20190928 Ver 2_USACE More Info Request_20191230

Strickland, Bev
From: Greer, Emily C CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) < [e-mail] >
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2019 5:33 PM
To: Charles Poindexter
Cc: [e-mail]; Mairs, Robb L; Wojoski, Paul A
Subject: [External] AID# SAW-2014-01693, The Terraces -Incomplete application request for
additional information
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Charles -
Please accept this as official correspondence related to the above referenced project. For tracking purposes, please
ensure the use of this AID in the subject line of all correspondence related to this project. The following information is
required to complete the application. Please resubmit the application package within 30 days from the date of this
correspondence, COB January 29, 2020, or provide a written request to extend this deadline. Otherwise, the application
will be automatically withdrawn. Because the application is incomplete and the comments are substantial, the applicant
is required to submit a new application package that incorporates these comments. Separately, please indicate if each
comment was incorporated into the write-up or provide an answer.
Upon review of the application, the Corps has determined that the project does not comply with the 404(b)(1)
Guidelines (Guidelines). While it is our goal to issue a permit decision within 120 days of receiving an individual permit
application, in pre -application meetings with the applicant the Corps expressed how important the quality of the
submittal is on the timeliness of the permitting process. In addition to not being in compliance, the application is not
adequate enough to assist the Corps in properly documenting a permit decision, should one be made, with even basic
information being absent from the submittal. As such, the Corps has spent an exorbitant amount of time reviewing this
application and sincerely hopes that the resubmittal will be greatly improved by these comments and any subsequent
discussions.
1. Overview:
- When rewriting the application submittal, please remain objective in discussing and presenting the project
information. Taking into consideration that the project, as presented, does not comply with the Guidelines, the
discussion takes an unsubstantiated bias towards the applicant's project. In relation this point, please focus on making
factual statements that can easily be independently verified by the Corps or that are supported by data provided with
the submittal. Throughout the following comments, the Corps has identified when the applicant made statements that
need to be verified with data; however, it is incumbent upon the applicant to ensure that their discussion is supported.
2. Project Details:
-A documented discussion that supports the purpose and need for the project was not provided. The project need
should clearly outline the specific problem the project is intended to solve. When establishing need, the applicant should
provide evidence that the problem exists. To the extent possible, the need should be factually and numerically based.
While the applicant provided some information on the market area and why the particular geographic boundaries were
chosen for the project area, information about the proposed overall project purpose should also include details about
the relevant market conditions and area, location, history, and other factors that influence or constrain the intended
nature, size, level of quality, price class, or other characteristics of the project.

-The Corps has defined the Basic Purpose of the project as:
To construct a residential development.
-And the Overall Purpose as:
To construct a small scale, single-family residential subdivision in Surf City, North Carolina, to meet the local demand for
this type of housing.
-Please note that the applicant has reported that the population of Surf City, North Carolina, is only 2,400. Without
supporting information to document the contrary, it is the Corps' opinion that the applicant has not demonstrated the
need for another residential development in this area.
-As part of the applicable project history, please provide a discussion that addresses the association between the
proposed project and the existing Arbors I subdivision. Be sure to specifically discuss the cumulative environmental
impacts and their effects on the watershed.
-Please provide further details on the construction sequencing provided on page 5 of the submittal. Specifically, please
provide information on what temporary and permanent sediment control devices will be installed (#2), the planting plan
(#9, #11, #13) and what impact locations will be live staked and/or seeded (#9). Please be aware that any permanent
erosion control matting must be entirely biodegradable. No plastic mesh netting will be allowed.
-The applicant states that the Swamp Forest is devoid of an overstory; however, based on recent aerial imagery
(12/21/19) and a site photo provided with the submittal, this statement does not appear to be accurate. Please clarify.
-The applicant states that "the minimal amount of vegetation will be removed from the proposed impact areas within
the Headwater and Swamp Forest resources". This begs the question as to what the vegetation removal plan is for the
Pocosin wetlands considering this is the dominant wetland type on the site?
-Please provide details in the write-up about the proposed utilities and specify what sediment and erosion control
devices and best management practices the applicant proposes to use during utility installation. Will a maintained
easement be required for any of the utility impacts (A, E, F, L, or N)?
-Impact N has been incorrectly identified as a riparian area in Table 2 of the submittal.
-Is there an existing sanitary sewer line in the vicinity of Impact L? If so, please indicate so on the appropriate drawing(s).
-The application has two tables labeled as Table 4 with a reference to Table 4 in the Avoidance and Minimization
discussion. Please correct the table numbers and the reference in the discussion in the resubmittal.
-The application states that the deed notification will be recorded in New Hanover County. Please correct to Pender
County.
-The provided NCDWR Water Classification Determination form is incomplete. Please provide a complete form to DWR
and the final determination to the Corps.
3. Drawings:
-Please use transparent text boxes.
-On the overall Impact Map, Impact H is denoted as temporary. Please correct to "permanent".
-Please put only one set of impact drawings on a page.
-Please expand the review area on insets to show more of the area adjacent to the impact boundaries.
-Please provide scaled cross -sections in 11x17" format.

