20141328 Ver 1_401 Application_20150315

'AV
WDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pat McCrory Ecosystem Enhancement Program Donald R van der Vaart
Governor Secretary
March 9, 2015
Cyndi Karoly, Branch Manager
Division of Water Resources
401 Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 - 1650
Re: Permit Application- Thomas Creek Restoration Project, Wake County (EEP Full
Delivery Project)
Dear Ms. Karoly:
Attached for your review is 404/401 permit application package for the subject project. Another
copy has been sent to the Raleigh Regional Office for review. A memo for the permit
application fee is also included in the package. Please feel free to contact me with any questions
regarding this plan (919- 707 - 8319).
Thank you very much for your assistance.
Sincerely
Lin Xu
Attachment: 404/401 Permit Application Package
Final Mitigation Plan
Permit Application Fee Memo
CD containing all electronic files
1601 Mall Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1601
Phone 919 - 707 -86001 Internet www ncdenr gov
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer — Made in part by recycled paper

4
��,F
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pat McCrory Ecosystem Enhancement Program Donald R. van der Vaart
Governor Secretary
March 9, 2015
Cyndi Karoly, Branch Manager
Division of Water Resources
401 Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 - 1650
Re: Permit Application- Thomas Creek Restoration Project, Wake County (EEP Full
Delivery Project)
Dear Ms. Karoly:
Attached for your review is 404/401 permit application package for the subject project. Another
copy has been sent to the Raleigh Regional Office for review. A memo for the permit
application fee is also included in the package. Please feel free to contact me with any questions
regarding this plan (919- 707 - 8319).
Thank you very much for your assistance.
Sincerely
Lin Xu
Attachment: 404/401 Permit Application Package
Final Mitigation Plan
Permit Application Fee Memo
CD containing all electronic files
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1601
Phone: 919 - 707 -86001 Internet: www.ncdenr.gov
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer— Made in part by recycled paper

"4A
jf2
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pat McCrory Ecosystem Enhancement Program Donald R. van der Vaart
Governor Secretary
March 9, 2015
Danny Smith, Surface Water Protection Supervisor
NC DENR Raleigh Regional Office
1628 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Re: Permit Application- Thomas Creek Restoration Project, Wake County (EEP Full
Delivery Project)
Dear Mr. Smith:
Attached for your review is 404/401 permit application package for the subject project. Please
feel free to contact me with any questions regarding this plan (919- 707 - 8319).
Thank you very much for your assistance.
Attachment: 404/401 Permit Application Package
Final Mitigation Plan
Cc: Cyndi Karoly
Sincerely
Lin Xu
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1601
Phone: 919 - 707 -86001 Internet: www.ncdenr.gov
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer— Made in part by recycled paper

A ��
#A
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pat McCrory Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Governor
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Cindy Perry
FROM: Lin Xu L%
SUBJECT: Payment of Permit Fee
401 Permit Application
DATE: March 9, 2015
Donald R. van der Vaart
Secretary
The Ecosystem Enhancement Program is implementing a stream restoration and
enhancement project for Thomas Creek restoration Site in Wake County (EEP IMS #
96074). The activities associated with this restoration project involve stream restoration
related temporary stream impact. To conduct these activities the EEP must submit a
Pre - construction Notification (PCN) Form to the Division of Water Resources (DWR) for
review and approval. The DWR assesses a fee of $570.00 for this review.
Please transfer $570.00 from Fund # 2981, Account # 535120 to DWR as
payment for this review. If you have any questions concerning this matter I can be
reached at 919 - 707 -8319. Thanks for your assistance.
cc: Cyndi Karoly, DWR
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1601
Phone: 919 - 707 -86001 Internet: www.ncdenr.gov
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer — Made in part by recycled paper

�oaot WATE�OG
O 'C
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no. 2013 -02009
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.4 January 2009
Pre - Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
Q Section 404 Permit ❑ Section 10 Permit
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 27 or General Permit (GP) number:
1 c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑ Yes ❑ No
1 d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
Q 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ® Riparian Buffer Authorization
le. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ
401 Certification:
❑ Yes ® No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes ® No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for
mitigation of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank
or in -lieu fee program.
❑ Yes ® No
1g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below.
❑ Yes ®No
1 h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes ® No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project:
Thomas Creek Stream Restoration Project
2b. County:
Wake
2c. Nearest municipality / town:
New Hill
2d. Subdivision name:
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state project no:
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
Irvin Woodrow Goodwin, Michael L. Goodwin
3b. Deed Book and Page No.
Bk 2653/Pg 0235 (Woodrow), Sk 8959/Pg 0108 (both), & Bk 8959/Pg 0105 (Michael)
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
3d. Street address:
4300 Shearon Harris Rd. (Woodrow), 4232 Shearon Harris Rd. (Michael)
3e. City, state, zip:
New Hill, NC 27652
3f. Telephone no_:
(919)362 -9526 (Woodrow), (919)795 -7821 (Michael - best contact)
3g. Fax no.:
3h. Email address:
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is:
® Agent Q Other, specify: In -Lieu Fee (ILF)
4b. Name:
Tim Baumgartner
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP)
4d. Street address:
217 West Jones St., Suite 3000A
4e. City, state, zip:
Raleigh, NC, 27603
4f_ Telephone no.:
919- 707 -8976
4g. Fax no.:
919 - 715 -0710
4h. Email address:
[e-mail]
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name:
Chris Roessler
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
5c. Street address:
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
5d. City, state, zip:
Cary, NC 27518
5e. Telephone no.:
(919) 481 -5737
5f. Fax no.:
(919) 463 -5490
5g. Email address:
croessler @mbakerintl.com
Page 2 of 10

