20140412 Ver 1_Corps of Engineer Correspondence_20140703

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
Regulatory Division /1200A
Action ID: SAM- 2013 -01255
Mr. Marty Gilbert
Walmart Stores Inc.
702 SW Sth Street
Bentonville, AR 72716 -5611
Dear Mr. Gilbert:
pry.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
July 03, 2014
By public notice dated May 7, 2014, we announced your application for a Department of the
Army (DA) permit to authorize permanent discharge of fill impacts to 931 linear feet of jurisdictional
strearn channel, 0.05 acre of forested jurisdictional wetlands and 1.26 acres of open water (existing
pond) of a tributary of Crooked Run Creels associated with the proposed construction of a new
Walmart Supercenter located east of U.S. Highway 52 at the intersection of Ingram Drive and Five
Forks Street, in Ding; Stokes County, North Carolina.
Also please reference our letter of May 23, 2014, stating our concern with your permit request
compliance with the February 6, 1990, DA and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
signed Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) establishing procedures to determine the type and level
of mitigation necessary to comply with the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. As
discussed in our May 23`d letter, the MOA provides for first, avoiding impacts to waters and wetlands
through the selection of the least damaging, practicable alternative; second, taking appropriate and
practical steps to minimize impacts on waters and wetlands; and finally, compensating for any
remaining unavoidable impacts to the extent appropriate and practicable. With regard to that concern,
we requested that you provide the following information in support of your permit application
Currently under review:
a. Permits for work within wetlands or other special aquatic sites are available only if the proposed
work is the least environmentally damaging, practicable alternative; however the alternative review
submitted with your application does not provide enough detail to allow us to make this
determination. Alternative 9 -C included in your provided alternative review significantly reduces the
impacts to "Headwater Forest Wetland (W -2)" within the property boundary. Please provide more
detailed information why this is not a practicable alternative for your proposed project.
b. It is necessary for you to have taken all appropriate and practical steps to minimize stream channel
losses. Alternative 9 -C included in your provided alternative review significantly reduces the impacts
to the perennial stream within the property boundary. Please provide more detailed information why
this is not a practicable alternative for your proposed project.
Printed on 0 Recycled Paper

-2-
We received your response to our letter from your agent Bohlen° Engineering on June 16, 2014. The
letter concluded that Alternative 9 -C is not an economically feasible option. The letter further stated
the existing property seller requires road frontage for future development along both Ingram Drive
and Five Forks Road. Our review of the submitted plans show the road frontage on Five Fork Road
for 9 -13 (your proposed alternative) and 9 -C to be comparable in size and the road frontage on Ingram
Drive to be larger in length and area for 9 -C. The letter also stated a concern for visibly of the store
associated with the 9 -C alternative. A quick review of other Walmart Supereenters in forth Carolina
demonstrates that such a visibility concern has not been impracticable to the economy of their
operation. I have attached aerial photographs of existing Walmart Centers in Raleigh, Wake Forest,
Thomasville, and Roxboro, forth Carolina. Each of these appears to have as much or greater visibly
issues as is described in your agents response. Finally your letter described concerns for the
constructability of 9 -C with a portion of the store being constructed on an existing pond. however
the letter did account for the fact that in the 9 -13 alternative, a portion of the store would be construct
on a spring feed wetland and on 417 linear feet of a perennial stream. It is our opinion that the
constructability issues for both alternatives are comparable without one being preferred over the
other.
In conclusion it is our determination that your preferred alternative 9 -�13 is not the least
environmentally damaging, practicable alternative (LEDPA). It is our opinion that you have not
demonstrated that alternative 9 -C is an impracticable alternative. We do not concur with your project
alternative analysis for your proposed alternative 9 -13. With what we see as a clear practicable less
environmentally damaging alternative in 9 -C, we cannot proceed with your request for DA permit
action for your proposed alternative 9 -E. Therefore without an alternative that complies with the
aforementioned MOA and Clean Water Act guidelines, we have to consider your application
incomplete and without further action from you we will be administratively closing your request.
You should contact Mr. John Thomas at 919 - 554 -4884 extension 25 if you have any questions
regarding this process.
Copies Furnished:
S &ME
Attn: Darrin M. Pcine
9751 Southern Pine Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28273 -5560
Printed on 9 Recycled Paper