20190289 Ver 1_USACE More Info Requested_20191104

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
November 4, 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:
Please reference your Individual Permit application and updates for Department of the Army
(DA) authorization to permanently discharge dredged or fill material into a total of 4,781 linear
feet of stream channel (resulting in indirect impacts to 31 linear feet of stream channel), 0.99
acre of riparian non-riverine wetlands (resulting in indirect impacts to 0.08 acre of riparian non-
riverine wetlands), and 1.7 acres of open water impoundments, and temporarily discharge
dredged or fill material into a total of 110 linear feet of stream channel, associated with
developing a grocery distribution center and associated infrastructw•e. 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
Please also reference a letter from your agent (Timmons Group), dated October 4, 2019,
written in response to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (Corps) letter
requesting additional information dated September 7, 2019. We also received a letter from the
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (NCSHPO), dated October 21, 2019, stating
that Site 31 GF592 referenced in the previously submitted Phase 1 Archaeological survey reports
is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (National Register). Also, Timmons
Group stated in an email, dated October 24, 2019, that NCSHPO will respond further regarding
the National Register eligibility of a tobacco barn found within the project area. We have
reviewed the information included in the above referenced correspondence and herein present
further items to be resolved prior to continuing to process your permit request:

1) Thank you for the additional information provided in response to item 2 in our
previous letter, At this point in our evaluation we believe that you provided sufficient
information to resolve those issues. Please note, however, that we may request
additional information pertaining to those items during the preparation of our
Environmental Assessment if needed.
2) Thank you for the additional information provided in response to item 3 in our
previous letter. Your efforts to link proposed impact site number with waters of the US
are labels used on the Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD) signed survey are
appreciated. However, when comparing the Project Plan Sheets (previously submitted
Attachment 2), Preliminary Jurisdictional Waters of the US Impacts Map (previously
submitted Attachment 3), and the Proposed Mitigation table (previously submitted
Attachment 4, sub -Attachment 4) with the AJD signed survey, several discrepancies
were noted. See the attached Impacts/Mitigation table with mark-up.
3) Thank you for providing NCSAM forms for those stream impacts/reaches where less
than a 2:1 mitigation to impact ratio is proposed. Upon review of the forms, and based
on site visit field notes, site -specific evaluation, and remotely sensed information, the
Corps determines the following:
a. Your proposed compensatory mitigation ratios are justified for Impacts S2
(Stream L, 1.5:1), S3.2 (Stream S1, 1.5:1), S4 (Stream S1, 1.5:1), S5 (Stream S1,
1:1), and S7-C (Stream G, 1.5:1);
b. A 1.5:1 ratio is justified for S3 (Stream S1) based on its field -determined flow
regime (perennial) and Cogs -adjusted NCSAM form results based on site visit
field notes and remotely sensed information. Further, 1.5:1 is consistent with your
proposed ratio for the indirectly impacted section of this feature (Impact S3.2);
c. A 2:1 ratio is justified for S7-B (Stream F) based on your NCSAM sub -function
ratings (Medium, High, and Medium) determined during a period of below
normal rainfall, and the fact that this stream segment flows contiguously to its
receiving stream (Stream A). The latter point is in contrast to Impact S2 (Stream
L, 1.5:1), which had similar NCSAM scores, but does not flow directly to its
nearest receiving water (Stream J).
-2-

4) Upon further review of your proposed mitigation ratios for proposed wetland impacts,
a 1.1 mitigation to impact ratio is justified for the following:
a. Impact W4 (Wetland W34): this feature is located within a maintained fairway;
b. A portion of Impact W6 (Wetland W35): the portion of this feature located within
the maintained fairway is justified at 1:1. The forested portion of this feature
remains at 2:1;
c. Impact W8 (Wetland W36): this wetland is a channelized linear feature on the
edge of a maintained fairway.
5) Thank you for your proposed indirect impact analysis. After review of your site -
specific proposal, and based site -specific evaluation and remotely sensed information,
the Corps determines the following:
a. As agreed, the remaining section of Wetland W29 at Impact Site W2 is proposed
as an impact (W2.2);
b. Remaining section of Wetland W6 and Stream H (possibly) at Impact W19: it is
unclear how laminar flow downslope from the proposed fill would hydrate
Wetland W6 to the extent necessary to maintain wetland hydrology. Provide a
comparison of the current watershed draining to the base of the proposed indirect
impacts in Wetland W6 vs. proposed. Based on the information provided to this
point it is unclear that the remaining section of Wetland W6 would retain its
wetland hydrology post -construction.
c. Remaining section of Stream K at Impact S I: please provide further details
regarding the proposed "water quality orifices" proposed at the tail end of the
remaining of stream (see item 7 below). Provide also a comparison of the current
watershed draining to the base of the proposed fill slope in Stream K vs.
proposed. Based on the information provided to this point it is unclear that the
remaining section of Stream K would retain its perennial flow regime post -
construction.
d. Remaining section of Stream S 1 at Impact S3 : we acknowledge the additional 31
linear feet of indirect stream impacts proposed at this location. However, it is
unclear how the remaining contributing basin would maintain an intermittent flow
regime. Further, the proximity of the FEMA Flo odplain/Floo dway would only
have bearing on possible backwater into Stream S 1 from Stream .I, which would
not provide the same functions as flowing streams. As above, provide a
-3-

