20061135 Ver 2_USACE More Info Requested_20221005

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
October 5, 2022
Regulatory Division
Action ID: SAW-2021-00933
Mr. and Mrs. John Bode
Oxford Park
Horner Siding Road (SR 1515)
Oxford, North Carolina 27565
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Bode:
Please reference your Individual Permit application for Department of the Army
(DA) authorization to permanently discharge dredged or fill material into a total of 0.229
acre (1,535 linear feet of stream channel) and 0.295 acre of riparian wetlands
associated with the construction of a residential development and associated
infrastructure. The project area is located east of Horner Siding Road, west of Perry
Road, and north of Salem Road, in Oxford, Granville County, North Carolina.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (Corps) advertised your
proposal by public notice dated August 16, 2022. Comments in response to the notice
were received from the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR), North
Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources (NCDNCR), U.S. National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and the public citizen Mr. Chad E. Lloyd. The
comments received are enclosed for your information and to provide you with the
opportunity to address any of the stated concerns. Additionally, please provide written
responses to the comments from NCDWR, NCDNCR and Mr. Lloyd. Specifically, please
address Mr. Lloyd's concerns regarding stream alternation potentially affecting natural
wildlife habitat and potentially increasing downstream flooding. Please address if
additional avoidance and minimization efforts could be used to prevent the need to alter
stream flow. Please address NCDWR's concerns regarding the project purpose and
need and the completion of a thorough alternatives analysis to ensure that the
statement does not preemptively disqualify other alternatives. Also, please provide
additional details regarding site selection criteria, specifically, please justify the 400-acre
minimum size criterion, and provide additional justifications to support siting criteria,
such as, the requirement to be within appropriate zoning, have on -site access to potable
water and sanitary sewer, and be within the corporate City Limits of Oxford. In addition,
the criteria for location within 5 miles of retail, healthcare and interstate is not explained
or justified.

Moreover, additional information is needed for the State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO), specifically, please provide an archaeological survey for the permit area to
make an effects determination.
Please note that the NMFS, in a letter dated August 16, 2022, stated that the
proposed project would not occur in the vicinity of essential fish habitat (EFH)
designated by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Mid -Atlantic Fishery
Management Council, or the NMFS, and that they are neither supportive of nor in
opposition to authorization of the proposed work.
Further, on February 6, 1990, the Department of the Army (DA) and the EPA signed
a memorandum of agreement (MOA) establishing procedures to determine the type and
level of mitigation necessary to comply with Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404(b)(1)
Guidelines. This MOA provides for first, avoiding impacts to waters and wetlands
through the selection of the least damaging, practical alternative; second, taking
appropriate and practical steps to reduce impacts on waters and wetlands; and finally,
compensation for remaining unavoidable impacts to the extent appropriate and
practical. To enable us to process your application, in compliance with the MOA, we
request that you provide the following additional information:
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. Please furnish information regarding any other alternatives,
including upland alternatives, to the work for which you have applied and
provide justification that your selected plan is the least damaging to water or
wetland areas.
i. The Corps disagrees with your stated Purpose and Need.
Please note that the Corps makes the final determination regarding
Basic and Overall, Purpose and Need for a project. Based on your
application, we have determined the Purpose of your project to be the
following:
Basic: To construct a residential development and associated
infrastructure.
Overall: To construct a residential development and its associated
infrastructure to meet the existing housing demand in Granville County.
Your project Need states "Current housing inventory in Triangle
(Raleigh, Durham, Chapel -Hill) has reached a new, historic low
-2-

