20060197 Ver 1_USACE Correspondence_20061009

a-TF o~ - o191
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
October 2, 2006
~~ ~~~~
Ms. Jennifer S. Frye (~~'T 9 ZQ06
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office ~" "~'~ ~~ vv~r~~~K ;a~at.~r~
VV~TI.'r`+74~ qP.!O ~ tr'~MWP'lEF{ ~RANCli
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Subject: Action ID No. SAW-2005-1184-065; Helmsdale Investors, LLC; New Hanover
County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Frye:
This letter provides U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) comments on responses of Land
Management Group (LMG), Inc., the consultant for the applicant, to concerns regarding the
proposed residential development known as Helmsdale at Landfall The Public Notice (PN),
issued on February 21, 2006, stated that the applicant, Helmsdale Investors LLC, had applied for
a Depai~nlent of the Army (DA) permit to impact approximately 0.295 of an acre of
jurisdictional wetlands and 72 linear feet of stream to construct a residential subdivision. The
Service expressed concei-t~s about certain aspects of this proposal in a letter to you dated March
29, 2006. By letter dated June 6, 2006, the LMG provided specific responses to the concerns of
the Service and other agencies. These comments are submitted in accordance with the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d). Comments
related to the FWCA are to be used in your determination of compliance with 404(b)(1)
guidelines (40 CFR 230) and in your public interest review (33 CFR 320.4) in relation to the
protection of fish and wildlife resources.
The Service expressed concern that the stated costs for bridges to avoid wetland impacts seemed
usually high and requested that the Corps verify the cost estimates provide by the applicant. The
LMG states that bridges for residential roads must conform to standards set by the City of
Wilmington and the estimates provided in the PN were provided by a company specializing in
such work. While the Service is pleased that all stream impacts (72 linear feet) have been
eliminated and one wetland crossing (0.088 of an acre) would be crossed with a bottomless
culvert, we continue to believe that it should be feasible to eliminate all wetland impacts. We
note the information (Item 1 in the responses) provided by the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality (NC DWQ) indicating that a "fair and reasonable return" could be achieved even if all
wetland crossings were bridged. The LMG does not address this point directly. The Service
reiterates our recommendation that the Corps consider whether all wetland impacts associated
with this development could be eliminated by small, low-rise bridges or bottomless culverts.

2
The Service also provided recommendations for using culverts within the development. Aside
from discussing the revised plans to use a bottomless culvert at one wetland crossing, the LMG
responses do not address the specific points made by the Service. We again recommend that the
Corps ensure that culverts maintain natural water flows and hydraulic regimes without scouring,
or impeding fish and wildlife passage. Culverts or pipes should be of sufficient size to allow
normal surface water exchange between the wetlands above and below the culvert. Culverts
should extend across the entire wetland area and include a portion of each adjacent upland
margin. Such a design would not only convey low flows, but also allow for the conveyance of
major storm events. The natural substrate bottoms would benefit stream invertebrates.
Our March letter expressed concerns about the wetland compensation plan. We requested
information on the wetland communities to be preserved. The response of LMG notes that the
preservation sites would include riparian wetland fingers which drain into a tributary of Howe
Creek. Off-site wetland preservation areas include a mix of freshwater and tidally influenced
wetland that drain directly into Howe Creek. An upland area containing mature long-leaf pine
1?abitat would also be preserved. The preservation component of compensation would now
include 8.98 acres within the Helmsdale site, 37.61 acres at two other Landfall tracts, and 0.176
of an acre of uplands on the site. The preservation area would be protected by restrictive
covenants employing standard Corps language. This information satisfactorily addresses our
concerns on the preservation component of the compensation plan.
The initial proposal combined wetland creation with preservation as compensatory mitigation.
While the Service does not favor wetland creation for compensation, we expressed concern
about the small amount of wetland creation, 0.295 of an acre. This represented a 1:1 ratio for
compensation through wetland creation. The LMG response notes that compensation by wetland
creation has been eliminated from the plan due to problems at one potential site and the presence
of a mature longleaf pine community at another potential site. The Service supports this
decision.
The applicant now proposes to provide the second component of mitigation by payment to the
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) for the restoration of 0.25 of an acre of
riparian wetlands. The Service does not oppose the use of the EEP. However, restoration
opportunities may be limited in the coastal areas of northern New Hanover and southern Pender
Counties. We recommend that the Corps ensure that the EEP accepts this mitigation obligation
and appears able to provide the needed riparian wetland restoration.
Overall, with adequate avoidance and minimization of impacts and complete compensation for
unavoidable wetland losses, the Service would not oppose issuance of the DA pernlit. While we
are pleased that stream impacts have been eliminated and wetland impacts reduced, the Service
recommends that the Corps ensure that all practicable and feasible avoidance measures have
been utilized. Practicable and feasible measures are not necessarily the least expensive option.
The protection of waters of the United States may require expenditures above the least cost
option, but these costs provide benefits to society as a whole. Once such measures have been
implemented, full compensatory mitigation should be provided. The proposed wetland
preservation is adequate and the Service would support restoration through the EEP. However,

the Corps should ensure that the EEP can provide this restoration within reasonable proximity to
the project site, preferably within northern New Hanover County or southern Pender County.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to provide these additional comments on this proposed
work. Please advise us of any action taken by the Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers. If
you have questions regarding these comments, please contact Howard Hall at 919-856-4520, ext.
27 or by e-mail at < [e-mail] >.
Pete amin
Field pervisor
cc:
John Dorney, NC Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, NC
Steve Everhart, NC Wildlife Resources Commission, Wilmington, NC
Jim Gregson, NC Division of Coastal Management, Wilmington, NC