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a_ Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
a) 061926859; b) 0619473680; c) 0619368876
1b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 35.663854 Longitude: - 78.953854
le. Property size:
188.4 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water to proposed project:
Thomas Creek
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
Thomas Creek -'C'
2c. River basin:
Cape Fear
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
Site land use includes active cattle operation, open pastures, partially forested land; adjacent land use: forest, agriculture, residential.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property: 1.93
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property: 8,742
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
Stream restoration and enhancement.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The primary purpose of the proposed project is to improve the ecological functions of an impaired Piedmont stream system that discharges directly into
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
® Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
Comments: Requested but no formal determination obtained
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made?
❑ Preliminary © Final
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known): Scott King
Agency /Consultant Company: Michael Baker Engineering
Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
❑Yes ®No ❑ Unknown
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes Q No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
❑X Wetlands Q Streams —tributaries ❑ Buffers ❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
2b.
2c.
2d.
2e.
2f.
Wetland impact
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
Type of jurisdiction
Area of
number
Corps (404,10) or
impact
Permanent (P) or
DWQ (401, other)
(acres)
Temporary T
W1 P
Excavation
Hardwood Flat
Yes
Corps
0.015
W2 P
Excavation
Floodplain Pool
No
Corps
0.065
W3 P
Excavation
Seep
No
Corps
0.03
W4 P
Excavation
Floodplain Pool
Yes
Corps
0.004
W5 P
Draining
Floodplain Pool
Yes
Corps
0.004
W6 T
haul road
Headwater Wetland
No
Corps
0.002
2g. Total Wetland Impacts:
0.29
2h. Comments:
The proposed stream restoration practices will provide more natural hydrology and flooding regimes. The design approach will improve existing areas
of marginal wetlands and create new ones through higher w.t. conditions and more frequent overbank flooding, esp. along Reaches R3, R2, and R5
(Priority I restoration areas). Total above also includes Wetland impact 7, 0.14 acres of permanent impact to floodplain wetlands from excavation of
new channel, and Wetland Impact 8, also 0.025 acres of temporary impact from bank grading. See attached map for all wetland impact locations.
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
3b.
3c.
3d_
3e.
3f.
3g
Stream impact
Type of impact
Stream name
Perennial (PER) or
Type of
Average
Impact
number
intermittent (I NT)?
jurisdiction
stream
length
Permanent (P) or
width
(linear
feet)
Temporary (T)
(feet)
S1 P
Stabilization
Reach R1
PER
Corps
10
397
S2 P
Relocation
Reach R2
PER
Corps
6
1,995
S3 P
Relocation
Reach R3
PER
Corps
7
1,067
S4 P
Stabilization
Reach R4
PER
Corps
6
1,197
S5 P
Relocation
Reach R5
PER
Corps
7
1,201
S6 P
Stabilization
Reach R6, R7, T1, T2
INT
Corps
6
2,885
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
8,742
3i. Comments:
Average stream widths are represented at the existing channel top of banks and not CHWM or bankfull elevations since those features were difficult to
consistently identify in the field.
Page 4 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then indiv dually list all open water impacts below.
4a. 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e.
Open water Name of waterbody
impact number (if applicable) Type of impact Waterbody Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or type
r­­­ /TL
01 -
4g_ Comments:
Choose one
Choose
02 -
5a.
Choose one
Choose
5d_
03 -
Pond ID number
Choose one
Choose
Stream Impacts (feet)
04 -
Choose one
Choose
df'r-4 -1 .. ...a...:._ __a_
rage o of I
4g_ Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, the complete the chart below.
5a.
5b.
5c_
5d_
5e.
Pond ID number
Proposed use or
Wetland Impacts (acres)
Stream Impacts (feet)
Upland
purpose of pond
(acres)
Flooded
I Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
P1
Choose one
P2
Choose one
5f. Total:
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a. Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar - Pamlico ❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman ❑ Other:
6b.
Buffer Impact
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Stream name
6e.
Buffer
6f.
Zone 1
6g.
Zone 2
number —
Permanent (P) or
mitigation
impact
impact
Temporary T
required?
(square
(square
feet )
feet
131
Yes /No
B2
Yes /No
B3 -
Yes /No
64
Yes/No
B5
Yes /No
B6 -
Yes /No
6h. Total Buffer Impacts:
6i. Comments:
rage o of I

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Proposed impacts and mitigation approaches are necessary to restore 4,687 LF of perennial stream, and enhance 3,952 LF of stream along Thomas
Creek and six unnamed tributaries .
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques_
Sedimentation and Erosion Control measures will be implemented throughout the construction process per the NCDENR - Land Quality Divisions
S &EC Planning and Design Manual and permit approval. The stream restoration work will involve filling old degraded channels and constructing the
new design channels offline. The contractor will work outside the degraded stream banks and only enter the channel from specific locations designated
will be utilized to minimize sediment entering downstream.
on the plans to minimize buffer disturbances_ A pump - around /dewatering operation
2. Compensatory Mitigation for impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
❑ Yes ® No
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
❑ Mitigation bank
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
❑ Payment to in -lieu fee program
project?
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Com lete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a_ Name of Mitigation Bank:
Type: Choose one
Quantity:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type: Choose one
Quantity:
Type: Choose one
Quantity:
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
❑ Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested:
linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
Choose one
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4f. Non - riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
The proposed full delivery project will potentially provide 5,706 stream mitigation units (SMUs) in the Cape Fear River Basin for the NCEEP ILF
program. A recorded conservation easement consisting of 22.7 AC will protect the site in perpetuity. See attached Mitigation Plan that provides
detailed descriptions, site mapping, and design plan sheets of the existing conditions and proposed design approach to generate these assets, as well
as the proposed credit release schedule, vegetation planting plan, and performance monitoring plan to be implemented after construction is completec
Page 6 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
Zone
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
69. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 7 of 10

I E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified ❑ Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? 1 %
2b. Does this proAect require a Stormwater Management Plan? ❑ Yes © No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
Project site meets the criteria for Low Density development and will not increase overall percent imperviousness. Site plan is well below 24%
impervious surface area. Stormwater /diffuse flows will be transported via vegetated channels and across restored valley streams and natural
floodplain topography.
[e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? I
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
13a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project? I Wake County
❑ Phase II
❑NSW
3b. Which of the following locally- implemented stormwater management programs ❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply): ❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached?
❑Yes ❑ No
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑Coastal counties
❑HQW
4a. Which of the following state - implemented stormwater management programs apply ❑ORW
(check all that apply): []Session Law 2006 -246
[]Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑Yes ❑ No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 8 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
la_ Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal /state /local) funds or the
use of public (federal /state) land?
® Yes ❑ No
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
®Yes ❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.) Refer to the Categorical Exclusion in Appendix B of the approved Mitigation Plan
®Ye ❑ No
Comments: (following page 16 -5).
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑Yes ❑X No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after- the -fact permit application?
❑Yes ® No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
[]Yes 0 No
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non - discharge or discharge)
of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility
Page 9 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a_ Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
Yes © No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
X❑ Yes ❑ No
impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
Raleigh
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
NCWRC Natural Heritage website (http: /twww.nonhp.org /Pages /heritagedata.htmi), Natural Heritage workroom, USFWS website (http: / /nc- es.fws.gov/
es /countyfr.html). Letters were sent to USFWS and NCWRC - refer to the Categorical Exclusion in Appendix B of the approved Mitigation Plan.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes Q No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
NCWRC, NCDWR, and USFWS website ( http:// nc- es.fws.gov /es/countyfr.htmi). Letters were sent to USFWS and NCWRC requesting information
regarding potential species impacts; verified that proposed action is not likely to significantly /negatively impact aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources.
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
E] Yes Eg No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
NC Office of Archives and History website and NRIS database was searched. A letter was also sent to the NC Office of State and Archaeology and
the NC Historic Preservation Office. The approval letter can be found in Appendix B of the approved Mitigation Plan.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA - designated 100 -year floodplain?
❑ Yes © No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
Tim Baumgartner I+�""� !�
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name I Applicant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization
letter from the aDDlicant is provided.)
Page 10 of 10
03 -02 -2015
Date

py tt
PIP
No
and impacts a = No wetland impacts
< NJetiand Impact 8:
0.025 ac temporary �" a
rr't Wetland Impacts 1.
0.015 ac permanent t e s
No wetland impacts
Wetland Impacts 2:
0.025 ac permanent
4 ? * 'r 0.04 ac temporary
:Y
r �
• � Ji � < ;- � rk i
Wetland Impact 3:
t+ 0.03 ac permanent
�_ a �i- _lit r ' e� � •Jir
Wetland Impact 4:
Wetland Impact 7: % 0.004 ac permanent
0.14 ac permanent
y
Wetland Impact 5:
Wetland Areas 0.004 ac permanent
'`' �,
+ Restoration
Enhancement 1 (1.5:1)
Enhancement II (2.5:1) Wetland Impact 8:
0.002 ac temporary
Enhancement 11 (5:1) S,
Enhancement II (10:1)
G Wetland Data Point R
Conservation Easement
Michael Baker E" °' " °,' "`.
5000 Rq eyPkwa PCN Wetland Impacts Map S h.80
JIL 0 250 500
Cary,NO"hCUdlnap751B Thomas Creek Site
F 01919 �0511b Feet
Fu . 9A53.SC99

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF: 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.

