20171559 Ver 3_Supporting Docs and Environmental Report_20210707

F�2
Greensboro -Randolph
Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit
Application
Supporting Documentation and
Environmental Report
Prepared for:
Greensboro -Randolph Megasite Foundation, Inc.
North Carolina
Prepared by:
HDR
Raleigh, North Carolina
May 10, 2021
�i
GREENSBORO
RANDOLPH
MEGASITE
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
This page intentionally left blank.
4825-1232-0875.v 1
May 10, 2021 I i

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
Contents
1 Executive Summary 1
2 Introduction 3
2.1 Proposed Project Area 3
2.2 Public Involvement 4
3 Project Purpose and Need 5
3.1 Applicant's Purpose and Need 5
3.2 Discussion 6
4 Alternatives 6
4.1 Alternatives Development 6
4.2 Identification of Alternatives 7
4.2.1 Criteria for Alternatives 7
4.2.2 Range of Alternatives 8
4.3 Alternatives Practicability Analysis 9
4.3.1 Level 1 Analysis 9
4.3.2 Level 2 Analysis 12
4.3.3 Level 3 Analysis 12
4.3.4 Identification of the Onsite LEDPA 16
4.3.5 Utility and Transportation Facility LEDPA Determinations 17
4.4 Overall LEDPA Determination 24
5 Affected Environment and Impacts 25
5.1 Land Use 25
5.1.1 Description of Affected Environment 25
5.1.2 Potential Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures 26
5.2 Geology and Soils 26
5.2.1 Description of Affected Environment 26
5.2.2 Potential Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures 29
5.3 Air Quality 30
5.3.1 Regulatory Setting 30
5.3.2 Affected Environment 34
5.3.3 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures 35
5.4 Noise 39
5.4.1 Description of Affected Environment 39
5.4.2 Potential Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures 43
5.5 Water Resources / Floodplains 43
5.5.1 Description of Affected Environment 43
5.5.2 Potential Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures 46
5.6 Biotic Communities 49
5.6.1 Description of Affected Environment 49
5.6.2 Potential Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures 51
5.7 Protected Species 52
5.7.1 Description of Affected Environment 52
5.8 Cultural Resources 55
5.8.1 Description of Affected Environment 55
5.8.2 Potential Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures 55
May 10, 2021 I ii
4825-1232-0875.v 1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
5.9 Aesthetics and Visual Resources 56
5.9.1 Description of Affected Environment 56
5.9.2 Potential Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures 56
5.10 Socioeconomic Impacts 56
5.10.1 Description of Affected Environment 56
5.10.2 Potential Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures 57
5.11 Environmental Justice 60
5.11.1 Description of Affected Environment 60
5.11.2 Potential Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures 60
5.12 Traffic and Transportation 61
5.12.1 Description of Affected Environment 61
5.12.2 Potential Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures 63
5.13 Utilities 63
5.13.1 Description of Affected Environment 63
5.13.2 Potential Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures 64
5.14 Hazardous Materials / Toxic Substances 65
5.14.1 Description of Affected Environment 65
5.14.2 Potential Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures 65
5.15 Cumulative Impacts 66
5.15.1 Consideration of Cumulative Impacts 66
5.15.2 Geographic Scope for the Cumulative Effects Assessment 66
5.15.3 Temporal Scope of Assessment 66
5.15.4 Affected Environment 66
5.15.5 Environmental Consequences 67
5.15.6 Mitigation to Avoid, Minimize or Compensate for Cumulative Effects 68
5.16 Other Government Authorizations Anticipated 74
6 List of Preparers and Contributors 75
7 References 76
Tables
Table 1. Summary of Level 3 Layout Options 16
Table 2. Summary of Water and Sewer Alignment Alternatives 20
Table 3. Summary of Transportation Alternative Options 24
Table 4. Randolph County Soil Survey Results 28
Table 5. National and North Carolina Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 31
Table 6. PMio Monitoring Data for Guilford County 34
Table 7. PM25 Monitoring Data for Guilford County 35
Table 8. CO Monitoring Data for Forsyth County 35
Table 9. NO2 Monitoring Data for Forsyth County 35
Table 10. Estimated Transportation -Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Randolph County in
2016 and 2026 (in tons per year) 38
Table 11. Typical Daytime and Nighttime Noise Levels for Residential Land Uses 39
Table 12. Typical Construction Noise Levels 40
Table 13. List of Modeled Noise Sources 41
Table 14. Calculated Noise Levels at Receivers 43
Table 15. NC WAM Summary 46
May 10, 2021 I iii
4825-1232-0875.v 1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
Table 16. NC SAM Summary 46
Table 17. Summary of Project Impacts to Jurisdictional Water Resources 47
Table 18. Current List of Federally Endangered and Threatened Species in Randolph and
Guilford Counties, North Carolina and their Habitat Types 53
Table 19. North Carolina, Guilford County, Randolph County, and Project Area Population 1990-
2010 57
Table 20. Per Capita Personal Income in Last 12 Months (2016 Inflation -Adjusted Dollars), North
Carolina, Guilford County, and Randolph County 57
Table 21. Estimated Statewide Economic Impact of Construction of a Transformational
Automotive Manufacturing, Production, and Assembly Facility in North Carolinaa 58
Table 22. Estimated Annual Economic Impacts of a Transformational Automotive Manufacturing,
Production, and Assembly Facility in North Carolina for Three Phases of Operationa 59
Table 23. Summary of Direct and Indirect/Cumulative Impacts 69
Table 24. Summary of Federal and State Regulations and/or Programs 70
Table 25. Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report Project Team 75
Figures
Figure 1. Megasite and Alternative Locations within the Project Region 9
Figure 2. Alternative Impacts Map — Proposed Layout Onsite Option 1 13
Figure 3. Alternative Impacts Map — Layout Onsite Option 2 14
Figure 4. Alternative Impacts Map — Layout Onsite Option 3 15
Figure 5. Alternative Impacts Map — Layout Onsite Option 4 16
Figure 6. Water and Sewer Alignment - Alternative 1 18
Figure 7. Water and Sewer Alignment - Alternative 2 19
Figure 8. Water and Sewer Alignment - Alternative 3 20
Figure 9. Duke Energy Transmission Line Route Selection — Alternative D 21
Figure 10. NCDOT Traffic Impact Analysis — Interchange Configurations 23
Figure 11. Interchange Alternative 1 (Option B1/D1) Transportation Improvements Map 24
Figure 12. Noise Contour (dBA) 42
Figure 13. Demographic Study Area 60
Appendices
Appendix A - Joint Federal and State Permit Application Package
Appendix B - Jurisdictional Determination Requests
Appendix C - USFWS Concurrence
Appendix D - NCSHPO Concurrence
Appendix E - Economic Impact Assessment
Appendix F - Greensboro -Randolph County Megasite Traffic Assessment
Appendix G - Conceptual Stormwater Management Plan
Appendix H Agency Coordination Following Public Notice
May 10, 2021 I iv
4825-1232-0875.v 1

AADT
BACT
BG
BMP
CadnaA
CFR
CT
CWA
dBA
DSA
ECS
EDC
EPA
ESA
ft
FIRM
FHWA
FPPA
GDP
GHG
GRMF
GRMS
HAP
HPO
HQW
HUC
IHSB
IRIS
kV
LEDPA
LOS
mph
msl
MSAT
NAAQS
NC2LGWQS
NCAC
NCDAQ
NCDEMLR
NCDEQ
NCDOC
NCDOT
NCDWQ
NCDWR
NCFMP
NCRR
NC SAM
NC WAM
Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
Acronyms and Abbreviations
annual average daily traffic
Best Available Control Technology
Block Group
Best Management Practice
Computer Aided Noise Abatement software
Code of Federal Regulations
Census Tract
Clean Water Act
A -weighted decibels
Demographic Study Area
ECS Southeast, LLP
Economic Development Corporation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Site Assessment
foot / feet
Flood Insurance Rate Map
Federal Highway Administration
Farmland Protection Policy Act
Gross Domestic Product
greenhouse gas
Greensboro -Randolph Megasite Foundation, Inc.
Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Hazardous Air Pollutant
Historic Preservation Office
High Quality Waters
Hydrologic Unit Code
Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch
Integrated Risk Information System
kilovolt
Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative
level of service
miles per hour
mean sea level
Mobile Source Air Toxics
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
North Carolina 2L groundwater quality standards
North Carolina Administrative Code
North Carolina Division of Air Quality
North Carolina Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality
Department of Commerce
Department of Transportation
Department of Water Quality
Division of Water Resources
Floodplain Mapping Program
Railroad Company
Stream Assessment Method
Wetland Assessment Method
4825-1232-0875.v1
May 10, 2021 I v

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NFIP National Flood Insurance Program
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service
NRTR Natural Resources Technical Report
NS Norfolk Southern Railway
NSW Nutrient Sensitive Waters
NWI National Wetland Inventory
OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer
OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark
PEM palustrine, emergent wetlands
PFO palustrine, forested wetlands
PNG Piedmont Natural Gas
PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration
PSRG Protection of Groundwater Preliminary Soil Remediation Goal
PSS palustrine, scrub -shrub wetlands
REC recognized environmental condition
SCM stormwater control measure
SFHA Special Flood Hazard Area
SIP State Implementation Plan
TDL transportation, distribution, and logistics
TIA Traffic Impact Analysis
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USCB U.S. Census Bureau
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
vpd vehicles per day
WS water supply
May 10, 2021 I vi
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
This page intentionally left blank.
4825-1232-0875.v 1
May 10, 2021 I vii

