20220436 Ver 1_USACE More Info Request_20221020

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
ASHEVILLE REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
151 PATTON AVENUE, ROOM 208
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28801-5006

October 19, 2022

Regulatory Division

Action ID Number: SAW-2021-01521

Mr. Robert C. Price
Forestar Group, Inc.
481 Munn Road E., Suite 150
Fort Mill, SC 29715

Dear Mr. Price:

Reference your June 22, 2022 application for Department of the Army (DA)
authorization for the impact to waters of the US associated with the Albemarle Road
project, a residential development project, located south of the intersection of Morrison
Road and Lower Rocky River Road, near the Town of Midland in Cabarrus County, NC.

The purpose of this letter is to provide comments from resource agencies and the
general public for rebuttal purposes as a part of the individual permit review. We have
received comments from the Catawba Indian Nation (dated August 16, 2022), National
Marine Fisheries Service (dated July 19, 2022), and the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality, Division of Water Resources (dated August 10,2022). Copies of
all correspondences are enclosed. 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, please review the enclosed letters, address as
appropriate and copy this office on all of your comments/responses for our review.

Additionally, this letter is to notify you of additional information required to evaluate
the project for compliance with NEPA and the 404(b)(1) guidelines as required for the
issuance of a Department of Army Permit. It should be noted that this project was
originally submitted as a Nationwide Permit verification request on March 17, 2022, and
subsequent of review of the permit verification request, we sent an email dated
March 30, 2022, requesting additional information and clarification and you provided a
response to those questions on April 25, 2022. Although your subsequent request for an
Individual Permit referenced above supersedes the March 17, 2022 permit verification
request, some of the questions and discussion from our March 30, 2022 email and your
April 25, 2022 response are still valid and require clarification and are referenced below.
Please find below the additional information requested to complete the review:

-2-

1. 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 an alternative analysis to include information regarding any other
alternatives, including upland alternatives and off-site alternatives to the work for
which you have applied and provide justification that your selected plan is the least
environmental damaging practicable alternative.

2. It is necessary for you to have taken all appropriate and practical steps to reduce
wetland and stream losses. The following questions are in consideration of
avoidance and minimization to include specific questions regarding project design.

a. Overall plan:

i. With our 3/30/2022 email, I requested information regarding areas where it
appears lots are in close proximity to wetlands. Your 4/25/2022 response
indicated that the project design has not yet been completed at the level of
detail that a grading plan is available for these areas and that specific
discussion regarding minimization of impacts in these areas through the use
of retaining walls or subdivision redesign have occurred and been
incorporated in project design. In order to permit a project, the project must be
single and complete and should include all anticipated impacts. As such, we
would expect that, as the project progresses, if unforeseen circumstances
result in grading or any other aspect of the project or construction possibly
impeding on wetlands, the use of retaining walls and/or the reduction or
elimination of lots would be incorporated in the design in order to avoid any
additional impacts to wetlands. Please verify that you anticipate no additional
impacts to wetlands as a result of lot fill and acknowledge that as the grading
and detail plan progress, all means necessary will be taken to avoid additional
impacts to wetlands.

ii. R9 is a new impact for a road that runs parallel and nearly parallel to two
roads on either side of it, with one road crossing the same tributary
approximately 400’ downstream of this proposed crossing. This road and
resulting impact were previously avoided on earlier iterations of the project
plans by the use of cul-de-sacs on either side of the stream channel. Two
impacts on the same stream approximately 400’ apart for two separate roads
with other roads adjacent and nearly parallel does not demonstrate adequate
avoidance and minimization and as such, the roadway should be re-designed
at this location. The permit application provides information on Town
Ordinance that provide guidance regarding roadway interconnectivity and
restrictions on the use of cul-de-sacs. This road that would result in impact R9
is part of an extensive roadway network where interconnectivity would be
-3-

maintained even without this additional Road. Further, there are multiple cul-
de-sacs proposed in this development and so we expect that cul-de-sacs
should be incorporated into the design where practicable and where it results
in a minimization and avoidance of impacts to Waters of the US. To address
this issue, we recommend you request a variance/waiver from this ordinance
and redesign the plan in this area to include cul-de-sacs, or alternatively you
re-design the plan to drop the lots and to drop this road completely or
otherwise connect the roads so that the R9 impact is eliminated.