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,
TUGWELL.TODD.JASON.1048429293
2015.03.02 12:01:40 - 05'00'
Todd Tugwell
Special Projects Manager
Enclosures
Electronic Copies Furnished:
NCIRT Distribution List
Jeff Schaffer, NCEEP
Chris Roessler, Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
CESAW- RG /Tugwell February 12, 2015
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: Thomas Creek - NCIRT Comments During 30 -day Mitigation Plan Review
PURPOSE: The comments listed below were posted to the NCEEP Mitigation Plan Review Portal
during the 30 -day comment period in accordance with Section 332.8(g) of the 2008 Mitigation
Rule.
NCEEP Project Name: Thomas Creek Restoration Project, Wake County, NC
USACE AID #: SAW- 2013 -02009
NCEEP #: 96074
30 -Day Comment Deadline: 18 January, 2015
Ginny Baker, NCDWR, 14 January, 2015:
1. The Thomas Creek Restoration Project proposes 7 years of monitoring in Section 9 but
only 5 years listed on Table 6.1, the credit release schedule. Please change the credit
release table to 7 years or clarify why this project should be for 5 years of monitoring.
2. The mapped soil units for the project are listed as WoA in Table 4.1 but appear to be
CrC, CrC2, WsE, and WsC2 primarily with some WoA. Has the site overall boundary or
soils coverage shifted? Please clarify.
3. Please correct the following table and figure references: page 2 -1, third paragraph
change Figure 2 to 2.2 and Figure 2.7 to 2.8, page 2 -2, third paragraph change Figure 2.5
to 2.4.
4. Please provide a figure that displays the intermittent and perennial sections of each
reach. Reach 3 is proposed to be 1067 with a P1 restoration approach for the majority of
the reach (Figure 17.3). DWR noted that this reach originates from an offsite pond over
1000 feet away and the stream identification form rated this section as 25.25. Although
P1 restoration will raise the bed it appears less likely this section of the reach will
become ephemeral. However DWR will support the ACOE if monitoring wells are
required and will want a stream determination to be performed by DWR at closeout
otherwise.
5. Section 17.4.3 documents that green ash and American elm are currently found in the
buffer. DWR suggests adding these and removing red maple.

6. Include what type of restoration, P1 or P2, is proposed for Reach 4 in
Approach /Rationale description on Table 7.1, p 7 -3.
Kathy Matthews, USFWS, 15 January, 2015:
1. If your project contains suitable habitat for any of the federally - listed species known to
be present within Wake County, the proposed action has the potential to adversely
affect those species. The Service has reviewed its Geographic Information System (GIS)
database for recorded locations of federally listed threatened and endangered species
on or adjacent to the proposed project site. The GIS database is a compilation of data
received from several sources. The current Federally - listed species that are known to be
present in the county include red - cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), dwarf
wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) and Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii). There
are records for both RCW and Michaux's sumac within close proximity of the project
site. Additional guidance concerning these species may be found on our website at
http: / /www.fws.gov /raleigh /es_tes.html.
2. Red - cockaded woodpecker - RCWs live together in family groups. The preferred habitat
of RCWs is an open, park -like pine stand with little undergrowth. However, RCW cavity
trees have been found in suboptimal habitats, such as pocosins with larger amounts of
undergrowth. RCW clusters (aggregations of cavity trees) may be found in longleaf pine
stands, but loblolly, short -leaf, pond, slash, Virginia, and pitch pine are also used. Living
pines (greater than 30 years old) are preferred for foraging habitat, and mature live
trees (greater than 60 years old) are used for roosting and nesting cavities (NCNHP,
2001). There are historical RCW records found directly adjacent to the property.
If the proposed project will remove pine trees greater than or equal to 10 -inch diameter
at breast height (DBH), the Service recommends that surveys for active red - cockaded
woodpecker cavity trees be conducted in all appropriate habitat on the site and within a
one - half -mile radius, as defined in Appendix 4 of the Service's "Recovery plan for the
red - cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis): second revision (Service 2003; recovery
plan). The recovery plan is available on the web at
http: / /www.fws.gov /rcwrecovery /recovery_plan.html. If red - cockaded woodpeckers
are observed within one -half mile of the project area or if active cavity trees are found,
the project has the potential to affect the red - cockaded woodpecker, and you should
contact this office for further information.
3. Michaux's sumac - Michaux's sumac is a rhizomatous, densely hairy shrub, with erect
stems from 1- 3 feet in height. The compound leaves contain evenly serrated, oblong to
lanceolate, acuminate leaflets. Most plants are unisexual; however, more recent
observations have revealed plants with both male and female flowers on one plant. The
flowers are small, borne in a terminal, erect, dense cluster, and colored greenish - yellow
to white. Flowering usually occurs from June to July; while the fruit, a red drupe, is
produced through the months of August to October. Michaux's sumac grows in sandy
or rocky open woods in association with basic soils. Apparently, this plant survives best
in areas where some form of disturbance has provided an open area. Several
populations in North Carolina are on highway rights -of way, roadsides, or on the edges
of artificially maintained clearings. Michaux's sumac is found within 2.5 miles of the

project site. The Service recommends that surveys be conducted to determine the
presence or absence of Michaux's sumac in the project site. Surveys should be
completed on the entire project site, within the appropriate survey window for the
species. The use of North Carolina Natural Heritage Program data should not be
substituted for actual field surveys. If you determine that the proposed action may
affect (i.e., likely to adversely affect or not likely to adversely affect) a federally -
protected species, you should notify this office of your determination, the results of
your surveys, survey methodologies, and an analysis of the effects of the action on listed
species, including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, before
conducting any activities that might affect the species. If you determine that the
proposed action will have no effect (i.e., no beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect
effect) on federally - listed species, then you are not required to contact our office for
concurrence (unless an Environmental Impact Statement is prepared). However, you
should maintain a complete record of the assessment, including steps leading to your
determination of effect, the qualified personnel conducting the assessment, habitat
conditions, site photographs, and any other related articles."
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, 15 January, 2015:
1. Red maple is shown as a planted species, this is not necessary. Although Red maple is
found in late successional forest communities it will establish as an early successional
species on disturbed sites and should naturally recolonize in the project area. Planted
species should be comprised of climax community species with the intent of reducing
the temporal lag associated with restoring these systems in the absence of an existing
seed source.
Todd Bowers, USEPA, 22 January, 2015:
2. Page III of Executive Summary: Second paragraph has wrong HUC for Cape Fear.
3. Table ES.1: Many of the existing stream lengths are not consistent with Table 4.1 and
Table 5.1 and Stream map on page 131 (of pdf) stream lengths
4. Page 2 -1: Table 1 Existing project reach length are not consistent with other existing
stream lengths throughout the document.
5. Page 3 -1: Recommend riparian buffer widths of 50' are based on stream belt width
rather than top of streambank.
6. Page 4 -1: Table 4.1 reach lengths are inconsistent with others in document (see note
above)
7. Page 5 -1: Table 5.1 (see notes about stream length inconsistencies)
8. Page 6 -1 and 6 -2: Typically 15% of total credits is held in reserve for two bankfull events
in separate years for stream mitigation sites rather than the stated 10 %. Recommend
updating Table 6.1 to reflect this.
9. Page 7 -1: Recommend removing red maple (Acer rubrum) from planting list (see Table
17.11 too)
10. Page 7 -3: Table 7.1 1 am a bit apprehensive about using a stream designated for
Enhancement to be used also as "reference- quality" stream for restoration design. I
understand that Piedmont regional curves are being used as well, but I recommend

