20190211 Ver 1_U-5875 Allen Rd widening MFR_20190409

CESAW - RG (File Number, SAW- 2016-01862)
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Memorandum Documenting General Permit
Verification
1.0 Introduction and overview: Information about the proposal subject to one or
more of the Corps regulatory authorities is provided in Section 1, detailed
evaluation of the activity is found in Sections 2 through 4 and findings are
documented in Section 5 of this memorandum.
1.1 Applicant name: NCDOT
1.2 Activity location: Allen Road , Greenville, NC
1.3 Description of activity requiring verification: Roadway widening
1.4 Is this an After -the -Fact verification? No
1.5 Date PCN determined complete for processing: April 9 2019
1.6 Jurisdiction Determination completed? A Preliminary JD was completed on
April 9 2019
1.7 Permit authority: Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344)
1.8 Applicable Permit: Regional General Permit (RGP) Select or enter GP
number(s). 31
Select NWP/RGP/PGP. Select or enter GP number(s).
1.9 Activity requires written waiver of NWP limits? No. If Yes, select one. If Yes,
select another
1.10 Activity requires a waiver from the requirements of a regional condition(s)? No. If
Yes, select one. If Yes, select one. If Yes, select one. If Yes, provide rationale
for waiver.
2.0 Evaluation of the Pre -Construction Notification
2.1 Direct and indirect effects caused by the GP activity: Minimal direct effects to
the aquatic environment are by lengthening roadway culverts at each
separate stream crossing. Indirect effects are minimal.
2.2 Site specific factors: Each of the three sites covered under this RGP can be
considered as a stand-alone single and complete projects and present very
minimal impacts to the aquatic environment. Provide discussion of site specific

CESAW — RG (File Number, SAW- 2016-01862)
factors if a waiver of the NWP limits is being considered or if this activity involves
a linear project with multiple crossings.
2.3 Coordination
2.3.1 Was the PCN coordinated with other agencies? No. If Yes, select an agency.
Provide additional discussion, if needed.
2.3.2 Was the PCN coordinated with other business lines of the Corps? No. If Yes,
select one. If Yes, select one.
If yes, describe results including resolution of any concerns: Provide discussion,
ifneeded
2.4 Mitigation
2.4.1 Provide brief description of how the activity has been designed on -site to avoid
and minimize adverse effects, both temporary and permanent, to waters of the
United States to the maximum extent practicable at the project site: Select one.
Select one. Select one. Select one. Select one for Section 10 activities only.
Select one for Section 10 activities only. Select one for Section 10 activities only.
Provide additional discussion, if needed.
2.4.2 Is compensatory mitigation required for unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional
aquatic resources to reduce the individual and cumulative adverse environmental
effects to a minimal level? No.
Provide rationale: No compensatory mitigation is required because the
applicant has minimized impacts and the loss of stream channel
associated with the activity is less than 150 linear feet. There are no
specific circumstances that would warrant compensatory mitigation.
Provide rationale or select one of the choices if appropriate. Provide additional
discussion, if needed.
2.4.3 Type and location of compensatory mitigation
Is the impact in the service area of an approved mitigation bank? Select Yes or
If yes, does the mitigation bank have the appropriate number and resource type
of credits available? Select Yes, No or N/A.
Is the impact in the service area of an approved in -lieu fee program? Select Yes
or No.

CESAW - RG (File Number, SAW- 2016-01862)
If yes, does the in -lieu fee program have the appropriate number and resource
type of credits available? Select Yes, No or N/A
Selected compensatory mitigation type/location(s): See Table 1
Table 1: Mitigation Type and Location
Mitigation bank credits
In -lieu fee program credits
Perm ittee-responsible mitigation under a watershed approach
Perm ittee-responsible mitigation, on -site and in -kind
Perm ittee-responsible mitigation, off -site and/or out of kind
Does the selected compensatory mitigation option deviate from the order of the
options presented in §332.3(b)(2)-(6)? Select Yes or No.
If yes, provide the rationale for the deviation, including the likelihood for
ecological success and sustainability, location of the compensation site relative
to the impact site and their significance within the watershed, and/or the costs of
the compensatory mitigation project (see 33 CFR §332.3(a)(1)): If yes, provide
rationale. Provide discussion, if needed.
2.4.4 Amount of compensatory mitigation: Enter amount
Rationale for required compensatory mitigation amount: Select rationale. Select
another rationale. Provide discussion/additional rationale if needed.
2.4.5 For permittee responsible mitigation identified in 2.4.3 above, the final mitigation
plan must address the items described in 33 CFR 332.4(c)(2) through (c)(14) at a
level of detail commensurate with the scale and scope of the impacts. As an
alternative, the district engineer may determine that it would be more appropriate
to address any of the items described in (c)(2) through (c)(14) as permit
conditions, instead of components of a compensatory mitigation plan. Presence
of sufficient information related to each of these components in the applicant's
mitigation plan is indicated by "Yes" in Table 2. "No" indicates absence or
insufficient information in the plan, in which case, additional rationale must be
provided below on how these components will be addressed through special
conditions or why a special condition is not required or why these components
are not needed at all.
Table 2: Perm ittee-Responsible Mitigation Plan Components
Included in the Mitigation Plan
Yes
I No
Objectives
Site selection
Site protection instrument
Baseline information
Determination of credits
Mitigation work plan