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
Executive Summary
The GRMF was established to attract the development of a transformational manufacturing,
facility (such as a transformational automotive manufacturing, production, and assembly facility)
by assembling and promoting a tract of land at a location that will generate employment and
economic benefits for the Randolph County -City of Greensboro area (Project Region). A
transformational manufacturing facility for the Project Region is one that is expected to: provide
roughly 2,000-4,000 mostly skilled and semi -skilled manufacturing jobs; increase the local tax
base; and provide new payroll to circulate within Randolph County and the City of Greensboro.
The GRMF is a party to the Greensboro -Randolph County Megasite Project Agreement along
with the North Carolina Railroad Company (NCRR) and Randolph County. The parties have
agreed that GRMF will serve as the permit applicant for the Proposed Project.
GRMF, NCRR, and Randolph County own and control the 1,825-acre property that constitutes
the GRMS. The GRMS is located in northern Randolph County approximately two miles
southeast of the Town of Liberty and west of the Town of Julian. The nearest named waterway
is Sandy Creek, to which the unnamed tributaries on the site drain. The GRMS is generally
bounded by Old US 421 (SR 1006) to the north, Julian Airport Road to the west, Troy Smith
Road to the east, and US 421 to the south. The proposed project would establish a 1,000 acre
construction pad at the GRMS and make associated utility (electricity, water, sewer, roads, and
rail) improvements ("Proposed Project").
In order for the GRMS or other site to attract a transformational manufacturing, production, and
assembly facility that will generate economic and employment benefits for the Project Region,
the site must satisfy the following requirements:
1) The site is centrally located within the Project Region; and
2) The site meets the following criteria currently required by transformational
manufacturing, production, and assembly facilities:
• Regularly -shaped contiguous area of at least 1,000 acres for a construction pad
• Rail service to the site
• Four -lane controlled access highway adjacent to the site
• Distance of less than 10 miles to the Interstate Highway System
• Distance of less than 30 miles to an international airport
• Sufficient electrical service
• Sufficient municipal water and sewer service
• Skilled and semi -skilled workforce of over 200 thousand within 40 miles of the site.
The Proposed Project would impact a total of 8.4 acres of jurisdictional wetlands, 21.3 acres of
open water, 6,806 linear feet of intermittent stream, and 29,656 linear feet of perennial stream.
1
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
Transportation and utility improvements associated with the Proposed Project would impact an
additional 0.4 acres of jurisdictional wetlands, 0.5 acres of open water, 1,290 linear feet of
intermittent stream, and 3,657 linear feet of perennial stream. Stream buffer impacts are
anticipated to result from improvements to offsite utilities; however, stream buffer impacts are
expected to be exempt and no mitigation would be required. All required compensatory
mitigation credits would be obtained through the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
in -lieu fee program. The majority of streams onsite do not support aquatic life throughout
portions of the year. Total permanent impacts associated with the Proposed Project
development (including utilities and transportation improvements) are anticipated to be mitigated
at a ratio of less than 2:1. A 2:1 ratio, used for mitigation planning purposes only, would require
82,818 stream credits and 18 wetland credits.
An Alternatives Analysis was conducted to evaluate sites in North Carolina for their ability to
meet the Location Requirements. Further analyses of alternative site layouts and utility
configurations were also performed. These analyses concluded that the Proposed Project
meets the overall project purpose, is economically and logistically viable, and provides for the
least environmental impact.
This Section 404 Individual Permit Application (Appendix A) and supporting documentation
addresses and meets requirements set forth under the National Environmental Policy Act, 42
U.S.C.A. §§ 4321 et seq. (NEPA) and is in compliance with the guidelines promulgated by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency in conjunction with the Secretary of the Army
under the authority of the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404(b)(1) (Guidelines) and NEPA.
2
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
Introduction
The Greensboro -Randolph Megasite Foundation, Inc. (GRMF) is submitting this application for
a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit for development of a transformational automotive
manufacturing, production, and assembly facility at the proposed Greensboro -Randolph
Megasite ("Proposed Project"). The Proposed Project would satisfy the GRMF's purpose and
need as stated in Section 3.1.
This analysis is provided to ensure compliance with the guidelines promulgated by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in conjunction with the Secretary of the Army
under the authority of Section 404(b)(1) of the CWA (Guidelines) and NEPA. Thus, the purpose
of this document is, primarily, three -fold:
• To present environmental documentation and information from which the USACE can
make its Section 404(b)(1) compliance determination regarding the Proposed Project;
• To present environmental documentation and information from which the USACE can
make its NEPA compliance determination regarding the Proposed Project; and
• To inform the public of the USACE decision -making process in evaluating the Proposed
Project's compliance with Section 404(b)(1) and NEPA and to invite the public to
participate and provide comments relevant to that evaluation.
The Proposed Project would result in placement of fill material into waters of the United States.
Section 404 of the CWA establishes a regulatory program to regulate the discharge of fill
material into waters of the United States through issuance of Department of Army permits. The
Joint Federal and State Permit Application Package and associated impact sheets for the
GRMS Individual Permit are provided in Appendix A.
Proposed Project Area
The Proposed Project site is located in Randolph County, North Carolina, approximately 2 miles
southeast of the Town of Liberty and west of the Town of Julian, and roughly 6 miles from the
City of Greensboro. The GRMS is generally bound by Old US 421 (SR 1006) to the north, Julian
Airport Road to the west, Troy Smith Road to the east, and US 421 to the south. US 421
currently has three at -grade intersections along the GRMS boundary. No current interchange
exists to provide controlled access to the GRMS, although two interchanges are proposed.
The Proposed Project site was screened and awarded for Industrial Site Certification by KPMG.
The site has direct rail access and is located approximately 9 miles south of 1-85, and
approximately 21 miles southeast of the Piedmont Triad International Airport.
The three parties to the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite Project Agreement (GRMF, NCRR,
and Randolph County) own and control the 1,825 acres of property that constitute the GRMS.
The GRMS consists of wooded land, open grass areas, agricultural fields, residential parcels,
and service roads. The site is located in the Sandy Creek Watershed within the Deep River
Watershed, which is part of the Cape Fear River Basin. Elevations within the GRMS study area
range from approximately 760 feet above mean sea level (ms1) in the northern portion of
the site to approximately 600 feet above msl in the southern portion of the site where
3
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
Dodsons Lake is situated. Several ponds and unnamed tributaries to Sandy Creek exist
within the site and surface drainage generally flows to the south toward Sandy Creek.
The GRMS, the Proposed Project Site, is centrally -located within the City of Greensboro —
Randolph County area, which is located within the larger Greensboro -High Point Metropolitan
Statistical Area. Guilford, Randolph, and Rockingham counties make up the Greensboro -High
Point Metropolitan Statistical Area. The area is historically notable for large textile, tobacco,
and furniture companies. However, North Carolina's manufacturing base has undergone
significant changes during the past 25+ years, primarily due to automation and outsourcing,
resulting in the net loss of 32,500 manufacturing jobs in the three counties making up the
Greensboro -High Point Metropolitan Statistical Area (NCDOC, 2018).
Public Involvement
There have been several public meetings and opportunities for public involvement during
development of the GRMS. The following list details these outreach opportunities:
• The Randolph County Board of Commissioners Meeting was held on February 2, 2015,
with a public hearing following at 6:40 pm to 11:55 pm to consider appropriation and
expenditures of County funds to purchase real estate in conjunction with the GRMS.
• A public hearing and consideration of purchase of real estate in conjunction with the
GRMS was held at the Randolph County Board of Commissioners Meeting on June 1,
2015, from 6:58 pm to 9:10 pm.
• The City of Greensboro held a community information meeting at the Providence Grove
High School in Climax, North Carolina, on June 18, 2015 from 5:30 pm to 7:30 pm. Two
presentations were given at the meeting as well as an open house meeting in which the
public could review existing mapping and discuss the Proposed Project with staff. Nine
comments were received from this meeting.
• The Planning Board held a meeting and public hearing on January 26, 2016 with respect
to the proposed rezoning of approximately 1,533 acres that were purchased for the
GRMS. As a result of the meeting, the Planning Board recommended the rezoning to the
Commissioners.
• A rezoning request meeting was held on February 9, 2016, in Randolph County to
rezone approximately 1,533 acres that were purchased for the GRMS.
• Duke Energy held a public meeting on July 13, 2016, to discuss their transmission line
siting study and answer questions from the public on the 100-kilovolt (kV) line needed to
supply power to the GRMS.
• Duke Energy held a second public meeting in September 2016 to share more details
about the siting study process and the preliminary alternative route corridors. Duke
Energy also gathered valuable input from community leaders, property owners, and
other community stakeholders.
• The City of Greensboro held a community information meeting at the Providence Grove
High School in Climax, North Carolina, on June 22, 2017, from 5:30 pm to 7:30 pm. No
formal presentation was given. The informal, open house meeting allowed for
4
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
discussions facilitated by Project team members, including staff representing
engineering, public involvement, and utilities. Five comments were received from this
meeting.
• A zoning meeting was held on November 14, 2017, in Randolph County to rezone 370
additional acres for the GRMS.
• A joint public meeting was held by Randolph County, the City of Greensboro, Duke
Energy, and the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) on November
16, 2017, at the Providence Grove High School in Climax, North Carolina. No formal
presentation was given at the meeting. The informal, open house meeting allowed for
discussions with the project team members. Fourteen comments were received from this
meeting.
3 Project Purpose and Need
3.1 Applicant's Purpose and Need
The applicant's purpose and need is to:
Establish a construction pad and utilities (electricity, water, sewer, roads, and rail) at a location
that will attract the establishment of a transformational automotive manufacturing, production,
and assembly facility that will generate employment and economic benefits for the Project
Region. A transformational facility is one that is expected to provide: roughly 2,000-4,000
mostly skilled and semi -skilled manufacturing jobs; an increase in the local tax base; and new
payroll to circulate within Randolph County and the City of Greensboro.
In order to satisfy the applicant's purpose and need, a site for the proposed project must satisfy
the following requirements ("Location Requirements"):
1) The site is centrally located within the Project Region so that employment and economic
benefits are delivered to the target area; and
2) The site meets the following criteria currently required by transformational automotive
manufacturing, production, and assembly facilities:
• Regularly -shaped contiguous area of at least 1,000 acres for a construction pad
• Rail service to the site
• Four -lane controlled access highway adjacent to the site
• Distance of less than 10 miles to the Interstate Highway System
• Distance of less than 30 miles to an international airport
• Sufficient electrical service
• Sufficient municipal water and sewer service
5
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
• Skilled and semi -skilled workforce of over 200 thousand within 40 miles of the site.
• The overall project purpose is accurately stated by the preceding statement of purpose
and need. Accordingly, a location can only satisfy the overall project purpose if it
satisfies the Location Requirements.
3.2 Discussion
Randolph County and City of Greensboro are part of the Piedmont Triad Area, which has been
historically notable for large textile, tobacco, and furniture companies. As recently as 20 years
ago, the Piedmont Triad Area was the most manufacturing -intensive region in the most
manufacturing -intensive state (Brod, 2016). However, most of those jobs were in textile and
apparel manufacturing —industries which have undergone significant changes in the form of
automation and outsourcing during the past two decades. As a result, manufacturing jobs in the
Greensboro -High Point Metropolitan Statistical Area (which includes Randolph County) have
fallen from 28% of total employment in 1990 to just 15% in 2018—representing a loss of 32,500
jobs during that time (NCDOC, 2018).
This historic job loss has severely impacted Randolph County and City of Greensboro, as the
workforce has struggled to adjust to the loss of manufacturing jobs (Brod, 2016). Randolph
County and City of Greensboro have also been unable to regain jobs lost as a result of the 2008
recession, whereas North Carolina as a whole has experienced overall employment growth on
par with the national average since that time (Brod, 2017). Furthermore, in 2016 dollars, per
capita personal income in Guilford County and Randolph County remained well below the
national average (USCB, 2018a). Based on available data, the per capita income has been
stagnant from 2010 to 2016 in Randolph County, indicating a lack of growth (USCB, 2018b).
The ability of an economic development project such as the Proposed Project to provide the
intended economic benefits is well -established, as discussed in Appendix E (Walden, 2017).
Such a project is expected to employ upwards of 4,000 workers with total labor compensation of
$351 million, and value-added for goods produced in excess of $1 billion (Walden, 2017 - Table
3). The Proposed Project is also expected to bring a multiplier effect to Randolph County and
City of Greensboro, positively impacting supply chain businesses, consumer spending, and
public revenues.
Alternatives
4.1 Alternatives Development
This section identifies and evaluates a broad range of alternatives in light of the overall purpose
of the Proposed Project as part of the process of identifying the least environmentally damaging
practicable alternative (LEDPA). An alternative is practicable if it is "available and capable of
being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of
overall project purposes." 40 CFR 230.3(1). In identifying and developing this list of alternatives,
the Applicant has considered and included alternatives falling within the following categories:
• The proposed alternative (the Proposed Project);
6
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
• Alternatives that would involve no discharges of dredged or fill material into the waters of the
United States (the "no action" alternative);
• Alternative offsite locations, including those that might involve less adverse impact to waters
of the United States;
• Onsite alternatives that would involve less adverse impact to waters of the United States
(which would include modifications to the alignments, site layouts, or design options in the
physical layout and operation of the Proposed Project to reduce the amount of impacts to the
waters of the United States); and
• Alternatives that would involve greater adverse impact to waters of the United States, but
would avoid or minimize other significant adverse environmental consequences including
offsite and onsite options.
The range of potential alternatives considered included alternative sites and alternative project
configurations.
The practicability analysis of the project alternatives was conducted in three levels:
• Level 1 Analysis includes the identification of an extensive list of North Carolina sites and
screening of the list to exclude sites that clearly cannot satisfy the Proposed Project's overall
purpose (including failure to be located within the Project Region), and are therefore clearly
not practicable.
• Level 2 Analysis reviews each alternative advanced from the Level 1 Analysis, if any, to
determine if it is "available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost,
existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes" and therefore
practicable.
The goal of Level 2 Analysis is to identify practicable alternative locations, if any, for use in
identifying the LEDPA.
• Level 3 Analysis reviews different site designs at the proposed site location and at
practicable alternative locations, if any.
• Taking into consideration all of the above, the final step of the alternatives analysis is to
identify the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA), considering
alternative locations (if any) and alternative site designs.
Identification of Alternatives
4.2.1 Criteria for Alternatives
In order for an alternative site to satisfy the overall purpose of the Proposed Project or the
applicant's purpose and need, the site must, at a minimum, meet the Location Requirements
identified in Section 3.1:
1) The site is centrally located within the Project Region so that employment and economic
benefits are delivered to the target area; and
2) The site meets the following criteria currently required by transformational automotive
manufacturing, production, and assembly facilities:
• Regularly -shaped contiguous area of at least 1,000 acres for a construction pad
7
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
• Rail service to the site
• Four -lane controlled access highway adjacent to the site
• Distance of less than 10 miles to the Interstate Highway System
• Distance of less than 30 miles to an international airport
• Sufficient electrical service
• Sufficient municipal water and sewer service
• Skilled and semi -skilled workforce of over 200 thousand within 40 miles of the site.
4.2.2 Range of Alternatives
The State of North Carolina is home to seven strategically located megasites; however, only
one (GRMS) is centrally located within the Project Region (Randolph County -City of Greensboro
area). Another megasite, Chatham-Siler City, is near the Project Region. These megasites and
additional alternative locations (see Figure 1) are discussed below.
• Proposed Location - Greensboro -Randolph Megasite — This megasite comprises
approximately 1,835 acres centrally located within the Project Region on the northern edge
of Randolph County. It is adjacent to and bounded on the southwest side by US 421, and is
approximately 9 miles south of 1-85. The GRMS currently has three at -grade intersections
along US 421. No current interchange exists along US 421, which serves to control access.
The site is approximately 21 miles from the Piedmont Triad International Airport. The site has
current rail access served by Norfolk Southern Railway (NS).
• Chatham-Siler City Advanced Manufacturing Site - This megasite comprises
approximately 1,606 acres (1,073-acre megasite and 533-acre feeder park) located in
Chatham County north of US 64, in Siler City. The site has current rail access served by NS.
The nearest interstate to the Chatham-Siler City Advanced Manufacturing Site is 1-73/74,
approximately 16 miles east of the site. This site is not centrally located within the Project
Region. The site also exceeds the 10-mile threshold for access to an interstate. The nearest
international airport (Piedmont Triad International Airport) is approximately 32 miles from the
site. The site also exceeds the 30-mile threshold for access to an international airport. This
site fails to meet three of the required criteria.
• Piedmont Triad Partnership Alternative Locations - In 2011, the Piedmont Triad
Partnership commissioned the Timmons Group to conduct a 12-county Piedmont Triad Area
search for and assessment of large tracts of land that might be suitable for development of
an advanced manufacturing Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) such as an automotive
or aviation complex capable of employing large numbers of workers to replace a significant
number of jobs lost in the manufacturing sector. Data collected and assessed included those
related to environmental considerations, infrastructure, land records, risk assessment, and
demographic data. Within that report there were only three locations within the Project
Region (not necessarily centrally located within the Project Region). The locations are in
Randolph County — Liberty, Randolph County — Sophia, and Guilford/Alamance — Prison
Farm. These locations are detailed below in Section 1.3.
• Other Large Land Tracts within the Project Region - A site search was conducted by
HDR Engineering Inc. to identify potentially available (i.e. for sale) large land tracts
8
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
comprising 1,000 acres or more located within the Project Region (not necessarily centrally
located). No sites were found.
• No Action Alternative - The Proposed Project would not be constructed. The No Action
Alternative does not satisfy the overall purpose or the applicant's purpose and need for the
Proposed Project.
Legend
LIGe[Iy1GR MS)
Garrard Namande
• NC Map -Raves
I1C IMersleles
$nptia ftC Railroad Track
® (=het em.Slier Cry AQ✓aace0 f.Naufactunag $1e r
i. nl
MEGASITE AND ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS WITHIN THE PROJECT REGION
Figure 1. Megasite and Alternative Locations within the Project Region
4.3 Alternatives Practicability Analysis
1..3.1 Level 1 Analysis
A Level 1 Analysis was performed to identify alternative sites that clearly cannot satisfy the
overall project purpose. Alternatives that clearly could not meet the overall project purpose
were not analyzed further.
• Chatham-Siler City Advanced Manufacturing Site - This site did not meet three of the
required criteria for this Project (central location, interstate proximity, and airport proximity).
This site was eliminated from further consideration.
• Piedmont Triad Partnership Alternative Locations - Data collected and assessed
included those related to environmental considerations, infrastructure, land records, risk
assessment, and demographic data. An assessment program of potential suitable property
was developed that compared the sites using the following selection criteria:
o Acreage — minimum of 1,000 acres (i.e., 1,000 acres of contiguous land capable of
being developed; none of the properties assessed contained 1,000 acres within a
9
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
single tract of land at the time of the study and property owners were not contacted
during this study to gauge their interest in selling)
o Wetlands and streams on site
o Watershed location
o Air quality concerns
o Distance to rail — main line preferred
o Distance to Interstate or four -lane highway
o Distance to major airport
o Power availability
o Water service availability
o Wastewater service availability
o Topography
o Access
o Visibility
o Natural gas service availability
o Fiber optic cable availability
o Geology
o Residential nearby
o Rock quarries nearby
o Political concerns
Eleven locations were identified by the Piedmont Triad Partnership study for detailed
assessment; however, only three locations are within the Project Region (Randolph County —
Liberty, Randolph County — Sophia, and Guilford/Alamance — Prison Farm). The Timmons
Group produced the following ranking of the locations within the Project Region and HDR
Engineering Inc. provided the analysis of the distances and lengths (USGS hydrography
datasets and National Wetland Inventory Mapping were utilized to make comparisons of each
site):
1) Randolph County — Liberty (i.e., GRMS — the Proposed Project)
• Direct rail service at the site
• Direct access to a four -lane controlled access highway
• 9 miles to the Interstate Highway System
• 21 miles to an international airport
• Close proximity to utilities
• 36,761 linear feet of stream
10
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
• 87 parcels to create over 1,000 contiguous acres (currently under ownership of the
Greensboro Randolph Megasite Foundation, North Carolina Railroad, and Randolph
County).
2) Randolph County — Sophia
• Direct rail service at the site
• No four -lane controlled access highway adjacent to the site
• 1 mile to the Interstate Highway System
• 18 miles to an international airport
• Close proximity to utilities
• 39,112 linear feet of stream
• 185 parcels to create over 1,000 contiguous acres
3) Guilford / Alamance — Prison Farm
• No direct rail service to the site (-2 miles)
• Direct access to a four -lane controlled access highway
• 3.5 miles to the Interstate Highway System
• 21 miles to an international airport
• Close proximity to utilities
• 70,622 linear feet of stream
• 107 parcels to create over 1,000 contiguous acres
The results of the study were considered by a committee of Piedmont Triad Partnership and the
economic development directors. All agreed that the potential development opportunities at the
Randolph County — Liberty (GRMS) site were superior to the others.
The Sophia site was removed for the following reasons:
• Not centrally located within the Project Region
• No four -lane controlled access highway adjacent to the site
• 185 parcels to form a 1,000+ acre contiguous area was the most of any site studied by
PTP (103 and 78 more than the Liberty (GRMS) and Guilford-Alamance sites,
respectively)
• 2,351 linear feet more stream than the GRMS
The Guilford / Alamance — Prison Farm site was removed for the following reasons:
• Not centrally located within the Project Region
• No rail service to the site
• 107 parcels to form a 1,000+ acre contiguous area was the most of any site studied by
PTP (20 more than the Liberty - GRMS)
11
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
• 33,861 linear feet more stream than the GRMS
Only the GRMS meets all the criteria:
1) The site is centrally located within the Project Region so that employment and economic
benefits are delivered to the target area; and
2) The site meets the following criteria currently required by transformational automotive
manufacturing, production, and assembly facilities:
• Regularly -shaped contiguous area of at least 1,000 acres for a construction pad (GRMS
satisfies this requirement)
• Rail service to the site (provided by Norfolk Southern)
• Four -lane controlled access highway is adjacent to the site (US 421)
• Distance of less than 10 miles to the Interstate Highway System (1-40 is 9 miles north of
the site)
• Distance of less than 30 miles to an international airport (Piedmont Triad International
Airport is 21 miles from the GRMS)
• Sufficient electrical service (will be provided by Duke Energy)
• Sufficient municipal water and sewer service (provided by City of Greensboro)
• Skilled and semi -skilled workforce of over 200 thousand within 40 miles of the site (there
is a skilled and semi -skilled workforce of over 200 thousand within 40 miles of the
GRMS)
The GRMS site was the only alternative to meet the applicant's purpose and need, and was the
only alternative to satisfy the overall project purpose; therefore, this alternative has been
advanced to Level 2 analysis.
4.3.2 Level 2 Analysis
A Level 2 Analysis would be performed to review in greater detail alternatives that advanced
following the Level 1 Analysis. The goal of the Level 2 Analysis is to identify the proposed site
location. A detailed Level 2 Analysis was not necessary in this application, as the only site that
advanced following the Level 1 Analysis was the GRMS. The GRMS is currently available, has
been through numerous due diligence studies such as completion of the jurisdictional resources
mapping, has concurrence from the North Carolina Historic Preservation Office, has U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) clearance, and has plans for infrastructure in place.
Level 3 Analysis
A Level 3 Analysis was performed to focus on alternative layouts for the Proposed Project in
terms of accessibility, efficiency, and environmental impacts. Each design utilized an identical
site area (1,000-acre construction pad), but with different layouts designed to potentially
minimize wetland and stream impacts while still meeting the Proposed Project overall project
purpose. The facility must have an efficient layout to support efficient manufacturing processes,
deliveries, shipping, and access from a logistical perspective. Layout options 1 through 4,
12
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
detailed below, represent a variety of Proposed Project configurations that potentially reduce
environmental impacts.
Layout Onsite Option 1 (Proposed Option)
Option 1 focuses development of the transformational automotive manufacturing, production,
and assembly facility along the middle and upper portions of the site, but angles the southern
boundary of the pad to avoid impacts to Dodsons Lake and minimize stream and wetland
impacts just north of Dodsons Lake (Figure 2). This option provides access to rail and
transportation upgrades and provides the largest buffer along the eastern and southern
perimeter of the pad where the highest density of residential properties abut the site.
Option 1 provides suitable configuration and access to the necessary facilities while minimizing
impacts to certain jurisdictional features and avoiding impacts to Dodsons Lake. The proposed
site layout as shown would impact approximately 8.8 acres of wetlands, 17.5 acres of open
water, and 36,774 linear feet of stream.
Legend
Transportation Improvements
- Streams
Wetlands
Ponds
Option 1
nMegasite Boundary
I I
Fees ssoo
1•)Z
Figure 2. Alternative Impacts Map — Proposed Layout Onsite Option 1
OPTION 1 IMPACTS MAP
Layout Onsite Option 2
Option 2 focuses development of the transformational automotive manufacturing, production,
and assembly facility in the middle portion of the site but retains a portion of the drainage to the
west (Figure 3). This option provides access to the rail and transportation upgrades; however,
the layout provides no buffer in the northeast and southwestern corners.
Although Option 2 provides access to the necessary facilities and somewhat reduces stream
impacts compared to Option 1, the layout impacts a portion of Dodsons Lake, has the most
13
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
wetland impacts, and restricts buffer in the northeastern and southwestern corners. The site
layout as shown would impact approximately 12.6 acres of wetlands, 20.8 acres of open water,
and 36,829 linear feet of stream.
Legend
— Transportation Improvements
— Streams
Wetlands
Ponds
Option 2
Megasite Boundary
I I
o Fees z soa
1-)1
Figure 3. Alternative Impacts Map — Layout Onsite Option 2
4.3.3.3 Layout Onsite Option 3
Option 3 shifts development of the transformational automotive manufacturing, production, and
assembly facility slightly east and increases avoidance of stream drainages to the west of the
site; however, this configuration impacts the upper portion of Dodsons Lake (Figure 4). This
option provides no buffer on the southern boundary and restricts available space on the
northern boundary for rail upgrades. Option 3 would also require transportation upgrades to
extend further east to tie in to the pad. Option 3 provides space for future development to the
west.
OPTION 2 IMPACTS MAP
Although Option 3 reduces stream impacts compared to Option 1, the layout impacts a portion
of Dodsons Lake, restricts buffer on the northern boundary, and leaves no buffer on the
southern boundary. The site layout as shown would impact approximately 10.3 acres of
wetlands, 33.2 acres of open water, and 34,074 linear feet of stream.
14
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
Legend
Transportation Improvements
- Streams
Wetlands
Ponds
Option 3
nMegasite Boundary
o Fees zsoo
OPTION 7 IMPACTS MAP
F)Z
Figure 4. Alternative Impacts Map — Layout Onsite Option 3
Layout Onsite Option 4
Option 4 focuses development of the transformational automotive manufacturing, production,
and assembly facility along the upper portion of the site. This option gives access to the rail
corridor and provides the potential for future development to the south (Figure 5). Although
Option 4 provides a desirable site layout near the ridge and avoids impacts to Dodsons Lake,
the layout would impact every stream drainage on the site resulting in the highest stream
impacts of all the options. The site layout would impact approximately 9.5 acres of wetlands,
21.7 acres of open water, and 38,224 linear feet of stream.
15
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
Legend
Transportation Improvements
- Streams
Wetlands
Ponds
Option 4
Megasite Boundary
0 Feet 2,500
I En
Figure 5. Alternative Impacts Map — Layout Onsite Option 4
4.3.4 Identification of the Onsite
OPTION 4 IMPACTS MAP
GRMF evaluated a number of layout options as described in Sections 4.3.3.1 through 4.3.3.4.
The GRMF proposes Option 1 of the Level 3 Analysis on the GRMS as the Onsite LEDPA. See
below for the impact matrix for the four onsite options analyzed.
Table 1. Summary of Level 3 Layout Options
Resource
Option 1 (Preferred)
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Streams
36,774
36,829
34,074
38,224
Wetlands
8.4
12.1
9.9
9.0
Open Water
17.3
20.6
32.1
21.5
Dodsons Lake
No
Yes
Yes
No
Option 1 was preferred for the following reasons:
• Does not impact Dodsons Lake
• Has less wetland impact
• Has less open water impact
• Has the 2nd lowest amount of stream impact
• Includes jurisdictional impacts of the rail spur - impacts of the rail spur for the other options
(2, 3, and 4) are not included
• Avoids impacts to the majority of the westernmost drainage on the site
• Provides a greater buffer for residences to the west, east, and south of the site.
16
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
4.3.5 Utility and Transportation Facility LEDPA Determinations
4.3.5.1 City of Greensboro
The City of Greensboro identified the size and routing of the proposed water and sewer
infrastructure to serve the GRMS site. The infrastructure studies included alternatives ranging
from 4.3 to 25.6 miles of 16-inch waterline, 5.7 to 10.2 miles of 16-inch force main to be located
adjacent to existing right-of-way or proposed easements, and a 1 to 1.5 million gallon per day
sewer lift station. The waterline would connect to a City of Greensboro Capital Improvement
Plan (CIP) project or to existing waterlines in two locations to provide multiple feed points to
improve reliability and operational flexibility. The pump station would be located just
downstream of the GRMS site with the force main conveying the wastewater to an existing
gravity sewer installed along Big Alamance Creek. From there, flow would be transported by
gravity to the Big Alamance pump station where it would be pumped back to the City's T.Z.
Osborne Water Reclamation Facility for treatment. Three potential alignments for the water and
sewer lines were studied to determine the LEDPA with regards to the water and wastewater
facilities, as described below.
4.3.5.1.1 Alternative 1 (Proposed Alternative)
Alternative 1 begins at the corner of Bora Drive and Liberty Road where the City of Greensboro
CIP water main project is close to the GRMS (Figure 7). It follows Liberty Road southeast
toward the site. At the intersection with Julian Airport Road, the water main continues along Old
US 421 to the north of the site while the force main continues along Julian Airport Road. The
force main alignment then goes southeast along US 421 to the intersection with Starmount
Road. The force main then follows Starmount Road to a stream crossing where a proposed
pump station would be located.
17
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
<Logwt as,
c=, taFil 8 %
Water and Sewer Service would lie to the
City of @tencboro CIP protect.
• EPZ'
ago ,c000
v
Legend
I Megesite Boundary -
® Proposed Pump Station
- Proposed Force Main
tt Proposed Water Main
• Existing Pump Station
• Existing Force Main
- Existing Gravity Main
▪ • Existing Water Main
Streams
— Roads
LTOMI
64,
:01
toad �
F�Z Alternative 1
Figure 1-1
Leval o,ea:mm im.ya s. nrem.;
Figure 6. Water and Sewer Alignment - Alternative 1
4.3.5.1.2 Alternative 2
Alternative 2 begins at the corner of Woody Mill Road and Liberty Road (Figure 8). It follows
Woody Mill Road to Monnett Road, turns north on Monnett Road for a short distance, and then
the force main alignment ties in and both then follow Coble Church Road to Rip Road. From Rip
Road, the alignment continues south along Bowman Dairy to Old Macedonia Loop Road to the
Site. The force main then follows Old Macedonia Loop to Troy Smith Road and then along Troy
Smith Road to Starmount Road. The alignment continues along Starmount to the stream
crossing where the proposed pump station would be located.
The secondary water main would begin at a tie-in at Faulkner Road and follow US 220 south to
Holder Inman Road. It would then follow Holder Inman Road to the east and then along
Business 220 to Providence Church Road. The line would then travel east along Providence
Church Road to New Salem Road. At this point, the alignment would travel north along New
Salem Road, then a short distance on NC 22 to the intersection with Old Red Cross Road. It
would then follow Old Red Cross Road to Deviney Road. The line would continue along Deviney
Road to Folger Road and then along Old US 421 along the northern Site boundary to the tie at
Bowman Dairy Road.
18
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
'Esrtc,:t ,ap%
, /f ��ao
��
'a
\.=.% t';
12.%Ateqt. %vr ci
Ai% 60, 'a . .
%
e•t- '
0-,
Legend
Megasila Boundary
•• Proposed Pump Station
- Proposed Force Main
- Proposed Water Main
i Exisling Pump Station
▪ Existing Force Main
• Existing Gravity Main
▪ Exisling Water Main
Roads
Alternative 2
ggv1.2
Figure 7. Water and Sewer Alignment - Alternative 2
4.3.5.1.3 Alternative 3
The force main for Alternative 3 begins similar to Alternative 2, but rather than continuing along
Coble Church Road it turns south along Old Julian Road to Liberty Road (Figure 9). Then along
Liberty Road, it follows the same route as Alternative 1 for both the water main and force main.
The water main would tie to the City of Greensboro CIP project at the intersection of Bora Drive
and Liberty Road then follow Liberty Road to the site.
19
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
%or® m
co tz5L tyq
gP4
111
/ F '$)
ea
Legend
Megasite BounJury
• Existing Farce Main
Purposed Pump Station Existing Gravity Main
— Proposed Force Main - - Existing Water Main
- Purposed Wale r Main Streams
i Existing Pump Stal ion Roads
Alternative 3
f*guro 1-3
Figure 8. Water and Sewer Alignment - Alternative 3
The three alternatives were evaluated focusing on the development of technical, logistical, and
economic feasibility. After reviewing all the data, the City of Greensboro determined Alternative
1 minimized community impacts as well as environmental impacts to the greatest extent
practicable. See below for the impact matrix for the three alternatives.
Table 2. Summary of Water and Sewer Alignment Alternatives
Resource
Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative)
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Waterline Length (miles)
4.3
25.6
4.3
Sewer line length (miles)
5.7
9.7
10.2
Stream crossings
9
33
11
Wetlands (acres)
0.06
0.09
0.15
Ponds
1
4
4
Historic Resources
None
Yes
None
4.3.5.2 Duke Energy
To meet the demand for electrical energy, Duke Energy considered several alternatives to
provide power to the GRMS site, but ultimately concluded that a new 100 kV line must be
constructed to provide adequate and reliable electrical capacity.
Duke Energy considered 14 alternative transmission line routes (referred to as Routes A
through N) prior to selecting the proposed route. Duke Energy completed a thorough evaluation
of the alternative routes on a quantitative and qualitative basis, and determined that Route C
minimized effects to the broadest range of evaluation factors. However, this alternative involved
crossing two land uses that were beyond Duke Energy's eminent domain authority, as
described in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-3. These two land uses include a single-family home and
20
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
yard area on Racine Road. Right-of-way easements from each of the two property owners
would need to be acquired on a willing buyer/willing seller basis. Before making the final route
decision, Duke Energy real estate representatives contacted the property owners to determine
whether they would consider voluntary conveyance of the right-of-way. The first property owner
contacted was not interested in voluntarily conveying right-of-way for the new transmission line;
therefore, Route C was determined to have a fatal flaw and was eliminated from further
consideration.
Route D was selected as the route for the new 100 kV line, which traverses a similar alignment
as Route C described above. Route D was determined to be optimal with respect to Duke
Energy's long-term operational and maintenance activities and effectively addresses the
concerns conveyed by the community during the open house meetings and through the
comment forms because it parallels an existing Duke Energy -owned right-of-way the majority of
its length (Figure 10). The adjacent 525 kV line would provide additional asset protection to the
new line. In addition, long-term maintenance activities would be reserved to a single
transmission line corridor, rather than two, which would decrease maintenance cost, increase
efficiency, and minimize cumulative effects to fewer property owners within the community.
Route D is not estimated to be the lowest initial cost of the alternative routes evaluated, and is
estimated to cost approximately 22°/O more than Route G (ranked second). Nevertheless, Duke
Energy selected it over Route G as the preferred route because it will similarly minimize effects
to environmental resources, cultural resources, land uses, and scenic resources, and is superior
with regard to operational and long-term right-of-way line maintenance considerations.
Additional information from Duke Energy's report is available upon request. Visit
http://www.power-viz.com/grmegasite/ to review the preliminary alternative routes and the final
route selected.
Legend
— selected Route-almmauve D
OINer Consieeree Routes
Megasite Boundary
DUKE ENERGY TRANSMISSION LINE ROUTE SELECTION —ALTERNATIVE 0
Figure 9. Duke Energy Transmission Line Route Selection —Alternative D
21
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
4.3.5.3 Piedmont Natural Gas
Piedmont Natural Gas (PNG) would provide natural gas service to the GRMS. The route has yet
to be determined for the gas service lines; however, PNG would utilize existing road and utility
rights -of -way where feasible and avoid permanent impacts to jurisdictional resources. Should
temporary impacts occur as a result of improvements to PNG pipelines, they will be accounted
for and permitted in accordance with applicable state and federal requirements.
4.3.5.4 Norfolk Southern Railroad
NS would provide rail service to the GRMS. The rail alignment for the GRMS was set based on
a number of factors: alignment and profile of existing rail alignment, capacity required for
operation, maximum allowable grade of the rail, elevation of the construction pad to balance
earthwork, and elevation and location of the rerouted transmission line. The yard tracks within
the facility were located along the perimeter of the pad to maximize the footprint available for the
future user.
Rail improvements will be contained within the GRMS property and impacts related to the rail
improvements are accounted for within the pad impacts. No off -site impacts associated with rail
improvements are anticipated. Impacts resulting from the rail expansion have been accounted
for on the Site Impact sheets provided in Appendix A.
4.3.5.5 NCDOT
The NCDOT completed a Traffic Impact Analysis, which indicated that two interchanges are
necessary and would be located in the area of four proposed closures of at -grade intersections
with US 421: Colonial Trading Path, Julian Airport Road, Browns Meadow Road, and
Shiloh/Starmount Road (Figure 11). One interchange would be constructed as a system
interchange to primarily facilitate site trips, and one interchange would be constructed as a
service interchange to facilitate local traffic volumes. The NCDOT initially studied four
interchange configurations (A, B, C, and D) to provide access to the GRMS and evaluated these
as pairs (Options A/C — Alternative 2, A/D — Alternative 3, and B/D — Alternative 4).
22
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
Figure 10. NCDOT Traffic Impact Analysis — Interchange Configurations
Currently, the NCDOT is assessing a B1/D1 option (Alternative 1 — Figure 12), which essentially
relocates the trumpet interchange at the previous Interchange A location to the south of the
powerline and redesign of Interchange D to a single point urban interchange configuration.
NCDOT is continuing its studies and efforts to refine its design to minimize property and
environmental impacts. It is anticipated that the B1/D1 option or modifications to the B1/D1
option would be the LEDPA. Final determination of the LEDPA for the proposed transportation
projects is anticipated in the fourth quarter of 2018 with 100 percent designs completed by mid-
2019
A 300-foot buffer was used to estimate impacts for the alternatives. To predict potential impacts
on water resources, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) hydrologic data and National Wetland
Inventory (NWI) GIS layers were examined. The predicted potential stream impacts were
15,960 linear feet for Alternative 1 (preferred), 16,516 linear feet for Alternative 2, 12,797 linear
feet for Alternative 3, and 14,738 linear feet for Alternative 4. Predicted potential wetland
impacts were 3.7 acres for Alternative 1, 4.6 acres for Alternative 2, 6.3 acres for Alternative 3,
and 6.3 acres for Alternative 4. Predicted potential lake and pond impacts were 2.7 acres for
Alternative 1, 6.4 acres for Alternative 2, 3.5 acres for Alternative 3, and 3.5 acres for Alternative
4. No occurrences of federally endangered or threatened species were found in the predicted
impact area for any alternative according to North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Element
Occurrences data. North Carolina Historic Preservation Office (HPO) data shows one structure
that is listed as Surveyed Only. This structure is located in the predicted impact area of all four
23
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
alternatives. An impacted parcels count for each alternative was obtained by comparing
Randolph County parcel data to the predicted impact areas and totaling the number of parcels
that were within or intersected by them. Seventy-four parcels were impacted by Alternative 1, 94
by Alternative 2, 86 by Alternative 3, and 77 by Alternative 4. See below for the impact matrix
for each alternative.
Table 3. Summary of Transportation Alternative Options
Resource
Alternative 1
(Preferred Alternative)
Alternative 2
(A/C)
Alternative 3
(A/D)
Alternative 4
(B/D)
Streams
15,960
16,516
12,797
14,738
Wetlands
3.7
4.6
6.3
6.3
Ponds
2.7
6.4
3.5
3.5
Parcels
74
94
86
77
-?4Nk70R7AT76N 1WRR04'E E T! M?=
Figure 11. Interchange Alternative 1 (Option B1/D1) Transportation Improvements Map
4.4 Overall ' .EDPA Determination
The overall LEDPA is based on alternative analyses for the transformational automotive
manufacturing, production, and assembly facility, as well as the associated infrastructure
improvements including water, sewer, electric, and transportation facilities. Details of each
alternative analysis are discussed above and in Section 4.3.5 of the Supporting Documentation
and Environmental Report. The overall LEDPA consists of the GRMS location, Layout Onsite
Option 1, City of Greensboro Water/Sewer Alternative 1, Duke Energy Transmission Line Route
D, and NCDOT Interchange Option B1/D1.
24
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
5 Affected Environment and Impacts
5.1 Land Use
5.1.1 Description of Affected Environment
Land use is defined as the way people use and develop land, including uses such as
agricultural, residential, and industrial. Zoning ordinances and planning documents are used by
local governments and municipalities to control how land is developed and maintain continuity of
land uses within specific areas. The Randolph County Department of Planning and Zoning
controls planning, rezoning, and public policy development decisions within Randolph County.
The GRMS is an approximately 1,825-acre tract that consists primarily of undeveloped forests
and agricultural lands. Mixed in with these are areas of low -density residential development and
pasture land. There are several small ponds and a larger lake on the site that are privately
owned. Agricultural areas are primarily used for tobacco, cotton, and hay. Forested areas
consist primarily of Bottomland, Mixed Hardwood, and Oak -Hickory Forests (see Section 5.6 for
further details).
A Duke Energy transmission line corridor crosses the GRMS. The transmission line is actively
maintained and runs east to west across the central portion of the site. Also, a major highway
(US 421) runs adjacent to the southwest corner of the site. Other areas in the vicinity of the site
are zoned by Randolph and Guilford counties, and are primarily zoned as Residential and
Agricultural.
The GRMS site is zoned by Randolph County as Heavy Industrial Conditional District, or "HI -
CD". The purpose of this designation is to accommodate industries whose normal operations
include dust, noise, odor, or other emissions that may be objectionable. The area immediately
surrounding the site is zoned as Residential Restricted, Residential Agricultural, Residential
Mixed, and Highway Commercial District.
The Randolph County Growth Management Plan (2009) designates areas to the north and west
of US 421 and Troy Smith Road, respectively, as Primary Growth Areas within Randolph
County. High density, urban -type mixed uses including residential, commercial, and industrial
development are intended for these areas. The plan was amended in 2016 to include the
boundary of the proposed GRMS as a Primary Growth Area. Subsequent to this amendment,
Guilford County, located adjacent to Randolph County, rezoned the entire GRMS site as Heavy
Industrial -Conditional District, as discussed above. This Conditional Zoning District specifically
permits industrial parks including automotive, truck, and heavy equipment manufacturing and
assembly. Secondary growth areas surround the primary growth area in the directly connected
impervious area and include residential development with major subdivisions interspersed
between agricultural and commercial land uses.
The Randolph County Comprehensive Transportation Plan (2010) proposes an interchange
near the existing intersection at US 421 and Shiloh Road/Colonial Trading Path. The plan also
proposes a grade separation at US 421 and Shiloh Road/Starmount Road. It designates US 421
as a freeway in need of improvement and Starmount Road as a minor thoroughfare in need of
improvement.
25
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
Guilford County's Future Land Use Plan — Southern Area Update (2016) includes a scenic
corridor overlay district that is bounded by all land that is located within 1,000 feet of either side
of US 421 in Guilford County. Design standards for buildings and open uses of land are applied
to the area within the overlay district. Areas to the west of US 421 have a future land use
classification of Agricultural and Rural Residential. This land use is intended to accommodate
farm residences and non -farm residences on large tracts of land. According to a memo from the
Guilford County Planning and Development Department Director, dated September 26, 2017,
the future development pattern reflected within a 1.5-mile buffer of the GRMS that is subject to
the Southern Area Update plan discourages any use(s) that would create premature or
substantial public infrastructure and service demands while avoiding the premature conversion
of farmland to urban uses.
The Guilford County Development Ordinance (effective January 1, 1992) places an emphasis
on preserving and encouraging the continued use of land zoned as Agricultural for agricultural,
forest, and open space purposes, and not intended for major residential development. The
memo from the Guilford County Planning and Development Department Director, described
above, states that while institutional uses are common in the Agricultural designation, major
residential development consisting of less than two acres is not appropriate. The memo states
that farming and the continued use of land for agricultural uses remain important components of
the Guilford County economy.
5.1.2 Potential Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation
Measures
The Proposed Project is consistent with Randolph County's vision of Primary Growth Areas and
future land uses on the site. The Proposed Project is not anticipated to conflict with Guilford
County's vision of farming and the continued use of land for agricultural uses near the site within
Guilford County's jurisdiction. According to the Director of the City of Greensboro's Water
Resources Department, the potential for tying the GRMS development into the City's water and
wastewater systems is permissible because it is consistent with the City of Greensboro's
economic development criteria.
Both counties' current and future land use classifications and associated zoning district
regulations pose no adverse impacts to industry at the GRMS. No mitigation measures are
proposed with regards to land use.
5.2 Geology and Soils
5.2.1 Description of Affected Environment
5.2.1.1 Geology
The GRMS is located in the Piedmont Physiographic Province, which lies between the Coastal
Plain and the Blue Ridge Mountains. Along the border between the Piedmont and the Coastal
Plain, elevations range from 300 to 600 feet above msl. To the west, elevations gradually rise to
about 1,500 feet above msl at the foot of the Blue Ridge. The GRMS site is located within these
elevation ranges. The Piedmont is characterized by gently rolling, well-rounded hills and long,
low ridges with a few hundred feet of elevation difference between the hills and valleys. The
26
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
Piedmont includes some relatively low mountains including the South Mountains and the
Uwharrie Mountains (Rhodes et al, 1985).
The predominant rock types within the GRMS site are Metamorphosed Granitic Rock (Felsic
intrusive complex) and Metamorphosed Gabbro and Diorite (Intermediate intrusive rocks), which
are both Igneous Intrusive rocks within the Carolina Slate Belt (Carpenter, 1982). Within the
upland areas away from alluvial deposits, soils within the Piedmont Province are the residual
product of in -place chemical and physical weathering of parent rock materials. The typical
residual profile consists of finer grained silts and clays near the ground surface, which gradually
transition to coarser and denser material with depth. The boundary between soil and rock is
typically not sharply defined and a transitional zone, termed "weathered rock" is typically
encountered overlying the more competent bedrock. Weathering is facilitated by joints,
fractures, and the presence of less resistant rock types. Therefore, the profile of residual soil,
weathered rock, and rock can be irregular and erratic, even over short distances.
The topography of the GRMS site is generally gently rolling, well-rounded hills, with a network of
streams running through the valleys, consistent with typical Piedmont topography described
above. Elevations are at their greatest in the northwest corner of the property reaching
approximately elevation 770 feet according to (NAVD88), and elevations are at their lowest at
the southernmost corner of the property at approximately 585 feet (NAVD88).
5.2.1.2
The federal Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) was created to protect farmland and combat
urban sprawl (USDA-NRCS, 2017a). Consequently, soils specifically suited to agricultural uses
may be protected under the FPPA. Conversion of these soils from pastureland to non -
pastureland uses may be limited. Specifically protected are cultivated areas identified by the
FPPA as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland that is of Local or Statewide
Importance. Projects are subject to FPPA requirements if they may irreversibly convert farmland
(directly or indirectly) to nonagricultural use and are completed by or with assistance from a
federal agency.
The soil on the site was mapped by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Randolph County Soil Survey (USDA-NRCS, 2017b).
Soils on the site are summarized in Table 4. Approximately 65.8 percent of the site contains
Farmland of Statewide Importance, 22.3 percent of the site contains areas designated as Prime
Farmland, 0.4 percent of the site is designated "Prime farmland if drained and either protected
from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season", 3.6 percent of the site is
open water, and the remaining 7.9 percent of the site is not considered prime farmland.
Based on the USDA-RNCS soil survey, the site does not contain hydric soils. A small portion
(0.4 percent) is mapped as having non-hydric soil with potential hydric inclusions. The
remainder of the site is mapped as having non-hydric soil (96.0 percent) or open water (3.6
percent). Hydric soils are frequently used to determine the location of potential wetland areas.
27
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
Table 4. Randolph County Soil Survey Results
Map Unit
Map Unit Name
Percent of Property
(approximate)
Farmland Rating
Hydric
Rating (%)
ApB
Appling sandy loam, 2 to 6
percent slopes
3.0%
All areas are prime
farmland
0
ApC
Appling sandy loam, 6 to 10
percent slopes
1.0%
Farmland of statewide
importance
0
CcB
Cecil sandy loam, 2 to 8
percent slopes
0.2%
All areas are prime
farmland
0
ChA
Chewacla loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes, frequently
flooded
0.4%
Prime farmland if drained
and either protected from
flooding or not frequently
flooded during the growing
season
5
HeB
Helena sandy loam, 2 to 6
percent slopes
9.9%
All areas are prime
farmland
0
HeC
Helena sandy loam, 6 to 10
percent slopes
3.3%
Farmland of statewide
importance
0
MaC
Mecklenburg loam, 8 to 15
percent slopes
1.2%
Farmland of statewide
importance
0
MeB2
Mecklenburg clay loam, 2 to
8 percent slopes, moderately
eroded
1.9%
All areas are prime
farmland
0
VaB
Vance sandy loam, 2 to 8
percent slopes
7.3%
All areas are prime
farmland
0
VaC
Vance sandy loam, 8 to 15
percent slopes
5.0%
Farmland of statewide
importance
0
W
Water
3.6%
0
WpC
Wilkes-Poindexter-Wynott
complex, 8 to 15 percent
slopes
7.9%
Not prime farmland
0
WtB
Wynott-Enon complex, 2 to 8
percent slopes
3.2%
Farmland of statewide
importance
0
WtC
Wynott-Enon complex, 8 to
15 percent slopes
8.3%
Farmland of statewide
importance
0
WvB2
Wynott-Enon complex, 2 to 8
percent slopes, moderately
eroded
34.2%
Farmland of statewide
importance
0
WvC2
Wynott-Enon complex, 8 to
15 percent slopes,
moderately eroded
9.6%
Farmland of statewide
importance
0
Totals for Area of Interest
100.0%
Source: USDA-NRCS 2017b
5.2.1.3 Soil and Groundwater Sampling
ECS Southeast, LLP (ECS) performed a soil and groundwater assessment at the Proposed
Project area in 2017 and produced a report of their findings, titled Report of Soil and
Groundwater Assessment Greensboro -Randolph Megasite. The soil and groundwater
assessment included the advancement of 23 borings across the site and installation of
temporary groundwater monitoring wells. A figure showing the location and identification of
these bore holes and wells can be provided upon request. At each bore hole and monitoring
well, soil sampling was performed at depths 5 to 7 feet below ground surface and groundwater
sampling was performed at depths of 40 feet below ground surface. Samples collected from the
bore holes and wells were submitted to a laboratory for analysis. Analyses were performed to
determine the presence and concentration of six organic and 26 inorganic constituents. In
addition, groundwater was determined to flow in a southerly direction and observed at its lowest
28
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
elevation of 634.01 feet above msl and at its highest elevation of 760.61 feet above msl for
temporary monitoring wells TW-13 and TW-1, respectively.
5.2.1.3.1 Analytical Results for Soil Sampling
The following samples had detection above the laboratory limits for the tested parameter, but
below their most stringent North Carolina soil criterion, the Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch
(IHSB) Protection of Groundwater Preliminary Soil Remediation Goal (PSRG):
• Organic volatile organic compound acetone in soil samples SB-6 through SB-10, SB-14,
SB-17, SB-19, and SB-21
• Organic volatile organic compound 4-isopropyltoluene in soil sample SB-21
• Organic semi -volatile organic compound benzoic acid in soil sample SB-10
• Pesticide cis -Chlordane in soil sample SB-16
• Organic pesticide Aldrin in soil sample SB-4
The following sample had detection above the laboratory limits for the tested parameter and
above their most stringent IHSB Protection of Groundwater PSRG criterion:
• Organic pesticide Dieldrin in soil sample SB-4
The following sample had detection above the laboratory limits:
• Oil and grease in soil sample SB-4
Laboratory analysis of each soil sample detected one or more targeted inorganic constituents
above laboratory detection limits with the exception of barium, cadmium, mercury, molybdenum,
and nitrite as N, which were not detected above laboratory detection limits. Laboratory analysis
detected aluminum, arsenic, iron, manganese, and selenium above one or more of their
respective IHSB Protection of Groundwater PSRG, unrestricted use PSRGs, or
Industrial/Commercial Health Based PSRG.
5.2.1.3.2 Analytical Results for Groundwater Sampling
The following samples had detection above the laboratory limits for the tested parameter, but
below North Carolina 2L groundwater quality standards (NC2LGWQS):
• Methyl -ethyl ketone in groundwater samples TW-3, TW-4, and TW-5
• Acetone in groundwater samples TW-4, TW-5, and TW-16
With the exception of inorganic constituent boron, each targeted inorganic constituent was
detected in one or more temporary monitoring wells above laboratory detection limits. The
inorganic constituents, barium, beryllium, chromium (total), copper, iron, and lead were detected
at concentrations that exceed their respective NC2LGWQS.
5.2.2 Potential Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation
Measures
The presence of the organic pesticide Dieldrin is isolated to soil sample SB-4 in the Proposed
Project area. ECS recommended the soil be remediated by excavation and disposed of properly
29
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
prior to site development. Many of the inorganic constituents detected in soil samples are
commonly found in the soils of North Carolina and Eastern Piedmont Soils (ECS, 2017). In
addition, recognized environmental conditions were not identified during the Phase I
Environmental Site Assessments conducted by ECS between 2015 and 2017 (incorporated by
reference). Based on findings from ECS's assessment, inorganic metal concentrations are likely
naturally occurring.
No groundwater samples detected organic constituents that exceeded state groundwater quality
standards. However, inorganic constituents were detected in one or more monitoring sample
above laboratory detection and state groundwater quality standards.
5.3 Air Quality
This section describes the existing air quality in the air quality impact analysis area and the
potential effects of the Proposed Project on air quality. Air quality in a given area depends on
several factors such as the area itself (size and topography), the prevailing weather patterns
(meteorology and climate), and the pollutants released into the air from various sources (for
example, motor vehicles and industrial or agricultural activities). Air quality is described in terms
of the concentrations of various pollutants in a given area of atmosphere (for example, parts per
million or micrograms per cubic meter). The air quality impact analysis area focuses on the area
around the proposed site in Randolph County, North Carolina.
5.3.1 Regulatory Setting
5.3.1.1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards
The EPA has set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for pollutants considered
harmful to public health and the environment. These standards include both primary and
secondary standards. Primary standards protect public health, while secondary standards
protect public welfare (such as protecting property and vegetation from the effects of air
pollution). The national standards have been adopted by the State of North Carolina as the
official ambient air quality standards. The current NAAQS are listed in Table 5. The pollutants in
Table 5 are referred to as criteria pollutants because air quality standards (criteria) have been
established for these pollutants. If an area meets the NAAQS for a given air pollutant, the area
is called an attainment area for that pollutant (because the NAAQS have been attained). If an
area does not meet the NAAQS for a given air pollutant, the area is called a non -attainment
area. A maintenance area is an area previously designated as a non -attainment area that has
been redesignated as an attainment area and is required by Section 175A of the Clean Air Act,
as amended, to have a maintenance plan.
30
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
Table 5. National and North Carolina Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
Pollutant
Primary/
Secondary
Averaging Time
Level
Form
Carbon monoxide (CO)
Primary
8-hour average
9 ppm
Not to be exceeded more than once per year
1-hour average
35 ppm
Lead (Pb)
Primary and
secondary
Rolling 3-month average
0.15 pg/m3 (l)
Not to be exceeded
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
Primary
1-hour average
100 ppb
98th percentile, averaged over 3 years
Primary and
secondary
Annual average
53 ppb()
Annual mean
Ozone (03)
Primary and
secondary
8-hour average
0.070 ppm(3
Annual fourth -highest daily maximum 8-hour concentration,
averaged over 3 years
Particulate matter (PMz.$)
Primary
Annual average
12 pg/m3
Annual mean, averaged over 3 years
Secondary
Annual average
15 pg/m3
Annual mean, averaged over 3 years
Primary and
secondary
24-hour average
35 pg/m3
98th percentile, averaged over 3 years
Particulate matter (PMio)
Primary and
secondary
24 hour average
150 pg/m3
Not to be exceeded more than once per year on average
over 3 years
Sulfur dioxide (SO2)
Primary
1-hour average
75 ppb(4)
99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations,
averaged over 3 years
Secondary
3-hour average
0.5 ppm
Not to be exceeded more than once per year
Source: NCDOT Air Quality Manual 2016
(1) In areas designated nonattainment for Pb standards prior to the promulgation of the current (2008) standards, and for which implementation plans to attain or maintain the current
(2008) standards have not been submitted or approved, the previous standards (1.5 pg/m3 as a calendar quarter average) also remain in effect.
(2) The level of the annual NO2 standard is 0.053 ppm. It is shown here in terms of ppb for the purposes of clearer comparison to the 1-hour standard level.
(3) Final rule signed October 1, 2015, and effective December 28, 2015. The previous (2008) 03 standards additionally remain in effect in some areas. Revocation of the previous
(2008) 03 standards and transitioning to the current (2015) standards will be addressed in the implementation rule for the current standards.
(4) The previous SO2 standards (0.14 ppm 24-hour and 0.03 ppm annual) will additionally remain in effect in certain areas: (1) any area for which it is not yet 1 year since the effective
date of designation under the current (2010) standards, and (2) any area for which an implementation plan providing for attainment of the current (2010) standard has not been
submitted and approved and which is designated nonattainment under the previous SO2 standards or is not meeting the requirements of a SIP call under the previous SO2 standards
(40 CFR 50.4(3)). A SIP call is an EPA action requiring a state to resubmit all or part of its State Implementation Plan to demonstrate attainment of the required NAAQS
ppm = parts per million; ppb = parts per billion; PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter or less; PM25 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less; pg/m3 = micrograms
per cubic meter
31
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
5.3.1.2 Requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidance (T 6640.8A) for preparing environmental
documents under NEPA includes guidance for evaluating air quality in terms of mesoscale and
microscale impacts. Mesoscale evaluations analyze regional air quality impacts, while
microscale evaluations analyze local air quality impacts, usually for individual roads or
intersections.
5.3.1.3 Transportation Conformity Requirements
All state governments are required to develop a State Implementation Plan (SIP), which
explains how the state will comply with the requirements of the federal Clean Air Act of 1990, as
amended. Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act, and its related amendments, requires that
transportation plans, programs, and projects that are developed, funded, or approved by FHWA
and metropolitan planning organizations must demonstrate that such activities conform to the
SIP. Transportation conformity requirements apply to any transportation -related criteria
pollutants for which the project area has been designated a non -attainment or maintenance
area.
According to Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act, a transportation project is said to "conform" to
the provisions and purposes of the SIP if the project, both alone and in combination with other
planned projects, does not:
• Cause or contribute to new air quality violations of the NAAQS,
• Worsen existing violations of the NAAQS, or
• Delay timely attainment of the NAAQS or required interim milestones.
The Proposed Project is located in Randolph County, which is an attainment area for all criteria
pollutants (EPA, 2018). Because Randolph County is an attainment area for all transportation -
related criteria pollutants, transportation conformity does not apply (NCDOT, 2016).
5.3.1.4 General Conformity Requirements
While Transportation Conformity requirements apply to projects in nonattainment and
maintenance areas that obtain funding or require approval of the FHWA or the FTA, all other
federally funded or federally approved projects in nonattainment and maintenance areas are
subject to General Conformity requirements under 40 CFR 93, Subpart B. The General
Conformity rules include annual de minimis emission thresholds that apply to both project
construction and operation. If the project -related emission increase does not exceed any
emission threshold (for the applicable nonattainment/maintenance pollutant), then the project is
exempt from General Conformity requirements, which include obtaining emission offsets and
approval of agencies responsible for regulating air quality in the project area.
Because the GRMS area is not in nonattainment or maintenance status for any criteria air
pollutant, General Conformity requirements would not apply to any Proposed Project at the site
requiring federal approval or funding.
32
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
5.3.1.5 Mobile -Source Air Toxics
Urban air toxics are pollutants that can cause cancer or other serious health effects or adverse
environmental effects. Most air toxics originate from human -made sources including mobile
sources, non -road mobile sources (such as airplanes), and stationary sources (such as factories
or refineries). Controlling air toxic emissions became a national priority with the passage of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, when Congress mandated that EPA regulate 188 air toxics,
also known as hazardous air pollutants.
EPA has assessed this list in its latest rule on Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile
Sources (Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 37, page 8430, February 26, 2007), and identified a
group of 93 compounds emitted from mobile sources that are listed in its Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS). In addition, EPA identified nine compounds with significant
contributions from mobile sources. These mobile source air toxics (MSATs) are acrolein,
acetaldehyde, benzene, 1,3-butidiene, diesel particulate matter, ethylbenzene, formaldehyde,
naphthalene, and polycyclic organic matter.
The 2007 rule requires controls that will decrease MSAT emissions through cleaner fuels and
cleaner engines. The final standards will lower emissions of benzene and other air toxics in
three ways: (1) by lowering the benzene content in gasoline, (2) by reducing exhaust emissions
from passenger vehicles operated at cold temperatures, and (3) by reducing emissions that
evaporate from, and permeate through, portable fuel containers.
Under this rule, EPA is requiring that refiners meet an annual average gasoline benzene content
standard of 0.62 percent by volume on all gasoline (the national benzene content of gasoline
today is about 1.0 percent by volume). In addition, EPA is adopting new standards to reduce
non -methane hydrocarbon exhaust emissions from new gasoline -fueled passenger vehicles at
colder temperatures below 75 degrees Fahrenheit. Non -methane hydrocarbons include many
MSATs, such as benzene. Finally, the February 2007 rule establishes standards that will limit
hydrocarbon emissions that evaporate or permeate through portable fuel containers such as
gas cans.
EPA expects that the new fuel benzene standard and hydrocarbon standards for vehicles and
gas cans will together reduce total emissions of MSATs by 330,000 tons in 2030, including
61,000 tons of benzene. As a result of this rule, new passenger vehicles will emit 45 percent
less benzene, gas cans will emit 78 percent less benzene, and gasoline will have 38 percent
less benzene overall.
In addition, the hydrocarbon reductions from the vehicle and gas can standards will reduce
volatile organic compound emissions (which are precursors to ozone and can be precursors to
PM2.5) by over 1 million tons in 2030. The vehicle standards will reduce direct PM2.5 emissions
by 19,000 tons in 2030 and could also reduce secondary formation of PM2.5.
5.3.1.6 Major and Minor Source Air Permitting
If a stationary emission source is to be installed at the GRMS, it would have to obtain the
appropriate air emissions construction and operating permit under North Carolina and federal
rules.
33
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
Given the project area is in attainment with the NAAQS for all criteria air pollutants, if the
stationary source had potential emissions of at least 100 tons/year of a criteria pollutant for
certain listed types of sources, or at least 250 tons per year for non -listed source types, then a
major source construction permit would be required under the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration of air quality (PSD) rules (see 40 CFR 52.21). A PSD permit generally requires
dispersion modeling to ensure that NAAQS and PSD allowable concentration increments are
maintained beyond the facility fence line. The PSD rules also require that Best Available Control
Technology (BACT), which is a case -by -case emissions standard imposed by the regulatory
agency in the PSD permit, be applied to each emission process, for each pollutant emitted in
major amounts by the facility.
Title V operating permit requirements apply to any "major" emission source, meaning a source
with at least 100 tons/year of potential emissions of a criteria air pollutant, 10 tons/year of a
hazardous air pollutant (HAP), or at least 25 tons/year of the combination of all HAPs.
If a facility is a minor emission source for both PSD (construction) and Title V (operation) permit
purposes, it will still require a state permit under the North Carolina Administrative Code, 15A
NCAC 02Q .0101, unless it is exempt from a permit as provided under these rules.
5.3.2 Affected Environment
5.3.2.1 Regional Air Quality Status
As noted above, Randolph County is classified as an attainment area for all transportation -
related criteria pollutants.
The North Carolina Division of Air Quality maintains a network of air quality monitoring stations
throughout the state. In general, these monitoring stations are located where there are known
air quality problems, hence they are typically in or near urban areas or close to specific emission
sources. Other stations are located in suburban locations or remote areas to provide an
indication of regional air pollution levels.
The nearest air quality monitors to the GRMS are located in the City of Greensboro (Guilford
County, about 25 miles north of Liberty), which monitor particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), and
Winston-Salem (Forsyth County, about 50 miles northwest of Liberty), which monitors carbon
monoxide (CO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2).Table 6 through Table 9 show the monitoring results
at these sites for the listed pollutants from 2013 through 2016. Because the monitors are
located in urban settings, measured values are higher than what would be expected in the more
rural area around the GRMS in Randolph County.
Table 6. PM10 Monitoring Data for Guilford County
Station
Parameter (Pg/m3)
2013
2014
2015
2016
205 Willoughby Blvd, Greensboro,
NC
Peak 24 hour valuea
28
22
18
51
Source: U.S. EPA Air Data (www.epa.gov/air-data) Accessed October 2, 2017
a 24-hour PM10 standard = 150 fag/m3 (not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over 3 years)
34
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
Table 7. PM2.5 Monitoring Data for Guilford County
Station
Parameter (Ng/m3)
2013
2014
2015
2016
205 Willoughby Blvd, Greensboro,
Peak 24-hour value a
22.9
14.9
16.3
38.7
NC
98th percentile
19
15
15
18
Annual mean b
8.7
7.9
7.7
8.4
Source: U.S. EPA Air Data (www.epa.00v/air-data. Accessed October 2 2017)
a 24-hour standard is exceeded when the 3-year average of the 98th-percentile value (rounded to the nearest whole number)
exceeds 35 pg/m3.
b Annual standard is exceeded when the 3-year average of the weighted arithmetic mean exceeds 12.0 pg/m3.
Table 8. CO Monitoring Data for Forsyth County
Station
Parameter (ppm
2013
2014
2015
2016
1401 Corporation Parkway, Winston-
Peak 1-hour valuea
2.4
2.6
1.9
ND
Salem, NC
Peak 8-hour valueb
1.8
1.6
1.4
ND
Source: U.S. EPA Air Data (www.epa.gov/air-data) Accessed October 2, 2017
ND = no data
a 1-hour CO standard = 35 ppm (not to be exceeded more than once per year).
8-hour CO standard = 9 ppm (not to be exceeded more than once per year).
Table 9. NO2 Monitoring Data for Forsyth County
Station
Parameter (ppb)
2013
2014
2015
2016
1300 Blk. Hattie Avenue, Winston-
Peak 1-hour valuea
41
51
41
46
Salem, NC
98th percentileb
37
41
35
36
Annual mean
6.12
6.38
6.21
6.57
Source: U.S. EPA Air Data (www.epa.gov/air-data) Accessed October 2, 2017
ppb = parts per billion
a 1-hour NO2 standard = 100 ppb. Annual NO2 standard = 53 ppb.
b Compliance with the NO2 1-hour standard is based on the 98th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations averaged over a
3-year period.
5.3.3 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures
5.3.3.1 Existing Conditions (2016)
Under existing conditions (2016), US 421, the primary north -south highway near the GRMS
carries about 16,500 vehicles per day (vpd) at a posted speed limit of 60 miles per hour (mph).
Cross -street intersections on US 421 (Colonial Trading Path, Julian Airport Road, Browns
Meadow Road and Shiloh Road) are stop -controlled. Peak hour volumes at these intersections
range from about 500 vehicles per hour to less than 10, depending on the intersection and time
of day (i.e., AM, Midday, or PM peak -hour). Idling vehicles at the intersections would be the
largest source of vehicle emissions.
5.3.3.2 No Action Alternative (2026 and 2040)
According to a Traffic Impact Analyses conducted by the Timmons Group (2016 and 2018),
traffic on US 421 is expected to grow by about 0.5 percent per year, resulting in a daily traffic
volume of about 17,350 vpd in 2026 and 18,600 in 2040. The relatively low volume of traffic on
US 421 and the minor increase of traffic on surrounding local intersections would not result in
substantial transportation -related air quality impacts under the no action alternative.
35
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
5.3.3.3 Proposed Alternative
Under the proposed alternative, the GRMS would be developed to accommodate up to 6 million
square feet of manufacturing, production, and assembly space on an approximately 1,000-acre
construction pad.
Traffic volumes on US 421 are expected to be about 41,860 vpd, in 2040 assuming full build -out
of the proposed site. Two interchanges are expected to be constructed on US 421 to
accommodate site and local traffic.
All at -grade unsignalized intersections along US 421 would be closed following construction of
the service interchanges. Closing at -grade unsignalized intersections would reduce idling
vehicles and marginally reduce vehicle emissions associated with idling vehicles. Other air
quality impacts would be minor and similar to those described for the no action alternative.
The Proposed Project would not result in substantial transportation -related air quality impacts.
As described in Section 5.3.1.6, any major stationary source emissions at the GRMS would be
subject to dispersion analysis and BACT requirements. Minor source emissions would be
subject to the state's air toxics rules, requiring dispersion analysis to demonstrate compliance
with state air toxics ambient air thresholds established to protect public health.
5.3.3.4 Effects on PMio and PM2.5 Emissions
The Proposed Project is located in Randolph County, an attainment area for all transportation -
related criteria pollutants. According to EPA's guidance, projects of potential air quality concern
in nonattainment or maintenance areas for PM,c or PM2.5 generally have daily traffic volumes of
about 125,000 vpd (EPA, 2015). Expected traffic volumes on US 421 (41,860 in 2040 following
full build -out of the Proposed Project) are much lower than this threshold. Therefore, the
Proposed Project would not be a substantial source of PM,c and PM2.5 emissions that would
result in air quality impacts.
5.3.3.5 Effects on CO Emissions
Randolph County is an attainment area for CO and North Carolina no longer requires CO
project -level analyses as part of the NEPA/State Environmental Policy Act process unless they
are deemed necessary to respond to public or agency comments (NCDOT, 2016). Also, as
shown in Table 8, monitored CO concentrations at the Winston-Salem monitor are much lower
than the federal 1-hour and 8-hour NAAQS. CO emissions associated with the Proposed Project
would be minor and would not result in substantial impacts.
36
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
5.3.3.6 :fects on Mobile -Source Air Toxics Emissions
FHWA has developed a tiered approach to analyzing MSATs in environmental documents
(FHWA, 2016). Under FHWA's approach, three levels of analysis are identified, depending on
the specifics of a project. The three tiers are:
• No analysis for projects with no potential for meaningful MSAT effects,
• Qualitative analysis for projects with a low potential for MSAT effects, or
• Quantitative analysis to differentiate alternatives for projects with a higher potential for MSAT
effects.
As stated in the guidance, FHWA expects most projects to have a low potential for MSAT
effects. Projects with a low potential for MSAT effects include those that are intended to improve
the operations of highway, transit, or freight facilities without adding substantial new capacity or
without creating a facility that is likely to meaningfully increase MSAT emissions. Examples of
projects with low potential MSAT effects include highway -widening projects, new interchanges,
and projects for which the design -year traffic volume is projected to be less than 140,000 to
150,000 vpd.
Traffic volumes on US 421 in 2040 with the Proposed Project are expected to be about 41,860
vpd, which is well below FHWA's suggested guideline of 140,000 to 150,000 vpd at which point
a quantitative analysis of MSAT effects might be warranted. In addition, at full build -out the
Proposed Project would include two new interchanges providing access to the site. Finally,
MSAT emissions will be lower in the future as a result of EPA's national control programs that
are expected to reduce annual MSAT emissions by over 80 percent between 2010 and 2050.
5.3.3.7 Effects on Greenhouse Gas Emissions
From a quantitative perspective, global climate change is the cumulative result of numerous and
varied emissions sources (in terms of both absolute numbers and types), each of which makes
a relatively small addition to global atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations.
In contrast to broad -scale actions such as those involving an entire industry sector or very large
geographic areas, it is difficult to isolate and understand the GHG emissions' impacts for a
particular facility with stationary source and mobile source emissions. Furthermore, at present
there is no scientific methodology for attributing specific climatological changes to a particular
project's emissions.
EPA's MOVES2014a model can be used to estimate vehicle exhaust emissions of carbon
dioxide (CO2) and other GHGs. For informational purposes, the MOVES2014a model was used
to estimate transportation -related GHG emissions in Randolph County in 2016 and 2026 (Table
10).
37
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
Table 10. Estimated Transportation -Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Randolph
County in 2016 and 2026 (in tons per year)
Greenhouse Gas
2016
2026
Emissions
Emissions
Percent Change
from 2016
Methane (CH4)
16
13
—19
Nitrous oxide (N20)
4
2
—50
Atmospheric CO2
755,125
677,355
—10
Distance traveled (miles)
1.42 x 109
1.57 x 109
+11
Source: MOVES2014a national default data
As shown in this table, transportation -related GHG emissions are expected to decrease in the
future because of more -efficient vehicle technology despite an 11 percent increase in VMT in
Randolph County between 2016 and 2026.
Under NEPA, detailed environmental analysis should focus on issues that are significant and
meaningful to decision -making. Based on the nature of GHG emissions and the small potential
for GHG impacts associated with the Proposed Project, the GHG emissions from the Proposed
Project would not result in substantial adverse impacts.
5.3.3.8 Mitigation Measures for Air Quality Impacts
Based on available information such as the expected traffic volumes on US 421 in 2026, the air
quality attainment status of Randolph County, as well as on an evaluation of the Proposed
Project according to FHWA and EPA guidance, the Proposed Project would not cause an
exceedance of the applicable NAAQS for transportation -related criteria pollutants. Also,
because of EPA's ongoing programs to control hazardous air pollutants from mobile sources,
MSAT emissions are also expected to decrease in the future.
For any stationary sources constructed at the GRMS, if the site emissions were "major" under
the PSD program, the emission sources would need to be controlled in accordance with case -
by -case BACT requirements. A major emission source under the PSD program would also need
to conduct dispersion modeling to demonstrate that NAAQS and PSD concentration increments
would be met outside of the facility fence line. For minor sources not determined to be exempt
by rule, the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ), pursuant to state
rules, would require a dispersion modeling analysis to demonstrate that air toxics do not exceed
state standards established to protect public health. Given these requirements, any stationary
source constructed at the site is not expected to adversely affect air quality.
Because the Proposed Project would not cause violations of existing air quality standards and
would likely result in small increases for other pollutants such as GHGs, no mitigation measures
are proposed.
38
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
5.4 Noise
5.4.1 Description of Affected Environment
HDR completed a noise assessment for the Proposed Project to assess potential noise impacts
associated with the construction and operation of a transformational automotive manufacturing,
production, and assembly facility at the site, as well as construction of the associated
infrastructure necessary for site operation. For construction noise, HDR calculated the noise
level at different distances from the centroid of potential construction activities during the
different phases of construction, including site preparation, utility installation, and roadway
construction. For operational noise, HDR modeled a conceptual layout of the site using
DataKustik's Computer Aided Noise Abatement (CadnaA) software. As modeled, the site was
calculated to produce noise levels at nearby residences that would not exceed estimated
existing noise levels.
5.4.1.1 Noise Criteria
Neither the State of North Carolina nor Randolph County has a quantitative noise ordinance for
construction noise or stationary sources. Section 1 (a) of the Randolph County Noise Ordinance
states the following:
Subject to the provisions of this Section, the creation of any unreasonably loud
and disturbing noise of such character, intensity or duration as to be detrimental
to the health, safety of welfare of any individual is prohibited in Randolph County.
In the absence of quantitative noise regulations, an increase over existing noise levels can be
used to establish a threshold for potential noise impact from construction and operation of the
site. Although a baseline noise survey was not completed, typical noise levels in different
residential areas can be estimated from Table 11 below.
Table 11. Typical Daytime and Nighttime Noise Levels for Residential Land Uses
Residential Land Use Category
Typical Daytime Noise
Level (dBA)
Typical Nighttime Noise
Level (dBA)
Very Noisy Urban
66
58
Noisy Urban
61
54
Urban and Noisy Suburban
55
49
Quiet Urban and Normal Suburban
50
44
Quiet Suburban
45
39
Very Quiet Suburban and Rural
40
34
dBA = A -weighted decibel scale
Source: ANSI/ASA S12.9-2013 Part 3
Based on the existence of highway and rail lines nearby, the area around the GRMS can be
assumed to range from a "Quiet urban and normal suburban" to an "Urban and noisy suburban"
existing noise environment. According to Table 11, existing noise levels in these noise
environments range from 50 to 55 dBA during the day and 44 to 49 dBA at night. Since the
proposed facility is expected to operate 24 hours per day, the nighttime baseline level will be
used for comparison with operational site noise. Since construction activities are generally
39
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
assumed to be limited to daytime hours, the daytime baseline level will be used for comparison
with construction site noise.
Construction Noise Assessment
Construction activities related to development of the Proposed Project would include extensive
utility construction, roadway construction throughout the site, and site development construction.
Utility construction would include installation of natural gas, water, and sewer pipelines, as well
as electric and telecom lines. The exact location of construction activity and construction
equipment that would be used on the Proposed Project is unknown at this time. Table 12
presents estimated construction noise levels for equipment that could be used on the different
construction phases of this project at distances of 50, 200, 500, and 1,000 feet from the centroid
of construction activities.
Table 12. Typical Construction Noise Levels
Estimated Construction Noise Levels: Site Preparation
Construction
Phase
Construction
Equipment
Usage
Factor
(ova)
Lmax at 50
ft (dBA)
Leq at 50 ft
(dBA)
Total Leq at
Distance (ft), (dBA)
50
200
500
1,000
Blasting
N/A
5
94
81
81
69
61
55
Site Preparation
Dozer
40
85
81
82
70
62
56
Compactor
20
80
73
Foundation
Dozer
40
85
81
85
73
65
59
Concrete Mixer Truck
40
85
81
Concrete Pump
Truck
20
82
75
Erection
Crane
16
85
77
83
71
63
57
Manlift
20
85
78
Flat Bed Truck
40
84
80
Estimated Construction
Noise Levels: Utilities
Usage
Total Leq at Distance (ft),
Construction
Phase
Construction
Equipment
Factor
(ova)
Lmax at 50
ft (dBA)
Leq at 50 ft
(dBA)
(dBA)
50
200
500
1,000
Clearing and
Excavation
Dozer
40
85
81
84
72
64
58
Excavator
40
85
81
Pipe Preparation
Welder
40
75
71
80
68
60
54
Grinder
30
82
77
Compressor
40
80
76
Installation and
Backfill
Crane
16
85
77
80
68
60
54
Backhoe
40
80
76
Estimated Construction
Noise Levels: Road
Construction
Usage
Total Leq at Distance (ft),
Construction
Phase
ConstructionLmax
Equipment
Factor
at 50
ft(dBA)
Leq at 50 ft
(dBA)
(dBA)
50
200
500
1,000
Earthwork
Dozer
40
85
81
84
72
64
58
Grader
40
85
81
Compactor
20
80
73
Paving
Concrete Mixer Truck
40
85
81
82
70
62
56
Concrete Pump
Truck
20
82
75
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation (2006), "FHWA Highway Construction Noise Handbook"
40
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
Usage Factor = percentage of time that the equipment is in use
L. = maximum sound level
The construction noise levels shown in Table 12 were calculated assuming free field conditions,
which represents an environment that is free from obstructions that could affect the way sound
travels away from the noise source. These assumptions result in conservative over -estimates of
the noise levels that may be experienced by receivers in the vicinity of construction activities, as
areas shielded by terrain or other features could receive lower noise levels than the estimates
shown in Table 12.
5.4.1.3 Operational Noise Assessment
The primary sources of noise at typical large manufacturing, production, and assembly facilities
are outdoor air handling equipment located on the roofs of the buildings and alongside the
buildings, as well as traffic onsite from trucks and trains. Noise within the buildings is not
anticipated to be loud enough to be transmitted through the building envelope to such a degree
that it would contribute to outdoor noise levels.
A list of noise sources and assumed sound power levels for each source are shown in Table 13
below.
Table 13. List of Modeled Noise Sources
Source
Assumed Sound
Power Level (dBA)
Quantity
Exterior air Handling Units
96
11
Exhaust Stacks
96
10
Cooling Tower
115
1
Rooftop Vents
90
1 per 10,000 sq feet
Production Car Movements
96 dBA per car
1,250 cars per day, speed of 10 mph
Onsite Employee Car Traffic
96 dBA per car
4,000 cars per day, speed of 10 mph
Onsite Truck Traffic
109 dBA per truck
425 trucks per day, speed of 10 mph
Onsite Rail Traffic
125 dBA per train
3 trains of 28-30 railcars per day, speed of 10 mph
Sound power levels for the exterior equipment were calculated based on a typical OSHA -
regulated sound pressure level of 85 dBA at 3 feet. Equipment quantities were estimated based
on aerial views of existing manufacturing plants that are expected to be similar to the future site,
which also provided the basis for the site's conceptual layout and production volume. Car, truck,
and train power levels were obtained from HDR's database of previous projects, with traffic
volumes provided by the client.
Sound sources were modeled using the acoustical analysis software CadnaA, which is based
on ISO 9613, "Attenuation of Sound during Propagation Outdoors." Rooftop vents were
modeled as an area source above each building due to their even distribution across the
building roofs. The car, truck, and train traffic was modeled as a line source onsite; noise from
traffic and trains offsite was not evaluated during this assessment. The remaining sources were
modeled as point sources because the distance from each source to the receivers was
significantly greater than the largest dimension of the noise source. CadnaA has the ability to
41
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
account for the acoustical characteristics of the ground cover in the noise propagation path. The
CadnaA model was configured to use the method outlined in ISO 9613-2 for calculating ground
attenuation for broadband A -weighted noise sources, which assumes that sound propagation
occurs over mostly porous ground.
5.4.1.4 Assessment and Results
Figure 13 shows the calculated noise contour in the area of the GRMS site, as well as the
location of representative residential receivers in each direction.
LEGEND
G Receivers
- Site Boundary
Noise Contour
Leq (dBA)
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
▪ 70
- 75
▪ 80
0 Mil, 14
Figure 12. Noise Contour (dBA)
C iti> irfiaL , chiMz.111* 9,
[ jQ, tuze:4riL'Y'1 [
The receivers shown in Figure 13 represent the residential structures in each direction with the
highest calculated noise level. The noise contour shows that the primary source of noise would
be the car, truck, and train traffic on site, though noise from the outdoor vents and air -handling
equipment would also contribute to the noise off site.
Table 14 shows the calculated noise levels from the site at the receivers shown on Figure 13
compared to the estimated existing nighttime noise levels. Nighttime noise levels were assumed
based on the proximity of each receiver to the existing highway and railroad, with receivers
within one -quarter mile of the highway or railroad considered to have a noisy suburban
nighttime level of 49 dBA, and receivers more than one -quarter mile away considered to have a
normal suburban nighttime level of 44 dBA, per Table 14.
42
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
Table 14. Calculated Noise Levels at Receivers
Receiver
Estimated Existing
Nighttime Noise Level
(d BA)
Calculated Noise from
Site Leq
(d BA)
R1
49
46
R2
49
46
R3
44
44
R4
44
44
R5
49
46
R6
49
47
R7
49
41
5.4.2 Potential Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation
Measures
Estimated construction noise levels are expected to be near or above the range of the daytime
baseline level for the study area noise environment (50 to 55 dBA) at up to 1,000 feet from the
centroid of construction activity. Based on these findings, construction activities should be kept
at a distance of 1,000 feet or more from noise -sensitive receptors in the study area. If this is not
possible, the construction contractors should be required to develop a construction noise
management plan to minimize noise to nearby residents. In addition, construction activities that
would produce extremely loud noises should be scheduled during times of the day when such
noises would create as minimal disturbance as possible. Noise emissions during construction
can be also mitigated through low vehicle speeds while on site. Construction contractors would
also be required to maintain their equipment in a state of good repair, and to use mufflers that
meet original equipment manufacturer specifications or better.
Noise emissions from the operation of the proposed site, as modeled by HDR, would not be
higher than estimated existing noise levels at the surrounding residences. Therefore, no
additional noise mitigation will be necessary.
5.5 Water Resources / Floodplains
5.5.1 Description of Affected Environment
5.5.1.1 Surface Waters
For purposes of water resources and floodplains evaluation, the project area is defined as the
GRMS site and associated transportation and utility corridors.
The project area is located in the Cape Fear watershed (USGS Hydrological Unit Code [HUC]
03030003 and 03030002) and includes perennial and intermittent streams, manmade ponds,
and Dodsons Lake. Surface waters flow to six named waterbodies that occur within the project
area. These waterbodies, including their state -identified tracking numbers, surface water
classifications, and water quality classifications, are: Polecat Creek (17-11-3; WS-III, HQW),
Sandy Creek (17-16-(1); WS-III), Dodsons Lake (17-16-2; WS-III), North Prong Stinking Quarter
43
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
Creek (16-19-8-1; WS-V, NSW), Climax Creek (16-19-2; WS-IV, NSW), and Big Alamance
Creek (16-19-(1); WS-IV, NSW).
WS-III waters are defined in the North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) Environmental
Management Commission Rule (15A NCAC 02B .0101) as "waters protected as water supplies
which are generally in low to moderately developed watersheds". WS-IV waters are used as
sources of water supply for drinking, culinary, or food processing purposes and are generally in
moderately to highly developed watersheds. WS-V waters drain to Class WS-IV waters or
waters used by industry to supply their employees with drinking water or waters formerly used
for water supply.
High Quality Waters (HQW) are "waters which are rated as excellent based on biological and
physical/chemical characteristics through Division monitoring or special studies". The Nutrient
Sensitive Waters (NSW) designation is given to waters needing additional nutrient management
due to the likelihood of excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation. There are
no CWA Section 303(d)-listed waterbodies in the project area.
North Prong Stinking Quarter Creek, Climax Creek, and Big Alamance Creek drain to the Haw
River (HUC 03030002) and are subject to the Jordan Lake Buffer Rules. Polecat Creek, Sandy
Creek, and Dodsons Lake drain to the Deep River (HUC 03030003), which has no buffer
requirements. All unnamed tributaries assume the classification of the named stream to which
they flow and are subject to associated buffer requirements.
5.5.1.2 Wetlands and Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S.
HDR and ECS biologists surveyed the project area for wetlands and jurisdictional waters of the
United States regulated under Section 404 of the CWA. The assessment was conducted
according to the methodologies and guidance described in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual, USACE Post-Rapanos guidance (USACE, 1987a),
the 2012 USACE Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement (Version 2.0)
(USACE, 2012), and the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) Methodology for
Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and Their Origins (Version 4.11) (NCDWQ,
2010). Jurisdictional waters of the United States were delineated (flagged in the field) and
mapped using either a Trimble® Geo7X GPS unit capable of sub -meter accuracy or located by
licensed professional land surveyors using survey grade equipment. GPS points were post -
processed utilizing Trimble® GPS Pathfinder Office software. Preliminary Jurisdictional
Determination Requests for the GRMS and associated utilities and transportation corridors are
