20110260 Ver 1_USACE Correspondence_20110531

Mcmillan, Ian
From: Williams, Andrew E SAW [[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 2:15 PM
To: [e-mail]; Coleman, Jill (Facilities Planning); Myers, Sharon (Environment Health &
Safety)
Cc: Lee Mallonee; Kevin Nunnery; Mcmillan, Ian
Subject: SAW-2010-01840 UNC North Comments Received (UNCLASSIFIED)
Attachments: SAW2010_01840_com ments. pdf
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
May 31, 2011
Regulatory Division
Action ID No. SAW-2010-01840
Dear Mr. Mann:
Reference is made to the application of January 4, 2011, including additional
information received on February 17 and March 25, 2011 for individual Department of the Army
(DA) permit authorization to permanently impact 552 linear feet (If) of jurisdictional stream
channels, temporarily impact 70 if of jurisdictional stream channels and permanently impact
2.412 acres of adjacent wetlands. These impacts are associated with the proposed
construction of Carolina North, an expansion of the existing University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill campus, in Chapel Hill, Orange County, North
Carolina.
Written comments were received from one state agency, one federal agency, one non-
governmental organization and two individuals. All correspondences are attached for your
records and response, if necessary.
Mr. Sofus Simonsen submitted comments by electronic mail dated April 24, 2011.
Specifically, Mr. Simonsen states he lives at the southern end of the current airport
property and is concerned regarding stormwater and flooding issues. He also mentioned some
dead trees that have fallen onto his property. Please address the stormwater and flooding
issues in your response to this letter.
The United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Services
(USFWS) submitted comments by letter dated April 25, 2011. Specifically, the USFWS stated
that the action is not likely to adversely affect federally listed species or their critical
habitat as defined by the Endangered Species Act. A response to this comment is not
necessary.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) submitted comments by
memorandum dated May 9, 2011. Specifically, the NCWRC stated they support the preferred
alternative and the documented efforts to avoid and minimize impacts to the terrestrial and
aquatic resources. They also provided seven (7) recommendations regarding further efforts at
avoidance and minimization to terrestrial and aquatic resource impacts that should be
addressed in your response to this letter.
Ms. Julie McClintock, representing the Non-Governmental Organization, Friends of Bolin
Creek, provided comments via electronic mail dated May 9, 2011. Specific issues mentioned in
this correspondence are as follows:
1
1. The waste water reuse portion of the project, including impacts
associated with the route of the force main and the pump station location.
2. Sewell School Road Bike Lanes, including the Town of Chapel Hill
approval for minor modifications to reduce jurisdictional impacts for these lanes and the
effect of any permitted impacts on an off road bike path described in the Development
Agreement between UNC and the Town of Chapel Hill.
3. Impacts of Bolin Creek from the Carolina North Project, including
effects of proposed transit improvements and increased impervious surfaces on the Bolin Creek
and Booker Creek watersheds. Additionally, concerns are expressed for Stream 5A and the
effectiveness of the proposed stormwater facilities.
4. Concerns that the Chapel Hill Stormwater Management staff has not
assessed or commented on the stream impacts of the proposed project.
Each of these concerns must be addressed in your response to this letter.
Roger and Kimberly Willardson provided comments via electronic mail dated May 9, 2011.
They requested a public hearing regarding the proposed payment to the North Carolina
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) for the compensatory mitigation of streams and wetlands
impacted by this proposed project. While the decision to hold a public hearing resides with
the Corps of Engineers, you must provide a response regarding your decision to mitigate
through the NCEEP. Also, please be aware that there is an approved mitigation bank located
within the Cape Fear watershed, cataloging unit
03030002 (which is the watershed of your proposed impacts) that has additional stream and
wetland credits released since receipt of your application. The bank is operated by
Restoration Systems, Inc. and you can contact them at 919-334-9119.
Furthermore, we are still evaluating the proposed phases of this project and may
require additional information regarding the proposed phases as well as additional
coordination with the North Carolina Division of Water Quality. Also, we have reviewed the
alternatives analysis provided in your application and will need additional clarification
regarding the impacts for Plan "Revised 2007" as shown on Table D-5 on page 37 of your
application.
