20151256 Ver 4_SAW-2014-02127 Public Notice Comment Letter_20210322

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343

Printed on Recycled Paper
1
March 22, 2021

Regulatory Division/1200A

Action ID: SAW-2014-02127

Ms. Sherrie Chaffin
Trinity Capital Advisors
440 S. Church Street, Suite 800
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202

Dear Ms. Chaffin:

Please reference your Individual Permit application for Department of the Army (DA)
authorization to permanently discharge dredged or fill material into a total of 0.959 acre
of wetland and 23 linear feet of stream channel associated with the proposed expansion
of the existing Hodge Road Business Park/Eastgate 540 Project, including associated
infrastructure. The project area is located near the termini of Spectrum Drive, in
Knightdale, in Wake County, North Carolina.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (Corps) advertised your
proposal by public notice dated February 2, 2021. Comments in response to the notice
were received from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), North
Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources (NCDNCR), United States Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and United States National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS). The comments received are enclosed for your information and to provide you
with the opportunity to address any of the stated concerns.

Please note that the NMFS, in an email dated February 4, 2021, stated the proposed
project would not occur in the vicinity of essential fish habitat designated by the South
Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, or the
NMFS, and that they are neither supportive of nor in opposition to authorization of the
proposed work. Through letter dated February 17, 2021, the NCDNCR stated that they
were not aware of any historic properties that would be affected by the project; and
therefore, had no comment on the project as proposed. The USFWS provided a letter
dated March 2, 2021, stating that the action is not likely to adversely affect federally
listed species or their critical habitat as defined by the ESA.

- -

Printed on Recycled Paper
2
The EPA requested additional information regarding your alternative’s analysis,
avoidance and minimization efforts, and lastly your compensatory mitigation plan for
unavoidable impacts. Please ensure that these comments are thoroughly addressed i n
your response.

Further, on February 6, 1990, the Department of the Army (DA) and the EPA signed
a memorandum of agreement (MOA) establishing procedures to determine the type and
level of mitigation necessary to comply with Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404(b)(1)
Guidelines. This MOA provides for first, avoiding impacts to waters and wetlands
through the selection of the least damaging, practical alternative; second, taking
appropriate and practical steps to reduce impacts on waters and wetlands; and finally,
compensation for remaining unavoidable impacts to the extent appropriate and
practical. To enable us to process your application, in compliance with the MOA, we
request that you provide the following additional information:

A. Permits for work within wetlands or other special aquatic sites are available
only if the proposed work is the least environmentally damaging, practicable
alternative. Please furnish information regarding any other alternatives,
including upland alternatives, to the work for which you have applied and
provide justification that your selected plan is the least damaging to water or
wetland areas.

i. Specifically, please add to the alternative’s analysis provided in your
Individual Permit application dated January 21, 2021, and revised
Individual Permit application dated March 3, 2021:

a. Off-site alternatives: Please further explore off-site
alternatives. If off-site alternatives are not practicable, please
provide a detailed explanation as to why.

b. On-site alternatives: Please define the site selection criteria
for your on-site alternative’s analysis. This information should
be outlined in a table and should compare each alternative,
which would include impacts to waters of the US. Also, please
state what the minimum design requirements and parking
spaces are for the on-site alternatives (i.e., minimum total
construction area required for warehouse construction).

c. Once you have outlined the minimum design requirements
and parking spaces for the on-site alternatives, please provide
an alternatives analysis for this layout. Please ensure this
alternative avoids and minimizes impacts to waters of the
United States to the maximum extent practicable.

- -

Printed on Recycled Paper
3
d. Please provide an alternatives analysis option that shifts the
(original) building size of 159,000 square feet to the east. If
this is not a viable option, please provide a detailed
explanation as to why this is not a viable alternative.

e. The alternatives analyses mapping includes Site Plan,
Alternative 1, and Sketch Map. Please revise the mapping
convention to correlate with Alternative 1, Alternative 2,
Alternative 3, etc. Please ensure this nomenclature is
consistent throughout your document. Please also clearly
label your preferred alternative; and

f. Please explain how your preferred alternative is the least
environmentally damaging, practical alternative.
B. It is necessary for you to have taken all appropriate and practicable steps to
minimize losses of Waters of the U.S., including wetlands. Please indicate all
that you have done, especially regarding development and modification of
plans and proposed construction techniques, to minimize adverse impacts.

i. Please explain why the square footage of the warehouse increased
from 159,600 square feet in the original permit application, to 204,000
square feet in the revised permit application (approximately 185 feet in
length). Please also provide a detailed explanation how these efforts
avoid and minimize impacts to waters of the United States, especially
regarding Wetland G. Your current design drawing eliminates the
entire headwater wetland complex (Wetland G); and

ii. In conjunction with your previously authorized permit (June 11, 2019),
you requested warehouse-style buildings that were much larger than
what was required for the end users, which led to permit modifications
and a reduction of the building sizes. Therefore, please thoroughly
explain why your permit design requires a 204,000 square foot
building.

C. The MOA requires that appropriate and practicable mitigation will be required
for all unavoidable adverse impacts remaining after the applicant has
employed all appropriate and practicable minimization. Please indicate your
plan to mitigate for the projected, unavoidable loss of waters or wetlands or
provide information as to the absence of any such appropriate and practicable
measures.

- -
Printed on Recycled Paper
4
i.I have evaluated the compensatory mitigation plan included in your
revised application and have determined the details to be generally
sufficient for our evaluation. You are proposing a 2:1 mitigation to
impact ratio for the proposed wetland impacts an d would purchase
1.92 wetland mitigation units from Restoration System’s Pancho
Mitigation Bank; and
ii.Please note that the USEPA has requested that you purchase 2.0
wetland mitigation units in order to adequately offset the unavoidable
loss of 0.98 acre of impact.
Additionally, the following items must be resolved prior to contin uing to process your
permit request:
1)Please provide your responses to the public comments received.
2)Please note that responses to the questions above may prompt additional
information requests to allow full evaluation of the proposed project.
The above requested information is essential to the expeditious processing of your
application; please forward this information to us within 30 days of your receipt of this
letter. If you have any questions regarding these matters, please contact me at (919)
554-4884 extension 22 or [e-mail].
FOR THE CHIEF, REGULATORY DIVISION
Sincerely,
Scott C. McLendon
Chief, Regulatory Division
Enclosures
Copies Furnished w/enclosures:
Mr. Ward Mariotti
Spangler Environmental, Inc.
4338 Bland Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
- -

Printed on Recycled Paper
5

Copies Furnished w/o enclosures:

Mr. Todd Bowers
Permit Review Specialist
Wetlands Regulatory Section
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region IV
Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Mr. Rick Trone
NCDEQ – Division of Water Resources
401 and Buffer Permitting Branch
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617