19970093 Ver 1_Corps of Engineer Correspondence_20150121

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
Regulatory Division
ORM ID SAW -1992-02851
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
Mr. Sherman R. Lupton
Executive Director
North Carolina Global Transpark Authority
2780 Jet port Road, Suite A
Kinston, North Carolina 28504
Dear Mr. Lupton.
January 13, 2015
7& -yo r
p
Please reference your correspondence dated July 31, 2014, requesting modification of the DepartmeiXcft%1� a "
Army permit issued to the North Carolina Global Transpark (GTP) Authority (ORM ID SAW-1992-0285fI on"
October 21, 1998. This letter also references our June 9, 2014 meeting in Wilmington, North Carolina and your
June 27, 2014 follow up meeting in Washington, North Carolina with Ms. Tracey Wheeler.
As we discussed in our meetings, the GTP permit is unique in that it allowed for the phased construction of GTP
facilities as final design was completed on each project. However, an important component of that approach was
that notification to the District Engineer is required prior to commencement of work, and future infrastructure and
facility construction plans are reviewed to ensure that impacts to waters of the US are avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practicable. At the time the EIS was completed, the project boundary was defined and included
properties owned by both GTP and private interests. It was anticipated that private development within the GTP
boundary could move forward provided the private developer complied with the conditions attached to the subject
permit. It was also anticipated that private development interests could avail themselves of the compensatory
mitigation that was developed by GTP for their impacts to Waters of the U.S. that remained after agency review.
In your July 31, 2014 letter, you requested that the permit boundary be expanded to the northwest of the current
boundary to include an additional 158.3 acres. Based on the jurisdictional delineation information that you
provided, approximately 141.78 acres of the 158.3 acre parcel are jurisdictional wetlands subject to the requirements
of the Clean Water Act. In addition, you propose to alter the permit boundary in the southern portion of the project
area to remove an equivalent area. As a result, the overall permit area would remain 5,775 acres in size. You
further propose to include the new wetland acreage as Area B Wetlands that would be subject to the permit process
described in Special Condition 2 of the issued permit. You also proposed to remove Area B designation from 142.1
acres of wetlands currently included in the permit area (Wetlands F1, F2, F3, F36, F38, and F39 as described in the
EIS and plats included in your request).
Pursuant to 33 CFR 325.7, we believe that the addition of the 158.3 acre tract that contains approximately 141
acres of wetlands, which was not disclosed in the original EIS constitutes a substantial increase in scope over the
original permit and thus must be evaluated as a new application. If you pursue Department of the Army
authorization for this project, our NEPA requirements will require us to prepare, at a minimum, an Environmental
Assessment that describes the anticipated adverse and beneficial impacts associated with the proposed project. If, at
the end of that process we are unable to make a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), we will have no choice
but to prepare an EIS. An important element of our review and decision on whether an EIS is required is the
disclosure of all direct impacts as well as reasonably foreseeable impacts. If GTP intends on pursuing the runway
and infrastructure development north of Areas "A" and "B", we believe that information, as well as the proposed
158.3 acre industrial park will also need to be included in the new authorization and considered in a new EIS, as
both areas are located outside of the project area that was considered in the original EIS.

At this time we also believe it is important to clarify our position relative to the amount of impacts to wetlands
allowed under the original permit authorization. Special Condition 2 states "No work is authorized within Area B,
as shown on Figure 1, until the plans for such work, and any additional information required by the Corps of
Engineers, Wilmington District (Corps), has been submitted to the Corps, and the Corps has made a written finding
that the proposed plans avoid and minimize impacts to waters and wetlands on-site to the maximum extent
practicable (emphasis added), and provides written authorization for the work to proceed. We believe that this
condition clearly articulates the intent and the requirement that future work would be subject to review pursuant to
the 404(b)1 Guidelines and that the permit does not provide for the "blanket" approval to fill 871 acres of wetlands.
At the time the District made its decision, and, not knowing in advance what the total wetland impact would be,
GTP elected to develop sufficient mitigation to compensate for the 871 acres of wetlands that existed on Tracts A
and B to ensure that future development could proceed without delay due to insufficient mitigation.
Thank you for your time and cooperation. If you have any questions, please contact, Ms. Tracey Wheeler at the
Washington Regulatory Field Office, telephone [phone].
Scott McLendon
Chief, Regulatory Division
Copies Furnished:
Mr. Todd Bowers
Permit Review Specialist
Wetlands Regulatory Section
USEPA Region IV
Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960
Mr. Tom Reeder
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
1611 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1611
Mr. Pete Benjamin
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726