comparison of the current watershed draining to the downstream end of the
proposed indirect impacts in Stream S I vs. proposed. Based on the information
provided to this point it is unclear that the remaining section of Stream S 1 would
retain its perennial flow regime post -construction;
e. Remaining section of Stream I and Wetland W 17 at Impact W 10: As agreed, the
remaining section of Wetland W17 is proposed as an impact (W 10.2), However, it
is unclear how sheet flow from existing topography would hydrate the area to the
extent necessary to maintain an intermittent flow regime. Provide a comparison of
the current watershed draining to the origin of Stream I vs. proposed. Based on
the information provided to this point it is more likely that indirect impacts would
extend into Stream I down to its confluence with Wetland W21;
f Remaining section of Stream F and Wetlands 14A and B at Impact S7: please
provide further details regarding the proposed "water quality orifices" proposed at
the tail end of the remaining of stream (see item 7 below). Provide also a
comparison of the current watershed draining to the base of the proposed fill slope
in Stream F vs. proposed. Based on the information provided to this point it is
unclear that the remaining section of Stream F would retain its perennial flow
regime post -construction.
6) Two 10-foot wide temporary impacts (Impacts S8 and S9) have been proposed for
sanitary sewer outfalls. In our experience, 10-foot wide corridors are not wide enough
to accommodate the entire footprint of dewatering structures and construction
equipment necessary to install these utilities. Please re -consider whether the proposed
impact footprints are sufficient. Further, provide profile drawings that show these _
utility crossings vs. existing ground/stream bed grade. If rip rap is proposed within the
stream channel at these crossings, ensure that the profile drawings include this detail,
and also show that the top of the rip rap would not be installed any higher than the
existing stream bed elevation.
7) Provide zoomed in -detail plan and profile views of the proposed "water quality
orifices" that clearly show the outlet of these pipes in relation to the proposed tail end
of the remaining of streams (Impacts S I -A and S7-A). Would the pipes discharge
directly into the stream channels or outlet into level spreaders or other devices and
then sheetflow into streams? Will rip rap be necessary in these locations to prevent
erosive velocities from further degrading these streams? If so, update the plans and
impact estimates accordingly.
ME

Please clearly explain how these discharges will re -hydrate the stream channels at their
current flow regimes originating at the point of the proposed fill slope. If a transition
zone of re -hydration is likely between the fill slope and the point of discharge,
incorporate this transition zone as an indirect impact into the plans and justify the
indirect impact length,
8) 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.
9) Please note that responses to the questions above may prompt additional information
requests to allow fall evaluation of the proposed project.
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 [phone] extension
30 or David.E.Bailey2gusace.arrny.mil.
Enclosures
Copies Furnished w/enclosures:
Mr, Brian Breissinger
Timmons Group
1001 Boulders Parkway, Suite 3 00
Richmond, Virginia 23225
Sincerely,
David E. Bailey
Regulatory Project Manager
Raleigh Field Office
-5-

Please clearly explain how these discharges will re -hydrate the stream channels at their
current flow regimes originating at the point of the proposed fill slope. If a transition
zone of re -hydration is likely between the fill slope and the point of discharge,
incorporate this transition zone as an indirect impact into the plans and justify the
indirect impact Iength.
8) 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.
9) Please note that responses to the questions above may prompt additional 'information
requests to allow full evaluation of the proposed project.
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 [phone] extension
30 or David.E.Bailey2@,usace.army.mil.
Enclosures
Copies Furnished w/enclosures:
Mr. Brian Breissinger
Timmons Group
1001 Boulders Parkway, Suite 300
Richmond, Virginia 23225
Sincerely,
Filename: SAW-2018-00240RFAIItr3.docx
CESAW-RG-R/T)Rja
CESAW-RG-R/FILE
David E. Bailey/MAIL/I 1/04/2019
Regulatory Project Manager
Raleigh Field Office
-5-

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
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
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
450 W. Hanes Mill Rd, Suite 300
Winston Salem, North Carolina 27105
INI