iii. With our 3/30/2022 email request, we requested information on if impacts to
Tributary 13 and Tributary 14 could be minimized/avoided by a redesign that
would relocate the main access road to align along the southernmost road
(road where Impact R9 is now proposed) instead of at its current location
where it crosses the two separate stream channels. In your 4/25/2022
response, you cited local requirements that buildings be located along internal
streets and DOT requirements for road improvements and requirements
regarding distance of separation from Albemarle Road. As to the ordinance
regarding buildings along internal roads, we believe that there is still
opportunity to redesign the access area to minimize impacts to waters while
still meeting this requirement. It seems that there is potential to design the
southern road (that results in the R9 crossing) to function as the main access
road while concurrently, redesigning the area where the road that impacts R7
and R8 are located to contain internal roads with lots arranged outside of the
stream channels. We understand that there may be a slight decrease in the
number of lots with this revised design but, for the sake of minimization and
avoidance, this alternative design should be pursued and evaluated to
determine if this would be a practicable scenario. As to the NCDOT
requirements citing distance of separation from Albemarle Road, please
provide more specific information on what the required distance is in order to
support the location of the current access road.

iv. It appears that R6 is mislocated on the detail plan compared to the overall
plan. See enclosed plans with notes for a description.

v. The plans appears to have a “land locked” area that is shown with a road and
lots but no access points (see screen shot below). Please indicate if this
parcel is planned to be developed and if so, if there are anticipated impacts
associated with the development. If this parcel is not planned to be
developed, the plans should be revised accordingly.
-4-

b. Roadway culvert impacts:

i. In our 3/30/2022 email we requested additional information regarding culvert
designs. Specifically, we inquired about larger culverts that would be wider
than existing stream widths and expressed concern for the over-widening of
stream channels in this scenario. You provided additional information with an
April 25, 2022 email in which you indicated that the size of culverts are
required to safely pass storm flows. The same culvert conditions, low flow
requirements and aquatic passage requirements as required for Nationwide
Permits additionally are required with Individual Permits. As such, additional
information is still required to ensure the project meets these requirements. If
the size of the culverts can’t be reduced then other measures such as baffles
and sills with benches, or double culverts comprising of a single low flow
culvert and flood plain culvert should be installed. Cross-sections showing
baffles and floodplain benches should be included for culverts where these
aspects are incorporated into the design. Per your statement regarding impact
R8, if you believe that the current streams are over-widened from natural
conditions at the culvert crossing sites, then information regarding the widths
of the streams at the culvert site and upstream and downstream, particularly in
areas where you believe the natural widths occur within the streams, should
be provided. Specific culverts where over-widening is a concern are as follows:
R1 (Tributary 11), R2 (tributary 10), R5(Tributary 7), R6 (Tributary 1), and R8
(Tributary 14) and R9 (Tributary 14). It should also be noted that design for R4
(Tributary 6) includes a 48” pipe for what is identified as a 6’ wide stream, so in
this case the pipe would potentially be too narrow for the stream. The pipes
should maintain pre-construction conditions and widths so a pipe to narrow for
the stream width is also a concern and should be addressed accordingly.

-5-

ii. We additionally have concerns regarding slopes of some of the culverts,
specifically at impacts R2 which is proposed to have an almost 5% slope and
R4 which is proposed to have over a 6% slope. Our experience is that overly
steep pipe slopes can result in the inability to maintain bed material, and when
buried can result in head cutting and scour at the culverts inlets and outlets.
With DWR’s 8/10/2022 letter they indicated a similar concern under bullet #7.
We ask that you consider these concerns with this design and provide the
same information to address DWRs request for information to the Corps for
review.

iii. We additionally share DWR’s concern noted in bullet #9 regarding R1. Please
address this concern accordingly and provide any information submitted to
DWR for review to the Corps as well.

iv. With my 3/30/2022 request for additional information, I requested information
for Impact R3 which has the proposed pipe situated at an approximate 90-
degree angle to the stream outlet and recommended re-design to soften this
angle to a more natural angle. With your 4/25/2022 response you indicated that
the proposed culverts at crossing R3 had been slightly realigned to lessen the
angle of the culvert outlets relative to the existing streambed and bank
locations. Review of the revised plan still shows a sharp angle at this location
so our concerns regarding stability at this location remain. With DWR’s
8/10/2022 letter they indicated a similar concern under bullet #6. We ask that
you consider these concerns with this design and provide the same
information to address DWRs request for information to the Corps for review.

