20181194 Ver 1_Applicants comments to USACE_20181119

NORTH CAROLINA
ROY COOPER Environmental Quality
Covemw•
MICHAEL. S. REGAN
Se irary
LINDA CUL.PEPPER
interdn DLrecrw
November 19, 2018
Corps Action ID# SAW -2018-00162
DWR# 20181194
Mecklenburg County
David Shaeffer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Charlotte Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Ave, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Subject Project: Charlotte Intermodal Logistics Center
Dear Mr. Shaeffer:
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
property:
1. The applicant's Purpose and Need states that buildings of similar size are proposed to be
available in 2019. They also state that 90% of Silverman Groups industrial buildings are leased
prior to complete. Neither statement specifically supports that this project has provided
sufficient purpose and need for the size and location proposed. The stated purpose is for
warehouse space for vendors doing business at the Charlotte Regional Intermodal Facility yet
site selection criteria appears to be based on a specific acreage that is not supported in the
purpose and need statement.
2. One of the site selection criteria is distance to the Charlotte Regional Intermodal Facility. Since
the project is related to transportation of materials, the selection of distance in a straight line
rather than the driving distance is not a valid site criteria.
3. The Alternatives Analysis provided by the applicant states that the one of the selection criteria is
that the property must be for sale. It is the Division's understanding that property not for sale
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 11617 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
919.707.9000

Page 2 of 2
should still be considered in an alternatives analysis as it may still be able to be acquired by the
applicant.
4. The Alternatives Analysis provided by the applicant appears to have inconsistencies within it:
a. Purchase price is referred to however property price is not listed as a selection criterion.
b. Access to future sewer line is noted as a benefit for Site 1 however access to infrastructure
is not listed as a site selection criterion.
c. The analysis comparison of potential impacts to each alternative does not appear to be a
fair comparison. One alternative is based on a jurisdictional determination, one alternative
appears based on GIS and Lidar data and one alternative appears to be based on just GIS
data.
5. The applicant has not provided a detailed on-site Alternatives Analysis or a detailed avoidance
and minimization plan for the facility. While it is appreciated that the applicant has avoided the
majority of streams and wetlands within the property, the applicant has not provided
information regarding what size building could be constructed if they were to avoid or minimize
impacts to the pond and stream CH 200 and why that size building would not be a viable
alternative project.
6. 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].
Sincerely,
.od`
Karen Higgins, Supervise
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
cc: Jennifer Robertson, ATLAS Environmental (via email)
Olivia Munzer, NCWRC (via email)
Byron Hamstead, USFWS (via email)
DWR MRO
DWR —Wetlands and Buffer Permitting Branch
Filename: 181194CharlottelntermodalLogisticsCenter(Mecklenburg)_404Comments