20190006 Ver 1_USACE Request for More Info_20190222

Strickland, Bev
From: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) < [e-mail] >
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 10:25 AM
To: Hugh Creed Associates Inc, P.A.; Buddy Lyons
Cc: Homewood, Sue
Subject: [External] RE: Request for Additional Information: Thatcher Woods phase 2, NWP 29
verification request; SAW -2018-01829
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail]<maiIto: [e-mail]>
Thank you for the revised and additional information you submitted for the above referenced project on 2/8/2019. The
information you provided successfully addressed my concerns about items 1-3, 4a, 4c, 5, and 6 from my Request for
Additional Information dated 1/3/2019. In particular, your conceptual alternative plan of an Alton Drive extension and
associated wetland/stream crossing was very useful in documenting your avoidance and minimization efforts.
Additional information is still needed to address items 4b, 4d, 7, and 8. Specifically, the following is needed:
4b. The Corps appreciates your redesign of the proposed culvert to place the culvert at grade. Please note that NCDWR
must also concur with this re -design.
4d. Given that the proposed 54" RCP would be located in the western extent of the geomorphic floodplain, please
redesign the location of the two 18" floodplain pipes to both be located on the east side of the 54" RCP. It appears that
the relatively -level geomorphic floodplain extends approximately 45 feet perpendicular to the east of the proposed 54"
RCP. Could one of the 18" pipes be placed approximately at the eastern edge of the geomorphic floodplain (i.e.
approximately 45 feet perpendicular to the east of the 54"RCP), and the other 18" pipe split the distance between the
54" RCP and the eastern -most 18" pipe? Please update the "Thatcher Woods Drive Stream Crossing Sketch Plan",
"Overall Stream Crossing Plan", and "Thatcher Woods Drive Stream Crossing Plan View" sheets accordingly. Also, please
provide a cross-section of the proposed Thatcher Woods Drive Stream Crossing showing the 54" RCP and two 18" RCPs
position vs. existing grade; note that the 18" RCPs should not be buried, but rather placed at the existing geomorphic
floodplain elevation (per NWP 29 Regional Condition 3.6.3).
7. We acknowledge, per your response, that you have reached out to USFWS regarding effect determinations for
threatened and endangered species for this project. Per our previous email, The Corps cannot verify the use of a
Nationwide Permit until the Section 7 consultation process is complete.
8. The Corps is satisfied with your responses to items 1-3, 4a -c, 5, and 6 from my Request for Additional Information
dated 1/3/2019. As such, please provide a compensatory mitigation plan for proposed wetland impacts per NWP 29
General Condition 23(c). 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).
Please note that the Corps verification of the use of NWP 29 remains on hold until the above are satisfied. 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.
-----Original Message -----
From: Hugh Creed Associates Inc, P.A. [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, February 8, 2019 2:35 PM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: Request for Additional Information: Thatcher Woods phase 2, NWP 29 verification
request; SAW -2018-01829
Mr. Bailey,
Attached is the revised PCN and additional documentation for further review. Please let me know if you need additional
information.
Thank you,
Mary Smith
HUGH CREED ASSOCIATES, INC., P.A.
Civil Engineers and Land Surveyors
1306 W. Wendover Ave.
Greensboro, NC 27408
(T) 336-275-9826
(F) 336-275-3379
From: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (US)<[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2019 4:44 PM
To: Buddy Lyons <[e-mail]>
Cc: Homewood, Sue <[e-mail]>; Hugh Creed Associates Inc, P.A. <[e-mail]>
Subject: Request for Additional Information: Thatcher Woods phase 2, NWP 29 verification request; SAW -2018-01829

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 (Blockedhttp://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]<maiIto: David. [e-mail]>

We would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated Customer Service Survey is
located at: Blockedhttp://corpsmapu.usace.army.miI/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0
Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and complete the survey.