v. There is not a detailed plan included for wetland impact F3 and as such, we
cannot determine if this impact has been minimized and avoided to the
maximize extent practicable. Specific information on lane and shoulder widths,
number of lanes and the use of retaining walls is requested. If retaining walls
are not being proposed, please indicate why they aren’t incorporated into the
design at this location to minimize impacts to wetlands. Additionally, due to the
extent of roadway impact in this wetland, we request that you consider the use
of equalizer pipes to ensure the flow of water throughout wetlands is not
prohibited by the proposed road.

c. Sewer Impacts:

i. There are wetlands on the southeast side of Caldwell Creek near impact
SS4. Please verify that there will be no wetland impacts in this area where
the proposed sewer line will tie into the existing sewer line at this location.

3. Mitigation:

a. In your application you’ve indicated that the project proponent proposes phased
mitigation. Please provide additional information on the proposed phased
-6-

mitigation plan to include how mitigation would be phased and when mitigation
would be paid for each phase and any other pertinent details to allow us to
evaluate the mitigation proposal.

b. In the 4/25/2022 submitted information, you indicated that you are not proposing
mitigation for energy dissipators (riprap), as crossing designs incorporate riprap
keyed into channel beds to ensure continued aquatic life passage. As long as
aquatic passage and stream condition (width, depth and banks) are maintained
post-construction, then we agree with that mitigation would not be necessary to
off-set loss function at these locations. However, we request that you provide a
detail in the plan at each impact location, or a typical detail of riprap dissipators
that shows riprap will be keyed into beds and banks as appropriate. In the
submitted information you have also indicated that riprap will be underlain by
fabric as required by the USACE Regional Conditions. It is my experience that
fabric under riprap interferes with the ability to adequately key in riprap and as
such, if the project engineers determines that fabric is not necessary under riprap
dissipator pads, and if DWR is in agreement, then the fabric can be eliminated
from these areas.

c. In addition to the above requested information, it should be noted that in order to
fulfil the requirements of NEPA, the project must be in compliance with Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Through previous studies, it has
been noted that there is potential for historic resources to be present within the
project review area. Consultation with NCSHPO has been initiated and studies
and coordination with NCSHPO is on-going and will be complete prior to the
issuance of a Department of the Army Permit.

The requested information is essential to our continued processing of your
application. At this time, the Corps is administratively withdrawing the application
pending your response. Upon receipt of this requested information the Corps will re-
initiate and continue processing your permit request. We request this information be
provided on or before December 31, 2022. You should additionally copy the North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management on your response to enable them to
adequately evaluate your application for a Water Quality Certification pursuant to
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.

If you have any questions regarding this request, please do not hesitate to contact
me at telephone [phone] ext. 4231.
Sincerely,

Crystal Amschler
Project Manager
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
Crystal
Amschler
Digitally signed by Crystal
Amschler
Date: 2022.10.20 15:00:07
-04'00'
-7-

cc:
Mr. Chris Huysman
Wetlands & Waters, Inc.
328 East Broad Street, Suite D
Statesville, NC 28677

Ms. Sue Homewood
Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Water Resources
Winston Salem Regional Office
450 W. Hanes Mill Road, Suite 300
Winston-Salem, NC 27105
DocuSign Envelope ID: 02C3F4D1-7163-47E5-A95A-2C184137DA8E
ROY COOPER
Governor
ELIZABETH S. BISER
Secretary
RICHARD E. ROGERS, JR.
Director
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
August 10, 2022
Corps Action ID# SAW-2021-01521
DWR# 20220436
Cabarrus County
Crystal Amschler
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
Delivered via email to: [e-mail]
Subject Project: Albemarle Rd Development Site
Dear Ms. Amschler:
On behalf of the NC Division of Water Resources, we respectfully request that you consider the
following comments within your review of the 404 Individual Permit request for the above referenced
project:
1. The Division recommends that to ensure consistency with other similar projects, an appropriate
Alternatives Analysis be required for this project.
2. The Division is unable to complete a review of the project for compliance with 15A NCAC 02H
.0506 at this time. The Division has requested additional technical information from the
applicant and requests that the USACE also consider the attached letter during the review of the
application.
Thank you for your considering the Division's comments during your review of this Individual Permit. If
you have any questions, please contact Sue Homewood at 336-776-9693 or
[e-mail].
1)_E
Nail, CARO.INA
geparhnnnt al FnmmnmenteI quality
Sincerely,
DocuSigned by:
P.e 1,va/fly:
'—949D91 BA53EF4E0...
Paul Wojoski, Supervisor
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 11611 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1611
919.707.9000