finding another reference stream that captures the desired characteristics of the lower
end of the site that captures the maximum runoff of the watershed.
11. Page 9 -1 and 9 -4: If closeout is considered at year 5, what is the target average tree
height for year 5? It is 10 feet for year 7 success so this is probably not a good target
height for year 5.
12. Page 9 -2: Recommend the use of wells with a depth gage /piezometer to monitor water
table /flood depths and duration. This will more accurately represent the function of
stream and floodplain connectivity /interaction rather than a single crest gage reading
between site visits. This data may allow for troubleshooting should vegetation fail to
grow or point out many parts of the floodplain that are not accessed by the stream
when the design says it should be.
13. Recommend a baseline soil analysis for bulk density and nutrient availability in order to
optimize conditions for vegetation transplant survival. Successful restoration has failed
on many sites due to poor soil conditions and lack of water table access.
14. Page 17 -37: Table 17 -6 has many errors. R2 lower DA should be 0.275 square miles and
column 3 and 4 should be swapped with the exception of R5 which should have a cross
section of 4.5 sq ft and not 4.0.
15. Page 17 -50: Recommend riparian buffer width based on stream beltwidth and not
stream bank edge.
16. Figure 2.2 does not match Figures 2.2 and 9.1
17. Reach locations and extents are very difficult to discern from the provided maps.
Recommend including proper reach names and lengths within the map similar to
watershed map 2.3"
Todd Tugwell, USACE, 12 February, 2015:
1. It is not clear that a Jurisdictional Determination has been requested for the property.
The mitigation plan references a confirmation provided in July 2014, however I cannot
find documentation of that confirmation. Please ensure that a JD is obtained from the
USACE Raleigh field office prior to submitting the NW 27 permit preconstruction
notification. This is also important to ensure that all of the impacts to existing wetlands
and streams on the property are accounted for in the PCN. Maps showing the location
of impacts should also be submitted with the PCN. Additionally, in the PCN please
discuss how the wetland impacts will be offset through the (presumed) creation of new
wetlands on the site.
2. Several of the approaches that were agreed upon during the IRT review of the site have
been changed along with the proposed credit ratios. Some discussion regarding these
changes is provided in Section 17.1.2.1 of the mitigation plan, but not all of the sections
address why these changes are needed. In particular, post meeting minutes show that
the recommended approach for reach T2 was restoration; however this has been
changed to Ell. Please ensure that the mitigation work plan documents all of the
changes from the approaches that were discussed during the site meeting on Oct. 9,
2013.
3. Please update the credit release schedule to reflect the 7 year monitoring period.

4. If possible, please consider moving the cattle crossing on Reach T1 up to the head of the
stream to reduce fragmentation of the project. If this is not possible, please provide an
explanation of why not.
s-- _- TUGWELL.TODD.JASON.1048
429293
2015.02.12 12:37:46 - 05'00'
Todd Tugwell
Special Projects Manager
Regulatory Division

Wetland Impact 7:
0.14 ac permanent
Wetland Areas
4
s` Restoration
Ir
Enhancement 1 (1.5:1) ~
Enhancement II (2.5:1)
Enhancement 11 (5:1)
Enhancement 11 (10:1)
Wetland Data Point
J, Conservation Easement tV
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway
sm1e600 0 250
Cary , Norlh Carolina 27518
Phone'. 919.463 5488
Fax'. 919.463 5490
Wetland Impact 4:
0.004 ac permanent
1 Wetland Impact 5:
0.004 ac permanent
Wetland Impact 6:
0.002 ac temporary
PCN Wetland Impacts Map
50o
M Feet Thomas Creek Site

Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway
Suite 500
Cary, North Carolina 27518
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
March 2, 2015
Lin Xu, Permit Coordinator and Jeff Schaffer, Project Manager
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
Subject: Task 3: Response Letter to NCIRT 30 -day review comments regarding the
Thomas Creek Restoration Project, Wake County
Cape Fear Cataloging Unit 0304004
NCEEP Project ID No. 96074
DENR Contract No. 005549
USACE AID No: SAW - 2013 -02009
Baker Project No. 135794
Dear Mr. Xu and Mr. Schaffer,
Please find enclosed the Final Mitigation Plan and Thomas Creek Restoration Project located in
Wake County, NC. We have revised Final Draft Mitigation Plan documents in response to the
referenced review comments and USACE approval letter dated February 12, 2015.
Below are selected comments from the reviewers and Baker's response to those comments in
italics. Changes were made in the document in response to most comments, if applicable.
Ginny Baker, NCDWR, January 14, 2015:
1. The Thomas Creek Restoration Project proposes 7 years of monitoring in Section 9 but only 5
years listed on Table 6. 1, the credit release schedule. Please change the credit release table to 7
years or clarify why this project should be for 5 years of monitoring.
7 years of monitoring is now included in Table 6.1.
2. The mapped soil units for the project are listed as WoA in Table 4.1 but appear to be CrC, CrC2,
WsE, and WsC2 primarily with some WoA. Has the site overay boundary or soils coverage
shifted? Please clarify.
On page 2 -1: Note that the GIS soils layer in Figure 2.3 does not line up well with the streams
and conservation easement; however, the NRCS 1970 Wake County soil survey confirms that the
floodplain soils for all of the project reaches are Wehadkee and Bibb soils.
Page 1 of 6

3. Please correct the following table and figure references: page 2 -1, third paragraph change Figure 2 to 2.2
and Figure 2.7 to 2.8, page 2 -2, third paragraph change Figure 2.5 to 2.4.
These changes have been made.
4. Please provide a figure that displays the intermittent and perennial sections of each reach. Reach
3 is proposed to be 1067 with a P restoration approach for the majority of the reach (Figure
17.3). DWR noted that this reach originates from an offsite pond over 1000 feet away and the
stream identification form rated this section as 25.25. Although P 1 restoration will raise the bed
it appears less likely this section of the reach will become ephemeral. However DWR will
support the ACOE if monitoring wells are required and will want a stream determination to be
performed by DWR at closeout otherwise.
Figure 2.2b has been added to show intermittent and perennial reaches. The restoration section
of Reach R3 is entirely within the perennial portion of that reach. A follow -up field visit was
conducted to identify the intermittent perennial break on Reaches R3 (below trib) and R6
(below headcut).
5. Section 17.4.3 documents that green ash and American elm are currently found in the buffer. DWR
suggests adding these and removing red maple.
NCEEP Staff favor red maple as a planted species. However, since it should naturally
recolonize and several IRT members made similar comments, Baker has substituted green ash
for red maple.
6. Include what type of restoration, P1 or P2, is proposed for Reach 4 in Approach/Rationale
description on Table 7. 1, p 7 -3.
This will be Priority 2 restoration; added to Table 7.1.
Kathy Matthews, USFWS, January 15, 2015:
If your project contains suitable habitat for any of the federally - listed species known to be
present within Wake County, the proposed action has the potential to adversely affect those
species. The Service has reviewed its Geographic Information System (GIS) database for
recorded locations of federally listed threatened and endangered species on or adjacent to the
proposed project site. The GIS database is a compilation of data received from several sources.
The current Federally - listed species that are known to be present in the county include red -
cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) and
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii). There are records for both RCW and Michaux's sumac
within close proximity of the project site. Additional guidance concerning these species may be
found on our website at http:// www .fws.gov /raleigbYes_tes.html.
The Categorical Exclusion section of the mitigation plan is in Appendix B and includes Baker's
consideration of threatened and endangered species. Suitable habitat for Michaux's sumac is
present in the study area along roadside shoulders and cleared tracks. Surveys were conducted
by Baker biologists throughout areas of suitable habitat on September 17, 2013. No individuals
of Michaux's sumac were observed. It was determined that this project will not affect this
species.
The Categorical Exclusion also determined that suitable habitat for the red - cockaded
woodpecker does not exist in the study area, therefore, a half mile survey was not conducted. It
Page 2 of 6