-Please show limits of disturbance/silt fencing on all drawings.
-Please be sure to add the revised date to all drawings, as appropriate.
-On cross -sections, please provide both inverts, wetland elevations immediately up- and downstream of the pipe, and
tick marks to assist in reviewing depths.
-Please clearly show the shared driveways for Impacts H and M.
-For Impact M inset drawing, the plan view states the culvert size for Driveway 2 will be 18", whereas the cross-section
states it will be 15". Please correct, as appropriate.
-For all cross -sections depicting culverts, please provide the depth at which the culvert will be buried or state if they will
not be buried on the drawing.
4. Impacts:
-Total impact amounts are not consistently and correctly stated throughout the application. Currently, total permanent
wetland impacts are 0.715-ac, temporary wetland impacts are 0.108-ac, and temporary stream impacts are 20 linear
feet. Please correct this information throughout the submittal.
-On both Table 2 and the impact table provided on the overall impact map, the applicant indicates there will be 520
square feet of temporary wetland impact associated at Impact B. Please correctly reflect that this is a stream and not a
wetland impact in the submittal.
-The applicant states that there are 15 permanent wetland impacts; however, only 12 are listed. Please confirm if the
applicant is counting two impacts at locations B, M, and E. Additionally, the applicant states that there is one temporary
stream impact. Please confirm that there are actually two, one at L and two at B, and correct in the write-up.
-Please fill out the permit bulk upload spreadsheet found on our website.
5. Alternatives:
-The Alternatives Analysis discussion does not meet the requirements of the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines and is
insufficient in providing information that can be used to make an informed decision to identify the Least
Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA).
-Project Criteria:
Project criteria must be specific and supporting rationale for the use of the criteria must be provided. For each criterion,
please provide a definition, a discussion of what constraints are the basis for the criteria and quantifiable thresholds at
which those constraints are not practicable, and how and why the criterion is applicable or required in meeting the
stated purpose and need. Please avoid using subjective, unquantifiable terms such as "close" or "adequate" when
stating or defining the criteria. For example, "minimal distance" should be quantified in terms of what the distance
constraint to a utility would be that would make the project practicable versus impracticable.
Zoning is a planning tool that can be adjusted through local rezoning requests; therefore, zoning designations do not
preclude an alternative from being practicable or evaluated. For certain types of projects, the rezoning procedures can
be taken into consideration in the analysis in terms of cost, technology, or logistics; however, this would not apply for
this particular type of project. Of the sites that were eliminated from the analysis based on zoning, the applicant needs
to analyze Sites 1, 3, and 12 further and drop zoning as a criterion.
Applicant ownership of a property does not eliminate an alternative from being practicable. A practicable alternative,
whether it is presently owned by the applicant or not, is one that can be reasonably obtained, utilized, expanded, or
managed in order to fulfill the overall purpose of the proposed project. As the applicant stated, a practicable alternative
is one that is available. As such, all sites that are not available for acquisition/lease at the time of the analysis should not
have been included in the analysis. Furthermore, the applicant incorrectly uses cost as a criterion by tying it only to the
ownership of the preferred site. There are other factors that could affect acquisition costs and, in turn, make an
alternative unviable, but it is not solely ownership of a site. The value of the site already owned by the applicant would
need to be considered as part of the overall project construction cost for the preferred alternative. The overall cost of