These impacts do not match the proposed impacts of the permit application.
The "Revised 2007" impacts are 2.32 acre of wetlands and 203 linear feet of stream, while the
permit application requests impacts to 2.412 acre of wetlands and 552 linear feet of stream.
Your response to the comments listed above must be given full consideration
before we can make a final decision on your application. We need your information to address
the concerns/issues raised over the proposed project. You may submit additional information,
revise your plans to help resolve the issues, rebut the issues made or request a decision
based on the existing record. We must receive a written response by June 29, 2011 otherwise
your application will be withdrawn. If you have questions or comments, please contact me at
my Raleigh Regulatory Field Office address, telephone [phone] ext. 26.
Andrew Williams
Regulatory Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District, Raleigh Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
919-554-4884 ext. 26
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
2
Williams, Andrew E SAW
From: Sofus E Simonsen [fracas [e-mail]]
went: Sunday, April 24, 2011 12:08 PM
7c: Williams. Andrew E SAW
Subject: Carolina North
Nndy Williams,
i received the card concerning the 30 Public Notice for UNC's Carolina North. I don't know if
;ou can do anything about the situation at the southern end of the Airport property.
•'y wife and I own KALAMANI and the property at 216 Barclay Rd. The university and the town of
Chapel Hill appear to drain a lot of water down toward our property so as to completely flood
,:pie property at times.
1w,thermore several trees have fallen over on our property and crushed the fence. There are
:presently several dead trees which ought to be taken down before the damage our property.
,rote I do not know whom to contact at UNC to have this situation remedied, you could perhaps
rring it up or give me a contact.
i;iank you for any help you can give me
,icerely
,Fus E. Simonsen
-;213 Arbutus Dr.
aieigh, NC 27612-3701
[phone]
,eL1 [phone]
1
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon MI-el-S. Fxccuti\e Director
MEMORANDL AI
I.O: Andrew Williams, Raleigh Regulatmi, Field Office
U.S. Army Corns of Engineers
1: R0A1: Shari L. Brant. Piedmont Re?,ion Coordinator < ita..?ii',k t, •f
habitat Conservation Proeranl
DATE: 9 MaS 201 I
SUBJECT: Public Notice for University of North Carolina at Chapel I till for Construction of
Carolina Forth. Orange County. North Carolina. Corns Action ID #: SAW-2010-01840
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources ConlnliSSi0ll (NC'\b'RC) have rep ic\'ved tile
SubjCCt document. Our comments are provided in accordance with prop isions of the Glean \1 ater Act of
1977 (as a nwnded). Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (41 Slat. 401. as amended: 10 l'.S.('. 601-607(1).
and North Carolina Gcneral Statutes IG.S. 113-13 1 et seal. ).
The applicant proposes to permanently impact 552 linear left of stream ChallIM .old 2.142 acres
of wCtlands, and tenlporaril\ impact 70 linear feet of stl'cam channel. File project kill be dcvcloped in
two phases. PhaSC I inCludcS permanent impact to 0.00; acre of wetlandS and temporary impact to Ill tcet
of stream. All remaining impacts are proposed for Phase IL The purpose of tllC Project iS to Consu'uCt
Carolina North, an C\pa1151oll of the exlsnn`l CM11Plls to aCCOnunodate aCadCtllic re;earrh, u:rvice, and
outreach programs that support the L'ni\crsitv's mission. Mitigation for tilt project inCludeS payment into
the N.C. Fcos\stem h1hancement Program.
Bolin Creek. Crow Branch and Booker Creek or their tributaries flow through the project
bllundariCS. AH StreanlS are located in the Cape Fear River basin and within the B.L..lordan RCSCrvuir
\? atershed. The applicant states wetlands \\ ithin the project boundaries are located in forested arras near
Suranls or within the old pre-regulatory nuulicipal landfill.
The l nip etsity proposes to develop approximately "K acres of the 947 acre property over the
next 50 years. The Current use of the property is the Horace \Villiauns Airport: however. the site also xyas
used as a municipal landfill and a portion ol,the site WZIS used Ibr disposing ofchenlieal wastC from the
('nivcrsitv's research actiyitics. That material has been renlovCd and on-goin, :,?ruundwatCr 1'r111cdialitnl
and monitoring Continues. 'File remainder ofthe property is upland torest.
