20220829 Ver 1_More Info Received_20220712 (4)

Cohn, Colleen M
From:Nikki Thomson <[e-mail]>
Sent:Tuesday, July 12, 2022 4:37 PM
To:Norton, April R CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Cc:Sean Clark; Cohn, Colleen M
Subject:\[External\] RE: Request for Additional Information (Peach Orchard Subdivision)
SAW-2021-02721
Attachments:IMG_5018 Looking downstream at Stream Form SF100.JPG; IMG_5020 Looking
upstream at Stream Form SF100 location.JPG; IMG_5022 Flag S1 start intermittent
stream.JPG
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.

Afternoon April!

I’ve responded to your questions below in red. Please let me know if you need any additional information/explanation.

Thank you and have a great evening!

Nikki

From: Norton, April R CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, July 8, 2022 2:53 PM
To: Nikki Thomson <[e-mail]>
Cc: Sean Clark <[e-mail]>; Cohn, Colleen M <[e-mail]>
Subject: Request for Additional Information (Peach Orchard Subdivision) SAW-2021-02721

Dear Nikki Thomson,

Thank you for your Preconstruction Notification, dated and received 6/17/2022, for the above referenced project. I have
reviewed the information and need clarification before proceeding with verifying the use of Nationwide Permit (NWP)
29.

Please submit the requested information below (via e‐mail is fine) within 30 days of receipt of this Notification,
otherwise we may deny verification of the use of the Nationwide Permit or consider your application withdrawn and
close the file:

1) The proposed project requests authorization to fill 130 linear feet (0.01 acre) of stream channel. The need for
such access is not disputed, however you have not demonstrated avoidance and minimization to the maximum
extent practicable as required by NWP General Conditions 23(a) and (b). For example, it appears that some
impacts could be avoided by realigning Road 2 to avoid impacts to Stream SA. Please provide additional
information explaining why the road could or could not be realigned to avoid impacts to Stream SA. Please
include updates to the PCN/plans, as necessary.
a. Response: The proposed layout for Road 2 was designed to provide maximum lot yield on useable septic
soils and optimal well locations while minimizing stream and wetland impacts. To avoid Stream SA, the
road would need to be shifted nearly to the southern property line. This would bisect lots 32-34 as well
as cut through well lots 1 & 2. Lots 32-34 are in a pocket of suitable soils and the road would disturb a
1

significant portion of those soils; reconfiguring the lots would not contain enough suitable soil areas to
build septic systems which therefore, eliminates the lots. This reduces the overall lots from 47 to
43. Additionally, the loss the 2 wells (well lot 1 cannot be relocated without losing more lots and well lot
2 cannot be relocated without encroaching into well lot 3) would make the project not viable. Sufficient
flow is not guaranteed from the remaining wells. Therefore, the loss of approximately 10% of the
useable lots, the potential failure of the project due to insufficient well yield from only 2 wells means that
the proposed stream crossing, on a narrow, intermittent channel, in its proposed location, is the most
practical alternative for the project. Additionally, attached are photos of Stream SA, highlighting that it is
a small system with no flow.

2) Given the proximity of this project to known populations of several threatened/endangered species, as well as
potentially suitable habitat for these species occurring in the project action area, we will initiate informal
consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Please note that the Corps cannot verify the use of
an NWP until Section 7 consultation is complete.
a. Response: As discussed above, Stream SA is an intermittent channel with no flow. The substrate of the
channel is not the correct habitat for the aquatic species that are potentially in the area. Further, this
drainage is at the top end of the system and flows into a pond, which would also preclude the presence
of any threatened or endangered aquatic species. While the action area is larger than the project area,
based upon location, geomorphology of the channel, the fact that it is intermittent and drains to a pond,
we believe that aquatic T&E species would not be found on or near this project.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
April Norton
---
April R. Norton
Regulatory Division
US Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

2