The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20061274 Ver 2_Other Agency Comments_20070621a.`r F O to - 12, ~ '} DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY . ~~ WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS PO BOX 1890 WILMINGTON NC 28402-1890 June 19, 2007 Regulatory Division Action ID No. 200600208 Environmental Services, Inc. Attn: Josh Witherspoon 524 South New Hope Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27610 Dear Sir: Qr~~~ae~D JUN 2 1 2007 DENR -WATER QUALITY ~ETIANDS APlp STORlu~lATER BRANCH On March 26, 2007, this office received your application for Department of the Army authorization to construct phase II of Turtle Creek Subdivision in Pender County, which would involve the impact to 2.236 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and 70 linear feet of stream channel. The purpose of this letter is to provide comments from resource agencies for rebuttal purposes and provide comments generated by this office as a part of the project review. At the conclusion of the thirty day public notice period, we received two comments from regulatory and or natural resource agencies. The commenting agencies, which have forwarded correspondences to date, include the NCDENR-Division of Coastal Management and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. The Division of Coastal Management provided correspondence that indicated at minimum a consistency certification would be necessary. .Please understand that within the twenty coastal counties, in which this project is situated, a consistency certification will be necessary for the Corps to conclude their permit process. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission recommended further avoidance and minimization through the use of bridges and bottomless culverts. The Commission recommends the removal of Impact #12. According to their investigation, it does not seem clear that the Surf City ordinances require this crossing as a connection to Highway 17. Also impact #12 crosses a substantial stream system which they believe could be crossed by bridging. The Commission supports denial for any activity which fills wetlands to generate high ground for development. The current plans in fact do request the conversion of wetlands to highground for the placement of development. According to the 404 b(1) guideline for processing a permit request, when the proposed discharge does not require siting in a special aquatic site or is water dependent to achieve its basic purpose, practicable alternatives not involving special aquatic sites are presumed available unless clearly demonstrated otherwise. The second rebuttable presumption is that practicable -2- alternatives not involving special aquatic sites are presumed to have less adverse impact on aquatic ecosystems unless clearly demonstrated otherwise. This current proposal for housing is not water dependent and it is located in a special aquatic site and therefore the two presumptions are valid. In order to satisfy the process associated with the b(1) guidelines, please provide documentable evidence of alternative sites investigated as mentioned in your analysis. Please further explain why these investigated alternative sites are not practicable alternatives. To satisfy the second rebuttable presumption please either redesign the project to further minimize impacts or explain why additional minimization is not practicable. During the initial nationwide on Phase I of this project several bottomless culverts were proposed and permitted which are now being removed from the plans in exchange for permanent impacts. Please explain what has changed since your initial design of Phase I indicated that these bottomless culverts were practicable. Impact #10 was initially avoided during the processing of Phase I, what from a design standpoint has changed, thus creating this new impact? Concerns remain over impacts planned in Phase II where you have designed for the conversion of wetlands to uplands for strictly development purposes not associated with access. Impacts # 13, 14, 19, and 20 need further justification as to their need for the entire subdivision success. Their impacts may only be justified with an economic analysis indicating that without their inclusion the project would be impracticable. Impact #12 appears to be justified as a connection for safety purposes. The application correspondence indicates that this connection is needed to properly move emergency vehicles through the subdivision. It is written to imply this benefit would be for Phase I. However, the local emergency services are located off Highway 210 and not Highway 17 thus providing better service to the subdivision. It has also been brought to the Corps attention that the Surf City ordinance may not require the connection of the two subdivisions. Please confirm that in fact a specific ordinance can be referenced requiring the connection. It needs to be clear that this connection is justified for the subdivision and not as a thoroughfare the City desires. If its intent is more as a thoroughfare the City may need to be the applicant justifying its construction thorough traffic analysis of the area. If justifiable, further minimization of the crossing should be considered such as bridging. The current design associated with connection appears to have the potential for movement and thus potentially impacting less wetlands. It seems that an orientation closer to Impact #14 could reduce wetland impact. Finally, in reference to Impact #12, the application states that stream mitigation would not be required, stream mitigation is in deed required for unavoidable stream impact. Whereas the plans were accepted as complete for the publication of the public notice, more specific plans should be submitted for the crossing locations. There are number typical crossing details which may not be appropriate for every crossing. Please include cross section drawings of the impact areas in order to determine whether or not they have been minimized as much as practicable. -3- The details should clearly show the interface of the impact areas with the abutting wetlands. These details will demonstrate if retaining walls or other such devices could be utilized to minimize impacts further. The application states that RCW habitat is present but it does not mention if a RCW survey for cavity trees was actually completed. Please provide evidence that is clear as to whether or not additional coordination may be necessary with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Service is aware of this proposal but currently has a time lag for review and they have indicated that the may still comment on this project once time allows. Finally, the application states that the project purpose is to provide access to Highway 17. The basic project purpose is to provide housing with a specific project purpose being more along the line of subdivision within a certain service area. The Corps will not accept the project purpose to provide access to Highway 17 for a housing subdivision. The connection of two major highways maybe an applicable project purpose for a DOT project but not in this case. I would recommend revising your stated project purpose. Our administrative process provides you the opportunity to propose a resolution and/or rebut any and all objections before a final decision is made. In this regard, I would appreciate being made aware of your intentions, in writing, on or before July 20, 2007. I am responsible for processing your application and available to assist you in coordinating with the review agencies. If you have any questions you may call me at (910) 251-4611. Sincerely, Brad Shaver Regulatory Specialist Wilmington Regulatory Field Office Enclosures Copies Furnished: DCNC North Carolina I, LLC 2528 Independence Boulevard, #104 Wilmington, North Carolina 28401 -4- Ms., Cyndi Karoly D' ision of Water Quality .C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources 2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250 Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-2260 Ms. Noelle Lutheran Division of Water Quality N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources 127 Cardinal Drive Wilmington, North Carolina 28405 Mr. Howard Hall U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Post Office Box 33726 Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726 Mr. Steven Everhart N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission 1721 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1721