was concluded that the project will not affect this species. However, after receiving this
comment from Kathy Matthews, Baker conducted a survey of the project area.
A survey for suitable habitat for the red- cockaded woodpecker was conducted for the entire
study area on February 4, 2015. No such habitat was found. No mature pine stands were
observed anywhere on the project area, and only five individual trees of appropriate age were
discovered (see map for details). Each was inspected and determined not to have any excavated
cavities. Thus, it was concluded that the project will not affect this species. As suitable habitat
for the red - cockaded woodpecker does not exist within the study area, a half mile survey was not
conducted. This interpretation was confirmed by Kathy Matthews via conference call on January
30, 2015.
Travis Wilson, N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission, January 15, 2015
1. Red maple is shown as a planted species, this is not necessary. Although Red maple is found in
late successional forest communities it will establish as an early successional species on
disturbed sites and should naturally recolonize in the project area. Planted species should be
comprised of climax community species with the intent of reducing the temporal lag associated
with restoring these systems in the absence of an existing seed source.
NCEEP Staff favor red maple as a planted species. However, since it should naturally
recolonize and several IRT members made similar comments, Baker has substituted green ash
for red maple.
Todd Bowers, USEPA, January 22, 2015
1. Page III of Executive Summary: Second paragraph has wrong HUC for Cape Fear.
Another'0' added to correct the listed HUC.
2. Table ESA: Many of the existing stream lengths are not consistent with Table 4.1 and Table 5.1
and Stream map on page 131 (of pdf) stream lengths
Inconsistencies corrected. Note that the stream crossings affect lengths and SMUs in some
cases.
3. Page 2 -1: Table 1 Existing project reach length are not consistent with other existing stream
lengths throughout the document.
Changes made to the document to make existing lengths consistent.
4. Page 3 -1: Recommend riparian buffer widths of 50' are based on stream belt width rather than
top of streambank.
Recommendation noted. I prefer to state that the minimal buffer width from all proposed
streambanks is at least 50 feet.
5. Page 4 -1: Table 4.1 reach lengths are inconsistent with others in document (see note above)
Inconsistencies corrected.
6. Page 5 -1: Table 5.1 (see notes about stream length inconsistencies)
Page 3 of 6

Inconsistencies corrected.
7. Page 6 -1 and 6 -2: Typically 15% of total credits is held in reserve for two bankfull events in
separate years for stream mitigation sites rather than the stated 10 %. Recommend updating
Table 6.1 to reflect this.
This table comes from NCEEP.
8. Page 7 -1: Recommend removing red maple (Acer rubrm) from planting list (see Table 17.11
too)
See above, red maple has been removed.
9. Page 7 -3: Table 7.11 am a bit apprehensive about using a stream designated for Enhancement to
be used also as "reference - quality" stream for restoration design. I understand that Piedmont
regional curves are being used as well, but I recommend finding another reference stream that
captures the desired characteristics of the lower end of the site that captures the maximum runoff
of the watershed.
This reach is reference - quality. It is only targeted for enhancement to supplement the buffer on
the outer fringes of the easement. Additionally, nearby Little Beaver Creek is presented as a
reference reach for the more downstream reaches in the project area.
10. Page 9 -1 and 9 -4: If closeout is considered at year 5, what is the target average tree height for
year 5? It is 10 feet for year 7 success so this is probably not a good target height for year 5.
Height criteria are not available for closeout at year S. This is a good question for the IRT and
NCEEP. At any rate, we have substituted the 7-year closeout schedule.
11. Page 9 -2: Recommend the use of wells with a depth gage /piezometer to monitor water
table /flood depths and duration. This will more accurately represent the function of stream and
floodplain connectivity /interaction rather than a single crest gage reading between site visits.
This data may allow for troubleshooting should vegetation fail to grow or point out many parts
of the floodplain that are not accessed by the stream when the design says it should be.
Agreed. All three crest gages will be changed to pressure transducers.
12. Recommend a baseline soil analysis for bulk density and nutrient availability in order to
optimize conditions for vegetation transplant survival. Successful restoration has failed on many
sites due to poor soil conditions and lack of water table access.
This may be done. The site is not likely to be nutrient poor since areas have either been in
pasture or are cutover with abundant evidence of saprophytic fungi. Additionally, soil
preparation measures will be undertaken as described in Section 17.5.6 Proposed Riparian
Vegetation Plantings.
13. Page 17 -37: Table 17 -6 has many errors. R2 lower DA should be 0.275 square miles and column
3 and 4 should be swapped with the exception of R5 which should have a cross section of 4.5 sq
ft and not 4.0.
Page 4 of 6

Note added below this table emphasizing that drainage areas and cross section measurements in
this table apply to cross section locations, not the outlet point of each reach.
14. Page 17 -50: Recommend riparian buffer width based on stream beltwidth and not stream bank
edge.
See response above to comment 4.
15. Figure 2.2 does not match Figures 2.2 and 9.1
I'm not sure how they don't match. I reviewed each to verify what was intended has been
presented.
16. Reach locations and extents are very difficult to discern from the provided maps. Recommend
including proper reach names and lengths within the map similar to watershed map 2.3
Additional reach labels have been added to figures.
Todd Tugwell, USACE, February 12, 2015
1. It is not clear that a Jurisdictional Determination has been requested for the property...
Baker planned to submit the JD package to the Corps with the NW 27 application, per
recommendation from other Corps staff. Based on this comment, we submitted the JD package
on February 12, 2015. Maps showing the location of impacts will be submitted with the PCN.
Also, the PCN will include statements about how wetland impacts will be avoided and offset
through creation of new wetlands on the site.
2. Several of the approaches that were agreed upon during the IRT review of the site have been
changed along with the proposed credit ratios. Some discussion regarding these changes is
provided in Section 17.1.2.1 of the mitigation plan, but not all of the sections address why these
changes are needed. In particular, post meeting minutes show that the recommended approach
for Reach T2 was restoration; however, this has been changed to EII. Please be sure that the
mitigation plan documents all of the changes from the approaches that were discussed during the
site meeting on October 9, 2013.
Regarding the approach for Reach T2, you're right that we had El at 1:1 credit after the IRT
site review. It turns out that not much work was needed there so we reduced it to E2 at 2.5:1.
An explanation of why Reach TI was reduced from Restoration to El is provided on page 17 -23.
Also, an explanation of slight changes to Reach R3 are provided on page 17 -21. Finally, upper
Reach R6 was also changed from restoration to El and an explanation was provided on page
17 -22.
3. Please update the credit release schedule to reflect the 7 year monitoring period.
This has been done.
4. If possible, please consider moving the cattle crossing on Reach T 1 up to the head of the stream
to reduce fragmentation of the project. If this is not possible, please provide an explanation of
why not.
Page 5 of 6

