The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20221447 Ver 1_USACE More Info Requested_20221222DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 69 DARLINGTON AVENUE WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343 December 20, 2022 Regulatory Division Action ID: SAW-2010-01907 Mr. Todd Rechler RXR Len Apex Owner, LLC. 625 RXR Plaza Uniondale, New York 11553 IMMOTAMOT6C'1=01rm Please reference your Individual Permit application for Department of the Army (DA) authorization to permanently discharge fill material within 1.092 ac (4,798 If) of stream channel (0.853 ac [3,961 If] of which are considered a permanent loss of waters), 0.820 ac of wetlands, and 0.343 ac of open water associated with construction of the Veridea Project (Project). The Project would also temporarily discharge fill or dredged material within 0.318 ac (1,182 If) of stream channel and 0.025 ac of wetlands. Additionally, the installation of utility infrastructure and establishment of permanently maintained utility corridors would result in the temporary discharge of dredged material within, and permanent conversion of, 0.02 ac of forested wetlands to herbaceous wetlands. The proposed Project is located on the west side of NC Highway 55, and primarily between US Highway 1 and NC Highway 540, in Apex, in Wake County, North Carolina. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (Corps) advertised your proposal by public notice dated October 31, 2022, and no comments were received. Further, on February 6, 1990, the Department of the Army (DA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) signed a memorandum of agreement (MOA) establishing procedures to determine the type and level of mitigation necessary to comply with Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. This MOA provides for first, avoiding impacts to waters and wetlands through the selection of the least damaging, practical alternative; second, taking appropriate and practical steps to reduce impacts on waters and wetlands; and finally, compensation for remaining unavoidable impacts to the extent appropriate and practical. To enable us to process your application, in compliance with the MOA, we request that you provide the following additional information: A. Permits for work within wetlands or other special aquatic sites are available only if the proposed work is the least environmentally damaging, practicable alternative. Please furnish information regarding any other alternatives, including upland alternatives, to the work for which you have applied and provide justification that your selected plan is the least damaging to water or wetland areas. See item 1 below; B. It is necessary for you to have taken all appropriate and practicable steps to minimize losses of Waters of the U.S., including wetlands. Please indicate all that you have done, especially regarding development and modification of plans and proposed construction techniques, to minimize adverse impacts. See item 2 below; C. The MOA requires that appropriate and practicable mitigation will be required for all unavoidable adverse impacts remaining after the applicant has employed all appropriate and practicable minimization. Please indicate your plan to mitigate for the projected, unavoidable loss of waters or wetlands or provide information as to the absence of any such appropriate and practicable measures. Additionally, the following items must be resolved prior to continuing to process your permit request: 1) It is unclear, based on the information provided, that the Preferred Alternative is the LEDPA when compared to the other offsite alternatives. a. Friendship Road Assemblage - Please provide additional information to support the decision that the Friendship Road alternative is not practicable. For example, is this alternative not practicable based on technology, logistics or cost? Please provide additional information to support the decision that the Friendship Road alternative is not practicable based on cost. For example, is this alternative not practicable based on cost of installation of utilities. b. Pearce Olive Assemblage — Based on the information provided the Pearce Olive Assemblage meets the site selection criteria and results in 70% less stream loss when compared to the Preferred Alternative. Please clarify if the applicant's determination is that the Pearce Olive alternative is not practicable based on the owner's unwillingness to sale? If so, please provide additional information to support this decision. 2) It is unclear based on the information provided that the design has avoided and minimized impacts to waters to the maximum extent practicable. -2- a. Impacts 1.5 & 1.6 — Based on the information provided these two road crossings are required to meet the block perimeter requirements. Please provide additional information describing block perimeter requirements and their justification or provide justification separate from municipality requirements. b. Impacts 1.1 and 1.13 — Based on the information provided it is unclear if the design has avoided and minimized at Impact Area 1.1 and 1.13. Based on the plans there appears to be uplands west of the impact which could be utilized. c. Impact 1.9 - Based on the information provided this road crossing is required to meet the block perimeter requirements. Please provide additional information describing block perimeter requirements and their justification or provide justification separate from municipality requirements. d. Impact 4.1 — Based on the information provided it is unclear if the design has avoided and minimized at Impact Area 4.1. Based on the information provided it is unclear how improvements of Pristine Water Drive to meet the municipalities standard major collector road standard is justified. It appears that the existing MCWRF is accessible by the existing infrastructure, and it is unclear how widening to meet municipality standards is needed for the project purpose. e. Impact 1.16 — Based on the information provided it is unclear how Wetland Q north of the proposed street could be indirectly impacted. If the proposed activity would result in portions of Wetland Q becoming non - jurisdictional, those areas would be considered a loss of waters. f. Impacts 1.1, 1.16, 1.19, 1.21, 1.23, 2.4, 2.5, 2.9, 2.10, 2.14, 2.17, 2.19, 2.20, 2.21, 2.22 and 3.3 — Based on the information provided it appears that Impacts 1.1, 1.16, 1.19, 1.21, 1.23, 2.4, 2.5, 2.9, 2.10, 2.14, 2.17, 2.19, 2.20, 2.21, 2.22 and 3.3 occur for road crossings with more than 2 lanes. The need for roadways is not disputed, however, to ensure that impacts at these locations are minimized to maximum extent practicable please provide additional information such as a traffic analysis that would support the need for wider roadways that result in impacts. g. Provide justification for open cut installation of force mains through jurisdictional features. For example, could installation be accomplished through methods that do not impact waters, such as directional drill or jack and bore? 3) Please note that additional comments and questions may be required after review of the responses to the comments above. -3- The above requested information is essential to the expeditious processing of your application; please forward this information to us within 30 days of your receipt of this letter. If you have any questions regarding these matters, please contact me at (919) 588-9200 or George. L.Phi llips(a)usace.army.mil. Sincerely, �&-Cwje- L C0- I>GciU/it Lyle Phillips, Regulatory Specialist Raleigh Regulatory Field Office Enclosures Copies Furnished: Ms. Deborah E. Shirley Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA. 8414 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 104 Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 Mr. Todd Bowers Permit Review Specialist Wetlands Regulatory Section U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region IV Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsyth Street, SW Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Ms. Sue Homewood NCDEQ— Division of Water Resources 450 W. Hanes Mill Road, Suite 300 Winston Salem, North Carolina 27105 -4-