20000597 Ver 2_Response to USACE Comments_20201104

SAGE
ECOLOGICAL
SERVICES
E5
.21116
November 3, 2020
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Office
Attn: Mr. David Bailey
3331 Heritage Trade Drive
Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Re: Corinth Village Project
Response to USACE Comments
Sage Project #2018.39
NC Division of Water Quality
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
Attn: Ms. Sue Homewood
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
On behalf of Corinth Village Partners, LLC (applicant and owner), please find attached response to
comments submitted by USACE on October 5, 2020 by e-mail.
1) The proposed project would install a road and sewer utilities to access uplands for the
construction of residential lots. The need for such access is not disputed, however you have not
demonstrated avoidance and minimization to the maximum extent practicable as required by
NWP General Conditions 23(a) and (b). For example, you propose to place fill in wetlands for
Lots 9, 11, 12, 39, and 40; it is not clear that project viability is dependent on the inclusion of
these 5 lots when the overall development proposes greater than 139 lots. Please re -design the
project to abide by NWP General Conditions 23(a) and (b), or provide documentation that such
avoidance and minimization measures are not practicable (i.e. available and capable of being
done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall
project purposes);
a. Lots 39 & 40 were eliminated from the proposed design to reduce wetland impacts. A
retaining wall is proposed around Lot 9 to eliminate lot fill in this area. Previously, Lots 99
& 100 were eliminated to reduce wetland impacts in this area. The stormwater
conveyance was further redesigned in this area to eliminate Zone 1 riparian buffer
impacts and reduce impacts in Zone 2.
2) Based on proposed grading, wetland and stream fill, and re-routing of drainage around existing
wetland and stream features, the project would eliminate the drainage area/hydrology source
from the entirety of the wetland within proposed lots 38 and 39 (even up -drainage of Impact 6) as
well as the wetland/stream complex downslope of Impact 5. Even if item 1) above is satisfied, the
Corps would consider the remainder of these wetlands/streams as indirect impacts (see NWP
General Conditions) to wetlands and streams resulting from a loss of hydrology. Note that the
combination of direct and indirect impacts to streams would likely push these impacts above the
compensatory mitigation threshold for streams, and compensatory mitigation would be required
for direct and indirect impacts resulting in a loss of hydrology and therefore aquatic function;
compensatory mitigation is typically required at a 2:1 ratio for total losses of function unless
otherwise justified based on resource quality (NCWAM/NCSAM);
Corinth Village Project Page 1 of 3
Response to USACE Comments

a. As previously stated, Lots 39 & 40 have been eliminated from the design. Proposed
wetland impacts still exceed the threshold for mitigation. An NCWAM evaluation of this
area and the area further down the drainage in Lots 11 & 12 resulted in an Overall
Wetland Rating of LOW. Therefore, wetland mitigation for this 0.12-acre impact is
proposed at a 1:1 ratio.
3) Stream Impact 3 appears to show that rip rap is proposed to be placed along stream banks below
the Ordinary High Water Mark. If so, label the rip rap on the plan and profile view of this crossing,
and ensure that the stream impacts associated with rip rap are included and itemized clearly on
the PCN and plans as permanent impacts. Clearly note whether or not any rip rap in the stream
bed will be keyed into the stream bed;
a. The proposed rip rap along Stream C at Impact 3 have been depicted in the profile view
on Sheet 2.0 and have been noted in the PCN impact table.
4) Provide a profile view of the utility crossing shown along Stream Impacts 3/4 and Wetland Impact
4. This profile should clearly show the proposed utility line and rip rap, and the existing stream
bed and wetland extents;
a. A utility crossing profile has been included on Sheet 2.0.
5) Please submit a wetland restoration plan for the temporary wetland impact areas, including
confirmation that the wetland impact area will be returned to pre -construction grade and contour,
that the top 12 inches of the trench will be backfilled with topsoil from the trench, and include a
revegetation plan using native wetland species;
a. As discussed below, this impact has been changed to a permanent impact. Topsoil
removed will be placed outside of the wetland boundary. The trench will be backfilled with
topsoil removed from the trench. This area will be returned to pre -construction grade and
contours and revegetated.
6) Wetland Impact 4 is proposed as temporary wetland impacts for the installation of a sewer line.
Please distinguish the permanent utility maintenance corridor through wetlands on the PCN and
plans. Since the total loss of wetlands for this project would exceed 0.1 acre, and per NWP 29
General Condition 23(i), we would require compensatory mitigation for such permanent
conversion of wetland type at a 1:1 ratio;
a. This impact has been revised to a permanent impact for the permanent utility easement
and has been included in calculating mitigation at a 1:1 ratio.
7) Per NWP General Condition 18 and given recent USFWS concerns regarding suitable
Schweinitz's sunflower and small whorled pogonia habitat, please complete a pedestrian survey
for these species within the Corps ESA action area. In this case, the Corps ESA action area
would be contained within a 100 foot radius of the footprint of proposed impacts to waters of the
US, including the currently proposed footprint and any revised footprint if project plans are
changed per the above items. Following the survey, please provide the survey report to the Corps
(copy also the USFWS) for review. Of course, if you do not believe that any suitable habitat exists
in the Action area for these species, please provide a justification so that the Corps could
evaluate the potential for a No Effect determination;
a. A pedestrian survey for Schweinitz's sunflower and small whorled pogonia individuals
was performed on October 15, 2020. No individuals were observed. Open areas are
present in the edges of forested areas, but these areas were not regularly maintained to
Corinth Village Project Page 2 of 3
Response to USACE Comments

provide suitable habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower. Habitat for small whorled pogonia was
not present on the Site.
8) Please provide an updated aquatic resources list with updated information following the changes
made during the 8/5/2020 site visit. If a map/survey is available clearly showing the labeled
extents of all potential waters of the US on the subject tracts, please provide that as well.
a. The updated aquatic resources list and PJD map is attached.
If you have any questions, please call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
C 0"-\
Sean Clark
Sage Ecological Services, Inc.
Corinth Village Project Page 3 of 3
Response to USACE Comments