The applicant evaluatCd two alternative locations to Carolina North. Alternative Area I and
Alternative Area 2 are located southeast of the existing campus. Alternative Area I is located adjacent to
the Jordan Lake Natural Areas Macrosite. Portions of Alternative Area 2 are within the .lordan Lake
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1731 Mail Service Center • Raleigh. NC 27699-1731
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
Pave 2
9 \9a\' 20 11
Carolina \orth
Corps Action ID \o.: SAW-2010-01840
Natural Areas Macrosite. Ill addition, it appears Alterilati\e Area ? is located adjacent to N(AVRC g;une
lands. \\'c support the preferred alternati\C location site - Carolina North. As proposed, consnRuction on
the Carolina Forth site \\ill impact lands that are primarily disturbed and there arc no rare. thrCaMled or
endancred species, Si-mificant Natural I leritage Areas, of NICAVRC ganie lands \\ ithin or ad_jaccnt to fhc
proposed site.
In addition to Avoiding and mininiizin_ impacts to forested areas, \\etlands, and streams, the
applicant is proposing se\eral other measures to reduce impacts to aquatiC and terrestrial \\ildlitQ
reso.U-ces. We arc pleased to see the a11h11Calit is proposing to cluster- de\clopment on already disturbed
area", Consu•tlct bight\' efficient btlildillLS, use parking decks, optimize solar gain, protect open space,
de\clop integratCdslornl\\ater nlalla"Cillent (c.u., Norctentioll, stlrnmater \\C1lands. and ciSICrns), and
use reclaimed \\atcr.
Should the permit be issued, \\c offer the tollo\\ing recorilinendalIoils to further nlininurc
inlpaCtS to AquatiC and terse,trial \\ildlifc resourCes.
1 Vaintain a 100 4001 undisturbed, nati\c. forested butler alone perennial streams. and a SO-foot butler
along intermittent StreaniS and \\ctlands. Maintainill" taulisturbed, forested bufterS alone thCSC areas
"ill minimize impacts to aquatic and terrestrial \\'ildlifc resourCeS, \\ater quality, and aquatic habitat
both \\'ithin and do\\'nstream ofthe project area. In addition, \\ide riparian buffers are helpful in
niaiIlia inin-, stability of stream banks and tor treatment of pollutants associated with stormwater
runoff. WIM-caS..1 grassed buffer, part iCUlarly fCSCUC. is a \e?(,ctatcd buffer but \\ill not pro\ide the
ilCCessar\ and highly Valuable functions as discussed file forested butlers.
2. Protect all remaining \\etlands and streams on the site by placing them in a permanent conser\atiun
casement to prohibit tilling, draining, flooding, and excmation.
3. Cul\erts Should be designed to allo\\ passage of'aquatiC life.
q. Locate SC\\Crs and other utilities as far Lmay from streams as functionally possible and niininlirc
stream crossings. It is preferable that sewers be located Outside the riparian buffers as detailed in ?;1.
5. For green\\a\S, porous pa\ement materials are preferred o\er asphalt. Porous pa\ennent tllcilitatcS
intiltratioll of stornlwater as opposed to the direct runoff produced from asphalt.
6 Use landscaping that consists of non-in\asi e native Species. l sing native species instead of
ornamentals should provide benefits by rcduCing the nCCd for \\ater, fertilizers, and pesticides.
Sediment and erosion control niCasureS Should be installCd prior to any land clearing or construction.
l hcse measures Should be routinely inspected and properl\ maintained. 1-:\Ccssi\e silt and sediment
loads can have numerous detrimental el'tcCIS on aquatic resourCCS including destruction of Spa\\ning
habitat. sutlocation of eggs, and clogging of gills of aquatic Species.
Thank \ou for the opportunity to conullcnt on this project. If \\c can pro\ide further assistance.
please contact our office an [phone].
cc: Ian McMillan (DWQ ID - 20110260)
Williams, Andrew E SAW
From: Julie McClintock [[e-mail]]
went: Monday, May 09, 2011 4:28 PM
Williams, Andrew E SAW
Subject: permit comments
ttachments: Corps.permit.comments1.doc; ATT312884.txt
i.lrew
•e are the comments on the Carolina North permit application from Friends of Bolin Creek.