CESAW — RG (File Number, SAW- 2016-01862)
Table 2: Perm ittee-Responsible Mitigation Plan Components
Maintenance plan
Performance standards
Monitoring requirements
Long-term management plan
Adaptive management plan
Financial assurances
Other
For any "no", provide rationale on how the subject component(s) of the
compensatory mitigation plan will be addressed as special conditions or why no
special conditions are required: select one. Select one. Provide additions,
discussion, if needed.
3.0 Compliance with Other Laws, Policies and Requirements
3.1 Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
3.1.1 ESA action area: The action area includes the waters of the United States
that will be directly affected by the proposed work or structures and
uplands directly affected as a result of authorizing the work or structures.
Provide additional discussion as needec,
3.1.2 Has another federal agency been identified as the lead agency for complying
with Section 7 of the ESA with the Corps designated as a cooperating agency
and has that consultation been completed? No, the Corps is the lead federal
agency for this project. If yes, identify that agency, the actions taken to
document compliance with Section 7 and whether those actions are sufficient to
ensure the activity(s) requiring DA authorization is in compliance with Section 7
of the ESA: Select an agency. Select one. Provide additional discussion as
needed. Select appropriate conclusion.
3.1.3 Are there listed species or designated critical habitat that may be present or in
the vicinity of the Corps' action area? Yes
Effect determination (s), including no effect, for all known species/habitat, and
basis for determination (s): The Corps has determined that the activity may
affect, but is not likely to adversely affect species subject to the ESA.
Based on the latest version of the Natural Heritage Program's NHEO data,
there are listed species located within or in the vicinity of the action area
and this activity is one that would not affect those listed species. PBO for
NLEB is applicable; as well as no effect call for any mussels. The Corps
has determined that the proposed activity will not affect any other
protected species.
3.1.4 Consultation with either the National Marine Fisheries Service and/or the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service was initiated and completed as required, for any

CESAW — RG (File Number, SAW- 2016-01862)
determinations other than "no effect". Select for SLOPES or PBO situations.
Provide additional discussion as needed to describe consultation with the
Service(s), including dates. Based on a review of the information above, the
Corps has determined that it has fulfilled its responsibilities under Section 7(a) (2)
of the ESA. The documentation of the consultation is incorporated by reference.
3.2 Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson
Stevens Act), Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Select appropriate response or
leave blank.
3.2.1 Has another federal agency been identified as the lead agency for complying
with the EFH provisions of the Magnuson -Stevens Act with the Corps designated
as a cooperating agency and has that consultation been completed? Select Yes
or No.
If yes, identify that agency, the actions taken to document compliance with the
Magnuson -Stevens Act and whether those actions are sufficient to ensure the
activity(s) requiring DA authorization is in compliance with the EFH provisions:
Select an agency. Select one. Provide additional discussion as needed. Select
appropriate conclusion.
3.2.2 Did the proposed project require review under the Magnuson -Stevens Act?
Select appropriate response or leave blank. Provide additional discussion, if
needed.
3.2.3 If yes, EFH species or complexes considered: Select one. Select another, if
needed. Select another, if needed. Select another, if needed. Enter other
EFH, HAPC or complexes considered.
Effect determination and basis for that determination: Provide determination(s).
Provide rationale here.
3.2.4 Consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service was initiated and
completed as required. Provide additional discussion here as needed. Based on
review of the above information, the Corps has concluded that it has fulfilled its
responsibilities under the EFH provisions of the Magnuson -Stevens Act.
3.3 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106)
3.3.1 Section 106 permit area: The permit area includes Select first choice if the
permit area includes uplands in addition to waters, and the second choice if the
permit area includes only waters. those areas comprising waters of the United
States that will be directly affected by the proposed work or structures Select first
choice if the permit area includes uplands in addition to waters, and the second
choice if the permit area includes only waters.

