The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20151256 Ver 2_USACE Request of Add Info_20171213Regulatory Division/1200A DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 69 DARLINGTON AVENUE WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343 Action ID: SAW -2014-02127 Scannell Development Company Attn: Mr. Joel Scannell 8801 River Crossing Blvd Suite 300 Indianapolis, Indiana 46240 Dear Mr. Scannell: December 11, 2017 2017 DRYWATER RURCES 4Q1 91 AWFFgR PgRMITTING Reference is made to your October 6, 2017, Department of the Army permit application in which you requested authorization to impact 1.193 acres of wetlands, associated with the construction of a 1,000,000 square foot distribution hub, at 2309 Hodge Road, in Knightdale, Wake County, North Carolina. The purpose of this letter is to provide you with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) comments, comments received in response to the Public Notice dated October 27, 2017, and request that additional information be submitted to continue the review of your permit request. The Corps is required to review the proposed project in accordance with the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines of the Clean Water Act (40 CFR Part 230). According to the Guidelines, permits for work within waters of the U.S. can be issued only after all appropriate and practicable steps to avoid and minimize impacts have been taken and no permit may be issued for a proposed project if there is a Less Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) available to the applicant. Practicable is defined as "available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of the overall project purpose." As stated in the application, the purpose of the proposed project is to construct an approximately 1,000,000 square foot warehouse distribution hub, including office space, semi - truck roadway, circulation, parking and loading infrastructure, along with the required stormwater and utility services, located along a major interstate highway corridor approximately mid -way between the planned CCX rail hub and major central North Carolina Air freight hub(s) in Raleigh and the Triad. Printed on ® Recycled Paper -2 - The application goes on to state, "the end-user requires the site be in proximity to the CCX Intermodal Rail Hub in Rocky Mount, NC, have access to (Future) I-587 (current US -264) (Future) I-87 (current US -64/I-495) and I-40/440 and the recently deepened Port of Wilmington." We believe that this project purpose is too narrow and consequently limits or excludes reasonable and practicable alternatives that may further avoid and/or minimize aquatic impacts. In making this determination, we have considered our regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act (40 CFR Part 230) as well as our responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1502.13), Public Interest Review (33 CFR 320.4 (a)(2)), and the 404 (b)(1) Guidelines (40 CFR 23 0. 10 (a)(2)). Please revise the purpose statement and your off-site and onsite alternatives analysis such that the range of alternatives that could be considered are not so geographically constrained, as further described below in this letter. In addition, it has come to our attention that CCX may delay, if not eliminate, their proposal for the proposed CCX Intermodal Rail Hub and your alternatives would need to address how your proposal would still move forward in the event that this facility is not constructed. Please explain why the off-site alternatives were limited to a 3 -mile radius of the mid -point between the I -540/I-87 (US -264) interchange and the I -40/I-540 interchange. Additionally, the relative criteria listed on Table 1, for the off-site alternatives were not thoroughly evaluated and/or clearly explained. For example, "potential for secondary/cumulative impacts (indicated by need for significant off-site utility construction as indicated by utility mapping or available plans found on municipal Interactive Development Maps, if available, or via local planning authority contacts -June, 2017), and/or unsuitable topography requiring major grading/hauling (as indicated by window -survey, and/or major off-site road improvements)" was listed as criteria however detailed data was not provided to support utilizing this evaluation. Please define and further explain unsuitable topography. "Potential impact to jurisdictional resources (indicated by stream feet/acre taken from Wake Co. GIS -June 6-27, 2017, and ground-truth/window-survey for verification when possible by Spangler Environmental, Inc., June, 2017)" but no mention of the potential jurisdictional impacts on site, to include wetlands. The on-site analysis is lacking detailed information and needs an expanded description of the overall project. Include specific infrastructure needs occurring onsite in relation to proposed impacts. For example, can the project purpose be satisfied with building that is less than 1,000,000square feet and/or can building Lot 3 and Lot 4 be consolidated in order to reduce the construction footprint and potentially allow for a reduction of impacts elsewhere on the property? Printed on IV Recycled Paper -3 - In addition, please provide any onsite constraints and/or criteria used to evaluate each onsite alternative and discuss how these constraints affect the onsite avoidance and minimization effort. This information will assist with the determination that the applicant has avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. We reviewed the proposed mitigation ratio, 2:1 for all wetland impacts, and we concur this is acceptable based on the functional analysis conducted utilizing North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NCWAM). Scannell Development Company proposes to offset unavoidable impacts by purchasing available mitigation credits from private mitigation banks and will satisfy the remainder of the necessary mitigation through the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). However, statements of availability from either a bank or DMS were not provided. Please provide the statement(s) for the required mitigation. Finally, please expand the discussion of cumulative impacts on the natural environment. (40 CFR 230.11(g) and 40 CFR 1508.7, RGL 84-9). Cumulative impacts result from the incremental environmental impact of an action when added to all other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. They can result not only from individual minor direct and indirect impacts, but also collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. A cumulative effects assessment should consider both direct and indirect, or secondary, impacts. Indirect impacts result from actions that occur later in time or are farther removed in distance from the original action, but still reasonably foreseeable. Please include a discussion of potential impacts to the remaining streams and wetlands onsite due to increased stormwater discharges from ponds 2 and pond 4, utility improvements, etc. In response to our Public Notice, we received comments from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) by letter dated November 22, 2017 and the North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources, State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) by letter dated December 5, 2017, (copies attached). The USFWS concurs with our determination of a may affect, not likely to adversely affect federally listed species or their critical habitat. This letter summarizes comments from the Corps and the USFWS. The SHPO indicated that they have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by the project and accordingly, have no comment on the project as proposed. Please be advised that until we receive the information requested, we cannot evaluate the probable impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity on the public interest factors, nor make a determination of compliance with the 404 (b)(1) Guidelines for the proposed project. Printed on ® Recycled Paper The requested information should be submitted no later than January 11, 2018. If we do not receive a response, we will assume that you no longer wish to pursue this project and withdraw your permit request. If you have any questions, please contact Tasha Alexander at (919) 554- 4884, extension 35. Sincerely, Jean B. Gibby Chief, Raleigh Field Office Enclosures Copy Furnished with enclosures: Spangler Environmental, Inc. Mr. James Spangler 4338 Bland Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27609 Copies Furnished without enclosures: Ms. Karen Higgins North Carolina Division of Water Resources 401 and Buffering Permitting Branch 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650 Printed on AIN Recycled Paper