Figure17.3).DWRnotedthatthisreachoriginatesfromanoffsitepondover
1000feetawayandthestreamidentificationformratedthissectionas25.25.Although
P1restorationwillraisethebeditappearslesslikelythissectionofthereachwill
becomeephemeral.HoweverDWRwillsupporttheACOEifmonitoringwellsare
requiredandwillwantastreamdeterminationtobeperformedbyDWRatcloseout
otherwise.
5.Section17.4.3documentsthatgreenashandAmericanelmarecurrentlyfoundinthe
buffer.DWRsuggestsaddingtheseandremovingredmaple.
6.Includewhattypeofrestoration,P1orP2,isproposedforReach4in
Approach/RationaledescriptiononTable7.1,p7Ͳ3.

KathyMatthews,USFWS,15January,2015:
1.IfyourprojectcontainssuitablehabitatforanyofthefederallyͲlistedspeciesknownto
bepresentwithinWakeCounty,theproposedactionhasthepotentialtoadversely
affectthosespecies.TheServicehasrevieweditsGeographicInformationSystem(GIS)
databaseforrecordedlocationsoffederallylistedthreatenedandendangeredspecies
onoradjacenttotheproposedprojectsite.TheGISdatabaseisacompilationofdata
receivedfromseveralsources.ThecurrentFederallyͲlistedspeciesthatareknowntobe
presentinthecountyincluderedͲcockadedwoodpecker(Picoidesborealis),dwarf
wedgemussel(Alasmidontaheterodon)andMichaux’ssumac(Rhusmichauxii).There
arerecordsforbothRCWandMichaux’ssumacwithincloseproximityoftheproject
site.Additionalguidanceconcerningthesespeciesmaybefoundonourwebsiteat
http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/es_tes.html.
2.RedͲcockadedwoodpeckerͲRCWslivetogetherinfamilygroups.Thepreferredhabitat
ofRCWsisanopen,parkͲlikepinestandwithlittleundergrowth.However,RCWcavity
treeshavebeenfoundinsuboptimalhabitats,suchaspocosinswithlargeramountsof
undergrowth.RCWclusters(aggregationsofcavitytrees)maybefoundinlongleafpine
stands,butloblolly,shortͲleaf,pond,slash,Virginia,andpitchpinearealsoused.Living
pines(greaterthan30yearsold)arepreferredforforaginghabitat,andmaturelive
trees(greaterthan60yearsold)areusedforroostingandnestingcavities(NCNHP,
2001).TherearehistoricalRCWrecordsfounddirectlyadjacenttotheproperty.
Iftheproposedprojectwillremovepinetreesgreaterthanorequalto10Ͳinchdiameter
atbreastheight(DBH),theServicerecommendsthatsurveysforactiveredͲcockaded
woodpeckercavitytreesbeconductedinallappropriatehabitatonthesiteandwithina
oneͲhalfͲmileradius,asdefinedinAppendix4oftheService’s“Recoveryplanforthe
redͲcockadedwoodpecker(Picoidesborealis):secondrevision(Service2003;recovery
plan).Therecoveryplanisavailableonthewebat
http://www.fws.gov/rcwrecovery/recovery_plan.html.IfredͲcockadedwoodpeckers
areobservedwithinoneͲhalfmileoftheprojectareaorifactivecavitytreesarefound,
theprojecthasthepotentialtoaffecttheredͲcockadedwoodpecker,andyoushould
contactthisofficeforfurtherinformation.
3.Michaux’ssumacͲMichaux'ssumacisarhizomatous,denselyhairyshrub,witherect
stemsfrom1Ͳ3feetinheight.Thecompoundleavescontainevenlyserrated,oblongto
lanceolate,acuminateleaflets.Mostplantsareunisexual;however,morerecent
observationshaverevealedplantswithbothmaleandfemaleflowersononeplant.The
flowersaresmall,borneinaterminal,erect,densecluster,andcoloredgreenishͲyellow
towhite.FloweringusuallyoccursfromJunetoJuly;whilethefruit,areddrupe,is
producedthroughthemonthsofAugusttoOctober.Michaux'ssumacgrowsinsandy
orrockyopenwoodsinassociationwithbasicsoils.Apparently,thisplantsurvivesbest
inareaswheresomeformofdisturbancehasprovidedanopenarea.Several
populationsinNorthCarolinaareonhighwayrightsͲofway,roadsides,orontheedges
ofartificiallymaintainedclearings.Michaux’ssumacisfoundwithin2.5milesofthe
projectsite.TheServicerecommendsthatsurveysbeconductedtodeterminethe
presenceorabsenceofMichaux’ssumacintheprojectsite.Surveysshouldbe
completedontheentireprojectsite,withintheappropriatesurveywindowforthe
species.TheuseofNorthCarolinaNaturalHeritageProgramdatashouldnotbe
substitutedforactualfieldsurveys.Ifyoudeterminethattheproposedactionmay
affect(i.e.,likelytoadverselyaffectornotlikelytoadverselyaffect)afederallyͲ
protectedspecies,youshouldnotifythisofficeofyourdetermination,theresultsof
yoursurveys,surveymethodologies,andananalysisoftheeffectsoftheactiononlisted
species,includingconsiderationofdirect,indirect,andcumulativeeffects,before
conductinganyactivitiesthatmightaffectthespecies.Ifyoudeterminethatthe
proposedactionwillhavenoeffect(i.e.,nobeneficialoradverse,directorindirect
effect)onfederallyͲlistedspecies,thenyouarenotrequiredtocontactourofficefor
concurrence(unlessanEnvironmentalImpactStatementisprepared).However,you
shouldmaintainacompleterecordoftheassessment,includingstepsleadingtoyour
determinationofeffect,thequalifiedpersonnelconductingtheassessment,habitat
conditions,sitephotographs,andanyotherrelatedarticles."
TravisWilson,NCWRC,15January,2015:
1.Redmapleisshownasaplantedspecies,thisisnotnecessary.AlthoughRedmapleis
foundinlatesuccessionalforestcommunitiesitwillestablishasanearlysuccessional
speciesondisturbedsitesandshouldnaturallyrecolonizeintheprojectarea.Planted
speciesshouldbecomprisedofclimaxcommunityspecieswiththeintentofreducing
thetemporallagassociatedwithrestoringthesesystemsintheabsenceofanexisting
seedsource.