CESAW — RG (File Number, SAW- 2016-01862)
Final description of the permit area: Select appropriate option. Select rationale.
Provide discussion as needed.
3.3.2 Has another federal agency been identified as the lead federal agency for
complying with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act with the
Corps designated as a cooperating agency and has that consultation been
completed? No
If yes, identify that agency, and whether the undertaking they consulted on
included the Corps undertaking(s). Briefly summarize actions taken by the lead
federal agency:
Select an agency. Select one. Provide additional discussion as needed.. Select
appropriate conclusion.
3 3.3 Known historic properties? Select Yes or No. Select appropriate option. Provide
discussion as appropriate. Effect determination and basis for that determination:
Select determination. Select rationale for no potential to effect. Select rationale
for other determinations. Provide additional rationale here as needed.
3.3.4 Consultation was initiated and completed with the appropriate agencies, tribes
and/or other parties for any determinations other than "no potential to cause
effects." Select appropriate option. Enter date received.. Select sentence if MOA
was executed. Enter date of MOA.. Provide additional discussion here as
needed. Based on a review of the information above, the Corps has determined
that it has fulfilled its responsibilities under Section 106 of the NHPA. Compliance
documentation incorporated by reference.
3.4 Tribal Trust Responsibilities
3.4.1 Was government -to -government consultation conducted with Federally -
recognized Tribe(s)? No
Provide a description of any consultation(s) conducted including results and how
concerns were addressed. Provide additional discussion here as needed. The
Corps has determined that it has fulfilled its tribal trust responsibilities.
3.4.2 Other Tribal including any discussion of Tribal Treaty rights? Select N/A or
provide discussion.
3.5 Section 401 of the Clean Water Act — Water Quality Certification (WQC)
3.5.1 Is a Section 401 WQC required, and if so, has the certification been issued,
waived or presumed? A general WQC has been issued for this permit.
3.6 Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)

CESAW — RG (File Number, SAW- 2016-01862)
3.6.1 Is a CZMA consistency concurrence required, and if so, has the concurrence
been issued, waived or presumed? N/A, a CZMA consistency concurrence is
not required.
3.7 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
3.7.1 Is the project located in a component of the National Wild and Scenic River
System, or in a river officially designated by Congress as a "study river" for
possible inclusion in the system? No.
If yes, summarize coordination and the determination on whether activity will
adversely affect the Wild and Scenic River designation or study status. 6eiect
one In a letter/email dated Enter date received., the managing agency
determined that the project will not adversely affect the Wild and Scenic River
designation. Enter additional discussion as needed. The Corps has determined
that it has fulfilled its responsibilities under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
3.8 Effects on Corps Civil Works Projects (33 USC 408)
3.8.1 Does the applicant also require permission under Section 14 of the Rivers and
Harbors Act (33 USC 408) because the activity, in whole or in part, would alter,
occupy, or use a Corps Civil Works project? No, there are no Corps Civil
Works project(s) in or near the vicinity of the proposal.
If yes, provide date decision was made and whether permission was granted or
denied: Select appropriate option. Enter date received.. Provide discussion here
as needed.
3.9 Other (as needed): Each stream impact area- Stream1a-c, Stream 2 and
Stream 3 are considered as individual single and complete projects and are
covered under this one RGP- 31. Each stream impact area has been
minimized to the greatest extent possible and individually and cumulative
represent minimal impacts to the aquatic environment.
4.0 Special Conditions
4.1 Are special conditions required to ensure minimal effects, protect the public
interest and/or ensure compliance of the activity with any of the laws above? No
If no, provide rationale: 3e/ect option as appropriate or provide discussion.
4.2 Special condition(s), if required
Special condition: Enter specific condition(s).

CESAW — RG (File Number, SAW- 2016-01862)
Rationale: Select appropriate option. Select appropriate option. Select
appropriate option. Enter all other rationale here.
5.0 Determination
5.1 Waiver request conclusion, if required or select N/A: Select appropriate
conclusion or provide discussion as needed.
5.2 The activity will result in no more than minimal individual and cumulative adverse
effects on the aquatic environment and will not be contrary to the public interest. ,
5.3 This activity, as described, complies with all terms and conditions of the permit
identified in Section 1.8.
PREPARED BY:
T.A. Steffens
Date: 04-09-2019
Enter name of PM who prepared document.
REVIEWED BY/APPROVED BY:
MATTHEWS.MONTE.K.1284867633 Datea201904.d by 5n18 5H WS. ONTE.K.1284867633
Date:
Enter name of appropriate level reviewer/approver, if required.