There is a nice wetland at the head of Reach TI that we elected to preserve as the plans are
drawn. Also, there is an existing area that the cattle use for crossing where we have the
proposed crossing. As such, I believe it will work out better to preserve the existing features
rather than put a crossing in an existing wetland and make a wetland out of an existing crossing.
This letter serves as the formal response to NCIRT comments and shall be submitted in
conjunction with the Preconstruction Notification (PCN) for Nationwide Permit (NWP) 27
application approval.
If you have any questions concerning the Final Mitigation Plan, please contact me at 919 -481-
5737 or via email at croessler&mbakerintl.com. With this submittal, we have provided six (6)
hard copies of the final revised mitigation plan with IRT comments, two (2) copies of the
completed PCN, and two (2) CDs with electronic copies of the documents. We look forward to
the NWP 27 authorization.
Sincerely
Chris Roessler, Project Manager
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Enclosures: Final Mitigation Plan Documents, 401/404 PCN permit application for the Thomas Creek
Restoration Project.
Page 6 of 6

Appendix A
Categorical Exclusion Form for Ecosystem Enhancement
Program Projects
Version 1.4
Note: Only Appendix A should to be submitted (along with any supporting documentation) as the
environmental document.
Part 1: General Project Information
Project Name: Thomas Creek Stream Restoration Site
Count Name: wake
EEP Number: 96074
Pro ject S onsor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Project Contact Name: Chris Roessler
Project Contact Address: 1 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 500 Cary NC 27518
Project Contact E -mail: I croessler @meakercerp.com
EEP Proect Mana er: I Heather Smith (heather.asmith @ncdenr.gov)
Project Description
The Thomas Creek Restoration Project in Wake County, North Carolina is located approximately 1.5 miles
southwest of the community of New Hill, within North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(NCDENR) sub -basin 03 -06 -07 and the targeted local watershed 03030004 - 020010 of the Cape Fear River Basin.
The proposed project is a full- delivery effort for the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) in
response to RFP#: 16- 005020. Project goals include the restoration of approximately 8,400 feet of stream for the
purpose of obtaining stream mitigation credit in the Cape Fear River Basin. The project mitigation plan is under
development, but based on estimates following the site visit with the IRT, it is anticipated to include 4,868 feet of
Restoration, 248 feet of Enhancement 1, and 3,241 feet of Enhancement 2. This project would be considered a
"Ground- Disturbing Activity" and the entire CE checklist has been completed.
Date EEP Project Manager
Conditional Approved By:
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
❑ Check this box if there are outstanding issues
Final Approval By:
- 13 -�y��
Date or Division Administrator
FHWA
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Part 2: All Projects
..
Coastal Zone Management Act CZMA
1. Is the project located in a CAMA county?
❑ Yes
E] No
2. Does the project involve ground- disturbing activities within a CAMA Area of
❑ Yes
Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ No
✓❑ N/A
3. Has a CAMA permit been secured?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Q N/A
4. Has NCDCM agreed that the project is consistent with the NC Coastal Management
❑ Yes
Program?
❑ No
❑ N/A
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liabilit Act CERCLA
1. Is this a "full- delivery" project?
El Yes
❑ No
2. Has the zoning /land use of the subject property and adjacent properties ever been
❑ Yes
designated as commercial or industrial?
El No
❑ N/A
3. As a result of a limited Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential
❑ Yes
hazardous waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
❑ No
❑ N/A
4. As a result of a Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
❑ Yes
waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
❑ No
❑ N/A
5. As a result of a Phase 11 Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
❑ Yes
waste sites within the project area?
❑ No
[Z] N/A
6. Is there an approved hazardous mitigation plan?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑Q N/A
National Historic Preservation Act Section 106
1. Are there properties listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of
❑ Yes
Historic Places in the project area?
❑✓ No
2. Does the project affect such properties and does the SHPO /THPO concur?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
3. If the effects are adverse, have they been resolved?
❑ Yes
❑ No
✓❑ N/A
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act Uniform
Act
1. Is this a "full- delivery" project?
❑✓ Yes
❑ No
2. Does the project require the acquisition of real estate?
✓❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
3. Was the property acquisition completed prior to the intent to use federal funds?
❑ Yes
❑✓ No
N/A
4. Has the owner of the property been informed:❑
Yes
• prior to making an offer that the agency does not have condemnation authority; and
❑ No
• what the fair market value is believed to be?
❑ N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Version 1.4, 8/18/05
Part 3: Ground-Disturbing Activities
Regulation/Question
..
American Indian Religious Freedom Act AIRFA
1.
Is the project located in a county claimed as "territory" by the Eastern Band of
❑ Yes
Cherokee
Indians?
E] No
2.
Is the site of religious importance to American Indians?
❑ Yes
❑ No
s❑ N/A
3.
Is the project listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic
❑ Yes
Places?
❑ No
✓❑ N/A
4.
Have the effects of the project on this site been considered?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Antiquities Act AA
1.
Is the project located on Federal lands?
❑ Yes
❑✓ No
2.
Will there be loss or destruction of historic or prehistoric ruins, monuments or objects
❑ Yes
of antiquity?
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
3.
Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required?
❑ Yes
❑ No
✓❑ N/A
4.
Has a permit been obtained?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
Archaeological Resources Protection Act ARPA
1.
Is the project located on federal or Indian lands (reservation)?
❑ Yes
Q No
2.
Will there be a loss or destruction of archaeological resources?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
3.
Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required?
❑ Yes
❑ No
[Z] N/A
4.
Has a permit been obtained?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Endangered Species Act ESA
1.
Are federal Threatened and Endangered species and /or Designated Critical Habitat
❑✓ Yes
listed for the county?
❑ No
2.
Is Designated Critical Habitat or suitable habitat present for listed species?
❑✓ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
3.
Are T &E species present or is the project being conducted in Designated Critical
❑ Yes
Habitat?
❑✓ No
❑ N/A
4.
Is the project "likely to adversely affect" the species and /or "likely to adversely modify"
❑ Yes
Designated
Critical Habitat?
✓❑ No
❑ N/A
5.
Does the USFWS /NOAA- Fisheries concur in the effects determination?
❑✓ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
6.
Has the USFWS /NOAA- Fisheries rendered a `jeopardy" determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
[Z] N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred Sites
1. Is the project located on Federal lands that are within a county claimed as "territory"
❑ Yes
by the EBCI?
[Z] No
2. Has the EBCI indicated that Indian sacred sites may be impacted by the proposed
❑ Yes
project?
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
3. Have accommodations been made for access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred
❑ Yes
sites?
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
Farmland Protection Polic Act FPPA
1. Will real estate be acquired?
✓❑ Yes
❑ No
2. Has NRCS determined that the project contains prime, unique, statewide or locally
❑ Yes
important farmland?
❑ No
❑ N/A
3. Has the completed Form AD -1006 been submitted to NRCS?
❑✓ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act FWCA
1. Will the project impound, divert, channel deepen, or otherwise control /modify any
❑✓ Yes
water body?
❑ No
2. Have the USFWS and the NCWRC been consulted?
❑✓ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act Section 6 f
1. Will the project require the conversion of such property to a use other than public,
❑ Yes
outdoor recreation?
❑ No
2. Has the NIPS approved of the conversion?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish
Habitat
1. Is the project located in an estuarine system?
❑ Yes
0 No
2. Is suitable habitat present for EFH- protected species?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
3. Is sufficient design information available to make a determination of the effect of the
❑ Yes
project on EFH?
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
4. Will the project adversely affect EFH?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
5. Has consultation with NOAA- Fisheries occurred?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
MigratorV Bird Treat Act MBTA
1. Does the USFWS have any recommendations with the project relative to the MBTA?
❑ Yes
❑✓ No
2. Have the USFWS recommendations been incorporated?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
Wilderness Act
1. Is the project in a Wilderness area?
❑ Yes
[Z] No
2. Has a special use permit and /or easement been obtained from the maintaining
❑ Yes
federal agency?
❑ No
❑ N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

