FAIRHOPE — Plans to construct one of the last sections of the proposed north-south corridor of Baldwin County 13 could be delayed while the county’s engineering department responds to a new request for information by the U.S. Corps of Engineers.

“We haven’t got a corps permit yet,” said County Engineer Cal Markert. “We’re working on some additional information for them.”

At last week’s Baldwin County Commission meeting, Markert said he expected construction of the project to start in March or April.

“We talked to the corps after the meeting,” he said. “The person we had been dealing with is having to go to Iraq for a couple of months. I’m not sure when we will get (the permit). I feel like we’re probably six to eight weeks away.”

Fairhope Mayor Tim Kant spoke at the Jan. 3 commission meeting, asking for a report on the project that would continue County 13 north from where it stops at Highway 104, through approximately three miles of land owned by Auburn University and two private individuals.

“They are on the site as we speak,” Kant said Monday. “They’re probably taking borings, to drill down and see what the soil looks like to design the bridge accordingly.”

The current proposal calls for a 540-foot bridge and 232 feet of fill material, with four 24-inch culverts placed beneath the fill portion to allow wildlife movement and maintain habitat continuity, said Patrick Robbins, spokesperson for the Mobile office of the corps.

“We have asked the (county) for a more detailed alternative analysis to include an assessment of completely bridging Fly Creek and its floodplain to avoid all impacts to wetlands,” he said. “The total wetland impact of this proposal is .54 acres. To span the entire area, the bridge would need to be 772 feet.”

The corps is the federal agency responsible for processing applications for permits to fill wetlands and enforcing Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which requires the alternative analysis and additional information from the county, he said.

“We also have not yet received state certification, which is required before we can issue our permit,” Robbins said Tuesday. “We will shortly be sending a letter to the (county) requesting the alternative analysis information.”

Jim Horner, chairman of the Fairhope Environmental Advisory Board, said that he had spoken with officials at the Alabama Department of Environmental Management this week, who said that they did not believe a required state water quality certification had been issued for the project.

“The new person on the project (with the corps) also said they were awaiting information from either the county or the wetlands consultant before they could proceed with due diligence and issue their statement of findings for the project,” he said.

Kant said the city began its involvement with the road project in the late 1990s.

“We started working on this during the (city’s) Comprehensive Plan but prior administrations said this was something we needed,” he said. “There was a lot of opposition due to Fly Creek and people really worried about the environmental impact and growth.”

City Councilwoman Debbie Quinn said the county engineer at the time said the road project would be a four-lane hurricane evacuation route.

Concerns about the project led the city council to pass a resolution requiring 21 stipulations on the project, including that the road remain two-lane and addressing other environmental, stormwater run-off and growth management issues involved in building a road through unzoned property that contained wetlands, she said.

“After the 2004 elections, the city council passed a new resolution without any stipulations,” she said.

However, Auburn University eventually included many of those requirements in its agreement with the county to sell a right-of-law through its property, she said.

“Auburn put a lot of stipulations on the project,” Kant said. “ One of the main provisions was that the county had to extend the bridge from about 83 feet to more than 500 feet.”

The current proposal is estimated to cost $11 million, Markert said.

“The bottom line is, no we have not issued a permit yet,” Robbins said. “(The) exact time line to determine if one will be issued will depend on the state certification and how quickly and how well the (county) responds to the alternative analysis.”