20161272 Ver 1_USACE Correspondence_20170525

Strickland, Bev
From: Alexander, Tasha L CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 11:14 AM
To: Jim Spangler; [e-mail]
Cc: Higgins, Karen
Subject: 2014-01181 Brickyard site, Cary NC
Jim,
I'm glad we were all able to meet yesterday. As a follow-up to our site visit and our numerous conversations I would like
to provide a summary below.
On December 22, 2016 we received the PCN. On January 20, 2017 1 sent an email indicating the application was
incomplete. We have exchanged several emails in the past few months discussing the project. It came to my attention
that the impact table you provided did not match the plans. You explained the plans were likely labeled incorrectly and
that you would have the corrections made and submit the revisions. During this time we scheduled a site visit.
After discussion during our site visit it is my understanding that the plans provided in the PCN were accurate. The
summary and the plans sheets 1-9 indicate the impacts will be 344 If of permanent stream loss, 0.13 acre of permanent
wetland loss, 82 If of temporary stream impact, and 93 If of permanent stream impact without functional loss
(embedded riprap dissipater pad). I have determined this project does not quality for authorization under a Nationwide
Permit (NWP) 29. The NWP states, " The discharge must not cause the loss of greater than 1/2 -acre of non -tidal waters
of the United States. The discharge must not cause the loss of more than 300 linear feet of stream bed, unless for
intermittent and ephemeral stream beds the district engineer waives the 300 linear foot limit by making a written
determination concluding that the discharge will result in no more than minimal adverse environmental effects. This
NWP does not authorize discharges into non -tidal wetlands adjacent to tidal waters. The loss of stream bed plus any
other losses of jurisdictional wetlands and waters caused by the NWP activity cannot exceed 1/2 -acre." You can read
the NWP in its entirety at
http://saw-reg.usace.army.mil/NWP2017/2017NWP29.pdf. We discussed the potential for a waiver to the 300 If limit.
Based on site conditions, DWR forms, and NCSAM forms you provided, I have determined we will not waive this limit.
We reviewed streams C and D and determined they are generally medium (NCSAM score)/fair-good quality streams.
They have intermittent/perennial flow and support macrobenthos. Portions of the stream channels were incised but
overall stable and not actively eroding. I did note excessive sediment in areas which is likely due to recent logging
activities. Since the project does not qualify for a NWP, I am administratively withdrawing the application. If you would
like to purse the current proposal, you must submit a n ENG Form 4345 for review under the standard/individual permit
process. However, if you can redesign the project to reduce stream impacts you may qualify for a NWP. We discussed
shifting the road at impact #3 and/or reducing the length of the culverts at each road crossing. You indicated this was
not possible due to separation requirements set by DOT and limitations set by the Town of Cary. I understand you may
have constraints but I would like to remind you that you must demonstrate you have avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practicable.
Feel free to contact me with any additional questions.
Thank you,
Tasha Alexander
Regulatory Specialist
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers -Wilmington District

3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Phone: [phone], extension 35
email: [e-mail] The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support
to the public. To help us ensure we continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at our
website at http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/missions/RegulatoryPermitProgram.aspx to complete the survey online.