20140407 Ver 1_Corps of Engineer Correspondence_20140718

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 0 —6 I o
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
151 PATTON AVENUE
ROOM 208
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28801 -5006
July 14, 2014
Regulatory Division
Action ID: SAW - 2014 -00828
Mr. Josh Blackson
Elevation Church
11416 East Independence Blvd., Suite N
Matthews, North - Carolina 28105
Dear Mr. Blackson:
JUL 1 8 2014
b
D - WA R IUALI
!�6l4ancts a cr..._..._. TY
Reference is made to your application of April 14, 2014, with additional information
received May 7, 2014, for Department of the Army (DA) permit authorization to impact 85
linear feet of stream channel, 0.24 acres of wetland, and 2.27 acres of open water, associated
with a mixed use commercial and residential' development in Mecklenburg County, North
Carolina.
After review of your proposal, the United States Fish and Wildlife Services ( USFWS)
submitted comments by letter dated June 6, 2014. They offered several recommendations should
the permit be issued and a copy of their letter is enclosed for your consideration. Specifically, the
USFWS stated the following:
"According to our records and a review of the information you provided, no federally
listed species or their habitats occur on the subject site. Therefore, we believe the
requirements under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act are fulfilled."
Written comments were also received from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (WRC) on May 30, 2014. A copy of this correspondence is enclosed for your
consideration and response. The WRC commented, "We hesitate to concur with the filling of
wetlands due to their wildlife habitat value and the well -known beneficial f inctioris they provide
for flood control and water quality protection. We also hesitate to concur with the piping of
stream channels due to the potential for long -term and cumulative impacts." They offered several
recommendations should the permit be issued.
Written comments stating no objection or no commenf on the project were received from the
National Marine Fisheries Service and the State Historic Preservation Office. While no response
is necessary, their correspondence is attached for your records.

- 2 -
Please provide the following additional information related to the proposed project:
1. It appears from the project site plan that nearly the entire drainage area for stream B1
4s-contained within the project area. It also appears from the project site plan that the
drainage area upslope of the 222 linear feet, for which impact was avoided, is
proposed to be collected by the storm water management features and piped to a
storm water pond down slope of stream B 1. Provide comment on whether stream
B 1 will retain enough overland drainage or groundwater flow to remain a
jurisdictional stream? If you believe this feature will be impacted by the reduction in
-hydrology what alternatives do you propose to avoid or minimize the impact to this
feature? If you feel that this feature will be affected by the lack of hydrology but the
impacts are unavoidable, what compensatory mitigation do you propose in order to
offset this potential impact?
2. Based on our May 28, 2014,.site visit, wetland E (the 0.2299 acre drained pond) was
determined to be a jurisdictional open water feature instead of a jurisdictional
wetland. Provide an updated map, supporting JD materials and impact/mitigation
numbers to address this change.
In order to effectively evaluate potential alternatives for this project the following
information regarding potential alternatives are needed:
a) More detailed information regarding the criteria used in property seleciibn
(size, costs, location, and other potential project considerations /constraints) to
justify that no off -site alternatives would meet the least environmentally
damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA).
b) Information regarding a no permit/no build alternative.
Your response to the comments identified 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 request that you provide responses to all comments in this letter to this office by August
15, 2014. If you fail to respond by August 15, 2014, we will administratively withdraw your
application. We will reopen your application and continue to process it once you have submitted
all of the information we have requested in this letter. If you have questions or comments, please
contact me at my Asheville Regulatory Field Office address, telephone [phone] ext. 234.

t
- 3
Sincerely,
�C� U46 LI
Steve Kichefski
Project Manager
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
Enclosures
cc: w /encls
Mr. Leonard S. Rindner
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC
3714 Spokeshave Lane
Matthews, North Carolina 28105
cc: w/o encls
vlrAs. Karen Higgins
North Carolina Division of Water Resources
Wetlands, Buffers, Stormwater, Compliance
and Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1650
Asheville Field Office
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 2880,1. .
Mr. Todd Bowers
Permit Review Specialist
Wetlands Regulatory Section
USEPA — Region 4
Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303 -8960
Ms. Shari Bryant, Piedmont Region Coordinator
North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission
Habitat Conservation Program
Post Office Box 129
Sedalia, North Carolina 27342 -0129