constructing the preferred alternative, which should include but not be limited to property, construction, and mitigation
costs, should be compared to the overall cost of constructing each alternative and discussed. The Corps, again, advises
the applicant to be careful when defining and presenting the cost criterion. Cost is a comparative analysis of the cost of
the alternatives, and if defined too narrowly or specifically, the Corps may need to require a detailed cost analysis, which
would significantly slow down the review of this project.
Please eliminate #6 and #7 from the criteria as they are factors that are considered when selecting the geographic area
for the project alternatives, are too restrictive for site selection and a proper analysis, and would not have an effect on
nor are required in meeting the stated purpose and need.
Depending on how the applicant defines criterion #4 and #8 in the resubmittal, these criteria may also have to be
dropped.
-For Offsite Alternatives:
As presented, the applicant has eliminated Alternative #8 because it is too close to Highway 17 yet "close to Highway
17" is listed as a project criterion. The Corps does not agree with the applicant's justification for eliminating Alternative
#8 on this basis, and consequently, does not agree with how criterion #8 is being applied in the analysis. Because Pender
County has approved this site for residential development, it is not sufficient enough to simply state that the site is
undesirable for a subdivision because it's off of a 4-lane highway. The proximity of the highway could be could be
incorporated into the discussion for the cost, and/or technology, and/or logistical analyses by analyzing what would be
required to develop this site. For example, installing a turning lane or a red light would potentially address any sort of
traffic issues or concerns, but may not be practicable for x, y, and z reasons.
It appears that the applicant did not complete the project criteria analysis for each site once a criterion was not met. For
instance, Alternative #6 was eliminated from the analysis when it "Failed Screen" for adequate access. No information
was provided for whether the alternative passed/failed the remaining criteria and why. Please complete this information
in the resubmittal.
According to DENR-DWR, Alternative 2 is not within 0.5-mile of SA waters. Either information demonstrating this
determination is needed for concurrence or this alternative should be analyzed further.
For those sites that meet the applicant's project criteria, please provide an analysis of environmental factors, as
required.
-For Onsite Alternatives:
Please eliminate Alternative 2, Option A from the analysis because an accurate comparison of practicability and
environmental factors cannot be made.
Alternative 2, Option C: In pre -application meetings, the Corps determined that the use of bottomless culverts in this
fashion would constitute as fill. Based on this point, please reevaluate this alternative by properly quantifying the total
stream and wetland impacts of the culverts. Also, considering that the applicant presented this layout to the Corps as a
viable option, additional discussion is needed to support that the applicant is now claiming it is financially impracticable.
6. Avoidance and Minimization and Mitigation:
-The applicant has not adequately explained or demonstrated efforts to avoid and minimize. For example, it appears
that the applicant has demonstrated that Lots 77-79 could be developed without additional wetland impacts. Please
revisit the discussion for this layout and explain/demonstrate why impacts would be needed to develop these lots, or
drop this design from the analysis. This comment also applies to the Alternatives Analysis discussion. Please keep in
mind the Corps' constraints on lot fill for the purpose of having a yard (Lot 77).
-Please specify what impact locations incorporated retaining walls.

-Please note that the applicant stated that 0.021-acre of wetland impact was avoided /minimized through the use of
shared driveways, yet the drawing states that 0.025-acre was avoided/minimized.
-The applicant is proposing to construct one sidewalk at Impact F. Installing one sidewalk with pedestrian crosswalks at
wetland crossings and narrowing road widths has been utilized to reduce impacts on other similar projects. Please
provide an explanation/justification as to why this was not considered as an onsite alternative and/or A&M measure. If
applicable, please incorporate any relevant discussion and drawings into the appropriate sections of the submittal.
-Please provide an explanation as to why the applicant did not exclude more wetlands from lot lines. There appear to be
many instances where this could be done without losing "sellable" acreage.
-Please provide a list of lots for which a deed notification will be required.
-Please note that Hoffman Forest Mitigation Bank does not have all of the applicable credits needed to offset the
proposed permanent wetland impacts. Please provide a credit reservation letter from an appropriate mitigation bank.
5. Compliance With Others:
-Please provide a consistency letter from CAMA.
-In pre -application meetings, the Corps conveyed that an approval letter from the Town of Surf City in which they accept
future responsibility for the bottomless culvert upon project completion should be submitted with the application.
Please provide this with the resubmittal.
-Please note that approvals from the SHPO, USFWS, and NMFS were provided to the Corps in response to the public
notice.
-DWR has requested information regarding the stormwater plan for this development. To our knowledge, this project is
a low -density development; therefore, constructed stormwater facilities are not required. Please verify.
As always, please feel free to contact me with any questions.
Thank you -
Emily Greer, Regulatory Specialist
Wilmington District - Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington, NC 28403
910.251.4567 (o)