provided in Appendix B, along with maps depicting the location of each water resource in the
project area.
5.5.1.2.1 Streams and Open Water
Streams within the project area were identified as potential non -wetland waters that exhibit
either intermittent or perennial surface water flow to Traditional Navigable Waters. The majority
of perennial and intermittent streams within the project area were dry or had water only in pools
during field assessments conducted between July 2017 and November 2017. The project area
contains 62,183 feet of perennial and 14,421 feet of intermittent streams. Substrate in these
streams ranged from silt/sand to cobble/gravel and Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM)
indicators included natural lines impressed on the banks, shelving, matted down vegetation,
44
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
disturbed leaf litter, sediment deposition, wrack lines, sediment sorting, and bank scour. Open
water within the project area consists of ponds (totaling 30 acres) and Dodsons Lake (53 acres).
The ponds appear to be manmade and several were observed being used for agricultural
irrigation. The ponds have a sustained OHWM and are fed by high groundwater levels. All but
two ponds within the project area are hydrologically connected by unnamed tributaries to named
waterbodies.
Streams in the project area could support bluehead chub (Nocomis leptocephalus), redlip shiner
(Notropis chiliticus), northern dusky salamander (Desmognathus fuscus fuscus), various
crayfish species, redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus), and various macroinvertebrate species.
The ponds and Dodsons Lake could support bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), various catfish
species, largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), green frog (Lithobates clamitus), and
banded water snake (Nerodia fasciata).
5.5.1.2.2 Wetlands
The project area contains approximately 28.7 acres of wetlands as identified using the
procedures identified above in Section 5.5.1.2. According to the Cowardin Classification
hierarchical structure (Cowardin et al. 1979), three general wetland types are present within the
project area: palustrine, forested wetlands (PFO), palustrine, scrub -shrub wetlands (PSS), and
palustrine, emergent wetlands (PEM). PFO wetlands consist primarily of small headwater
wetlands and bottomland hardwood wetlands located adjacent to tributaries onsite. These
wetlands exhibited mature vegetation dominated by red maple, sweetgum, sycamore, and
American elm. Soils exhibited a depleted matrix and typical hydrology indicators included
saturated soils and passing the FAC-neutral test. PSS wetlands include recently cutover areas
and areas dominated by species such as black willow and tag alder. Soils exhibited a depleted
matrix and typical hydrology indicators included surface water, high water table, and saturation.
PEM wetlands are primarily located in fields that are regularly maintained and consist of
herbaceous vegetation such as common rush (Juncus effusus), sedges (Carex spp.), tearthumb
(Persicaria sagittata), Japanese stilt grass (Microstegium vimineum), and seedbox (Ludwigia
alternifolia). Soils exhibited a depleted matrix and typical hydrology indicators included surface
water, high water table, saturation, and oxidized rhizospheres on living roots.
5.5.1.2.3 Functional Assessment
The North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM) and the North Carolina Stream
Assessment Method (NC SAM) were used to assess the functions and values of a
representative sampling of wetlands and streams throughout the project area. Common NC
WAM wetland types within the project area include Riverine Swamp Forest, Non -Tidal
Freshwater Marsh, Headwater Forest, and Bottomland Hardwood Forest. NC WAM and NC
SAM recognize three major functions (Hydrology, Water Quality, and Habitat) that are rated
based on several sub -functions. The majority of streams were dry or had water only in pools
during field assessments conducted between July 2017 and November 2017. Lack of water in
streams resulted in low functional ratings in one or more of the three major categories. Low
functional ratings indicate that these streams fail to support aquatic life throughout large portions
of the year. However, most of the streams within the project area received a medium overall NC
SAM rating because they are relatively stable channels with a mature wooded buffer.
45
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
Wetlands within the project area are small (average wetland size is 0.3 acre). Most of these
wetlands are headwater forests located adjacent to first order tributaries. Overall NC WAM
ratings were medium for the majority of wetlands onsite due to a variety of factors including low
surface storage capacity, presence of invasive species, and disturbed vegetated communities.
A summary of NC SAM and NC WAM ratings are provided below in Tables 15 and 16.
Individual NC WAM and NC SAM data forms are available upon request.
Table 15. NC WAM Summary
Wetland Types in Project Area
Average Overall Wetland Rating
Headwater Forest
Medium
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
High
Riverine Swamp Forest
Medium
Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh
Low
Table 16. NC SAM Summary
Stream Types in Project Area
Average Overall Stream Rating
Intermittent
Medium
Perennial
Medium
5.5.1.3 Floodplains
There are two streams with FEMA Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) directly impacted by
the Proposed Project. Dodsons Lake Tributary 1, located on panel 3710871700J, and Sandy
Creek Tributary 7, located on panel 3710871700J and 3710871800K of the Randolph County
Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) with an effective date of 1/2/2008. Both of these streams
have Limited Detailed Studies that defined a 100-year SFHA and Non -Encroachment Area.
There are two additional streams with SFHAs and Non -Encroachment Areas that will be revised
to reflect the proposed changes in the 100-year peak discharges that will increase due to the
increase in the watershed impervious area.
5.5.2 Potential Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation
Measures
5.5.2.1 Surface Waters and Wetlands
Implementation of the Proposed Project would result in direct impacts to streams, wetlands, and
open water. A 1,000-acre construction pad would be required to accommodate the facility and
associated utilities and infrastructure. The construction pad would result in impacts to 6,806
linear feet of intermittent stream, 29,656 linear feet of perennial stream, 8.4 acres of
jurisdictional wetlands, and 21.3 acres of open water. No buffer impacts would result from the
pad because streams impacted by the pad are in the Deep River watershed and are not subject
to Jordan Lake Buffer Rules. Transportation and utility improvements associated with the
Proposed Project would impact an additional 0.4 acres of jurisdictional wetlands, 0.5 acres of
open water, 1,290 linear feet of intermittent stream, and 3,657 linear feet of perennial stream.
Zone 1 and Zone 2 buffer impacts associated with offsite utilities are anticipated along streams
subject to the Jordan Lake Buffer Rules; however, these impacts are anticipated to be exempt
46
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
because buffer impacts should be equal to or less than 40 linear feet with a proposed
maintenance corridor equal to or less than 10 feet in width at jurisdictional crossings. Table 17
presents a summary of impacts to jurisdictional water resources caused by the Proposed
Project.
Table 17. Summary of Project Impacts to Jurisdictional Water Resources
Summary of Project Impacts to Jurisdictional Water Resources
Project Component
Temporary Stream (LF)
Permanent Stream (LF)
Wetland (AC)
Open Water
(AC)
I
P
Total
I
P
Total
Temporary
Permanent
Permanent
Main Site
109
369
478
6,806
29,656
36,462
0.00
8.42
21.34
Transportation
0
0
0
1,290
3,657
4,947
0.00
0.40
0.50
Water/Sewer"
165
126
291
110
83
193
0.51
0.00
0.00
Duke Power
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.20
0.00
0.00
Total
274
495
769
8,206
33,396
41,602
0.71
8.82
21.84
Total Stream Impacts
42,371
Total Wetland Impacts
9.53
Total Open Water Impacts
21.84
Potential mitigation assuming a maximum of 2:1 for al permanent stream and wetland impacts.
Stream
82,818
Wetland
18
*Permanent impacts noted in the water/sewer impacts are from bank stabilization and are not included in the mitigation totals.
Several alternatives were evaluated during the design process in an effort to avoid and minimize
impacts to jurisdictional resources. The selected option results in the least amount of impacts to
jurisdictional water resources. The developer would attempt to avoid and minimize impacts to
water resources by designing perpendicular road and utility crossings, where feasible, and
utilizing erosion control Best Management Practices (BM Ps) to minimize impacts associated
with offsite sedimentation.
Mitigation bank credits are expected to be used if available and practicable prior to impacts that
require compensatory mitigation. At present, mitigation for the Proposed Project is expected to
be provided through payment to the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services. HDR has
met with Division of Mitigation Services representatives, who have confirmed their ability to
satisfy the credit needs for this project. Although the focus of the meeting was on impacts within
the Deep River Watershed (HUC 03030003) where the majority of impacts will occur, mitigation
for impacts within the Haw River Watershed (HUC 03030002) related to water and sewer
extensions is also expected to be provided through payment to the North Carolina Division of
Mitigation Services. Although the majority of streams onsite fail to support aquatic life
throughout portions of the year, total permanent impacts associated with the Proposed Project
(including utilities and transportation improvements) are anticipated to be fully mitigated at a
ratio of less than 2:1 for stream and wetland impacts (i.e. two stream/wetland credits required
for each linear foot or acre of impact). A 2:1 ratio, used for analysis in this document, would
require 82,818 stream credits and 18 wetland credits. Impacts to buffers along streams subject
to the Jordan Lake Buffer Rules would be a direct result of improvements to offsite utilities and
are not expected to require mitigation.
5.5.2.2 Floodplains
The Proposed Project would remove approximately 3,000 feet of the Dodsons Lake Tributary 1
SFHA and Non -Encroachment Area and approximately 2,900 feet of the Sandy Creek Tributary
47
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
7 SFHA and Non -Encroachment Area due to the placement of project fill. Downstream of the
project fill, the SFHA and Non -Encroachment Areas would be modified to reflect the proposed
changes in the 100-year peak discharges due to the increase in the watershed impervious area.
Approximately 1.7 miles of the Dodsons Lake SFHA and Non -Encroachment Area on panel
3710871700J would be revised from the confluence of Dodsons Lake 2 to the confluence with
Sandy Creek and approximately 1.2 miles of the Sandy Creek SFHA and Non -Encroachment
Area on panel 3710871700J and 3710871600J from the confluence of Dodsons Lake to the
confluence of Sandy Creek Tributary 2.
These revisions to the FEMA FIRM panels would be approved by Randolph County Floodplain
Administrator and a Conditional Letter of Map Revision would be obtained from FEMA prior to
performing any construction activities.
5.5.2.3 Potential Impact to Surface Water Quality and Mitigation Strategies
5.5.2.3.1 Construction
The Proposed Project would result in the clearing of existing vegetation and denuding of
earthen surfaces, which would increase the likelihood of erosion and sediment transport via
surface runoff. These processes would occur during the construction phase and, if not properly
managed, could create downstream impacts such as sedimentation offsite and increased
surface water turbidity. The land -disturbing activities associated with the development of the site
are subject to the North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973. As such,
development of the site would comply with the standards outlined in Subchapter 04B
Sedimentation Control of the North Carolina Administrative Code (15A NCAC 04B). The
developer would submit erosion and sediment control plans to the Winston-Salem Regional
Office of the NCDEQ for review, approval, and coordination with their staff. Furthermore, the
developer would obtain concurrent coverage under the State's NPDES Stormwater Permit for
Construction Activities NCG010000 effective August 1, 2016.
Given the scale of the Proposed Project, the management of construction site runoff would
utilize a variety of erosion and sediment controls and BM Ps. These controls and practices would
be applied in a manner to limit erosion potential, capture sediment effectively, provide
redundancy against failure, and restore stabilized surfaces expeditiously. In addition, a phased
approach would be utilized to sequence land -disturbing activities and manage the dynamic
conditions of the site as areas are being disturbed and subsequently stabilized.
5.5.2.3.2 Post -Construction Runoff
The Proposed Project would result in the creation of 1,000 acres of buildable area to support
automotive manufacturing operations for the site. This change in land use and addition of
impervious area would result in an increase of the rate, volume, timing, and characteristics of
stormwater runoff. These changes have deleterious impacts on downstream surface waters and
ecological systems if not managed. The developer would manage runoff consistent with state
stormwater design criteria and/or local watershed regulations.
The site is located in a Class III Water Supply Watershed for Sandy Creek. Non -point source
and stormwater pollution control criteria for the watershed include controlling runoff from the first
inch of rainfall with structural stormwater control measures (SCMs) and removing 85 percent
48
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
average annual amount of total suspended solids. The use of SCMs further requires the control
of the post -development peak discharge rate for the one-year 24-hour storm to the pre -
development discharge rate. In addition to water quality and detention requirements, the SCMs
would also be designed to provide protection from downstream flooding impacts typically
associated with development. SCMs would be selected to provide management of the post -
construction runoff in accordance with the aforementioned criteria. The SCMs would be
designed in accordance with the latest version of the NCDEQ Stormwater Design Manual.
HDR has begun to develop a conceptual strategy to managing the post -construction runoff to
understand the number, location, and approximate sizing of SCMs. The site is likely to have
three outfall points whereby the criteria would be individually or collectively met for the entire
site. Given the amount of post -construction runoff to be produced by the site, HDR has selected
permanent wet ponds as the primary SCM. Wet ponds provide water quality treatment, maintain
deep pools tolerant of temperature fluctuations associated with industrial runoff, and are
capable of storing large volumes of water for detention and flood control requirements. The
resulting SCMs would impound an excess of 50 acre-feet, thus making these SCMs subject to
regulations under the NCDEQ's Dam Safety Program.
5.5.2.3.3 Runoff from Industrial Activities
It is unclear at this time what NPDES Industrial Stormwater permits would apply to the potential
automotive manufacturing, production, and assembly activities that would occur on the site. An
evaluation of the applicability of the state's collection of industrial general permits will be
performed and applicable permits will be identified and obtained.
Biotic Communities
5.6.1 Description of Affected Environment
As described in Section 5.2.1.2, the GRMS is located in the Southern Outer Piedmont level IV
ecoregion within the Piedmont level III ecoregion. The Southern Outer Piedmont has lower
elevations, less relief, and less precipitation than the Southern Inner Piedmont. The landform
class is mostly irregular plains rather than plains with hills. Pine (mostly loblolly and shortleaf)
dominates old field sites and pine plantations, while mixed oak forest is found in less heavily
altered areas. Gneiss, schist, and granite are typical rock types, covered with deep saprolite and
mostly red, clayey subsoils. Kanhapludults are common soils, such as the Cecil, Appling, and
Madison series. Some areas within this region have more alkaline soils, such as the Iredell
series, formed over diabase, diorite, or gabbro, and may be associated with areas once known
as blackjack oak prairies. The communities within the GRMS site have been heavily influenced
by historical and ongoing agricultural activities.
5.6.1.1 Terrestrial Communities
Based on HDR's review of aerial photography, the previous Natural Resources Technical
Report (NRTR) (ECS, 2017), and ground-truthing, the 1,825-acre site contains four general
habitat types: piedmont bottomland forest, dry mesic oak hickory forest, dry oak hickory forest,
and maintained/disturbed areas, as further described below.
49
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
5.6.1.1.1 Piedmont Bottomland Forest
The piedmont bottomland forest community type typically occurs on lower terraces, ridges, and
flat floodplains without a substantial component of upland species. The vegetation community is
comprised of a mature woody canopy consisting of red maple (Acer rubrum), tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), box elder (Acer negundo), American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis),
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and American elm (Ulmus americana). The shrub layer is
sparse and consists of box elder, American elm, sweetgum, and black willow (Salix nigra). The
herbaceous and vine layer includes giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), Asiatic day flower
(Commelina communis), Japanese stilt grass (Microstegium vimineum), trumpet creeper
(Campsis radicans), muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans).
5.6.1.1.2 Dry Mesic Oak Hickory Forest
The dry mesic oak hickory forest community type is one of the most common types in the North
Carolina Piedmont and generally covers dry mesic forests of acidic upland slopes and ridges.
The mature woody canopy is comprised of red maple, red oak (Quercus rubra), white oak
(Quercus alba), black oak (Quercus velutina), mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa), pignut
hickory (Carya glabra), redcedar (Juniperus virginiana), American beech (Fagus grandifolia),
sweetgum, and tulip poplar. The shrub layer is sparse and includes flowering dogwood (Corpus
florida), black cherry (Prunus serotina), and strawberry bush (Euonymus americana). The
herbaceous and vine layer is sparse and includes Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides),
poison ivy, and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica).
5.6.1.1.3 Dry Oak Hickory Forest
The dry oak hickory forest community type is similar to the dry mesic oak hickory forest and
generally covers the driest forests of acidic upland slopes and ridges. The mature woody
canopy is comprised of southern red oak, sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum), red maple, white
oak, black oak, mockernut hickory, redcedar, sweetgum, and tulip poplar. The shrub layer is
sparse and includes flowering dogwood, black cherry, and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). The
herbaceous and vine layer includes Christmas fern, poison ivy, and Japanese honeysuckle.
5.6.1.1.4 Maintained/Disturbed Areas
Maintained/disturbed areas within the project tract are comprised of roadsides, agricultural
fields, maintained residential lawns and the Duke Energy transmission line corridor. The
maintained areas are being utilized for agricultural crops and livestock grazing, are periodically
mowed, and there is evidence of spraying woody species along the transmission line corridor.
These activities result in a community dominated by an herbaceous layer lacking an overstory
or midstory. The herbaceous layer includes broom sedge (Andropogon virginicus), blackberry
(Rubus argutus), panic grass (Panicum spp.), goldenrod (Solidago spp.), fescue (Lolium spp.),
and thistle (Cirsium spp.).
5.6.1.2 Terrestrial Wildlife
Overall, the project area provides suitable habitat for generalist wildlife species. During the
October 25 through November 3, 2016 field reconnaissance performed by ECS and the
September 18-22, 2017 and October 25-13, 2017 field reconnaissance performed by HDR,
50
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
various wildlife species or their signs were observed. Species observed included rufous sided
towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus), common crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), great blue heron
(Ardea herodias), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata) northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), red -
shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), caroling chickadee
(Poecile carolinensis), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura),
northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), tufted titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor), brown thrasher
(Toxostoma rufum), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus
floridanus), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), raccoon (Procyon lotor), Virginia opossum
(Didelphis virginiana), groundhog (Marmota monax), eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina),
and black rat snake (Pantherophis obsoletus).
5.6.1.3 Fish, Crustaceans, Mollusks, and Other Aquatic Organisms
Aquatic organisms such as fish and crustaceans inhabit the streams and wetlands located
throughout the project tract. These include bluehead chub, redlip shiner, northern dusky
salamander, various crayfish species, redbreast sunfish, and various macroinvertebrate
species. The ponds and Dodsons Lake could support bluegill, various catfish species,
largemouth bass, green frog, and banded water snake.
5.6.2 Potential Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation
Measures
5.6.2.1 Terrestrial Communities
Implementation of the Proposed Project would result in direct impacts to vegetation.
Approximately 1,500 acres of forested area would be cleared, resulting in the long-term
conversion of most of the project area to a mix of impervious buildings and infrastructure
surrounded by grass and herbaceous vegetation. Direct impacts to forested areas would occur
under the Proposed Project; however, the acreage of wooded area that would be permanently
cleared for this project is minimal compared to the amount of similar habitat present in the
project vicinity.
Taking into consideration the large amount of similar habitats in the area regionally and locally,
the loss of the existing vegetation would be considered a minor impact. The surrounding area
consists of very similar vegetated habitats and the loss or transformation of the approximately
1,500 acres of vegetation in this context would be relatively small. Indirect impacts are possible
if the existing vegetation is part of a larger system that relies on these particular plant
communities for regional propagation and genetic diversity. Due to the large amount of similar
habitat and plant communities surrounding the properties, however, this impact is unlikely or
would be very minor.
5.6.2.2 Terrestrial Wildlife
Direct impacts to wildlife are anticipated due to development of the Proposed Project. Much of
the wildlife living within the Proposed Project footprint would be displaced by construction
activities. Most species, especially those requiring more extensive, relatively un-fragmented
areas, would find the converted areas unsuitable. Species occupying the forested areas that
would be cleared would be permanently displaced. These forested areas are relatively
51
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
fragmented limiting the diversity of the wildlife species they support. They also make up a small
proportion of the forested habitat in the surrounding area.
Overall, direct impacts to wildlife would be permanent but minor. These impacts would be
minimized by the ability of mobile species to colonize adjacent similar habitat, which is highly
abundant. Indirect impacts would be temporary and very minor as species colonize adjacent
habitats.
5.6.2.3 Fish, Crustaceans, Mollusks, and Other Aquatic Organisms
The proposed site work would involve placing fill material in waters of the United States to
construct buildings and associated infrastructure for an automotive manufacturing, production,
and assembly facility. The fill would result in the direct loss of streams and wetlands, which in
turn would have an adverse effect on populations of fish and crustaceans by removing their
habitat. Mitigation for the loss of stream and wetland habitats would be provided through the
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services. The mitigation of streams and wetlands would
provide new habitat, thus promoting the re -population of fish and crustaceans to the new
mitigation areas.
5.7 Protected Species
5.7.1 Description of Affected Environment
Plants and animals federally listed as threatened and endangered are protected under the
Endangered Species Act (P.L. 92-205), which is administered and enforced by the USFWS. The
bald eagle is federally protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act. An NRTR was prepared by ECS in 2017 that documented the results
of a literature search, a review of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database, and
onsite habitat assessment for federally endangered and threatened species for the Proposed
Project. In addition to the information provided in the 2017 NRTR, a Cape Fear shiner survey
was performed by Rummel Klepper & Kahl, LLP on September 26, 2017.
A current list of federally endangered and threatened species for Randolph and Guilford
Counties was compiled from the USFWS Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office website in
November 2017 (Table 18).
52
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
Table 18. Current List of Federally Endangered and Threatened Species in Randolph
and Guilford Counties, North Carolina and their Habitat Types
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
General Habitat Type
Randolph County
Cape Fear
shiner
Notropis
mekistocholas
E
gravel, cobble, and boulder substrates, and has been
observed in slow pools, riffles, and slow runs
Schweinitz's
sunflower
Helianthus
schweinitzii
E
full to partial sun and areas with poor soils, such as
thin clays that vary from wet to dry
Guilford County
Bald eagle
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
BGEPA
coastlines, rivers, large lakes or streams
Small whorled
pogonia
lsotria medeoloides
T
Areas with sparse to moderate ground cover
Source: USFWS 2017a, 2017b
BGEPA = Federally protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
E = Federally endangered
T = Threatened
5.7.1.1 Cape Fear Shiner
The Cape Fear shiner is known only from the Cape Fear River watershed. In general, the
species is found in streams with clean gravel, cobble, or boulder substrates. It is most often
observed inhabiting slow pools, riffles, and slow runs associated with water willow (Justicia
americana) beds, which it uses for cover. Juveniles can be found inhabiting slackwater, among
large rock outcrops, and in flooded side channels and pools. Spawning occurs from May
through June, when water temperatures reach 66 degrees Fahrenheit.
5.7.1.2 Schweinitz's Sunflower
Schweinitz's sunflower is endemic to the Piedmont of North and South Carolina. The few sites
where this rhizomatous perennial herb occurs in relatively natural vegetation are in xeric
hardpan forests. The species is also found along roadside rights -of -way, maintained power lines
and other utility rights -of -way, edges of thickets and old pastures, clearings, and edges of
upland oak -pine -hickory woods, Piedmont longleaf pine forests, and other sunny or semi -sunny
habitats where disturbances (e.g., mowing, clearing, grazing, blow downs, storms, frequent fire)
help create open or partially open areas for sunlight. The species is intolerant of full shade and
excessive competition from other vegetation. Schweinitz's sunflower occurs in a variety of soil
series, including Badin, Cecil, Cid, Enon, Gaston, Georgeville, Iredell, Mecklenburg,
Misenheimer, Secrest, Tatum, Uwharrie, and Zion, among others. It generally grows in shallow,
sandy soils with high gravel content; shallow, poor, clayey hardpans; or shallow rocky soils,
especially those derived from mafic rocks (USFWS, 1991).
5.7.1.3 Bald Eagle
Bald eagles occur throughout much of the continental U.S. and Canada. The species frequently
builds nests in live pines or cypress trees near large bodies of open water and may congregate
around fish processing plants, dumps, and below dams where fish congregate. Nests typically
measure 6 to 8 feet deep and 6 feet in diameter, and are cone shaped. Bald eagles are
opportunistic feeders and consume a variety of prey, which may be self -caught, scavenged, or
robbed from other bird species. The threat to this species is attributed to disturbance and
53
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
destruction of foraging and nesting habitat by urban and residential development (USFWS,
1978).
Small -whorled Pogonia
Small -whorled pogonia occurs in young as well as maturing (second to third successional
growth) mixed -deciduous or mixed-deciduous/coniferous forests. It does not appear to exhibit
strong affinities for a particular aspect, soil type, or underlying geologic substrate. In North
Carolina, the perennial orchid is typically found in open, dry deciduous woods and is often
associated with white pine and rhododendron. The species may also be found on dry, rocky,
wooded slopes; moist slopes; ravines lacking stream channels; or slope bases near braided
channels of vernal streams. The orchid, often limited by shade, requires small light gaps or
canopy breaks, and typically grows under canopies that are relatively open or near features like
logging roads or streams that create long -persisting breaks in the forest canopy.
5.7.1.5 Potential Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures
5.7.1.5.1 Cape Fear Shiner
Based on the distance from the project area to known Cape Fear shiner records, and the
presence of two dams isolating Sandy Creek from possible colonization from known
downstream populations, no impacts to this species are anticipated.
.3.7.1.5.2 Schweinitz's Sunflower
Suitable habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower is present along open field edges, road edges, and
within the maintained Duke Energy transmission right-of-way. No individuals of this plant were
observed within the identified suitable habitat during HDR field surveys conducted from
September 18 through 22, 2017. Therefore, no impacts to this species are anticipated.
J. 7.1.5.3 Bald Eagle
Suitable foraging habitat exists for the bald eagle at Dodsons Lake. However, no impacts to the
lake are expected and no eagle nests have been documented in this area.
In addition, a concurrence letter from the USFWS related to the GRMS dated September 29,
2017 states, "The Service concurs with your determination that this action would have no effect
determinations for proposed/listed species and/or proposed/designated critical habit, and no
Eagle Act permit required. This concurrence pertains only to the proposed site; however,
concurrence for additional infrastructure improvements will be obtained. In view of this, we
believe that the requirements of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act have been satisfied"
(Appendix C).
5.7.1.5.4 Small -whorled Pogonia
Suitable habitat for small -whorled pogonia is present in canopy gaps throughout the upland
forested communities within the project area. No individuals of this plant were observed within
the identified suitable habitat during HDR field surveys. No impacts to this species are
anticipated.
54
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
5.8 Cultural Resources
5.8.1 Description of Affected Environment
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. conducted an archaeological Investigation of
the Proposed Project area in 2015. Prior to the field investigation, a review of cultural resources
(archaeological and architectural sites) on file with the North Carolina Department of Cultural
Resources was conducted.
The file review identified previously recorded resources in the project area, as well as data on
the prehistoric and historic context of the project area. The background research identified one
archaeological site within the project boundaries. Site 31 RD1011 was described as a Woodland
Period site from which lithic debitage and tools were recovered. The Office of State Archaeology
maps show site 31 RD1011 straddling Dodsons Lake. In an attempt to locate the site, all
exposed ground surface surrounding the lake was examined. No indications of prehistoric
activity were observed.
The 2015 field reconnaissance determined that the majority of the southern portion of the
project area had been adversely impacted by a variety of land use practices and activities,
including farming, impoundment of lakes, and construction of an electrical transmission line.
Evidence of prehistoric activities was abundant in the northern portion of the project area. Good
ground surface visibility in fields and clear-cut areas allowed for the identification of numerous
prehistoric artifact occurrences. Six farmsteads or barn complexes with both standing and
collapsed buildings were identified. These findings in the northern part of the project area
warrant further investigation.
5.8.2 Potential Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation
Measures
Based on the findings of the initial field investigation by Archaeological Consultants of the
Carolinas, Inc. in 2015, it was determined that additional investigation in the southern portion of
the project area would not be productive in identifying significant cultural resources due to its
eroded soil and the wide variety of past disturbances. During the more intense investigation of
the northern portion of the project area, 34 archaeological resources were identified. Despite the
recovery of abundant artifacts, particularly diagnostic artifacts, erosion and modern day land use
activities have adversely impacted all of the archaeological resources identified. None retains
the potential for intact subsurface deposits or has any likelihood of preserved cultural features
being present. Therefore, all identified archaeological resources are ineligible for the National
Register of Historic Places.
In addition to the above findings, two concurrence letters were issued by the North Carolina
Department of Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office (Appendix D). The first
letter, dated June 18, 2015, concurred with the findings from Archaeological Consultants of the
Carolinas, Inc.'s 2015 archaeological survey report that, due to the generally eroded nature of
the soils within the project area, none of the sites retain stratigraphic integrity or contain
information important to prehistory or history.
55
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
The second letter, dated September 27, 2017, addressed additional parcels located outside of
the 2015 project area. The letter concurred that, based on the results of Archaeological
Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.'s 2015 archaeological survey of the originally Proposed
Project, it is unlikely that any archaeological sites which may be eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places would be affected by the addition of this acreage and any
subsequent development. The letter also recommended that no archaeological investigations be
conducted on the additional properties (Appendix D), and determined that the Proposed Project
would not affect any historic structures.
No eligible resources were identified in the project area; therefore, no potential impacts to
eligible resources are expected.
5.9 Aesthetics and Visual Resources
5.9.1 Description of Affected Environment
The Proposed Project would change the physical appearance of the existing property. The site
is primarily comprised of agricultural areas and forests. There are utility crossings and local
roads as well as unimproved roads within the site. Dodsons Lake exists to the south of the site
with the majority of streams located on site draining to this Lake. There are additional farm
ponds throughout and a few residential homes remain along the periphery of the property.
5.9.2 Potential Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation
Measures
An approximate 1,000-acre manufacturing, production, and assembly facility, two interchanges
along US 421, other site and adjacent road improvements, and other infrastructure
improvements are planned for the GRMS property. Vegetated buffers estimated to be at least
150 feet average width would be maintained on the property boundaries in areas with
manufacturing uses. The area is rural in nature with large lots and/or farms; however, several
residences occur outside of the project boundary particularly along the eastern boundary. The
proposed pad location allows for vegetated buffers in excess of 150 feet along the eastern
boundary. The facility and proposed infrastructure (roads, rail spur, and utilities) would be visible
from adjacent residences; however, the vegetated buffer would act to minimize those impacts.
5.10 Socioeconomic Impacts
5.10.1 Description of Affected Environment
5.10.1.1 Population
The population of Guilford and Randolph Counties, as reported in the 2010 U.S. Census, is
488,406 and 141,752, respectively. The Demographic Study Area (DSA) includes three Block
Groups within Randolph County that encompass the GRMS development. The DSA had a
population of 4,693 in 2010. Population trends are presented in Table 19.
56
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
Table 19. North Carolina, Guilford County, Randolph County, and Project Area Population
1990-2010
Area
1990
2000
2010
Percent Increase
1990-2010
Guilford County
347,420
421,048
488,406
40.6
Randolph County
106,546
130,454
141,752
33.0
Demographic Study Area*
N/A
N/A
4,693
N/A
North Carolina
6,628,637
8,049,313
9,535,483
43.9
United States
248,709,873
281,421,906
308,745,538
24.1
Source: US Census Bureau, 1990, 2000, and 2010 Decennial Census.
*The DSA includes Census Tract (CT) 312, Block Groups (BG) 1 and 2, and CT 313.06, BG 3. Changes in BG
boundaries between 1990 and 2010 prohibit an accurate comparison of population changes.
5.10.1.2 Employment and Income
Guilford and Randolph Counties had average employment of 277,809 and 44,739 in 2016,
respectively (North Carolina Department of Commerce, Labor & Economic Analysis). American
Community Survey data from the U.S. Census Bureau reports that per capita personal income
in Guilford County in 2016 inflation -adjusted dollars was $28,004, representing 90.0 percent of
the national average of $31,128 and slightly below the state average of $28,156. Per capita
personal income in Randolph County was $22,075, representing 70.9 percent of the national
average and notably lower than the state average (Table 20).
Table 20. Per Capita Personal Income in Last 12 Months (2016 Inflation -Adjusted Dollars),
North Carolina, Guilford County, and Randolph County
Area
Per Capita Personal Income
Percent of National Average Income
Guilford County
$28,004
90.0
Randolph County
$22,075
70.9
North Carolina
$28,156
90.5
United States
$31,128
100
Source: US Census Bureau, 2016 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B19301
Note: All dollars are 2016 inflation -adjusted dollars.
5.10.2 Potential Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation
Measures
It is estimated the construction cost of a transformational automotive manufacturing, production,
and assembly facility would be $1.6 billion (2017$). A vehicle manufacturing facility is assumed
for the following economic calculations. Facilities typically scale -up production and employment
over time (see Appendix E for the complete socioeconomic analysis). Based on experience at
similar locations that attract a transformational automotive manufacturing, production, and
assembly facility, it is assumed that scale -up will take place in three phases:
• Phase 1 with 1,330 direct jobs and 100,000 vehicles produced annually;
• Phase 2 with 2,660 direct jobs and 200,000 vehicles produced annually; and
• Phase 3 with 4,000 direct jobs and 300,000 vehicles produced annually.
57
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
The phased creation of about 4,000 a transformational automotive manufacturing, production,
and assembly jobs is the primary impact sought by the applicant. However, positive economic
impacts are not limited to local impacts, as discussed below.
To convert vehicle numbers to value of production, it is assumed each vehicle has a market
value of approximately $21,000 (2017$). The following table illustrates the economic impacts of
a transformational automotive manufacturing facility within North Carolina (Table 21).
Table 21. Estimated Statewide Economic Impact of Construction of a Transformational
Automotive Manufacturing, Production, and Assembly Facility in North Carolinaa
Effect Type
GDP (value-added)
Employment c
Labor
Compensation
State and Local
Public Revenues
Direct Effect
$816 million
13,782
$596 million
$86 million
Other Effects b
$571 million
8,269
$298 million
$60 million
Total Effect
$1,387 million
22,051
$894 million
$146 million
a leakage rate for direct effect and multipliers for other effects and total effects are from 1MPLAN for North Carolina,
LLC, Huntersville, North Carolina; b indirect and induced effects; c person -years
Note: all dollars are quoted in 2017 purchasing power dollars.
5.10.2.1 Construction
The first set of estimated economic impacts are from construction of the facility and are given in
Table 22. Employment is measured in "person -years," where a one person -year is one job held
by a person for one year. State and local public revenues are calculated as 10.5 percent of
gross domestic product (GDP).' The economic impacts are aggregated over the period of
construction. The numbers are significant, with a boost to statewide GDP of almost $1.4 billion,
an addition to employment person -years of over 22,000 during the construction period, a gain of
almost $900 million in labor compensation, and an increase of $146 million in state and local
public revenues.2
The 10.5% rate is based on an analysis of multi -year data for North Carolina from the U.S. Census Bureau and the
U.S. Department of Commerce.
2 It should be noted that state and local public revenues are not in addition to GDP, but instead are an allocation of
part of GDP.
58
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
Table 22. Estimated Annual Economic Impacts of a Transformational Automotive
Manufacturing, Production, and Assembly Facility in North Carolina for Three Phases of
Operationa
Parameter
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
GDP (value-added)
Direct
$420 million
$840 million
$1,260 million
Other
$462 million
$924 million
$1,386 million
Total
$882 million
$1,764 million
$2,646 million
Employment
Direct
1,330
2,660
4,000
Other
3,325
6,650
9,975
Total
4,655
9,310
13,975
Labor Compensation
Direct
$117 million
$234 million
$351 million
Other
$164 million
$328 million
$492 million
Total
$281 million
$562 million
$843 million
State and Local Public Revenues
$93 million
$186 million
$279 million
a leakage rate for direct effect and multipliers for other effects and total effects are from 1MPLAN for North Carolina,
LLC, Huntersville, North Carolina
Note: all dollars are quoted in 2017 purchasing power dollars.
5.10.2.2 Operation
The second set of estimated economic impacts are from the annual production of the facility
once the automotive manufacturing, production, and assembly facility is operational. The
estimates are presented for the aforementioned three phases of operation. After taking into
account supply -chain and induced consumer spending impacts, during Phase 1 statewide GDP
would be $882 million higher, employment would be higher by 4,655 permanent positions, labor
compensation would be $281 million higher, and state and local public revenues would be
boosted by $93 million during each year of the phase. During Phase 2, statewide GDP would be
$1,764 million higher, employment would be higher by 9,310 permanent positions, labor
compensation would be up $562 million, and state and local public revenues would be
augmented by $186 million during each year of the phase. In Phase 3, statewide GDP would be
$2,646 million higher, employment would be higher by 13,975 permanent positions, labor
compensation would be $843 million higher, and state and local public revenues would gain
$279 million during each year of the phase. All of the comparisons are to the economic situation
without the transformational automotive facility being built and operated.
5.10.2.3 Conclusions
The phased creation of about 4,000 automotive manufacturing, production, and assembly jobs
is the primary impact sought by the applicant. Based on an analysis of previous economic
impact studies in other states and an application of North Carolina's existing economic
structure, the location of a transformational automotive manufacturing, production, and
assembly facility in the state would have major positive economic results. Assuming the facility
ultimately employs 4,000 direct workers, the annual impacts on the state economy are
estimated to be a $2.6 billion increase to GDP, an addition of almost 14,000 permanent jobs, an
59
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
increase in labor compensation of $843 million, and an addition of $279 million to state and local
public revenues. There would also be positive impacts while the facility is constructed.
5.11 Environmental Justice
5.11.1 Description of Affected Environment
U.S. Census Bureau data (American Community Survey 5-year Estimates 2011-2015, Table
C17002) indicates a notable presence of populations meeting the criteria for Environmental
Justice within the Demographic Study Area. Figure 14 shows the demographic study area.
GUILFORD CO 1NTY
�RANDOLPH OUNTY
r��
yr 4j94
%Iti��1��—
Aire
Q Project GRMS
Q DSA
17-1 CT 312, BG 1
r=1 CT 312, BG 2
I%a CT 313.06, BG 3
Liberty
Staley
_I County Boundary
Roadway Improvements
Major Road
Road
Railroad
_4
A
2
Miles
T 312, v
v
BG�
I a
IQ
}-a
—
LIBERTY O=
1 V,-
a
0
z
aI›-
Lz
0
STALEY
ti
kx
U
4
DSA= Demographic Study Area
CT = Census Tract
BG = Block Group
Figure 13. Demographic Study Area
Census Tract 312, Block Group 2 exceeds the threshold for low-income populations by having
populations greater than 25 percent that identify as Below Poverty Level and Near Poor.
A manufactured housing community is located to the west of Julian Airport Road (SR 2502)
between US 421 and Old 421 Road. Based on aerial photography, there are approximately 50
manufactured homes in the community.
5.11.2 Potential Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation
Measures
Notably adverse community impacts are anticipated with the Proposed Project, but appear to
affect all populations equally; thus, impacts to minority and low-income populations do not
appear to be disproportionately high and adverse. Benefits and burdens resulting from the
60
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
Proposed Project are anticipated to be equitably distributed throughout the community. No
disparate impacts are anticipated under Title VI and related statutes.
Public involvement should include activities and outreach materials appropriately focused on
environmental justice populations. Public involvement and outreach activities should ensure full
and fair participation of all potentially affected communities in the decision -making process.
Traffic and Transportation
5.12.1 Description of Affected Environment
5.12.1.1 Existing Conditions
US 421 is a multi -lane highway in the vicinity of the Proposed Project with a 60 mph posted
speed limit that travels north -south and provides access to 1-40, 1-85, and US-64. There are four
at -grade intersections along the property frontage on US 421 as follows: Shiloh Road/Starmount
Road, Browns Meadow Road, Julian Airport Road, and Colonial Trading Path/Shiloh Road.
Currently, US 421 does not meet federal standards for interstates.
NC-62 (Liberty Road) is a two-lane highway stretching from Old 421 Road to High Point. NC-62
intersects Liberty Road/Old 421 Road with an at -grade intersection in the project study area and
a grade separated interchange with US 421 adjacent to the study area. SR 1006 (Old 421
Road) is a two-lane roadway that runs along the northern boundary of the project area providing
access to NC-62 (Liberty Road). SR 2408 (Browns Meadow Road) is a two-lane facility that
currently travels through the project area and primarily services agricultural land uses. SR 2407
(Shiloh Road/Starmount Road) is a two-lane facility running east -west on the southern border of
the project area and primarily services agricultural land uses. SR 2502 (Julian Airport Road) is a
two-lane facility running north -south on the western border of the project area connecting Shiloh
Road to Old 421 Road and serves primarily residential land uses. SR 2407 (Colonial Trading
Path) and SR 2403 (Old Red Cross Road) are two-lane major collectors to the west of the
project area, and both are used for accessing residences and agricultural land uses. SR 2412
(Bulb Road), Skyline Avenue, SR 2405 (Folger Road), Bache Road, SR 2405 (Old 2nd Street),
SR 2404 (Harold Meadow Road), and SR 2406 (Hollow Hill Road) are all minor facilities to the
west of the project area with two-lane cross sections and provide access to residences and
agricultural land uses.
Recent annual average daily traffic (AADT) counts indicate that approximately 16,500 vehicles
travel US 421 near the GRMS. The next highest traversed roadway within the project area is
NC-62 (Liberty Road) with approximately 4,000 vpd in 2016. SR 1006 (Old 421 Road) carries
approximately 3,000 vpd according to 2016 AADT counts and the remaining roadways within
the project area carry approximately 1,000 vpd or less per day according to recent counts.
5.12.1.2 Level of Service Criteria
A level of service (LOS) for each study intersection is estimated based upon the analysis of
traffic volumes and an intersection's capacity. For signalized and unsignalized intersections, the
LOS is defined by driver delay. There are six letter grades ranging from A to F, with LOS A
representing the best operating conditions and LOS F representing the worst. At unsignalized
61
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
intersections, an LOS E is generally considered acceptable only if the side street encounters
delay.
A corridor's capacity is measured by the LOS it provides based on speed, traffic volumes,
geometric conditions, delays, and freedom to maneuver. This LOS is defined in terms of density
or passenger car per mile per lane (pc/mi/In).
5.12.1.3 Level of Service Estimations
A traffic impact analysis (TIA), sealed on July 18, 2016, was completed for the Proposed
Project. In addition, a TIA update memo dated October 20, 2017 (Appendix F) was completed to
document updated information and assumptions.
Based on the 2016 existing traffic volumes and existing intersection capacities, all movements
at study area intersections (16 study intersections) currently operate at acceptable levels with
the following exceptions:
• US 421/Colonial Trading Path/Shiloh Road
o AM Peak
■ NB Left/Thru/Right — LOS F
■ SB Left/Thru/Right — LOS E
o PM Peak
■ NB Left/Thru/Right — LOS F
■ SB Left/Thru/Right — LOS F
• US 421/Shiloh Road/Starmount Road
o PM Peak
■ EB Left/Thru/Right — LOS E
■ WB Left/Thru/Right — LOS E
In addition to the 2016 traffic impact analysis, a 2026 background analysis was conducted
without any site strips added to the surrounding roadway network. The background traffic
assumed a 0.5 percent ambient growth rate per year. This 2026 background analysis indicates
that all movements at the study intersections are anticipated to operate at acceptable levels with
the following exceptions:
• US 421/Colonial Trading Path/Shiloh Road
o AM Peak
■ NB Left/Thru/Right — LOS F
■ SB Left/Thru/Right — LOS F
o PM Peak
■ NB Left/Thru/Right — LOS F
■ SB Left/Thru/Right — LOS F
62
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
• US 421/Shiloh Road/Starmount Road
o PM Peak
■ EB Left/Thru/Right — LOS E
■ WB Left/Thru/Right — LOS E
The build analysis was conducted assuming three phases: Phase I in 2022 (2,000,000-square-
foot facility), Phase 11 in 2024 (4,000,000-square-foot facility), and Phase III in 2026 (6,000,000-
square-foot facility). The updated traffic impact analysis memos prepared by the Timmons
Group on October 20, 2017 and February 15, 2018 is included in Appendix F). This memo
documented 2036 as the final year of build analysis. Each build analysis assumed the closure of
currently four at -grade intersections with US 421 in the project area: Colonial Trading Path,
Julian Airport Road, Browns Meadow Road, and Shiloh/Starmount Road. Also assumed in each
build analysis was the construction of two interchanges, which would be located near two of the
four proposed closures. One interchange would be constructed as a system interchange to
primarily facilitate site trips and one interchange would be constructed as a service interchange
to facilitate local traffic volumes.
5.12.2 Potential Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation
Measures
The build analysis indicated that all unsignalized movements at the six build study intersections
are projected to operate acceptably during the AM and PM peak hours for all analysis years. In
addition, 95th percentile queue lengths are not anticipated to exceed the available storage.
The US 421 corridor was also analyzed with the final build analysis with respect to anticipated
densities, speeds, and levels of service. All segments are projected to operate at an LOS C or
better with the exception of US 421 southbound north of the proposed interchanges. This
segment is anticipated to operate at an LOS D.
5.13 Utilities
5.13.1 Description of Affected Environment
5.13.1.1 Telecommunications Service
Randolph Communications has fiber optic service to the GRMS; therefore, no extension is
needed.
5.13.1.2 Electric Service
Power service to the project area is currently supplied by Duke Energy.
5.13.1.3 Natural Gas Service
Natural gas service does not currently exist at the GRMS.
63
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
5.13.1.4 Wastewater Service
Currently the GRMS does not have wastewater service and previous homes onsite utilized
septic systems. The City of Greensboro would provide wastewater service to the GRMS.
5.13.1.5 Water Main Service
Currently the GRMS does not have water service and previous homes onsite utilized private
wells. The City of Greensboro would provide water service to the GRMS.
5.13.2 Potential Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation
Measures
5.13.2.1 Telecommunications Service
Telecommunication service is currently available at the site. It is not anticipated that the
extension of services would impact streams or wetlands within the GRMS boundary.
5.13.2.2 Electric Service
Duke Energy provides power to the Proposed Project area; however, a new 100 kV line
would be required for the project. The corridor (right-of-way) width for the 100 kV line
serving the GRMS would be 68 feet wide and adjacent to the existing 500 kV line.
Duke Energy reviewed numerous corridors to determine the best location of the new 100 kV
line. Utilizing the existing 500 kV right of way and access road would minimize impacts to
the greatest extent possible. The existing ground contours generally do not require
alteration for structure installation. Duke Energy would also design the location of
poles/towers to avoid streams and wetlands. Following line construction, the disturbed
areas along the line corridor would be stabilized using native grass mixtures appropriate to
the region.
5.13.2.3 Natural Gas Service
PNG is expected to provide gas service to the GRMS. The route has yet to be determined for
the gas service lines; however, PNG would utilize existing road and utility rights -of -way where
feasible and avoid permanent impacts to jurisdictional resources. Should temporary impacts
occur as a result of improvements to PNG pipelines, they will be accounted for and permitted in
accordance with applicable state and federal requirements.
5.13.2.4 Wastewater Service
Three potential alignments for the water and sewer lines were studied to determine the LEDPA
with regards to the water and wastewater facilities, as described in Section 4.3.5.1. The City of
Greensboro would extend wastewater service from their existing gravity sanitary sewer pipe
along Big Alamance Creek approximately 6 miles northwest of the site. The new line would
parallel Liberty Road for approximately 5 miles, then turn to the south and follow Julian Airport
Road for approximately 1.5 miles, then along US 421 for approximately 2 miles and then 0.25
miles to the proposed pump station near Sandy Creek.
64
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
5.13.2.5 Water Main Service
The City of Greensboro would provide water to the GRMS. The City would build a loop in their
system along NC 62 and Old US 421 (Liberty Road) and tie-in a line dedicated to the GRMS
from the point where Bora Drive and Old US 421 intersect. The loop for the City is
approximately 13 miles and has been planned and is in the City's Improvement Plan. The line to
the GRMS would be approximately 4 miles and dedicated to the GRMS. Serving the GRMS is
allowed by the City based on their regulations.
5.14 Hazardous Materials / Toxic Substances
1 A 4
Description of Affected Environment
Nine Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESA) were completed by ECS for the Proposed
Project from 2015 to 2017. The results of the onsite investigations indicated the presence of
recognized environmental conditions (RECs) within the GRMS as described below.
2015 ESA RECs:
• Septic system associated with Yates American Machine Co. located on Parcel 4
• Stained soil from various machine parts located on Parcel 6
• Stained soil from containers of used oil and unlabeled containers on Parcel 30
• Septic system associated Crutchfields located on Parcel 56
2017 ESA RECs:
• Stained ground surface associated with 55-gallon drums, apparent landfill activities, and
septic system at the Southern Parcel Grouping
• Stained soil associated with used oil drums at 8703 Old 421 Rd
• Stained soil associated with empty gasoline containers at 4895 Hoots Hollow Rd
5.14.2 Potential Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation
Measures
On March 26, 2015, a Phase II Soil Assessment was conducted by ECS (2015a) to further
investigate the 2015 RECs described in Section 5.14.1. The Phase II Soil Assessment included
11 soil borings to collect soil samples up to 5 feet below ground surface. The soil samples were
then analyzed for volatile organic compounds, semi -volatile organic compounds, and total
petroleum hydrocarbons. Soil samples in Parcel 4 and Parcel 56 were non -detect and no further
action was determined necessary. Soil samples in Parcel 6 and Parcel 30 had detections
greater than the State Action Level (ECS, 2015a).
On June 11, 2015, impacted soils were excavated from the site and transported to a licensed
disposal facility. After excavation was complete, confirmation samples were taken from the side
walls and bottom of the excavations. All analyses were reported below State Action Levels and
no further action was deemed necessary (ECS, 2015b).
Mitigation measures will be proposed following completion of the Phase II ESAs.
65
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
5.15 Cumulative Impacts
5.15.1 Consideration of Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts result from the incremental environmental impact of an action when added
to all other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. They can result from
individually minor direct and indirect but collectively significant actions taking place over a period
of time. A cumulative effects assessment was considered for both direct and indirect, or
secondary, impacts. Indirect impacts result from actions that occur later in time or are farther
removed in distance from the original action, but still reasonably foreseeable. Loss of wetlands,
habitat fragmentation, water quality, and land use change was considered in the assessment of
cumulative and indirect impacts related to the Proposed Project.
5.15.. Geographic Scope for the Cumulative Effects Assessment
The geographic scope used for this assessment is the 928,059-acre Deep River Watershed
(HUC 03030003) within the Cape Fear River Basin. The GRMS and associated transportation
corridors are mostly located within the Deep River Watershed. Approximately one percent of the
project area is within the Haw River Watershed (HUC 03030002). Any direct, indirect, or
cumulative impacts related to the Proposed Project would have negligible effects to the Haw
River Watershed aquatic ecosystem. Portions of the utility corridors are located outside the
Deep River Watershed; however, utility alignments are expected to be primarily located within
existing right of ways and easements. Any impacts due to the placement of utilities would be
temporary in nature. The length of new alignment utility corridors outside of the GRMS would be
minor and would not substantially affect the aquatic ecosystem.
5.15.3 Temporal Scope of Assessment
A temporal scope of 25 years (2010-2035) was used for this assessment. This timeframe
captures past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions resulting in environmental
impacts within the Deep River Watershed.
5.15.4 Affected Environment
The Deep River Watershed includes portions of eight counties (Alamance, Chatham, Forsyth,
Guilford, Lee, Montgomery, Moore, and Randolph) and the major urban areas of Asheboro,
Greensboro, High Point, and Sanford. Ninety percent of the watershed is within Randolph (30
percent), Chatham (26 percent), Moore (24 percent), and Guilford (10 percent) Counties. Five
major rivers and creeks characterize the Deep River Watershed: Deep River, Rocky River, Bear
Creek, Cabin Creek, and McLendons Creek.
According to the National Land Cover Database (2011), 12 percent of the Deep River
Watershed is developed (- 111,400 acres), 52 percent is forested, 22 percent is agricultural
(crops/hay/pasture), and less than one percent is open water. National Wetland Inventory
wetlands cover a little more than one percent of the watershed, or approximately 9,300 acres. A
search of the USACE Wilmington District permits database shows six individual permits that
resulted in a total of 9.2 acres of fill in wetlands, a loss of 37,647 linear feet of streams, and 11.2
acres of open water filled were issued in the Deep River Watershed since 2013. A review of
66
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
local land use maps and aerial photography verifies that the majority of the watershed is
undeveloped, agricultural, or rural residential. Dense development is concentrated around the
various cities and towns. Future land use plans indicate land uses would largely remain as they
are currently in much of the watershed, and dense residential, commercial, industrial, and other
development would continue to occur near urban areas.
Ecoregions in the Deep River Watershed include Southern Outer Piedmont (Forsyth, Guilford,
southwest Alamance, and northern Randolph Counties), Carolina Slate Belt (central and
southern Randolph, Chatham, Montgomery, and northwest Moore Counties), Triassic Basins
(Lee and northeast Moore Counties), and Sandhills (central Moore County).
Surface waters from 99 percent of the 1,825-acre project site flow into Sandy Creek.
Downstream and north of Franklinville (from SR 2495 to a point 0.6 mile upstream of NC 22),
Sandy Creek is listed as an impaired water body in the draft 2016 303(d) list for exceeding the
criteria for chlorophyll. Sandy Creek is not on the 2014 303(d) list. The Deep River (into which
Sandy Creek empties) is on the 2014 303(d) list for copper, but is recommended to be delisted
in the draft 2016 303(d) list. There are no outstanding resource waters in the Deep River
Watershed.
Population estimates and projections for the study area were calculated by factoring county
population based on the percentage of each county's land area within the Deep River
Watershed. For example, 2.1 percent of Alamance County's total area of 271,322 acres lies
within the watershed. To get the population of Alamance County within the watershed for any
given year, the total county population was multiplied by 2.1 percent. Using this method, the
watershed's population in 2010 was estimated to be approximately 302,000. It is projected to be
around 377,300 in 2035, representing approximately one percent annual increase. County
population estimates and projections were obtained from the North Carolina Office of State
Budget and Management.
5.15.5 Environmental Consequences
The environmental consequences of the Proposed Project would include the loss of wetlands,
streams, open water, and wildlife habitat. Stream buffer impacts are also anticipated to result
from improvements to offsite utilities; however, impacts are expected to be exempt and no
mitigation would be required.
The Proposed Project would impact 2,954 linear feet of intermittent stream, 34,342 linear feet of
perennial stream, 8.9 acres of jurisdictional wetlands, and 22.6 acres of open water. These
streams do not support any special aquatic organisms or maintain special aquatic site
designation. Many of the streams within the GRMS do not maintain flow during the year and
cannot support aquatic life. Transportation and utility improvements associated with the
Proposed Project would impact an additional 0.4 acres of jurisdictional wetlands, 0.5 acres of
open water, 1,290 linear feet of intermittent stream, and 3,657 linear feet of perennial stream.
Approximately 1,500 acres of forested area would be cleared to accommodate the facility and
associated utilities and infrastructure.
Based on the impacts associated with the USACE-issued permits over the past five years,
approximately 1.8 wetland acres, 7,530 linear feet of streams, and 2.2 acres of open water have
been lost per year. Following these same trends, the Deep River Watershed can be expected to
67
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
lose 32.4 wetland acres, 135,540 linear feet of streams, and 39.6 acres of open water by the
year 2035, in addition to the impacts associated with the Proposed Project.
As stated previously, approximately 111,400 acres of the Deep River Watershed was developed
in 2011, leaving about 816,700 acres undeveloped. If the rate of development is assumed to
follow a similar trend as population growth (about one percent annually), roughly 8,200 acres
would be developed per year. By the year 2035 one-third of the watershed would be developed
(-308,000 acres), leaving approximately 620,000 acres undeveloped. The Proposed Project
would require 1,500 acres of currently undeveloped land, accounting for less than 0.5 percent of
the developed land in 2035.
The presence of a large automotive manufacturing facility may have a minor indirect effect on
land use change in the immediate vicinity of the GRMS as ancillary vendors and suppliers could
choose to locate nearby. However, the Proposed Project is not expected to cause dense
commercial, industrial, or residential development that would cause further impacts to the
aquatic ecosystem in the study area.
5.15.6 Mitigation to Avoid, Minimize or Compensate for Cumulative
=ffects
As described above, cumulative effects on the aquatic ecosystem of the Deep River Watershed
as a result of the Proposed Project are anticipated to be very minor. The site would be
developed to avoid aquatic resources when possible and minimize impacts where resources are
unavoidable. Mitigation for impacts to jurisdictional waters would be accomplished through
payment to the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services. Although the majority of streams
onsite fail to support aquatic life throughout portions of the year, total permanent impacts
associated with the Proposed Project (including utilities and transportation improvements) are
anticipated to be fully mitigated at a maximum of a 2:1 ratio. Stormwater management features
would capture and treat surface water runoff onsite (Appendix G).
There are several federal, state, and local regulations and programs that will assist with
mitigation of Cumulative Impacts within the watershed. These include the ESA; CWA; National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP); stormwater regulations; archaeological protection through
various laws and programs; Sedimentation and Pollution Control Act; and local zoning, planning
ordinances, and growth management plans. In-depth descriptions of these regulations are not
included in this document as the most recent versions of these regulations are available online
and this allows focus on the site -specific local zoning buffers both Randolph and Guilford
Counties have in place for the Proposed Project
The Board of Commissioners for Randolph County and Guilford County have zoning in place
within 1.5 miles of the GRMS boundary. The site itself is zoned as a "Heavy Industrial
Conditional District," which allows industrial parks including automotive, truck, and heavy
equipment manufacturing and assembly. The 1.5-mile zoning "buffer" permits rural
industrial/commercial facilities that would support a major manufacturer, low -density residential
development, and agriculture. High -density residential development is not allowed.
In addition to the 1.5-mile zoning "buffer", the City of Greensboro has stated they have no plans
for sewer or water connections at this time or on the near future. The City's policies do not allow
any connections as most of the project waterline extension is outside of the defined water and
68
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
sewer service area. The Proposed Project is allowed because it fits the City's economic
development criteria and is covered in policy as an exception allowed at city councils discretion.
This limits the location and amount of future growth that could occur within this portion of the
watershed.
Direct and indirect/cumulative impacts are summarized below in Table 23. In addition, local
programs/ordinances (less -well-known than state and federal programs) are identified that
mitigate these impacts.
Table 23. Summary of Direct and Indirect/Cumulative Impacts
Resource
Proposed Action Impact
(Direct Impact)
Indirect/Cumulative
Impacts
Local Program /
Ordinance
Topography and
Floodplains
Clearing, grading, and fill
in floodplains
Decreased flood storage;
increased flow velocities,
and erosion
Unified Development
Ordinance
Soils
Soil displacement or
removal
Increased erosion and
sedimentation; Decreased
water quality and habitat
Unified Development
Ordinance
Land Use
Conversion and rezoning
Decreased agriculture
and forest land
Unified Development
Ordinance
Wetlands
Permanent fill,
excavation, or clearing
from development, road
and utility crossings;
Increased stormwater flow
Change in hydrology;
Fragmentation;
Decreased aquatic
function, habitat, and
biodiversity
Unified Development
Ordinance
Prime or Unique
Agricultural Land
Permanent conversion of
agricultural land
Loss of agricultural lands;
Increased noise/traffic
Voluntary Agricultural
District Ordinance
Public Lands and Scenic,
Recreational and State
Natural Areas
None
Unknown / Unlikely
Ordinance creating the
Historic Landmark
Preservation Commission
Areas of Archaeological
or Historical Value
None
Unknown / Unlikely
Ordinance creating the
Historic Landmark
Preservation Commission
Air Quality
Increased vehicles,
increase in dischargers
Decrease air quality;
Increased particulate
matter
N/A— Federal and State
Permitting Requirements
Noise Levels
Increased traffic and
impacts to nearby
receptors
Effects to wildlife behavior
and quality of life
Noise Ordinance and
proposed site buffers
detailed during the GRMS
rezoning process
Surface and Groundwater
Resources
Increased impervious
area, runoff, and erosion
Decrease water quality,
stream stability; Increased
sedimentation
Unified Development
Ordinance
Forest Resources
Clearing / land conversion
Decreased air quality,
water quality, and wildlife
habitat
Unified Development
Ordinance
Fish, Shellfish and Their
Habitats
Decreased water quality,
stream stability; Increased
erosion
Decreased diversity &
habitat
Unified Development
Ordinance
Wildlife and Vegetation
(Including Rare,
Threatened, or
Endangered Species)
Clearing/land conversion;
No impacts to rare,
Threatened, or
Endangered species
Decreased diversity,
abundance, and habitat;
Increased fragmentation
Unified Development
Ordinance
* Unified Development Ordinance last amended July 10, 2017 consists of the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision
Ordinance, Watershed Protection Ordinance, and the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance
The following table identifies federal and state regulations which also afford protection to natural
resources.
69
4825-1232-0875.v 1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
Table 24. Summary of Federal and State Regulations and/or Programs
Act or Program
Key Points of Act / Program
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
• Authorizes the determination and listing of species as endangered and threatened.
• Prohibits unauthorized taking, possession, sale, and transport of endangered species.
• Provides authority to acquire land for the conservation of listed species, using land and water
conservation funds.
• Authorizes establishment of cooperative agreements and grants-in-aid to States that
establish and maintain active and adequate programs for endangered and threatened wildlife
and plants.
• Authorizes the assessment of civil and criminal penalties for violating the Act or regulations.
• Requires Federal agencies to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by
them is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or modify their
critical habitat.
FISH AND WILDLIFE
COORDINATION ACT
• Requires consultation with the USFWS, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the lead
state wildlife agency whenever the waters or channel of a body of water are modified by a
department or agency of the U.S.
• The purpose of this Act is to prevent or minimize impacts to wildlife resources and habitat
due to water or land alterations. When modifications occur, provisions must be made for the
conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife resources and habitat in accordance
with a plan developed with the wildlife protection agencies listed above.
• Provides that land, water and interests may be acquired by federal construction agencies for
wildlife conservation and development. In addition, real property under jurisdiction or control
of a federal agency and no longer required by that agency can be utilized for wildlife
conservation by the state agency exercising administration over wildlife resources upon that
property.
SECTION 303(D) OF CLEAN
WATER ACT
• Requires states to identify waters that do not support their classified uses. These waters
must be prioritized, and a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) must subsequently be
developed.
• As part of the TMDL development process, the sources of the pollutant must be identified,
and the allowable amount of pollutant must be allocated among the various sources within
the watershed.
• NCDWQ has developed a TMDL for fecal coliform for Rich Fork Creek (approved in April
2004). This TMDL represents an early phase of a long-term restoration project to reduce
fecal coliform loading to acceptable levels in Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek watersheds.
DWQ in cooperation with the City of High Point, City of Thomasville, and the counties
involved (Davidson, Forsyth, Guilford, and Randolph Counties) should evaluate the progress
of implementation strategies and refine the TMDL as necessary, in the next phase (five-year
cycle). This will include recommending specific implementation plans for identified problem
areas. Potential mechanisms of reduction of fecal coliform loading should be explored.
These include BMP implementation, local regulations or ordinances related to zoning,
landuse, or storm water runoff controls. 319 nonpoint source grants may be a good source of
funding for BMP implementation. The involvement of local governments and agencies will be
needed in order to develop implementation plans.
SECTIONS 404/401 OF THE
CLEAN WATER ACT
Two Federal regulatory programs from the Clean Water Act currently regulate impacts to
jurisdictional waters. Section 404 administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
regulates dredge and fill activities and Section 401 Certification that a project does not violate the
State's water quality standards is administered by NCDWQ. All private and public construction
activities over a specific acreage that affect jurisdictional waters are required to obtain certifications
and permits from NCDWQ and USACE.
A common problem in the adequate protection of jurisdictional waters is inadequate personnel at
both State and Federal levels to enforce the regulations. Effective March 1999, DWQ stepped up
the enforcement of regulations for wetlands protection, particularly those related to hydrologic
conditions necessary to support wetlands function (15A NCAC 2B.0231(b)(5)) and biological
70
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
Act or Program
Key Points of Act / Program
integrity (15A NCAC 2B.0231(b)(6)). DWQ is joined in this initiative by the North Carolina Division
of Land Resources (DLR), which also will be looking at possible violations of the State
Sedimentation Pollution Control Act.
PROTECTION OF WETLANDS,
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11990
The Protection of Wetlands (Executive Order 11990) was set into place to avoid adverse impacts
associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands and to avoid new construction in
wetlands wherever a practicable alternative exists. Every Federal agency should provide
leadership and shall take action to minimize the destruction, loss, and degradation of wetlands.
ISOLATED WETLAND
PROTECTION
Isolated wetlands are described as having no visible connection to surface waters. Because they
lack this connection, they are not regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act; however,
NCDWQ has jurisdiction over isolated wetlands within the state's boundaries requires permitting
and mitigative measures for these resources. NC DWQ states that any activity that results in the
loss of wetland function including filling, excavating, draining, and flooding shall be considered a
wetland impact.
SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) protects public health by regulating the nation's drinking
water supply and applies to every public water system in the United States. SDWA authorizes the
USEPA to set national health standards for drinking water to protect against naturally -occurring
and man-made contaminants that may be found in drinking water. The USEPA is responsible for
assessing, protecting drinking water sources, and ensuring the integrity of water delivery systems
and informing the public of the quality of their drinking water supply.
CLEAN AIR ACT
In April 2004, the USEPA designated ozone nonattainment areas. These nonattainment areas
either violated the national 8-hour ozone standard or have contributed to the violation of the
national 8-hour ozone standard. The Service Area lies within the Triad Area which is classified as
a nonattainment area and therefore, the Area must meet an ozone attainment date of December
2007. As a result of this classification, the local and state regulators had to develop a plan to meet
the 8-hour ozone standard.
The Triad Area is one of the Early Action Compacts (EAC) within NC. EACs are metro areas that
have formed compacts to resolve ozone problems on a faster timetable. The EAC Ozone Action
Plan was submitted on March 31, 2004 and outlines control measures to reduce point, highway
mobile, and nonroad mobiles sources of emissions.
In North Carolina, the Division of Air Quality has also implemented an Air Awareness Education
Program that includes daily reports on the ozone forecasts by meteorologists, television,
newspapers, and radio. The public has become very informed of ozone issues and steps they can
take to reduce ozone emissions.
FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT,
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11988
Floodplain Management (Exec. Order 11988) addresses the adverse impacts associated with the
occupancy and modification of floodplains and to avoid support of floodplain development
wherever there is a practicable alternative. Federal agencies shall provide leadership and take
action to reduce the risk of flood loss and flood impacts on human safety, health, and welfare.
Agencies are also responsible for restoring and preserving the natural and beneficial values of a
floodplain.
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE
PROGRAM
The National Flood Insurance Program is a Federal non -regulatory program that affords limited
protection to stream riparian areas and wetlands by restricting floodplain development. FEMA
manages this program, which has three components: Flood Insurance, Floodplain Management,
and Flood Hazard Mapping. Floodplain management under the NFIP is a program of corrective
and preventive measures for reducing flood damage. It includes emergency preparedness plans,
flood control works, and floodplain management regulations. Protection of wetlands and riparian
areas is provided through restrictions on development within floodplains.
NPDES STORMWATER
REGULATIONS
Enforced by the NCDWQ, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program
was established under the authority of the Clean Water Act. Phase I of the NPDES program was
established in 1990 and regulates all major discharges of stormwater to surface waters. NPDES
71
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
Act or Program
Key Points of Act / Program
permits are designed to require the development and implementation of stormwater management
measures. These measures reduce or eliminate pollutants in stormwater runoff from certain
municipal storm sewer systems and industrial activities. The NPDES stormwater permitting
system is being implemented in two phases. Phase I was implemented in 1991 and applied to six
municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) in North Carolina with populations exceeding
100,000. USEPA's Phase 11 rules were finalized on October 29, 1999, and published in the
Federal Register on December 8, 1999.
WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT
Provides protection of selected rivers of the nation that possess remarkable scenic, recreational,
geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values. No Wild and Scenic rivers exist
in Davidson, Guilford, Forsyth, or Randolph Counties.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL
PROTECTION
Archaeological resources are protected on private and public lands through the following federal
and state acts and programs:
FEDERAL
• Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, Public Law 96-95
• Department of Transportation Act, Public Law 89-670
• National Environmental Policy Act, Public Law 91-190
• National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 , Public Law 89-665
• Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, Public Law 101-601
• Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment , Executive Order 11593
STATE
• Archaeological Resources Protection Act, Chapter 70, Article 2
• North Carolina Archaeological Record Program, Chapter 70, Article 4
• North Carolina Environmental Policy Act , Chapter 113A, Article 1
• Protection and Enhancement of the Historical and Cultural Heritage of North Carolina,
Executive Order XVI
• Protection of Properties in the National Register, Chapter 121-12(a)
• Unmarked Human Burial and Human Skeletal Remains Protection Act, Chapter 70, Article 3
• Cemetery Protection, G.S. 14, G.S. 65
These laws are only applicable to projects that are State or Federally approved, permitted, funded,
or exist on State or Federal lands. This often exempts many private development projects;
however, the USACE require archaeological reviews for any project that needs a Section 404
permit.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND
HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT
The Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 provides preservation of historical and
archeological data (including relics and specimens) which might be otherwise be irreparably lost or
destroyed as the result of:
• Flooding
• Building of access roads
• Erection of workmen's communities
• Relocation of highways and railroads
• Alterations of terrain caused by the construction of dams (by the U.S. government and
private persons or corporations)
• Any alteration of terrain caused as a result of any Federal construction project or any
federally licensed activity or program.
If any Federal agency finds that a federally supported project may cause irreparable Toss or
destruction of scientific, prehistorical, historical, or archaeological data, the agency must
notify the Department of the Interior so it may undertake recovery, protection, and
preservation of the data.
NATIONAL HISTORIC
PRESERVATION ACT
The National Historic Preservation Act is the central act that establishes historic preservation law.
The act sets the policy for the U.S. government to promote conditions in which historic properties
can be preserved in harmony with modern society. The Act authorizes the Department of the
Interior to establish, maintain, and expand the National Register of Historic Places. State Historic
72
4825-1232-0875.v 1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
Act or Program
Key Points of Act / Program
Preservation Officer (SHPO) responsibilities are established by the Act, and it levees them with the
responsibility to develop a statewide plan for preservation, surveying historic properties,
nominating properties to the National Register, providing technical assistance to Federal, State,
and local agencies, as well as undertaking the review of Federal activities that affect historic
properties.
PROTECTION AND
ENHANCEMENT OF THE
CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT,
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11593
This Order requires the federal government to provide leadership in preserving, restoring, and
maintaining the historic and cultural environment of the nation. Federal agencies shall:
• Administer the cultural properties under their control in a spirit of stewardship and trusteeship
for future generations,
• Initiate measures necessary to direct their policies, plans and programs in such a way that
federally owned sites, structures, and objects of historical, architectural or archaeological
significance are preserved, restored, and maintained for the inspiration and benefit of the
people, and
• In consultation with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, institute procedures to
assure that Federal plans and programs contribute to the preservation and enhancement of
non -federally owned sites, structures and objects of historical, architectural or archaeological
significance.
FARMLAND PROTECTION
POLICY ACT
Administered by the USDA, the purpose of the Farmland Protection Policy Act is to minimize the
impact that Federal programs contribute unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to
nonagricultural uses. The Act assures that Federal programs are administered in such a manner to
be compatible with State, local governments, and private programs to protect farmland.
N.C. SEDIMENTATION
POLLUTION CONTROL ACT OF
1973
The DLR administers programs to control erosion and sedimentation caused by land disturbing
activities on one or more acres of land. Control measures must be planned, designed, and
constructed to protect from the calculated peak rate of runoff from a 10-year storm. Enforcement
of the program is at the State level, but may be delegated to local governments with certified
erosion control programs.
NORTH CAROLINA CLEAN
WATER MANAGEMENT TRUST
FUND
The Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF) was created by the 1996 Legislature to help
finance projects that specifically address water pollution problems. It is a nonregulatory program
that focuses its efforts on enhancing or restoring degraded waters, protecting unpolluted waters,
and contributes toward a network of riparian buffers and greenways for environmental, educational
and recreational benefits. Grants are issued to local governments, state agencies, and
conservation non -profits.
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF
MITIGATION SERVICES
(FORMERLY ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM)
The Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) was established as a non -regulatory program within
DENR to:
• Provide a systematic approach for meeting NCDOT's compensatory mitigation requirements,
• Maximize the ecological benefit of compensatory mitigation projects, and
• Reduce delays in the construction of transportation improvement projects associated with
compensatory mitigation requirements.
DMS also provides compensatory mitigation for permit applicants other than the NCDOT and
currently the City of High Point has requested mitigation from EEP for impacts to wetlands
associated with the replacement of the Kool Pool Outfall within the Westside Wastewater
Treatment Plant Service Area.
GROUNDWATER PROTECTION
The Groundwater Protection Unit of NCDWQ is responsible for protecting and preserving the high
quality of North Carolina's groundwater resources. This is accomplished by implementing both
groundwater and surface water pollution prevention strategies, compliance assessments and
abatement programs. Several regulations and programs exist at the State and local levels that
protect groundwater from urban growth:
• Wellhead Protection Program
• Underground Injection Control Program
• Regulation of potential contamination sources
• Management of groundwater contamination incidents
• Ambient groundwater monitoring
73
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
Act or Program
Key Points of Act I Program
• Regulation of well construction
These programs afford some protection to groundwater wells from the most common forms of
groundwater pollution —point sources such as chemical manufacturing facilities, underground
storage tanks, and accidental spills.
NORTH CAROLINA RIPARIAN
BUFFER RULES
The purposes of the buffer rules shall be to protect and preserve existing riparian buffers
throughout designated watersheds. 15A NCAC 02B .0250 details the Randleman Lake Water
Supply Watershed: Protection and Maintenance of Existing Riparian Buffers and 15A NCAC 02B
.0267 details the Jordan Water Supply Nutrient Strategy: Protection of Existing Riparian Buffers.
MISCELLANEOUS INCENTIVE
PROGRAMS
Other voluntary strategies exist at Federal and State levels that provide incentives to protect
natural lands, wetlands, agricultural lands, and sensitive species habitat and forest lands from
development. These approaches include providing tax credits for donating lands to specific
organizations (usually land trusts) and offering funding for various grants and trust funds to
purchase or protect undeveloped lands.
5.16 Other Government Authorizations Anticipated
Other government authorizations that are anticipated for this project include:
• North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) 401 Water Quality Certification
• NCDWR Buffer Authorization (Jordan Lake Buffer Rules)
• National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Industrial Stormwater Permit
(for facility)
• North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program (NCFMP) (and Federal Emergency
Management Agency [FEMA]) CLOMR
• North Carolina Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources (NCDEMLR) Sediment
and Erosion Control Certificate of Approval (separate certificates needed for site,
transportation, and water/sewer)
• NCDWR State Stormwater Permit (for pad development)
• North Carolina Division of Air Quality (NCDAQ) Air Quality Construction and Operation
Permit
• New Source Review Air Quality Permit (for facility, if applicable)
• Air Quality Title V Permit (for facility, if applicable)
• NCDOT Driveway Permits (if applicable)
• NCDEQ Authorization to Construct (for waterline)
• NCDWR Non -Discharge Permit (for pump station and force main)
74
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
• Various Right -of -Way Encroachment Permits for Pipelines (NCDOT, Williams Gas
Pipeline, Duke Energy, and Norfolk Southern Railroad)
6 List of Preparers and Contributors
Table 25 summarizes the expertise and contribution made to the supporting documentation and
environmental report by the project team.
Table 25. Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report Project Team
Name / Education
Project Role
HDR
Vickie Miller, AICP, PWS
Project Management and Coordination
Jackson Garvey
GIS and Environmental Analysis
Sara Easterly
Environmental Analysis
Ben Furr, PWS
Environmental Analysis and Coordination
Clay Oliver, PE
Socioeconomic and Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis
Ken Trefzger, PE
FEMA Analysis
Patrick Blandford, PE
Water Quality and Stormwater Analysis
Jeremy Potter, PE
Traffic Analysis
Tim Casey, PE
Noise Analysis
Ruth Mazur, PE
Noise Analysis
Ben Copenhaver, INCE
Noise Analysis
Ed Liebsch, PE
Air Quality Analysis
Curt Overcast
Air Quality Analysis
Robert Baysden, PE
Site/Civil Lead
David Baker, PE
Site/Civil Design
Caleb Peeler, EIT
Site/Civil Design
Paul Meehan, PE
Transportation Analysis
Carey Fraser
Technical Editor and Writer
Jessica Mackey
Public Involvement
Mark Reep, PE
Environmental Analysis and QA/QC
Riley Birmingham, PE
Rail Design
Lydia Buehrer, PE
Roadway Design
Yvette Mariotte
Cadd Technician
North State Environmental
Wendee Smith, PWS
Project Advisor
North Carolina Railroad
Scott Saylor
President of NCRR
Richard Wiley
Senior Consultant — Economic Development
Anna Lea Moore
Vice President— Economic Development
Megen Hoenk
Director of Corporate Communications
Cameron Kidd
Land Manager
Kristian Forslin
GIS Coordinator
75
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
Name / Education
Project Role
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Brandon Jones
Division 8 District Engineer
Randolph County, North Carolina
Kevin Franklin
Vice President, Randolph County EDC
Walter Sprouse
President Randolph County EDC
Hal Johnson
County Manager
Jay Dale
Planning and Zoning Director
Paxton Arthurs
Public Works Director
City of Greensboro, North Carolina
Steve Drew
Director of Water Resources
Virginia Spillman
Engineering Manager, Department of Water Resources
David Parrish
Assistant City Manager
Jim Westmoreland
City Manager
Brent Christiansen
President and CEO Greensboro Partnership
David Ramsey
Executive Vice President Greensboro Partnership
Greensboro Randolph Megasite Foundation
Jim Melvin
President GRMF
Garrett Walker
Attorney
Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, LLP
William "Bill" Ross
Attorney
Randy Tinsley
Attorney
George House
Attorney
Duke Energy
John Geib
Director of Economic Development
Ruth Neeley
Project Manager
James Shapard
Siting and Permitting Lead
Piedmont Natural Gas
Ron Mays
Managing Director— Power Generation and Major Account Services
Norfolk Southern
Troy Akers
Industrial development specialist
Additional HDR Subcontractors
ECS Limited
Groundwater quality assessments, Phase I/2s, and environmental surveys
Rummel Klepper & Kahl
Cape Fear shiner surveys
Timmons Group
Traffic impact analysis and surveying
7 References
Brod, A. 2017. A tale of two, or perhaps five, different North Carolinas, Triad Business Journal
at 19. July 28, 2017.
Brod, A. 2016. Triad Economy: Still not back to zero, Triad Business Journal at 23. Sep. 2 — 8,
2016.
76
4825-1232-0875.v 1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
Carpenter, P.A. III. 1982. Geologic map of Region G (Alamance, Caswell, Davidson, Guilford,
Randolph, and Rockingham counties), North Carolina. Regional Geology Series 2. North
Carolina Geological Survey: Raleigh.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and
Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington, D.C.
ECS Southeast, LLP (ECS). 2017a. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. Approximate
184.41 Acre Site. May 26, 2017.
ECS Southeast, LLP (ECS). 2017b. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. Greensboro
Randolph Mega Site - Fifteen Parcels. October 27, 2017.
ECS Southeast, LLP (ECS). 2017c. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. Greensboro
Randolph Mega Site - Hoots Hollow Road And Troy Smith Road. October 27, 2017.
ECS Southeast, LLP (ECS). 2017d. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. Greensboro
Randolph Mega Site - Hoots Hollow Road Site. November 10, 2017.
ECS Southeast, LLP (ECS). 2017e. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. Greensboro -
Randolph Mega Site - Old 421 Road. October 27, 2017.
ECS Southeast, LLP (ECS). 2017f. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. Randolph County
Mega Site - Old 421 Road Additional Parcels. September 29, 2017.
ECS Southeast, LLP (ECS). 2017g. Natural Resources Technical Report.
ECS Southeast, LLP (ECS). 2015a. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. Approximate 6.70
Acre Site, 4683 Iron Horse Trail, Liberty, Randolph County, North Carolina. August 12,
2015.
ECS Southeast, LLP (ECS). 2015b. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. Liberty Mega Site,
Highway 421, Liberty, Randolph County, North Carolina. January 23, 2015.
ECS Southeast, LLP (ECS). 2015c. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. Randolph County
Mega Site, Highway 421, Liberty, Randolph County, North Carolina. December 23,
2015.
ECS Southeast, LLP (ECS).2015d. Phase II Soil Assessment Report - Liberty Mega Site. May
6, 2015.
ECS Southeast, LLP (ECS).2015e. Soil Remediation Report - Liberty Mega Site. June 23,
2015.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2018a. Current Nonattainment Counties for all Criteria
Pollutants. [Online] URL: https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/ancl.html May 30,
2018.
EPA 2018b. North Carolina Nonattainment/Maintenance Status for Each County by Year for All
Criteria Pollutants [Online] URL:
https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/anayo nc.html Data current April 30, 2018.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2016. Updated Interim Guidance on Mobile -Source
Air Toxic Analyses in NEPA Documents. October 18, 2016.
77
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
Guilford County, North Carolina 2016. Guilford County Future Land Use Plan — Southern Area
Update. [Online] URL: http://www.myguilford.com/wp-
content/uploads/2017/08/Southern-Area-LR-Planning-Book-2017.pdf
Guilford County, North Carolina. 1992. Guilford County Development Ordinance. [Online] URL:
https://library.municode.com/nc/guilford county/codes/development ordinances
North Carolina Department of Commerce (NCDOC). 2018 Labor & Economic Analysis Division.
[Online] URL: https://d4.nccommerce.com/CesSelection.aspx
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). 2016. Project Development and
Environmental Analysis. Human Environment Section — Traffic Noise & Air Quality
Group (July 20, 2016). Air Quality Manual.
North Carolina Department of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2010. NCDWQ Methodology for
Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and Their Origins (Version 4.11).
[Online] URL: http://www.xerces.org/wp-
content/uploads/2009/03/NC 2010 Methodology identification intermittent perennial s
treams.pdf
Randolph County, North Carolina. 2010. Randolph County Comprehensive Transportation Plan.
[Online] URL: https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/Pages/CTP-
Details.aspx?study_id=Randolph+County
Randolph County, North Carolina. 2009. Randolph County Growth Management Plan. [Online]
URL: http://www.co.randolph.nc.us/Portals/0/PZ/2009GrowthManagementPlan.pdf
Rhodes, T.S. and S.G. Conrad. 1985. Geologic Map of North Carolina: Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development, Division of Land Resources, and the NC
Geological Survey, 1:500,000-scale, compiled by Brown, Philip M., et al, and Parker,
John M. III, and in association with the State Geologic Map Advisory Committee.
Timmons Group. 2018. US-421 Transportation Improvements (memo) — Updated Build -Out.
Randolph County, North Carolina. February 15, 2018.
Timmons Group. 2016. Greensboro Randolph County Mega Site, Traffic Impact Analysis,
Randolph County, North Carolina. July 2016
Timmons Group. 2011. Greensboro Randolph Mega Site, Site Selection History.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2012. Regional Supplement of the Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region (Version 2.0).
U.S. Vicksburg, Mississippi. April 2012.
(http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/civilworks/regulatory/reg supp/EMP Piedmo
nt v2b.pdf)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987a. Wetland Delineation Manual. Vicksburg, MS.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987b. Post-Rapanos guidance. [Online] URL:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-
02/documents/cwa jurisdiction following rapanos120208.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2018a. Quick Facts -United States; North Carolina; Randolph
County, North Carolina; Guilford County, NC. [Online] URL:
78
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US,quilfordcou ntynorthcarolina,NC,randolp
hcountynorthcarolina#viewtop
USCB 2018b. Selected Economic Characteristics: 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-
Year Estimates. Randolph County. [Online] URL:
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/prod uctview.xhtml?src=CF
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS). 2017a.
Farmland Protection Policy Act. [Online] URL:
https://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/main/national/landuse/fppa/
(Accessed 13 November 2017.)
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS). 2017b.
Soil Resource Report for Randolph County, North Carolina. Generated via
WebSoilSurveyat http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm. (Accessed
13 November 2017.)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2015. Transportation Conformity Guidance for
Quantitative Hot -spot Analyses in PM2.5 and PM10 Nonattainment and Maintenance
Areas, Appendix B, page B-1. November 2015.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2017a. Endangered Species, Threatened Species,
Federal Species of Concern, and Candidate Species, Guilford County, North Carolina.
[Online] URL: https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/guilford.html
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2017b. Endangered Species, Threatened Species,
Federal Species of Concern, and Candidate Species, Randolph County, North Carolina.
[Online] URL: https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/randolph.html
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1991. Schweinitz's sunflower description.
https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/es schweinitz sunflower.html
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1978. Bald eagle description.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/speciesProfile?spcode=B008
Walden, M.L. 2017. The Economic Potential of an Auto Assembly Plant in North Carolina. Nov.
2017.
79
4825-1232-0875.v1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
Appendix A
Joint Federal and State
Permit Application
Package
4825-1232-0875.0