Impacts Table
Impact ID
Wetland (sq.
ft)
Stream Buffers (sq. ft)
Stream (If)
Resource
Type
Mitigation
Ratio
Stream
Mitigation
Required
Wetland
Mitigation
Required
Buffer
Mitigation
Required
Confirmed
Delineation
Resource ID
Impact
Conversion
Impact
Impact
Temporary
Permanent
(Open
Water
Permanent
Temporary
Permanent
Temporary
Permanent
Temporary
Permanent
W 1
142
PFO
2:1
284
-
W 33
W2
743
PFO
2:1
-
1,486
-
W29
W2.2*
21
PFO
2:1
-
42
-
W29
W3-A
87
PFO
2:1
-
174
-
W29
W3-13
5,035
PFO
2:1
-
10,070
-
W30
W 3-C
a-�
1,z97 on AJD survey
PFO
2:1
-
2,162
-
W 31
W 4
1,468
This wetland
is within the fairway, and thus could
justify 1:1
2:1
-
2,936
-
W 34
W 5-A
6¢,480
62,719 on AJD survey
POW
NR
-
-
- Pond 1
W5-B
2-48v
4,169onAJDsurvey
A portion of this wetland is within the fairway, and thus could justify
1:1 for that portion. The forested portion should remain 2:1
PEM
2:1
-
4,966
- W38
W6
2,2$1
21
:
-
4,562
- W 35
W 7
9,160
POW
NR
-
-
- Pond 2
W 8
255
This
function,
wetland is a linear channelized feature with reduced
and thus could justify 1:1
PFO
2:1
-
510
-
W 36
W9
976
PFO
2:1
-
1,952
-
W37
W 10
285
PFO
2:1
-
570
-
W 17
W 10. 2*
See item 5)e in 11/4/2019 letter
85
PFO
2:1
-
170
-
W 17
W11
519
PFO
2:1
-
1,038
-
W4
W 12-A
840
608 on AJD
survey
PFO
2:1
-
1,620
-
W 3A
W 12-B
4.7-2
340 on AJD
survey
PFO
2:1
-
944
-
W 3B
W 13
&'4%
5,895 on AJD survey
PFO
2:1
-
11,792
-
W 2
W 14
7,167
PFO
2:1
-
14,334
-
W 1
W15
132
PFO
2:1
-
264
-
W8
W16
67
PFO
2:1
-
134
-
W9
W17
87
PFO
2:1
-
174
-
W23
W 18-A
4
280 on AJD
survey
PFO
2:1
-
844
-
W 10A
W 18-B
203 on AJD survey
PFO
2:1
-
752
-
W 10B
W 18-C
494 <
164 on AJD survey
PFO
2:1
-
382
-
W 11
W 18-D
822
PFO
2:1
-
1,644
-
W 12
W 18-EQ
1,308 on AJD survey
PFO
2:1
-
3,086
-
W 13
W19
4,935
PFO
2:1
-
9,870
-
W6
W 19.2*
3,461
See item 5)b in 11/4/2019 letter
PFO
2:1
-
6,922
-
W6
S1-A
See item 5)c in 11/4/2019letter
290
R3
2:1
580
-
-
K
S1-B
687
R4
2:1
1,374
-
-
K
S1-C
28
R4
2:1
56
-
-
O
S2
318
R4
1.5:1
477
-
-
L
S3
204
R3
1 :1
Better justified by NCSAM
and flow regime as 1.5:1 S1
S3.2*
isee item 5)d in 11/4/2019 letter
31
R3
1.5:1
47
-
-
S1
S4
283
R4
1.5:1
425
-
-
S1
S5
156 on AJD survey
67
R4
1:1
57
-
-
S1
S6
373
R4
2:1
746
-
-
H
S7-A
See item 5)f in 1114/2019letter
1,479
R3
2:1
2,958
-
-
F
S7-B
708 on AJD survey
7{}7
R4
1.5:1
Better
justified by NCSAM
as 2:1 F
S7-C
154 on AJD survey
yy
R4
1.5:1
83
-
-
G
S8
Does this provide enough workspace for
dewatering structures/extent?
10
R3
NR
-
-
-
J
S9
10
R3
NR
-
-
-
A
B3-Z1
54,295
Zone 1
3:1
-
-
162,885
-
B3-Z2
40,628
Zone 2
1.5:1
-
-
60,942
-
B4-Z2
11880
Zone 2
NR
-
-
-
-
B6-Z1
675
Zone 1
NR
-
-
-
-
B6-Z2
245
Zone 2
NR
-
-
-
-
B7-Z1
607
Zone 1
NR
-
-
-
-
B7-Z2
405
Zone 2
NR
-
-
-
-
Total
O s ft
73,640 s ft
41,842 s ft
0 s ft
0 s ft
1,932 s ft
96,803 s ft
20 If
4,512 If
-
-
8,066 If
1.92 ac
223,827 s ft
_
0.0 ac
1.7 ac
1.0 ac
0.0 ac
0.0 ac
0.04 ac
2.2 ac
5.14 ac
NR = Not Required for Mitigation
*Secondary impact
Should be W32
W
W
I-
z
(.
z
Z
Z
O
Z
00
m
❑U
O�
o
O
X
Oz
J
m
a
12/1812018
a INexaEaazam
PROJECT NAME PU BLIX
isxeo ar.L. MAJOR
1. Waters of the U.S. within the
project study limits have been
located using submeler, Blueloolh
GPS antennas by others.
2.Waters of the U.S. have been
confirmed by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers.
3. Project limits are approximate.
4. Topography based on USGS
LiDAR.
5. Cowardin Stream
Classifications are based on
confirmed Perennial FOR,
01''rr�
■
PRELIMINARY
JURISDICTIONAL
WATERS OF THE
U.S. IMPACTS MAP
-TABLE
1-1:1-50' 1 120F12