The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20190289 Ver 1_USACE More Info Requested_20190907DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 69 DARLINGTON AVENUE WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343 September 7, 2019 Regulatory Division Action ID: SAW-2018-00240 Mr. Randy Barber Publix Super Markets, Inc. 501 North Galloway Road Lakeland, Florida 33815 Dear Mr. Barber: NC. Doo,ir lr, nt: of Environ(neDiul C!,lJail6y Winston-Salem Regional Oil'ice Please reference your Individual Permit application for Department of the Army (DA) authorization to permanently discharge dredged or fill material into a total of 4,800 linear feet of stream channel, 0.91 acre of riparian non-riverine wetlands, and 1.8 acres of open water impoundments, associated with developing a grocery distribution center and associated infrastructure. The grocery distribution center project area is located on the south side of US Highway 70, centered at its intersection with Birch Creek Road, in McLeansville, Guilford County, North Carolina. Roadway improvements associated with this project are proposed along approximately 1.5 miles of US Highway 70, from Mt. Hope Church Road to Sun Lake Road, in McLeansville, Guilford County, North Carolina. 0 Please also reference your letter, dated August 16, 2019, written in response to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (Corps) letter requesting additional information dated April 22, 2019. We also received a Phase 1 Archaeological survey report dated August 20, 2019, and Additional Information regarding the Phase 1 Archaeological survey dated September 6, 2019. We have reviewed the information included in the above referenced correspondence and herein present/reiterate additional items to be resolved prior to continuing to process your permit request: 1) Thank you for the additional information provided in response to items A.i, A.ii.a-h, A.iii, A.iv, B.i, C.ii, 1, and 2.b-d in our previous letter. At this point in our evaluation we believe that you provided sufficient information to resolve those questions. However, please note that we may request additional information pertaining to those items during the preparation of our Environmental Assessment if needed; 2) Your letter made reference to one or more off -site alternatives not being the least environmentally damaging based on remotely sensed assumption of aquatic resources. Specifically, the Guilford College Road off -site alternative was developed and described in your letter. In addition to providing the aerial photograph of this new alternative (attachment 6) showing streams and wetlands from the National Hydrography Dataset and National Wetlands Inventory, respectively, please also quantify these assumed aquatic resources to allow for a comparison with the preferred alternative. Also, please provide the same figures and quantified information for the Reedy Fork and Youngs Mill alternatives. (see item A.ii.i in our previous letter); 3) Revisions needed for plan sheets: a. Revise the project plan sheets such that waters of the US are labeled using the same labels as those on the Approved Jurisdictional Determination signed survey (see item 2a in our previous letter); b. On the "Preliminary Jurisdictional Waters of the US Impacts Map — Table" (Sheet 13 of 13), add a column for each impact that identifies the waters of the US proposed for impact using the same labels as those on the Approved Jurisdictional Determination signed survey. Also, impacts to each separate water should be quantified/itemized separately (e.g., Impact S1 includes impacts to both Stream K and Stream O; Impact W 18 includes impacts to WI OA, W 1 OB, WI 1, W 12, W 13; etc.); 4) Thank you for including proposed compensatory mitigation ratios in your "Preliminary Jurisdictional Waters of the US Impacts Map — Table." However, given the proposed method of providing compensatory mitigation (NCDMS) and as previously discussed, any reduction below a 2:1 mitigation to impact ratio must be justified based on resource quality, rather than simply stream flow regime. As such, please provide NCSAM/NCWAM forms for those impacts/reaches where an impact mitigation ratio of less than 2:1 is proposed (see item C.i in our previous letter); 5) Thank you for your Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis. After review of your project plans we continue to be concerned that there is a reasonable expectation that the proposed fill activities would result in the dewatering of down -gradient stream channels and wetlands (i.e., indirect impacts associated with proposed fill activities). Specifically, a. Impact W2: remaining section of Wetland W29 would be too small to retain f metion and would lose its watershed; -2- b. Impact W 19: remaining section of Wetland W6 and possibly Stream H would lose its watershed; c. Impact S1: Stream K would lose its watershed and it is not clear that the adjacent stormwater outfall would provide sufficient hydrology to the remaining length; d. Impact S3: Stream S1 would lose its watershed and it is not clear that the adjacent stormwater outfall would provide sufficient hydrology to the remaining length; e. Impact W 10: Stream I and Wetland W 17 would lose their watershed and it is not clear that the adjacent stormwater outfall would provide sufficient hydrology to their remaining length/area; f. Impact S7: Stream F and Wetlands 14A and B would lose their watershed and it is not clear that the adjacent stormwater outfall would provide sufficient hydrology to their remaining length/area; Based on the information you provided, we cannot agree that "the overall scope and nature of these (indirect) impacts are believed to be minimal in comparison with the overall scope of the proposed Project. Therefore, indirect impacts are not expected to significantly contribute to overall cumulative impacts or cause a violation of downstream water quality standards." Please provide additional information supporting your position regarding indirect impacts to these features, specific to how hydrology would be maintained in these down -gradient remnants. Otherwise, we will consider these lengths/areas as a loss of aquatic function and require compensatory mitigation accordingly. 6) As you are aware, consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office is ongoing pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Please note that we cannot authorize impacts to waters of the US prior to completion of the Section 106 consultation process. 7) Please see the attached comments from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources commission (NCWRC), dated June 10, 2019; 8) Please note that responses to the questions above may prompt additional information requests to allow full evaluation of the proposed project. -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) 554-4884 extension 30 or David.E.Bailey2@usace.army.mil. Sincerely, David E. Bailey Regulatory Project Manager Raleigh Field Office Enclosures Copies Furnished w/enclosures: Mr. Brian Breissinger Timmons Group 1001 Boulders Parkway, Suite 300 Richmond, Virginia 23225 Copies Furnished w/o enclosures: Mr. Philip S. Harris III, P.E., C.P.M. North Carolina Department of Transportation 1598 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1598 luv_ . 11• :. . - Permit Review Specialist Wetlands Regulatory Section U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region IV Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsyth Street, SW Atlanta, Georgia 3 03 03 0 Ms. Karen Higgins NCDENR — Division of Water Resources Water Quality Programs 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 Ms. Sue Homewood Division of Water Resources North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources 450 W. Hanes Mill Rd, Suite 300 Winston Salem, North Carolina 27105 -5-