!.ease forward to Ian McMillan at the North Carolina Division of Water Quality.
1 '?-
?Inl<s.
1
Friends of Bolin Creek
Comments on application for a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Individual Permit, and a 401 Water
Quality Certification from the N.C. Division of Water Quality, for the Carolina North development. May
9.2011
1. Waste water reuse project. The project is described in the application as creating unavoidable impacts. A
water reuse project, while laudable, is not necessary infrastructure and would come at a high financial cost
while causing damage to area creeks. The route of a force main on C-9 would unnecessarily cross and disturb a
main section of Bolin Creek. 14 B is an example of a stream that originates north of Bolin Creek, flows through
a forested upland area to a culvert under Estes Drive, which would also be impacted by this project. Even ifthis
expensive and voluntary project were to be undertaken, locating the pump station as sited on map C-9 is not the
only feasible location.
2. Sewell School Road Bikelanes. The application states that two off-road bike lanes will be built along
Seawell School Road. This appears to be inconsistent with the statement on page 36 of the application that
states that the Town of Chapel Hill approved a minor modification to the Development Agreement to allow
placement of a sidewalk and bicycle facilities along the east side of Seawell School Road, thus reducing the
impact to perennial and intermittent streams. We want the assurance from the applicant that approving this
permit will retain the ability for the University to build at an off-road bike path along Seawell School Road as
described in the Development Agreement.
3. Impact on Bolin Creek from Carolina North project. The application seeks to address impacts on streams
and wetlands outside the development footprint with the goal of minimizing those impacts. Yet many of the
transit improvements and additional impervious surfaces of the new campus will cause significant impacts to
the Bolin and Booker Creek watersheds. For example, Stream 5A is described as inconsequential. but is a high
value tributary as it flows toward Bolin Creek. We are concerned about the effectiveness of stormwater facilities
to actually prevent increased flow through protected buffers and into perennial and intermittent streams such as
5A. The Jordan Lake rules mandate that even activities outside the protected buffer are not allowed to cause
hydrologic impacts to the buffer and stream. Stormwater facilities should exceed minimum standards to ensure
that buffers and streams are protected even in unusual storm events.
The University further states that throughout the permit application process, the University communicated with
other agencies and with the Town of Chapel Hill and OWASA. We are concerned that the Chapel Hill Storm
Water Management utility has not assessed or commented on the many miles of streams affected by Carolina
North.
Williams, Andrew E SAW
F,-om: Kimberly Willardson [[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 4:42 PM
'o: Williams, Andrew E SAW
S.uoject: Request for Public Hearing on Carolina North Plan
it Mr. Andrews:
m writing to request a public hearing for the Carolina North Permit Application because of
,-ent information that has come to light since the Carolina North application was deemed
plete.
it stands now, the Carolina North plan states, "To mitigate for the anticipated [stream
,. :i wetlano] impacts, the applicant has proposed a payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem
i,ancement Program (NCEEP)."
!-).,ever, as the April 2011 News & Observer series "Washed Away," by Dan Kane and David
!%.rvnor, has revealed in extensive and painstakingly researched detail, there is no evidence
it the NCEEP has the staff, funding, nor the functioning programs in place to begin, let
,.one complete, such mitigation efforts.
following five-paragraph excerpt is taken from that series and the link to the N&O series
;i be found here: http://www.newsobserver.com/washedaway/
t;.://www.newsobserver.com/washedaway/> .
ores show the restoration program has had problems for years but has drawn little
7_ention because state and federal overseers have lacked the resources to stay on top of the
-uation.
to Division of Water Quality officials say federal grants used to pay people to monitor
eam and wetland restorations ran out and have not been replaced.
..,?inwhile, the Army Corps of Engineers, the lead federal agency issuing permits for
eloprnent and for the corresponding environmental protection in streams and wetlands, hired
additional staffer to stay on top of the restoration sites. This came after a 2005 federal
:jernment Accountability Office audit said the Corps lacked effective oversight on
,cigation in areas including North Carolina.