ToddBowers,USEPA,22January,2015:
2.PageIIIofExecutiveSummary:SecondparagraphhaswrongHUCforCapeFear.
3.TableES.1:ManyoftheexistingstreamlengthsarenotconsistentwithTable4.1and
Table5.1andStreammaponpage131(ofpdf)streamlengths
4.Page2Ͳ1:Table1Existingprojectreachlengtharenotconsistentwithotherexisting
streamlengthsthroughoutthedocument.
5.Page3Ͳ1:Recommendriparianbufferwidthsof50’arebasedonstreambeltwidth
ratherthantopofstreambank.
6.Page4Ͳ1:Table4.1reachlengthsareinconsistentwithothersindocument(seenote
above)
7.Page5Ͳ1:Table5.1(seenotesaboutstreamlengthinconsistencies)
8.Page6Ͳ1and6Ͳ2:Typically15%oftotalcreditsisheldinreservefortwobankfullevents
inseparateyearsforstreammitigationsitesratherthanthestated10%.Recommend
updatingTable6.1toreflectthis.
9.Page7Ͳ1:Recommendremovingredmaple(Acerrubrum)fromplantinglist(seeTable
17.11too)
10.Page7Ͳ3:Table7.1Iamabitapprehensiveaboutusingastreamdesignatedfor
Enhancementtobeusedalsoas“referenceͲquality”streamforrestorationdesign.I
understandthatPiedmontregionalcurvesarebeingusedaswell,butIrecommend
findinganotherreferencestreamthatcapturesthedesiredcharacteristicsofthelower
endofthesitethatcapturesthemaximumrunoffofthewatershed.
11.Page9Ͳ1and9Ͳ4:Ifcloseoutisconsideredatyear5,whatisthetargetaveragetree
heightforyear5?Itis10feetforyear7successsothisisprobablynotagoodtarget
heightforyear5.
12.Page9Ͳ2:Recommendtheuseofwellswithadepthgage/piezometertomonitorwater
table/flooddepthsandduration.Thiswillmoreaccuratelyrepresentthefunctionof
streamandfloodplainconnectivity/interactionratherthanasinglecrestgagereading
betweensitevisits.Thisdatamayallowfortroubleshootingshouldvegetationfailto
groworpointoutmanypartsofthefloodplainthatarenotaccessedbythestream
whenthedesignsaysitshouldbe.
13.Recommendabaselinesoilanalysisforbulkdensityandnutrientavailabilityinorderto
optimizeconditionsforvegetationtransplantsurvival.Successfulrestorationhasfailed
onmanysitesduetopoorsoilconditionsandlackofwatertableaccess.
14.Page17Ͳ37:Table17Ͳ6hasmanyerrors.R2lowerDAshouldbe0.275squaremilesand
column3and4shouldbeswappedwiththeexceptionofR5whichshouldhaveacross
sectionof4.5sqftandnot4.0.
15.Page17Ͳ50:Recommendriparianbufferwidthbasedonstreambeltwidthandnot
streambankedge.
16.Figure2.2doesnotmatchFigures2.2and9.1
17.Reachlocationsandextentsareverydifficulttodiscernfromtheprovidedmaps.
Recommendincludingproperreachnamesandlengthswithinthemapsimilarto
watershedmap2.3"

ToddTugwell,USACE,12February,2015:
1.ItisnotclearthataJurisdictionalDeterminationhasbeenrequestedfortheproperty.
ThemitigationplanreferencesaconfirmationprovidedinJuly2014,howeverIcannot
finddocumentationofthatconfirmation.PleaseensurethataJDisobtainedfromthe
USACERaleighfieldofficepriortosubmittingtheNW27permitpreconstruction
notification.Thisisalsoimportanttoensurethatalloftheimpactstoexistingwetlands
andstreamsonthepropertyareaccountedforinthePCN.Mapsshowingthelocation
ofimpactsshouldalsobesubmittedwiththePCN.Additionally,inthePCNplease
discusshowthewetlandimpactswillbeoffsetthroughthe(presumed)creationofnew
wetlandsonthesite.
2.SeveraloftheapproachesthatwereagreeduponduringtheIRTreviewofthesitehave
beenchangedalongwiththeproposedcreditratios.Somediscussionregardingthese
changesisprovidedinSection17.1.2.1ofthemitigationplan,butnotallofthesections
addresswhythesechangesareneeded.Inparticular,postmeetingminutesshowthat
therecommendedapproachforreachT2wasrestoration;howeverthishasbeen
changedtoEII.Pleaseensurethatthemitigationworkplandocumentsallofthe
changesfromtheapproachesthatwerediscussedduringthesitemeetingonOct.9,
2013.
3.Pleaseupdatethecreditreleasescheduletoreflectthe7yearmonitoringperiod.
4.Ifpossible,pleaseconsidermovingthecattlecrossingonReachT1uptotheheadofthe
streamtoreducefragmentationoftheproject.Ifthisisnotpossible,pleaseprovidean
explanationofwhynot.

Todd Tugwell
Special Projects Manager
Regulatory Division
TUGWELL.TODD.JASON.1048
429293
2015.02.12 12:37:46 -05'00'