DocuSign Envelope ID: 02C3F4D1-7163-47E5-A95A-2C184137DA8E
Corps Action ID# SAW-2021-01521
DWR# 20220436
Cabarrus County
Page 2 of 2
Enclosure: Request for Additional Information Letter from DWR to Forestar Group Inc
(DWR#20220436, dated August 10 2022)
Electronic cc:
Meagan Jolly, Wetlands & Waters Inc...
DWR MRO
DWR 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch file
GDE
Filename: 20220436 AlbemarleRdDevSite_Cabarrus-PN Comments to USACE.docx
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 11611 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1611
919.707.9000

DocuSign Envelope ID: 02C3F4D1-7163-47E5-A95A-2C184137DA8E
ROY COOPER
Governor
ELIZABETH S. BISER
Secretary
RICHARD E. ROGERS, JR.
Director
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
August 10, 2022
DWR # 20220436
Cabarrus County
Forestar Group Inc
Attn: Mr. Robert C Price
481 Munn Road E., Ste 150
Fort Mill SC 29715
Delivered via email to: [e-mail]
Subject: REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Albemarle Road Development Site
Dear Mr. Price:
On March 16, 2022, the Division of Water Resources (Division) received your application requesting a
401 Individual Water Quality Certification from the Division for the subject project. The Division
received additional information on April 25, 2022. On July 14, 2022 the Division was notified by the US
Army Corps of Engineers that the project would be required to secure a Standard (Individual) Section
404 Permit. The Division has amended the previous application and initiated a new review process
based on the updated federal permitting strategy. The Division has determined that your application is
incomplete and cannot be processed. The application is on -hold until all of the following information is
received:
1. If the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers requests a response to any comments received as a result
of the Public Notice, please provide the Division with a copy of your response to the USACE.
2. In order to accurately document DWR mitigation requirements, please provide DWR Stream
Forms for all stream segments. Please include a map that clearly identifies all transition
locations within streams.
3. The Division understands that the majority of impacts labeled as "Future" are within future
phases of the development proposed for construction at a later date, however, it appears
that Future Perm Wetland Impact 13 and Future Perm. Impact R9 are within the current
proposed construction phase. Please clarify why these impacts are labeled as "future".
4. Future Permanent Impact R9, Future Perm Isolated Wetlands Impact 13 and Future Perm.
Wetland Impact C1000-1100 are not listed within the PCN Table of Impacts, please update
the tables accordingly. Please also make any corresponding updates to mitigation totals and
mitigation acceptance letters.
D_E
geparhnnnt n1 FnmmnmenteI quality
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 11611 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1611
919.707.9000

DocuSign Envelope ID: 02C3F4D1-7163-47E5-A95A-2C184137DA8E
Albemarle Rd Development Site
DWR# 20220436
Request for Additional Information
Page 2 of 4
5. For all locations where multiple culverts are proposed, the plan sheets must clearly details
that low flows shall be accommodated in one culvert/pipe and additional culverts/pipes shall
be installed such that they receive only flows above bankfull. Please provide design details
that clearly show floodplain bench construction and/or sills at the inlet and outlet of the
culverts to ensure that the stream is not overwidened on either end of the culvert. Please
also provide a profile view all stormflow culverts.
6. The Division appreciates the modifications that have been proposed to the culvert design at
Stream Impact R3. The Division remains concerned about streambank stability during high
flow conditions and is unclear that streambank riprap will be sufficient given the alignment of
the culverts. Please provide engineering calculations to document velocity and appropriate
riprap sizing and installation. Please provide plan and provide construction details for the
enhanced riprap outlet apron. The details should clearly show how natural stream flow and
conditions will be maintained within a low flow channel within the enhanced riprap apron. It
is the Division's experience that when excessively wide riprap aprons are required for
velocity control and/or stability that natural stream function is not maintained and therefore
these impacts should be considered as permanent loss of stream.
7. For structures less than 72" in diameter/width, and topographic constraints indicate culvert
slopes of greater than 2.5% culvert burial is not recommended, however the applicant must
document that all alternative options for flattening the slope have been investigated and
aquatic life movement/connectivity has been provided when possible (e.g. rock ladders,
cross -vanes, sills, baffles etc.). Please address this comment with regards to the culverts
proposed at Stream Impact R2.
8. You have provided additional information which indicates that culvert sizes are required for
drainage area and that smaller culverts are not feasible. In addition you have stated that
"the narrow OHWM at impact R8 is a result of entrenchment of the stream system". These
statements do not address the concern that stream function will be negatively impacted by
culverts which are substantially wider than the streams. The proposed design will create a
wider stream channel which will lower the depth of the channel and decrease flow, increase
temperature, increase sediment deposition and reduce aquatic passage. Please provide
culvert designs which manage the drainage area while maintaining existing stream function
above and below the culverts.
9. It appears that Stream Impact R1 may disconnect a very small portion of the tributary above
the crossing in such a way that it is likely to remove it's existing uses/functions. This would
constitute indirect impacts to this portion of stream for a loss of function. Please provide
updated plans that clearly show the impacts in relation to the stream start location and if
appropriate, please update the PCN to account for this length of stream as indirect impacts
or modify the crossing location and update the PCN and plan sheets accordingly.
10. Pursuant to 15A NCAC 02H.0506(b) "a 401 Water Quality Certification may only be issued
upon determining that the proposed activity will comply with state water quality standards
which includes designated uses, numeric criteria, narrative criteria and the state's
antidegradation policy, as defined in rules of 15A NCAC 02B .0200... In assessing whether the
GDE
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 11611 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1611
919.707.9000