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'
Page 1 of 6

March 2, 2015

Lin Xu, Permit Coordinator and Jeff Schaffer, Project Manager
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

Subject: Task 3: Response Letter to NCIRT 30-day review comments regarding the
Thomas Creek Restoration Project, Wake County
Cape Fear Cataloging Unit 0304004
NCEEP Project ID No. 96074
DENR Contract No. 005549
USACE AID No: SAW-2013-02009
Baker Project No. 135794

Dear Mr. Xu and Mr. Schaffer,

Please find enclosed the Final Mitigation Plan and Thomas Creek Restoration Project located in
Wake County, NC. We have revised Final Draft Mitigation Plan documents in response to the
referenced review comments and USACE approval letter dated February 12, 2015.

Below are selected comments from the reviewers and Baker’s response to those comments in
italics. Changes were made in the document in response to most comments, if applicable.

Ginny Baker, NCDWR, January 14, 2015:

1. The Thomas Creek Restoration Project proposes 7 years of monitoring in Section 9 but only 5
years listed on Table 6.1, the credit release schedule. Please change the credit release table to 7
years or clarify why this project should be for 5 years of monitoring.

7 years of monitoring is now included in Table 6.1.

2. The mapped soil units for the project are listed as WoA in Table 4.1 but appear to be CrC, CrC2,
WsE, and WsC2 primarily with some WoA. Has the site overay boundary or soils coverage
shifted? Please clarify.

On page 2-1: Note that the GIS soils layer in Figure 2.3 does not line up well with the streams
and conservation easement; however, the NRCS 1970 Wake County soil survey confirms that the
floodplain soils for all of the project reaches are Wehadkee and Bibb soils.

Page 2 of 6

3. Please correct the following table and figure references: page 2-1, third paragraph change Figure 2 to 2.2
and Figure 2.7 to 2.8, page 2-2, third paragraph change Figure 2.5 to 2.4.

These changes have been made.

4. Please provide a figure that displays the intermittent and perennial sections of each reach. Reach
3 is proposed to be 1067 with a P1 restoration approach for the majority of the reach (Figure
17.3). DWR noted that this reach originates from an offsite pond over 1000 feet away and the
stream identification form rated this section as 25.25. Although P1 restoration will raise the bed
it appears less likely this section of the reach will become ephemeral. However DWR will
support the ACOE if monitoring wells are required and will want a stream determination to be
performed by DWR at closeout otherwise.

Figure 2.2b has been added to show intermittent and perennial reaches. The restoration section
of Reach R3 is entirely within the perennial portion of that reach. A follow-up field visit was
conducted to identify the intermittent-perennial break on Reaches R3 (below trib.) and R6
(below headcut).

5. Section 17.4.3 documents that green ash and American elm are currently found in the buffer. DWR
suggests adding these and removing red maple.

NCEEP Staff favor red maple as a planted species. However, since it should naturally
recolonize and several IRT members made similar comments, Baker has substituted green ash
for red maple.

6. Include what type of restoration, P1 or P2, is proposed for Reach 4 in Approach/Rationale
description on Table 7.1, p 7-3.

This will be Priority 2 restoration; added to Table 7.1.

Kathy Matthews, USFWS, January 15, 2015:

1. If your project contains suitable habitat for any of the federally-listed species known to be
present within Wake County, the proposed action has the potential to adversely affect those
species. The Service has reviewed its Geographic Information System (GIS) database for
recorded locations of federally listed threatened and endangered species on or adjacent to the
proposed project site. The GIS database is a compilation of data received from several sources.
The current Federally-listed species that are known to be present in the county include red-
cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) and
Michaux’s sumac (Rhus michauxii). There are records for both RCW and Michaux’s sumac
within close proximity of the project site. Additional guidance concerning these species may be
found on our website at http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/es_tes.html.

The Categorical Exclusion section of the mitigation plan is in Appendix B and includes Baker’s
consideration of threatened and endangered species. Suitable habitat for Michaux’s sumac is
present in the study area along roadside shoulders and cleared tracks. Surveys were conducted
by Baker biologists throughout areas of suitable habitat on September 17, 2013. No individuals
of Michaux’s sumac were observed. It was determined that this project will not affect this
species.

The Categorical Exclusion also determined that suitable habitat for the red-cockaded
woodpecker does not exist in the study area, therefore, a half mile survey was not conducted. It
Page 3 of 6

was concluded that the project will not affect this species. However, after receiving this
comment from Kathy Matthews, Baker conducted a survey of the project area.

A survey for suitable habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker was conducted for the entire
study area on February 4, 2015. No such habitat was found. No mature pine stands were
observed anywhere on the project area, and only five individual trees of appropriate age were
discovered (see map for details). Each was inspected and determined not to have any excavated
cavities. Thus, it was concluded that the project will not affect this species. As suitable habitat
for the red-cockaded woodpecker does not exist within the study area, a half mile survey was not
conducted. This interpretation was confirmed by Kathy Matthews via conference call on January
30, 2015.

Travis Wilson, N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission, January 15, 2015

1. Red maple is shown as a planted species, this is not necessary. Although Red maple is found in
late successional forest communities it will establish as an early successional species on
disturbed sites and should naturally recolonize in the project area. Planted species should be
comprised of climax community species with the intent of reducing the temporal lag associated
with restoring these systems in the absence of an existing seed source.

NCEEP Staff favor red maple as a planted species. However, since it should naturally
recolonize and several IRT members made similar comments, Baker has substituted green ash
for red maple.

Todd Bowers, USEPA, January 22, 2015
1. Page III of Executive Summary: Second paragraph has wrong HUC for Cape Fear.

Another’0’ added to correct the listed HUC.

2. Table ES.1: Many of the existing stream lengths are not consistent with Table 4.1 and Table 5.1
and Stream map on page 131 (of pdf) stream lengths

Inconsistencies corrected. Note that the stream crossings affect lengths and SMUs in some
cases.

3. Page 2-1: Table 1 Existing project reach length are not consistent with other existing stream
lengths throughout the document.

Changes made to the document to make existing lengths consistent.