(_,ps officials in North Carolina deny they ever lacked the manpower to keep up with
,tot,ation projects, but one of them said the new staffer has a tough job.
",ie person, 500 sites," said Scott McLendon, the deputy chief for the Corps' Wilmington
.'.strict. "You do the math."
.. walk frequently in the Carolina Forest and the surrounding areas near Estes Extension and
-well School Road. On those walks, we've noticed that these areas, particularly the land
:_,rounding the Horace Williams Airport, already exhibit signs of stress and damage (i.e.,
-1 erosion; undrained, standing water; and uprooting vegetation; etc.), exacerbated by the
1
,.,toff problems caused by the diverted drainage due to the Weaver Dairy Road
?;Iening/addition and tree removal. An additional complicating factor for the Carolina North
elopment will come from the need to deal with the remnants of the old landfill that is on
north side of the airport.
you know, even small changes to creek runoff and tree/vegetation growth can greatly
!,iuence the health of streams and wetlands, and, ultimately, drinking water sources. The
c ivironmental changes demanded by the Carolina North project will require a dedicated staff
qualified individuals with experience in wetlands mitigation, and it seems that the state
lacking those resources at this time. For that reason, please allow for a public hearing
the citizens residing close to the proposed Carolina North can discover how and when we
i get those resources in place before further development is allowed to occur.
ink you for your time.
ICereIY-
.,,;er and Kimberly Willardson
r".Q Seawell School Road
-,,,pel Hill, North Carolina 27516-9245
:;/636-4657 (home)
19/923-7147 (cell)
2
United States Department of the Interior
1.ISH AND WILDLIFE SERVIC'I
Raleieh Field Office
Past Office Box 33726
R '
Raleieh. North Carolina 27636-3 726
April 25, 2011
Dave Tinlpv
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office a ,'rtf ?
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington NC 28403-1343 i 201i
Re: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, SAW-2010-01840, ' Oran4ge County.
Dear Mr. Timpy:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the project advertised in the above referenced
Public Notice. The project, as advertised in the Public Notice, is expected to have ntininlal adverse
impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Therefore, we have no ob_lection to the activity as described in the
permit application.
In accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, (ESA) and based oil the
information provided, and other available information. it appears the action is not likely to adversely
affect federally listed species or their critical habitat as defined by the LISA. \Ve belies c that the
requirenlents ofsection 7 (a)(2) of the ESA have been satislied for this project. Please remember that
obligations under the ESA must be reconsidered if: (I ) new information identifies impacts of this action
that nlay affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2) this action is
modified in a manner that was not considered in this review, or, (3) a new species is listed or critical
habitat determined that may be affected by the identified action.
For your convenience a list of all federally protected endangered and threatened species in North Carolina
is no\y available on our %vebsite at <http:'!?yww.fivs.gov%raleigh. Our web page contains a complete and
updated list of federally protected species, and a list of federal species of concern kno\yn to occur in each
oo nttV' 0) North CgrohllZ
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review and provide comments on the proposed action.
Should you have any questions regarding the project, please contact John Ellis at [phone],
extension 26.
Sincerely, /
L ?
Pete.$enl"till ill
Field Sup'ryisor
CC' NNIFS, Beaufort, NC
EPA, Atlanta, GA
WRC. Raleigh
iilliams, Andrew E SAW
F ram: Bryant, Shari L. [[e-mail]]
Monday, May 09, 2011 12:35 PM
c: Williams, Andrew E SAW
Mcmillan, Ian
-S'.,bject: 2010-01840 UNC-CH Carolina North
,.ttachments: 201001840 UNC-CH Carolina North NCWRC.pdf
,: )dy,
:'ease find attached our comments on the subject project.
)nks.
;ari Bryant
wildlife Resources Commission
?. Box 129
dalia, NC 27342-0129
''.t; .449.7625
-,i`i. bryant(ancwildlife. org
(_- NC Wildlife Update <http://www.ncwildlife.orp,/Enews/index.htm> - news including season
L:.-:es, bag limits, legislative updates and more -- delivered to your Inbox from the N.C.
'dlife Resources Commission.
it correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and
be disclosed to third parties.
1