creating a regional housing shortage." Please revise your project Need
to only include the City of Oxford or Granville County.
ii. For the off -site alternatives analysis, several siting criteria presented
are not adequately justified in the application. Additionally, several
citing criteria are missing from the application and is needed for
evaluation purposes:
a. The terms "Threatened and Endangered Species" were used
but not adequately explained. Further, threatened, and
endangered species is not an adequate siting criterion and
should not be considered in the off -site alternatives analysis.
b. "Historic Significance" is used as a siting criterion; however,
historic significance is not an adequate siting criterion and
should not be considered in the off -site alternatives analysis.
c. "Zoning" is used as a siting criterion. The preferred project
viability states "an agreement was entered between the City of
Oxford and John and Lucy Bode to extend potable water and
sanitary sewer line for the purpose of servicing this masterplan
residential development. Additionally, the property has been
annexed within the Corporate Limits of Oxford affording it
access to city services." The above excerpt suggests that
rezoning and access to city services is possible as it has been
demonstrated with the proposed project. Please provide
additional information regarding zoning requirements or
eliminate this siting criterion.
d. "Water and Sewer" is used as a siting criterion; however, this
criterion does not provide any information comparing water and
sewer viability to all alternatives, including cost comparisons.
e. "Within Corporate City Limits of Oxford" is used as a siting
criterion. This criterion seems too restrictive and additional
justification should be provided. Additionally, if this criterion is
necessary, please explain why alternative properties were
included that do not meet the criterion.
f. "Within 5 miles of Retail, Healthcare, and Interstate" is used as
a siting criterion. This criterion is too restrictive. Please
elaborate on the need to have a residential development within
-3-

5-miles of retail, healthcare, and interstate. Additionally, if this
criterion is necessary, please explain why alternative properties
were included that do not meet the criterion.
iii. Several citing criteria are missing from the application and are
required to assist in determining the least environmentally
damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA):
a. Size/Yield — Please indicate the size (acreage)
requirements for the potential development and provide a
comparison for all alternatives. Also indicate how many
homes could potentially be built within the size
constraints for each alternative. Please include this
criterion within your site selection criterion chart.
b. Aquatic Resources — Please compare and quantify the
aquatic resources for each alternative, including your
preferred alternative. Please update your site selection
criteria and include the aquatic resource amounts within
your site selection criterion chart.
B. It is necessary for you to have taken all appropriate and practicable steps to
minimize losses of Waters of the U.S., including wetlands. Please indicate all
that you have done, especially regarding development and modification of
plans and proposed construction techniques, to minimize adverse impacts.
i. There are twenty-one (21) proposed crossings with thirteen (13) out of
the 21 crossing being associated with road crossings, which seems
excessive. Please provide additional information regarding the
proposed road crossings and provide justification for the number of
crossings. Specifically, the use of bridges is limited. Please explain if
modifications, such as the use of additional bridges and the elimination
of road crossings could be achieved to further minimize stream and
wetland impacts. Additionally, please revise your plan sheets to include
no more than one road crossing per stream and provide detailed
justifications if this cannot be accomplished.
ii. Could additional avoidance and minimization be achieved by
eliminating crossings 1 and 21, shifting the roadway to avoid crossing
-4-

12, and shifting crossing 6 to avoid wetland impacts? If crossing 1
could not be eliminated could roundabouts be used to avoid stream
impacts? Could crossing 4 be shifted upstream for additional
avoidance and minimization?
iii. Please provide additional information regarding utilities. Please confirm
if gravity sewer will be used or force mains. Additionally, please
indicate where the sewer lines would be tied into. If a gravity sewer is
proposed, please indicate how this would be successful for crossings
high in the watershed, such as crossing 19.
iv. Due to the number of crossings proposed, the Corps has determined
that federal control will not be limited to where proposed impacts would
occur and the entire project area would be federally control.
v. Information regarding a no -build alternative is required before a permit
decision is made.
Additionally, the following items must be resolved prior to continuing to process your
permit request:
1) Please copy the Corps on your response to NCDWR's Request for Additional
Information letter dated September 8, 2022.
2) Please note that responses to the questions above may prompt additional
information requests to allow full evaluation of the proposed project.
The above requested information is essential to the expeditious processing of your
application; please forward this information to us within 30 days of your receipt of this
letter. If you have any questions regarding these matters, please contact me at (919)
441-3637 [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Tommy E. Fennel
Chief, Regulatory Division
-5-

Enclosures
Copies Furnished w/enclosures:
Ms. Deborah Shirley
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA.
8412 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 104
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
Copies Furnished w/o enclosures:
Mr. Todd Bowers
Permit Review Specialist
Wetlands Regulatory Section
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region IV
Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Ms. Sue Homewood
NCDEQ — Division of Water Resources
401 and Buffer Permitting Branch
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
-6-