DocuSign Envelope ID: 02C3F4D1-7163-47E5-A95A-2C184137DA8E
Albemarle Rd Development Site
DWR# 20220436
Request for Additional Information
Page 3 of 4
proposed activity will comply with water quality standards, the Division shall evaluate if the
proposed activity: (2) would cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards; (3)
would result in secondary or cumulative impacts that cause or contribute to, or will cause or
contribute to, a violation of water quality standards;" In order for the Division to fully
evaluate potential hydrological impacts on some stream and wetland features within the
project limits, please provide the location of all outlet structures from the SCMs shown on
the proposed plan sheet. In order to avoid further requests for additional information upon
receipt of the response to this item, the Division strongly encourages that you carefully
evaluate the proposed site plan for locations where existing surface hydrology will be
redirected which would have the potential to remove or reduce the existing functions of a
stream and/or wetland. Based on the current proposed plan the Division believes there is
potential for indirect impacts to some features within the overall project limits.
11. Please provide a conceptual construction schedule for all impacts proposed within the
application. Please note that mitigation will be required for ALL impacts unless a mitigation
schedule is requested, reviewed and approved by the Division. Please note that any 401
issued by the Division will expire upon expiration of the 404 Permit.
Pursuant to Title 15A NCAC 02H .0502(e), the applicant shall furnish all of the above requested
information for the proper consideration of the application. Please respond in writing within 30
calendar days of receipt of this letter by submitting all of the above requested information through this
link: https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/Forms/Supplemental-Information-Form (note the DWR# requested on
the link is referenced above).
If all of the requested information is not received within 30 calendar days of receipt of this letter, the
Division will be unable to approve the application and it will be denied as incomplete. The denial of this
project will necessitate reapplication to the Division for approval, including a complete application
package and the appropriate fee.
Please be aware that you have no authorization under the Section 401 of the Clean Water Act for this
activity and any work done within waters of the state may be a violation of North Carolina General
Statutes and Administrative Code.
Please contact Sue Homewood at 336-776-9693 or [e-mail] if you have any
questions or concerns.
GDP
DeparlmantAal EnNmnmanteI Ovallly
Sincerely,
,-DocuSigned by:
Pa4G Woi
�949091BA53EF4E0...
Paul Wojoski, Supervisor
401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 11611 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1611
919.707.9000

DocuSign Envelope ID: 02C3F4D1-7163-47E5-A95A-2C184137DA8E
Electronic cc:
Albemarle Rd Development Site
DWR# 20220436
Request for Additional Information
Page 4 of 4
Meagan Jolly, Wetlands & Waters Inc.
Crystal Amschler, USACE Asheville Regulatory Field Office
DWR MRO
DWR 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch file
GDE
Filename: 20220436 AbemarleRdDevSite Cabarrus Addinfo.docx
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 11611 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1611
919.707.9000

August 16, 2022

Attention: Crystal Amschler
Corps of Engineers – Wilmington District
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006

Re. THPO # TCNS # Project Description
2022-56-31 SAW-2021-01521

Dear Ms. Amschler,

The Catawba have no immediate concerns with regard to traditional cultural properties,
sacred sites or Native American archaeological sites within the boundaries of the
proposed project areas. However, the Catawba are to be notified if Native American
artifacts and / or human remains are located during the ground disturbance phase
of this project.