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT
33 CFR 325. The proponent agency is CECW-CO-R.
OMB APPROVAL NO. 0710-0003
EXPIRES: 28 FEBRUARY 2013
Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to average 11 hours per response, inc uding the time for reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding
this burden estimate or any other aspect of the collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense,
Washington Headquarters, Executive Services and Communications Directorate, Information Management Division and to the Office of Management and
Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003). Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be
subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. Please DO NOT
RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of
the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authorities: Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10, 33 USC 403; Clean Water Act, Section 404, 33 USC 1344; Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act, Section 103, 33 USC 1413; Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers; Final Rule 33 CFR 320-332. Principal Purpose: Information provided on
this form will be used in evaluating the application for a permit. Routine Uses: This information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other
federal, state, and local government agencies, and the public and may be made available as part of a public notice as required by Federal law. Submission
of requested information is voluntary, however, if information is not provided the permit application cannot be evaluated nor can a permit be issued. One set
of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this application (see
sample drawings and/or instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity. An application
that is not completed in full will be returned.
(ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS)
1. APPLICATION NO. 2. FIELD OFFICE CODE
5. APPLICANT'S NAME
First - Tim
Middle - Last
3. DATE RECEIVED
4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETE
(ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED BY APPLICANT)
8. AUTHORIZED AGENTS NAME AND TITLE (agent is not required)
Melvin First - Vickie Middle Last Miller
Company - HDR
E-mail Address-vickie.miller@hdrinc_com
Company - Greensboro Randolph Megasite Foundation
E-mail Address -
6. APPLICANTS ADDRESS:
Address- 324 W. Wendover Ave. Suite 207
City - Greensboro
State - NC Zip - 27408 Country -US
7. APPLICANT'S PHONE NOs. w1AREA CODE
a. Residence
b. Business
336-691-9803
c. Fax
9. AGENT'S ADDRESS:
Address- 555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
City - Raleigh State - NC
10. AGENTS PHONE NOs. wlAREA CODE
a. Residence
STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
b. Business
919-232-6637
Zip - 27601 Country -US
c Fax
11. I hereby authorize, Vickie Miller, HDR to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon request,
supplemental information in support of this permit application.
SIG ATURE OF APPLICANT
NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions)
Greensboro Randolph Megasite
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (if applicable)
Dodson Lake, Sandy Creek, etc (see Supporting Documentation)
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Latitude: 35.894610 Longitude: aW 79.627378
10. OTrICI'i LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IP Kt4O1NN (caa inctnirtiens)
State Tax Parcel ID See attached documentation Municipality
Section - Township -
14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (if applicable)
Address US 421
City - Liberty
Range -
State- NC Zip- 27298
ENG FORM 4345, OCT 2012
PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE.
rage i Lit 3

7. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
'rout Raleigh take US 64 west toward Siler City, turn right onto US 421, travel approximately 15 miles and turn right onto Starmount Road.
the GRMS site is on the left after you turn onto Starmount Road.
18. Nature of Activity (Description of project, include all features)
See Supporting Documentation
19. Project Purpose (Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see instructions)
See Supporting Documentation
USE BLOCKS 20-23 IF DREDGED AND!OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
See Supporting Documentation
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards:
Type Type
Amount in Cubic Yards Amount in Cubic Yards
Site earthwork is balanced in cut and fill Onsite material
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see instructions)
Acres See Supporting Documentation
or
Linear Feet See Supporting Documentation
23. Description of Avoidance, Minimization, and Compensation (see instructions)
See Supporting Documentation
Type
Amount in Cubic Yards
ENG FORM 4345, OCT 2012
Page 2 of 3

vickic.millenalidrinc.com
24. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes ZNo IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
25. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody tit more than can be entered here, please attach a supplemental list).
a. Address- See Supporting Documentation
City - State - Zip -
b. Address -
City - State - Zip -
c. Address -
City - State - Zip -
d. Address -
City - State - Zip -
e. Address -
City - State - Zip -
26. List of Other Certificates or Approvals/Denials received from other Federal. State, or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application.
IDENTIFICATION DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL" NUMBER
* Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building, and flood plain permits
27. Application is hereby made for permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. 1 certify that this information in this application is
complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the duly authorized agent of the
applicant.
4.2k?5"/)
SI ATURE OF APPLICANT DATE SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE
The Application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly
authorized agent if the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States
knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
Page 3 of 3
ENG FORM 4345, OCT2012

DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES (DMS)
IN -LIEU FEE REQUEST FORM Revised 4/23/2015
Complete requested information, sign and date, email to kelly.wiliiams aAncdenr.aov . Attachments are acceptable for clarification
purposes (location map, address or lat long is required). information submitted is subject to NC Public Records Law and may be
requested by third parties. Review meetings are held on Tuesday afternoons.
CONTACT INFORMATION
1. Business/Company Name
2. Contact Person
3. Street Address or P 0 Box
APPLICANT'S AGENT
HDR
Vickie Miller
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
APPLICANT
Greensboro Randolph Megasite Foun
Jim Melvin
324 W. Wendover Ave, Suite 207
4. City, State, Zip
Raleigh, NC 27601
Greensboro, NC 27408
5 Telephone Number
6. E-Mail Address
r
919.232.6600
vickie.m filler@ hdrinc.cam
PROJECT INFORMATION
336-691-9803
7. Project Name
Greensboro Randolph Megasite
8. Project Location (nearest town, city)
Liberty, NC
9. Lat-Long Coordinates or attach a map 35.894610, -79.627378
10. County
Randolph / Guilford
11. River Basin & Cataloging Unit (8-digit)
(See Note 1)
12. Project Type **indicate owner type and
write in project type (e.g. school, church, retail,
residential, apartments, road, utilities, military,
etc.)** -
03030003 and 03030002
Owner Type: 0 Government ® Private
Project Type: Industrial Facility
13. Riparian Wetland Impact (ac.) (e.g., 0.13)
14. Non -Riparian Wetland Impact (ac.)
15. Coastal Marsh Impact (ac.)
16. Stream Impact (ft.) (e.g. 1,234)
9.25
0.0
0.0
Warm
Cool
Cold
37,999
0.0
0.0
17. Riparian Buffer Impact (sq. ft.)
Include subwatershed if Jordan or Falls Lake:
18. Regulatory Agency Staff Contacts
USAGE: Andrew Williams
Zone 1:
0.0
Zone 2:
0.0
NCDWR:
Other: Sue Homewood
Check (V) below if this request is for a:
revision to a current acceptance
renewal of an expired acceptance
extension of unexpired acceptance
By signing below, the applicant is confirming they have
read and understand the DMS refund policy posted at
nceep.net and attached to this form.
Signature of Applicant or Authorized Agent:
Cr: -AV IV\
Cracnsboro Rancini ph Mgasito
June 25, 2018
Date:
Note 1: For help in determining the Gataiogmg or contact DMS
Direct questions to Kelly Williams at 919-707-8915 or kellv.williamsCc ncdenr.aov or to the front desk at 919-707-8976

