20190006 Ver 1_more info requested_20190104

Strickland, Bev
From: Homewood, Sue
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2019 8:25 AM
To: 'Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (US)'; Buddy Lyons
Cc: Hugh Creed Associates Inc, P.A.
Subject: RE: [External] Request for Additional Information: Thatcher Woods phase 2, NWP 29
verification request; SAW -2018-01829
on
Please copy DWR on your response. We will consider the application on hold until we receive a copy of the response.
Thanks,
Sue Homewood
Division of Water Resources, Winston Salem Regional Office
Department of Environmental Quality
336 776 9693 office
336 813 1863 mobile
Sue. [e-mail]
450 W. Hanes Mill Rd, Suite 300
Winston Salem NC 27105
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, January 3, 2019 4:44 PM
To: Buddy Lyons <[e-mail]>
Cc: Homewood, Sue <[e-mail]>; Hugh Creed Associates Inc, P.A. <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] Request for Additional Information: Thatcher Woods phase 2, NWP 29 verification request; SAW -
2018 -01829
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verified. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]
Mr. Lyons,
Thank you for your PCN and attached information, received on 12/14/2018, for the above referenced project. I have
reviewed the information and need clarification before proceeding with verifying the use of Nationwide Permit (NWP)
29 (http://saw-eg.usace.army.mil/NWP2017/2017NWP29.pdf). Please submit the requested information below (via e-
mail is fine) within 30 days of receipt of this Notification, otherwise we may deny verification of the use of the
Nationwide Permit or consider your application withdrawn and close the file:

1) Overall development design should be revised significantly to show additional avoidance and minimization (per
NWP 29 General Condition 23). The proposed road crossing would impact 0.29 acre of riparian wetlands, which
is a considerably higher amount than most residential road crossings in this ecoregion. Note also that these
wetlands appear to have medium to high functional value due to their direct connection to a stream and
proximity to Reedy Creek and its floodplain. The crossing location should be redesigned to cross the stream and
wetland complex higher in the drainage (perhaps as a continuation of Alston Drive), thereby significantly
reducing wetland impacts;
2) Additional minimization of stream and wetland impacts could occur by adding a headwall to the downstream
end of the proposed culvert (per NWP 29 General Condition 23), which is a standard practice for most
residential and commercial road crossings;
3) The overall plansheet (Sheet 1) lacks the resolution necessary to discern the wetland boundaries, boundary of
100 -year floodplain, and lot numbers. Please update accordingly; we suggest using a solid line of a different
color for wetland (green?) and streams (blue?);
4) The following are comments on Sheets 2 and 3:
a. When roughly scaling Sheet 2, 1 calculated approximately 0.65 acre of permanent wetland impact, which
is inconsistent with your PCN and also would exceed the allowable wetland impact thresholds under
NWP 29. Please confirm your calculations and double check your pan sheet scale;
b. Given the slope of the proposed culvert (2.35%), the Corps does not suggest a V burial of the pipe due
to the risk of headcutting upstream. Please also coordinate with NCDWR on this requirement and
redesign accordingly;
c. Our recent experience is that the rip rap pad should be designed such that the rip rap is keyed into the
top of the stream bed, rather than designing for an elevation for the top of the rip rap. The top of the rip
rap should generally be set at the invert of the culvert outlet and tie into the natural stream channel
grade at the end of the rip rap pad. Further, the rip rap in the channel bed should be slightly lower than
rip rap on the bank. These requirements are intended to maintain compliance with NWP 29 Regional
Conditions 3.6 and 4.1.6;
d. When crossing such a wide geomorphic floodplain containing riparian wetlands, at -grade floodplain
culvert pipes would need to be added to the wetland crossing to maintain a hydrological connection
throughout the wetland crossing (per NWP 29 Regional Conditions 3.6.1 and 3.6.2);
5) The eastern terminus of Thatcher Woods Drive appears to encroach into or be pointed at a wetland complex to
the east. Clearly show this wetland boundary on the plans (perhaps a zoom -in would be helpful) as delineated in
the field by Pilot Environmental, Inc. Also clearly show the limits of disturbance around this road terminus. It is
clear that extending this road onto adjacent property would impact wetlands and streams on that property; we
suggest terminating the road further west from the property line to allow for avoidance and minimization of
wetland and stream impacts when this road is proposed for extension in the future;
6) On the PCN:
a. Section C.2: rip rap would be a permanent impact, although it would not currently count towards the
mitigation thresholds typified in NWP 29 General Condition 23(c)
b. Sections 5 and 7 are not filled out and the signature lacks a date;
7) The Corps must ensure compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act prior to verifying the use of a
Nationwide Permit. Note that several threatened and endangered species have been added to Guilford County
in the last few months by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The specific species include: Roanoke
logperch (Percina rex), Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas), small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides),
and Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii). You have provided no indication that any species-specific
surveys have occurred in relation to this project, particularly related to small whorled pogonia (Isotria
medeoloides) and Schweinitz's sunflower. As such, it is possible that USFWS may require such species surveys to
render concurrences on effects determinations during Corps consultation. The Corps cannot verify the use of a
Nationwide Permit until the Section 7 consultation process is complete. Further, our USFWS contacts are
currently on furlough due to the partial Federal Government shutdown;
8) Per NWP 29 General Condition 23(c), compensatory mitigation is required for your proposed wetland impacts.
Unless otherwise justified based on a functional assessment (i.e. NC Wetland Assessment Method),

compensatory mitigation is typically required at a 2:1 mitigation to impact ratio. You must also submit
compensatory mitigation acceptance documents from a private mitigation bank with an appropriate service
area, type of credits, and sufficient available credits. Or, you must submit the same from the NC Division of
Mitigation Services (see 33 CFR part 332). Note that, per # 1 above, it is highly likely that you could redesign the
crossing location to either significantly reduce your compensatory mitigation requirement, or reduce it below
the thresholds typified in NWP 29 General Condition 23(c);
Please let me know if you have any questions.
-Dave Bailey
David E. Bailey, PWS
Regulatory Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
CE -SAW -RG -R
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Phone: [phone], Ext. 30.
Fax: [phone]
Email: David. [e-mail]
We would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated Customer Service Survey is
located at: http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm apex/f?p=136:4:0
Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and complete the survey.