4. Page 3-1: Recommend riparian buffer widths of 50’ are based on stream belt width rather than
top of streambank.

Recommendation noted. I prefer to state that the minimal buffer width from all proposed
streambanks is at least 50 feet.

5. Page 4-1: Table 4.1 reach lengths are inconsistent with others in document (see note above)

Inconsistencies corrected.

6. Page 5-1: Table 5.1 (see notes about stream length inconsistencies)
Page 4 of 6

Inconsistencies corrected.

7. Page 6-1 and 6-2: Typically 15% of total credits is held in reserve for two bankfull events in
separate years for stream mitigation sites rather than the stated 10%. Recommend updating
Table 6.1 to reflect this.

This table comes from NCEEP.

8. Page 7-1: Recommend removing red maple (Acer rubrm) from planting list (see Table 17.11
too)

See above, red maple has been removed.

9. Page 7-3: Table 7.1 I am a bit apprehensive about using a stream designated for Enhancement to
be used also as “reference-quality” stream for restoration design. I understand that Piedmont
regional curves are being used as well, but I recommend finding another reference stream that
captures the desired characteristics of the lower end of the site that captures the maximum runoff
of the watershed.

This reach is reference-quality. It is only targeted for enhancement to supplement the buffer on
the outer fringes of the easement. Additionally, nearby Little Beaver Creek is presented as a
reference reach for the more downstream reaches in the project area.

10. Page 9-1 and 9-4: If closeout is considered at year 5, what is the target average tree height for
year 5? It is 10 feet for year 7 success so this is probably not a good target height for year 5.

Height criteria are not available for closeout at year 5. This is a good question for the IRT and
NCEEP. At any rate, we have substituted the 7-year closeout schedule.

11. Page 9-2: Recommend the use of wells with a depth gage/piezometer to monitor water
table/flood depths and duration. This will more accurately represent the function of stream and
floodplain connectivity/interaction rather than a single crest gage reading between site visits.
This data may allow for troubleshooting should vegetation fail to grow or point out many parts
of the floodplain that are not accessed by the stream when the design says it should be.

Agreed. All three crest gages will be changed to pressure transducers.

12. Recommend a baseline soil analysis for bulk density and nutrient availability in order to
optimize conditions for vegetation transplant survival. Successful restoration has failed on many
sites due to poor soil conditions and lack of water table access.

This may be done. The site is not likely to be nutrient poor since areas have either been in
pasture or are cutover with abundant evidence of saprophytic fungi. Additionally, soil
preparation measures will be undertaken as described in Section 17.5.6 Proposed Riparian
Vegetation Plantings.

13. Page 17-37: Table 17-6 has many errors. R2 lower DA should be 0.275 square miles and column
3 and 4 should be swapped with the exception of R5 which should have a cross section of 4.5 sq
ft and not 4.0.

Page 5 of 6

Note added below this table emphasizing that drainage areas and cross section measurements in
this table apply to cross section locations, not the outlet point of each reach.

14. Page 17-50: Recommend riparian buffer width based on stream beltwidth and not stream bank
edge.

See response above to comment 4.

15. Figure 2.2 does not match Figures 2.2 and 9.1

I’m not sure how they don’t match. I reviewed each to verify what was intended has been
presented.

16. Reach locations and extents are very difficult to discern from the provided maps. Recommend
including proper reach names and lengths within the map similar to watershed map 2.3

Additional reach labels have been added to figures.

Todd Tugwell, USACE, February 12, 2015
1. It is not clear that a Jurisdictional Determination has been requested for the property…

Baker planned to submit the JD package to the Corps with the NW 27 application, per
recommendation from other Corps staff. Based on this comment, we submitted the JD package
on February 12, 2015. Maps showing the location of impacts will be submitted with the PCN.
Also, the PCN will include statements about how wetland impacts will be avoided and offset
through creation of new wetlands on the site.

2. Several of the approaches that were agreed upon during the IRT review of the site have been
changed along with the proposed credit ratios. Some discussion regarding these changes is
provided in Section 17.1.2.1 of the mitigation plan, but not all of the sections address why these
changes are needed. In particular, post meeting minutes show that the recommended approach
for Reach T2 was restoration; however, this has been changed to EII. Please be sure that the
mitigation plan documents all of the changes from the approaches that were discussed during the
site meeting on October 9, 2013.

Regarding the approach for Reach T2, you're right that we had E1 at 1:1 credit after the IRT
site review. It turns out that not much work was needed there so we reduced it to E2 at 2.5:1.

An explanation of why Reach T1 was reduced from Restoration to E1 is provided on page 17-23.
Also, an explanation of slight changes to Reach R3 are provided on page 17-21. Finally, upper
Reach R6 was also changed from restoration to E1 and an explanation was provided on page
17-22.

3. Please update the credit release schedule to reflect the 7 year monitoring period.

This has been done.

4. If possible, please consider moving the cattle crossing on Reach T1 up to the head of the stream
to reduce fragmentation of the project. If this is not possible, please provide an explanation of
why not.

T
dr
pr
ra

This l
conju
applic

If you
5737
hard c
comp
the N

Since

Chris
Mich

Enclos
Restor
There is a nice
rawn. Also, th
roposed cross
ather than pu
letter serves
unction with t
cation approv
u have any qu
or via email
copies of the
pleted PCN, a
NWP 27 autho
erely
s Roessler, Pr
ael Baker En
sures: Final M
ration Project.
e wetland at th
here is an exis
sing. As such,
t a crossing i
as the formal
the Preconstr
val.
uestions conc
at croessler@
e final revised
and two (2) C
orization.
roject Manag
ngineering, In
Mitigation Plan

he head of Re
sting area tha
, I believe it w
n an existing
l response to
ruction Notif
cerning the F
@mbakerintl
d mitigation p
CDs with elec

ger
nc.
Documents, 40

Page 6 of 6
each T1 that w
at the cattle u
will work out
wetland and
NCIRT com
fication (PCN
Final Mitigati
.com. With t
plan with IRT
ctronic copie
01/404 PCN pe
we elected to p
use for crossin
better to pres
make a wetla
mments and s
N) for Nation
ion Plan, ple
this submittal
T comments
es of the docu
ermit applicati
preserve as t
ng where we h
serve the exis
and out of an
shall be subm
nwide Permit
ase contact m
l, we have pr
, two (2) cop
uments. We
ion for the Tho
the plans are
have the
sting features
existing cross
mitted in
t (NWP) 27
me at 919-48
rovided six (6
pies of the
look forward
omas Creek
sing.
1-
6)
d to
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
Wetland Impact 6:0.002 ac temporary
Wetland Impacts 2:0.025 ac permanent0.04 ac temporary
Wetland Impact 5:0.004 ac permanent
Wetland Impact 8:0.025 ac temporary
Wetland Impact 7:0.14 ac permanent
Wetland Impact 3:0.03 ac permanent
Wetland Impact 4:0.004 ac permanent
Wetland Impacts 1:0.015 ac permanent
No wetland impacts
No wetland impacts
No wetland impacts 5
2
1
6
3
4
0 250 500Feet
PCN Wetland Im pacts M apThomas Creek Site
±
Wetla nd Area s
Resto ration
En hanceme nt I (1.5:1)
En hanceme nt II (2.5:1 )
En hanceme nt II (5:1)
En hanceme nt II (10:1)
#*Wetla nd Data Po int
Conservatio n Ease me nt