If you have questions please contact Caitlin Rogers at 803-328-2427 ext. 226, or e-mail
[e-mail].

Sincerely,
Wenonah G. Haire
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

Catawba Indian Nation
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
1536 Tom Steven Road
Rock Hill, South Carolina 29730

Office 803-328-2427

1
Amschler, Crystal C CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From:Metcalf, Deborah G CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Sent:Wednesday, July 20, 2022 8:47 AM
To:Amschler, Crystal C CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject:FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District Public Notice
FYI

From: Pace Wilber - NOAA Federal <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2022 9:22 PM
To: AshevilleNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District Public Notice

NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) reviewed the project described in public notice SAW-2021-01521
dated July 14, 2022. Based on the information in the notice, we confirm the District's determination that the proposed
work 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. Present staffing levels preclude further analysis of the
proposed work and no further action is planned. This position is neither supportive of nor in opposition to authorization of
the proposed work. If further coordination on this action is needed, please let us know.

On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 12:30 PM Wallace, Nancy L CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]> wrote:
As you requested, you are hereby notified that Wilmington District, United States Army Corps of Engineers
has issued a Public Notice. The text of this document can be found on the Public Notices portion of the
Regulatory Division Home Page. Each Public Notice is available in ADOBE ACROBAT (.pdf) format for
viewing, printing or download at http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory-Permit-Program/Public-
Notices/

As with anything you download from the internet, be sure to check for viruses prior to opening. The current
notice involves:

Corps Action ID#: SAW-2021-01521

Issue Date: July 14, 2022

Applicant: Forestar Group, Inc

Expiration Date: 5:00 p.m., August 12, 2022
2

Point of Contact: Crystal Amschler, 828-271-7980 Ext. 4231

Project Description: The Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has received an application from
Forestar Group, Inc seeking Department of the Army authorization for the discharge of fill material resulting in
the permanent impact to 0.57 acres of wetlands and 1,235 lf of stream channel and the temporary impact to
0.43 acres of wetlands and 510 lf of stream channel associated with Albemarle Road Project, a single-family
residential development, located in Midland, Cabarrus County, North Carolina.

Nancy Wallace
828-271-7980 Ext 4221
Office Schedule: Mon-Tues 0730-1530
Telework Schedule: Weds 0700-1500
[e-mail]
USACE Wilmington District
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue RM 208
Asheville, NC 28801

Subscribe/Unsubscribe: This email was sent out as a result of subscribing to the Wilmington District
regulatory program public notices. Please reply to this email with the subject or message "unsubscribe" to
remove your address from future mailings.

--
Pace Wilber, Ph.D.
South Atlantic and Caribbean Branch Chief
Habitat Conservation Division
NOAA Fisheries Service
331 Ft Johnson Road
Charleston, SC 29412

3
843-592-3024 (NOAA Google Voice)
[e-mail]

Waters Map
Location of R6based
on detail plan
Tr
i
b
u
t
a
r
y

3
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

R
6

b
a
s
e
d
on

d
e
t
a
i
l

p
l
a
n
I

h
i
g
h
l
i
g
h
t
e
d

T
r
i
b
u
t
a
r
y
7

i
n

b
l
u
e

t
o

s
h
o
w

i
n

t
h
e
ov
e
r
a
l
l

p
l
a
n
,

T
r
i
b
u
t
a
r
y
7

i
s

w
i
t
h
i
n

t
h
e

i
m
p
a
c
t
ar
e
a

o
f

R
6
No
t
e

c
o
n
f
l
u
e
n
c
e

o
f
Tr
i
b
u
t
a
r
y

3

a
n
d

1

i
n
th
i
s

p
l
a
n

v
s

i
n

t
h
e
ov
e
r
a
l
l

v
i
e
w

t
h
i
s

r
o
a
d

i
s
lo
c
a
t
e
d

a
t

t
h
e
co
n
f
l
u
e
n
c
e

o
f

T
r
i
b
u
t
a
r
y
7

a
n
d

1