DMS ILF Mitigation Request Statement of Compliance with §143-214.11 & 143-214.20
(link to G.S. 143-214.11)
Prior to accessing the Division of Mitigation Services (DMS), all applicants must demonstrate compliance
with G.S. § 143-214.11 and 143-214.20. All requests MUST include this form signed and dated by the
permit applicant or an authorized agent. Please refer to DENR's Implementation Policy for more details.
Compliance Statement:
I have read and understand G.S. § 143-214.11 and 214.20 and have, to the best of my
knowledge, complied with the requirements. I understand that participation in the DMS is
voluntary and subject to approval by permitting agencies.
Please check all that apply:
Applicant is a Federal or State Government Entity or a unit of local government
meeting the requirements set forth in G.S. 143-214.11 and is not required to
purchase credits from a mitigation bank.
O There are no listed mitigation banks with the credit type I need located in the
hydrologic unit where this impact will take place (link to DWR list)
▪ Mitigation bank(s) in the hydrologic unit where the impacts will occur have been
contacted and credits are not currently available.
The DWR or the Corps of Engineers did not approve of the use of a mitigation
bank for the required compensatory mitigation for this project.
0 This is a renewal request and the permit application is under review. Bank
credits were not available at the time the application was submitted.
Enter date permit application was submitted for review:
Note: It is the applicant's responsibility to document any inquiries made to private mitigation
banks regarding credit availability.
I have read and understand the DMS refund policies (attached)
initial here
Greensboro Randolph Megasite
Signature of Applicant or Agent
June 25, 2018
E. S. Melvin
Printed Name
Date
Greensboro Randolph Megasite Randolph County, NC
Project Name
Location

AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
I, E.S. Melvin, representing the Greensboro Randolph Megasite
Foundation, hereby certify that I have authorized Vickie Miller,
representing HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas, to act on my behalf
in the processing, issuance, and acceptance of the verification of
jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and Section 404/401 permitting
associated with the Greensboro Randolph Megasite, located in Randolph
County, North Carolina.
Owner's Contact Information:
Jim Melvin, Administrator
Greensboro Randolph Megasite Foundation
Owner's Address: 324 West Wendover Ave, Suite 207
Greensboro, NC 27408
Telephone Number: 1-800-342-0966
Email address: [e-mail]
`y-- .
Owner's Signature
Date
Agent's Contact Information:
Vickie Miller, AICP, PWS
HDR Engineering inc. of the Carolinas
Agent's Address: 555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
Telephone Number: 919-232-6600
Email address: [e-mail]

AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
I, Scott Saylor, representing the North Carolina Railroad Company,
hereby certify that I have authorized Vickie Miller, representing HDR
Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas, to act on my behalf in the processing,
issuance, and acceptance of the verification of jurisdictional waters of the
U.S. and Section 404/401 permitting associated with the Greensboro
Randolph Megasite, located in Randolph County, North Carolina.
Owner's Contact Information:
Scott Saylor, President
North Carolina Railroad Company
Owner's Address: 2809 Highwoods Blvd.
Raleigh, NC 27604
Telephone Number: 919-954-7601
Email address: [e-mail]
/
Lea A i n
Owner's Signature
Date
Agent's Contact Information:
Vickie Miller, AICP, PWS
HDR Engineering Inc. of the Carolinas
Agent's Address: 555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
Telephone Number: 919-232-6600
Email address: [e-mail]

AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
I, Hal Johnson, representing Randolph County, hereby certify that I have
authorized Vickie Miller, representing HDR Engineering, Inc. of the
Carolinas, to act on my behalf in the processing, issuance, and
acceptance of the verification of jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and
Section 404/401 permitting associated with the Greensboro Randolph
Megasite, located in Randolph County, North Carolina.
Owner's Contact Information:
Hal Johnson, County Manager
Randolph County
Owner's Address: 725 McDowell Road
Asheboro, NC 27205
Telephone Number: 336-318-6300
Email address: [e-mail]
Cork.m.43 17/".
Owner's Signature
-
Date
Agent's Contact Information:
Vickie Miller, AICP, PWS
HDR Engineering Inc. of the Carolinas
Agent's Address: 555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
Telephone Number: 919-232-6600
Email address: [e-mail]

JULI = ► IRPORT
RD REROUTE
100 kV TRANSMISSION
LINE TO SERVE SITE
US HWY 421
INTERCHANGE
SANITARY SEWER
FORCE MAIN
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
440 S. Church Street, Suite 1000
Charlotte, NC 28202
704.338.6700
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116
OLD 421D
ISSUE DATE
WATER MAIN
DESCRIPTION
RAIL SPUR INTO SITE
RAIL YARD
SURFACE LOT
SITE ENTRANCE
SURFACE
LOT
1,000 ACRE SITE
PAD BOUNDARY
SITE ENTRANCE
US HWY 421
INTERCHANGE
BUILDING
PROJECT MANAGER VICKIE M. MILLER, AICP, PWS
PROJECT PRINCIPAL
PROJECT ENGINEER
DESIGN ENGINEER
DRAWN BY
CHECKED BY
PROJECT NUMBER
PAUL MEEHAN, PE
DAVID BAKER, PE
10068163
BUILDING
SURFACE LOT
SURFACE LOT
SURFACE
LOT
SURFACE
LOT
U
BUILDING
I I
STW BMP
GRAPHIC SCALE
350 700
1400 2800
(IN FEET)
1 INCH = 700 FT.
*SITE PLAN REPRESENTS 6,000,000 SF OF BUILDING SPACE.
CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY -
HE �L SUBJECT TO NON -DISCLOSURE AGREEMENTS
GRADING
LIMITS
GREENSBORO RANDOLPH
MEGASITE PROPERTY BOUNDARY
MATCHLINE - SEE INSET THIS SHEET
NORTH CAROLINA RAILROAD COMPANY
GREENSBORO RANDOLPH MEGASITE
RANDOLPH COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
0
MATCHLINE - SEE OVERALL SITE PLAN THIS SHEET
CONCEPTUAL
OVERALL SITE PLAN
500' 1000' FILENAME
SCALE
01X-01.dwg
1" = 700'
SHEET
01 X-01

I OLD 421 RD
01 X-07
01 X-08 'In
As,
01 X-05 '
' 1'01 X-06
4 01X-09
-
01X-10-.1
01X-11
-
01X-12
01X-13
01X-14
L 1
01X-15
01X-16I
01X-17
01X-18
W
r
01X-19
01X-20I
D
01 X-23
r,./-0 J24
1
��
01 X-21
01X-22
�
—
$
01 X-25
01 X-26
LEGEND
EXISTING WETLAND
EXISTING POND
— • — • — • — • — • — • — • — • — EXISTING PERENNIAL STREAM
EXISTING INTERMITTENT STREAM
PERMANENT WETLAND IMPACT
TEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACT
PERMANENT POND IMPACT
PERMANENT STREAM IMPACT
TEMPORARY STREAM IMPACT
•
♦
1111111111111111111111R
0
2000'
4000'
SCALE: 1" = 2000'
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
PROJECT GRMS
SITE PLAN
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
05/25/2018
01 X-01
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116

Wetland Impacts
Impact
Number
Sheet
Number
Wetland ID
Lat.
(decimal
degrees)
Long.
(decimal
degrees)
Type of
Impact
Type of
Wetland
(Cowardin)
Area of
Permanent
Impact (acres)
Area of
Temporary
Impact (acres)
W5.1
5
W38
35.899726
-79.639533
Fill
PFO
0.03
0
W5.2
5
W40A
35.899484
-79.637939
Fill
PFO
0.04
0
W6.1
6
W5
35.900708
-79.631982
Fill
PFO
0.13
0
W6.2
6
W5
35.90116
-79.631542
Fill
PFO
0.19
0
W7.1
7
W22
35.899693
-79.621614
Fill
PFO
0.15
0
W8.1
8
W21
35.899757
-79.617328
Fill
PFO
0.24
0
W8.2
9
W23
35.899944
-79.619257
Fill
PFO
0.25
0
W9.1
9
W40A
35.899385
-79.637886
Fill
PFO
0.02
0
W9.2
9
W4OB
35.89895
-79.637536
Fill
PFO
0.02
0
W9.3
9
W37
35.898692
-79.637031
Fill
PFO
0.14
0
W9.4
9
W43
35.898455
-79.638564
Fill
PFO
0.05
0
W9.5
9
W45
35.897286
-79.638822
Fill
PFO
0.01
0
W11.1
11
W6
35.895595
-79.628154
Fill
PFO
0.02
0
W11.2
11
W7
35.895927
-79.626777
Fill
PFO
0.06
0
W11.3
11
W8
35.896215
-79.626185
Fill
PFO
0.05
0
W11.4
11
W22
35.899311
-79.621553
Fill
PFO
0.16
0
W12.1
12
W22
35.899009
-79.620748
Fill
PFO
0.07
0
W12.2
12
W20
35.898556
-79.619025
Fill
PFO
0.10
0
W12.3
12
W21
35.899209
-79.618469
Fill
PFO
0.09
0
W12.4
12
W24
35.897575
-79.618322
Fill
PFO
0.22
0
W13.1
13
W18A
35.893583
-79.638916
Fill
PFO
0.13
0
W13.2
13
W19
35.893997
-79.63887
Fill
PFO
0.14
0
W14.1
14
W9
35.891063
-79.63342
Fill
PFO
0.34
0
W14.2
14
W12
35.892202
-79.631077
Fill
PFO
0.26
0
Wetland Impacts
Impact
Number
Sheet
Number
Wetland ID
Lat.
(decimal
degrees)
Long.
(decimal
degrees)
Type of
Impact
Type of
Wetland
(Cowardin)
Area of
Permanent
Impact (acres)
Area of
Temporary
Impact (acres)
W15.1
15
W35
35.891018
-79.624455
Fill
PEM
0.25
0
W15.2
15
W25
35.893418
-79.622393
Fill
PFO
0.24
0
W16.1
16
W28
35.890797
-79.616121
Fill
PFO
0.05
0
W16.2
16
W31
35.892481
-79.615397
Fill
PFO
0.54
0
W16.3
16
HDR WG
35.890983
-79.620098
Fill
PEM
0.11
0
W16.4
16
HDR WH
35.892429
-79.619589
Fill
PFO
0.67
0
W17.1
17
W44
35.889785
-79.638849
Fill
PFO
0.03
0
W17.2
17
W3
35.888035
-79.636276
Fill
PFO
0.26
0
W18.1
18
W9
35.890581
-79.633293
Fill
PFO
0.07
0
W18.2
18
W10
35.889553
-79.63211
Fill
PFO
0.16
0
W18.3
18
W13
35.887305
-79.6319
Fill
PFO
0.14
0
W18.4
18
W3
35.888035
-79.636276
Fill
PFO
0.00
0
W19.3
19
HDR WF
35.888548
-79.621506
Fill
PFO
0.15
0
W20.1
20
W28
35.8901
-79.616452
Fill
PFO
0.78
0
W20.2
20
W32
35.88899
-79.618632
Fill
PFO
0.19
0
W20.3
20
HDR WE
35.888498
-79.619415
Fill
PFO
1.60
0
W23.1
23
WW
35.88402
-79.625738
Fill
PEM
0.15
0
W24.1
24
HDR WB
35.884777
-79.61877
Fill
PFO/PEM
0.12
0
Total
8.42
0
F)1
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
PROJECT GRMS
SITE PLAN
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
05/25/2018
01X-02
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116

Open Water Impacts
Impact
Number
Sheet
Number
Name of
Waterbody
Lat.
(decimal
degrees)
Long.
(decimal
degrees)
Permanent (P)
or Temporary
(T)
Type of
Impact
Waterbody
Type
Impact Area
(acres)
P5.1
5
P6
35.901573
-79.639568
P
Fill
Pond
0.17
P5.2
5
P7
35.900787
-79.639578
P
Fill
Pond
1.39
P5.3
5
P8
35.899457
-79.639504
P
Fill
Pond
0.02
P5.4
5
P2
35.9007
-79.643849
P
Fill
Pond
1.35
P6.1
6
P10
35,9015
-79.632445
P
Fill
Pond
2.02
P7.1
7
P11
35.899604
-79.626451
P
Fill
Pond
0.17
P9.1
9
P8
35.899102
-79.639228
P
Fill
Pond
0.42
P11.1
11
P11
35.899425
-79.626452
P
Fill
Pond
0.05
P13.1
13
P9
35.892186
-79.638263
P
Fill
Pond
0.20
P14.1
14
P13
35.891276
-79.631086
P
Fill
Pond
3.77
P16.1
16
PC
35.893643
-79.614573
P
Fill
Pond
0.81
P17.1
17
P16
35.887874
-79.636668
P
Fill
Pond
0.39
P17.2
17
P17
35.887099
-79.637608
P
Fill
Pond
1.37
P18.1
18
P13
35.890413
-79.631492
P
Fill
Pond
1.88
P18.2
18
P15
35.888409
-79.631574
P
Fill
Pond
6.32
P18.3
18
P14
35.890026
-79.633032
P
Fill
Pond
1.21
Total
21.34
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
PROJECT GRMS
SITE PLAN
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
05/25/2018
01X-03
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116

Stream Impacts
Impact
Number
Sheet
Number
Stream
ID
Lat.
(decimal
degrees)
Long.
(decimal
degrees)
Type of
Impact
Perennial
(P) or
Intermittent
(I)
Average
Stream
Width
(feet)
Permanent
Impact
Length
(linear feet)
Temporary
Impact
Length
(linear feet)
Impact
Area
(square
feet)
S5.1
5
SK
35.900393
-79.636643
Fill
P
2
25
0
50
S5.2
5
S45
35.899868
-79.636795
Fill
P
4
518
0
2072
S5.3
6
S15
35.901476
-79.643903
Fill
P
5
34
39
170
S6.1
6
S7
35.899976
-79.631308
Fill
P
3
633
0
1899
S6.2
6
S1
35.900243
-79.629132
Fill
P
4
452
61
1808
S7.1
7
S5
35.899765
-79.627353
Fill
I
4
203
0
812
S8.1
8
S22
35.899567
-79.617489
Fill
P
3
79
0
237
S9.1
9
S43/S43B
35.898866
-79.63863
Fill
P
4
768
0
3072
S9.2
9
S45
35.898184
-79.63787
Fill
P
4
2363
0
9452
S9.3
9
S51
35.899288
-79.63773
Fill
I
3
81
0
243
S9.4
9
S48
35.898246
-79.643552
Fill
I
3
45
55
135
S10.1
10
S1
35.8963
-79.629804
Fill
P
4
2188
0
8752
S10.2
10
S7
35.898253
-79.630498
Fill
P
3
1092
0
3276
S10.3
10
S4
35.89849
-79.628489
Fill
P
4
65
0
260
S10.4
10
SA
35.897881
-79.628559
Fill
P
3
116
0
348
S10.5
10
S9
35.89546
-79.629054
Fill
I
4
601
0
2404
S10.6
10
S8
35.897307
-79.631058
Fill
I
3
588
0
1764
S11.1
11
S4
35.898854
-79.62792
Fill
I
4
455
0
1820
S11.1
11
S4
35.898854
-79.62792
Fill
P
4
320
0
1280
S11.2
11
SA
35.897975
-79.628114
Fill
P
3
175
0
525
S11.3
11
S9
35.895803
-79.627567
Fill
I
4
758
0
3032
S11.4
11
S20
35.89911
-79.621146
Fill
P
3
124
0
372
S11.5
11
S5
35.899273
-79.62751
Fill
I
4
163
0
652
S12.1
12
S20
35.898865
-79.619771
Fill
P
3
949
0
2847
S12.2
12
S22
35.899087
-79.618008
Fill
P
3
607
0
1821
S12.3
12
S21
35.896637
-79.618448
Fill
P
4
1364
0
5456
S12.4
12
S23
35.897961
-79.618066
Fill
I
3
76
0
228
S13.1
13
S45
35.892807
-79.639112
Fill
P
4
2140
0
8560
S13.2
13
SY
35.893981
-79.638491
Fill
I
3
107
0
321
S14.1
14
S1
35.893918
-79.630228
Fill
P
4
1421
0
5684
S15.1
15
S25
35.893404
-79.621706
Fill
P
3
420
0
1260
S15.2
15
S26
35.893629
-79.621324
Fill
I
3
163
0
489
S15.3
15
HDR S9
35.890773
-79.623656
Fill
I
3
105
0
315
Stream Impacts
Impact
Number
Sheet
Number
Stream
ID
Lat.
(decimal
degrees)
Long.
(decimal
degrees)
Type of
Impact
Perennial
(P) or
Intermittent
(I)
Average
Stream
Width
(feet)
Permanent
Impact
Length
(linear feet)
Temporary
Impact
Length
(linear feet)
Impact
Area
(square
feet)
S16.1
16
S25/S25R
35.893092
-79.620224
Fill
P
3
541
0
1623
S16.2
16
S35
35.891276
-79.615761
Fill
P
4
483
0
1932
S16.3
16
S21
35.892261
-79.619717
Fill
P
4
174
0
696
S16.4
16
S21
35.89137
-79.619773
Fill
P
4
592
0
2368
S16.5
16
S21
35.894088
-79.619231
Fill
P
4
1152
0
4608
S17.1
17
S45
35.889256
-79.639931
Fill
P
4
861
65
3444
S17.2
17
S44
35.889771
-79.639514
Fill
P
3
756
0
2268
S18.1
18
S12B
35.8868
-79.632719
Fill
P
3
193
0
579
S18.2
18
S1
35.886749
-79.63223
Fill
P
4
755
0
3020
S18.3
18
S11
35.887125
-79.631796
Fill
P
3
232
0
696
S19.1
19
HDR S9
35.888223
-79.624394
Fill
I
3
1427
0
4281
S20.1
20
S35
35.889298
-79.617801
Fill
P
4
1469
0
5876
S20.2
20
S21
35.890149
-79.619916
Fill
P
4
1264
0
5056
S20.3
20
HDR S9
35.88684
-79.619587
Fill
I
3
875
0
2625
S20.4
20
S30
35.887667
-79.616619
Fill
P
3
1670
45
5010
S20.5
20
S31
35.888347
-79.614963
Fill
I
3
216
54
648
S22.1
22
S1
35.885936
-79.633011
Fill
P
4
405
41
1620
S23.1
23
S17
35.883641
-79.626236
Fill
P
3
192
31
576
S24.1
24
S21
35.885824
-79.619151
Fill
P
4
344
0
1376
S24.2
24
S30
35.884555
-79.619164
Fill
P
3
2240
40
6720
S24.3
24
HDR S4
35.885421
-79.619586
Fill
I
4
450
0
1800
S24.4
24
HDR S3
35.884454
-79.618546
Fill
P
3
412
0
1236
S24.4
24
HDR S3
35.884454
-79.618546
Fill
I
3
422
0
1266
S24.5
24
HDR S5
35.884665
-79.619115
Fill
I
3
71
0
213
S26.1
26
HDR S2
35.881433
-79.618688
Fill
P
3
68
47
204
Perennial Total
29,656
369
108,109
Intermittent Total
6,806
109
23,048
Stream Impact Total
36,462
478
131,157
F)1
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
PROJECT GRMS
SITE PLAN
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
05/25/2018
01X-04
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116

,
/ �� /
J
--'—__,......
\ `
OHE
IMP
1
/»
f0
/' /`-v
L,
/ C
_1 (_ J
PROPOSED DUKE
ENERGY 500kV
CORRIDOR
OHE
OHE
OLD 421 RD
INN
-
--�
�� � �� 1 l
L
co
CO �
NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILROAD
OHE — — OHE —
v. .,...„1� ��
W5.1 —�
-- P5 3
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 9 FOR CONTINUATION
�,— W5.2
IMP IMP IMP
OHE
1
z
0
z
GENERAL NOTES:
1) SEE SHEET 1 FOR LEGEND AND
KEY MAP
Wetland Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Area
(AC)
Temporary
Impact Area
(AC)
W5.1
W38
Fill
0.03
0
W5.2
W40A
Fill
0.04
0
Total
0.07
0
Pond Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Area
(AC)
P5.1
P6
Fill
0.17
P5.2
P7
Fill
1.39
P5.3
P8
Fill
0.02
P5.4
P2
Fill
1.35
Total
2.93
Perennial Stream Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Length
(LF)
Temporary
Impact Length
(LF)
S5.1
SK
Fill
25
0
S5.2
S45
Fill
518
0
S5.3
S15
Fill
34
39
Total
543
0
N
�iiii► NA Z! 1i,
F4Z.MM•11111.;
Otimmisig
NigoilmniF
‘)ITI
KEY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
0 200'
IIIIIIIIIIIII— IIIIIIIIIIIII—
SCALE: 1" = 200'
400'
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
PROJECT GRMS
SITE PLAN
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
05/25/2018
01 X-05
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116

Z
o I _.
Z
z OHE
r
1"
I r
) -_.
�/ J/ //
l /
✓ ;br )�Rf�LK_SO_U iEBN RPM 04= 1
— --r /
__' Th,
cl
°
i
G �
/
RAILROAD A
L _ _ �}ORFOLK SOUTH _� l L- 1N.
� ^ \ J
.51
1 t -;-
11 f�
,-•
/— PROPOSED DUKE 't \ \- / /
ENERGY 500kV \
�1 S1(1i1/1i/l1`� )/sf/i/
_� 11 (/ 1 ( I L, ,
/ —
\ /
, CORRIDOR // /
-- /
— —_/ ( ( 1
i
�lT��/
--- / 1 �'
�-� / J 1
`- /
1
W6.2
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 10 FOR CONTINUATION
L
GENERAL NOTES:
1) SEE SHEET 1 FOR LEGEND AND
KEY MAP
Wetland Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Area
(AC)
Temporary
Impact Area
(AC)
W6.1
W5
Fill
0.13
0
W6.2
W5
Fill
0.19
0
Total
0.32
0
Pond Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Area
(AC)
P6.1
P10
Fill
2.02
Total
2.02
Perennial Stream Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Length
(LF)
Temporary
Impact Length
(LF)
S6.1
S7
Fill
633
0
S6.2
S1
Fill
452
61
Total
1085
61
KEY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
0
200'
400'
SCALE: 1" = 200'
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
PROJECT GRMS
SITE PLAN
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
05/25/2018
01X-06
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116

1 ' /
Z/ //--/ )
OLD 421 RDA d
MEI
I aj 40
o I- t7 %�
z_ /�
o ?) /j_- �// ) (.- z~
U 1 / 1/ice i j // / PROPOSED DUKE
/ r ��l/ ENERGY 500kJ
w r i�����
2 i 1 / l / �_ / /
ci-
LU
I 1 1 TTT'*r
I ._\ �r // ONE
1
FF-- I l i I 1 t 1 l r� /// \ 1 \
'-"-__--
1 - -� /
CORRIDOR Jc
i
-
eft
P7.1�
I („/ // J.„/ /
11/ \tl�lY
�/r/�
/ \1 \`� \�r///
\I \l ` J/ //
I\_ \ r
i l\
bHE
MUM
MEI
1
----\---- `)-/LJ i I ` i i V '.
�`�1, J 5// r f mi —
,l
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 11 FOR CONTINUATION
GENERAL NOTES:
1) SEE SHEET 1 FOR LEGEND AND
KEY MAP
Wetland Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Area
(AC)
Temporary
Impact Area
(AC)
W7.1
W22
Fill
0.15
0
Total
0.15
0
Pond Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Area
(AC)
P7.1
P11
Fill
0.17
Total
0.17
Intermittent Stream Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Length
(LF)
Temporary
Impact Length
(LF)
S7.1
S5
Fill
203
0
Total
203
KEY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
0
200'
400'
SCALE: 1" = 200'
F)1
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
PROJECT GRMS
SITE PLAN
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
05/25/2018
01X-07
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116

i//j// `_'-' l \\\ 6() • \ l t
J \
�.� / / 1 \ o , Z� ,, _ -_/
l ti - 1 I
o f /i i 7 \ \e` / L��� J 2, / / / j / j ( 1--
/
iv
= �.� �} r/ / — —, - ( 11 / (1 / N / 7 1 /
7
c c ,
.--___,
. 4,-,__,-, ) i) ( )
/)I I ) (
Z -
�� / / / _ 1 \ ` f,
< J`" / A, �,' ,-✓ / 1 ° 1 I
oct • I J / ; t ) ) ) \ ,_J /,--) ' /
l1 / ( t
N.
/
U NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILROAD _ — .i `( ' /
\�
I--_ / PROPOSED DUKE �.� ( `� \jam -!.
ENERGY 500kV .° °\ _
CORRIDOR
Omm
W8.1
- - - •�'�• OHE
aft
--
S8.1
— —
OHE
OHE
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 12 FOR CONTINUATION
`S
v ' \
v �)
GENERAL NOTES:
1) SEE SHEET 1 FOR LEGEND AND
KEY MAP
Wetland Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Area
(AC)
Temporary
Impact Area
(AC)
W8.1
W21
Fill
0.24
0
W8.2
W23
Fill
0.25
0
Total
0.49
0
Perennial Stream Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Length
(LF)
Temporary
Impact Length
(LF)
S8.1
S22
Fill
79
0
Total
79
0
KEY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
0
200'
400'
SCALE: 1" = 200'
F)1
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
PROJECT GRMS
SITE PLAN
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
05/25/2018
01X-08
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116

1
1
/
1
/
1
/
PROPOSED GRADING
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 5 FOR CONTINUATION
W9.1 S9.3
•
PROPOSED GRADING
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 13 FOR CONTINUATION
S9.2
PROPOSED INTERIOR
RAIL LINES
GENERAL NOTES:
1) SEE SHEET 1 FOR LEGEND AND
KEY MAP
Wetland Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Area
(AC)
Temporary
Impact Area
(AC)
W9.1
W40A
Fill
0.02
0
W9.2
W4OB
Fill
0.02
0
W9.3
W37
Fill
0.14
0
W9.4
W43
Fill
0.05
0
W9.5
W45
Fill
0.01
0
Total
0.24
0
Pond Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Area
(AC)
P9.1
P8
Fill
0.42
Total
0.42
Perennial Stream Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Length
(LF)
Temporary
Impact Length
(LF)
S9.1
S43/S43B
Fill
768
0
S9.2
S45
Fill
2363
0
Total
3131
0
Intermittent Stream Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Length
(LF)
Temporary
Impact Length
(LF)
S9.3
S51
Fill
81
0
S9.4
S48
Fill
45
55
Total
126
55
0
r�
KEY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
200'
400'
SCALE: 1" = 200'
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
PROJECT GRMS
SITE PLAN
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
05/25/2018
01 X-09
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116

MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 9 FOR CONTINUATION
PROPOSED INTERIOR
RAIL LINES
BROWNS MEADOW RD
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 6 FOR CONTINUATION
PROPOSED GRADING
7
i
S10.6 -/
•
•
•
..
ZS10.1
PROPOSED GRADING
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 14 FOR CONTINUATION
S 19.5
GENERAL NOTES:
1) SEE SHEET 1 FOR LEGEND AND
KEY MAP
Perennial Stream Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Length
(LF)
Temporary
Impact Length
(LF)
S10.1
S1
Fill
2188
0
S10.2
S7
Fill
1092
0
S10.3
S4
Fill
65
0
S10.4
SA
Fill
116
0
S10.5
S9
Fill
601
0
Total
4062
0
Intermittent Stream Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Length
(LF)
Temporary
Impact Length
(LF)
S10.6
S8
Fill
588
0
Total
588
0
KEY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
0
200'
400'
SCALE: 1" = 200'
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
PROJECT GRMS
SITE PLAN
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
05/25/2018
01X-10
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116

•
IS11.5 J /• •`..�.J
•
r
S11.1
\- W11.1
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 7 FOR CONTINUATION
PROPOSED INTERIOR
RAIL LINES
PROPOSED GRADING
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 15 FOR CONTINUATION
GENERAL NOTES:
1) SEE SHEET 1 FOR LEGEND AND
KEY MAP
Wetland Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Area
(AC)
Temporary
Impact Area
(AC)
W11.1
W6
Fill
0.02
0
W11.2
W7
Fill
0.06
0
W11.3
W8
Fill
0.05
0
W11.4
W22
Fill
0.16
0
Total
0.29
0
Pond Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Area
(AC)
P11.1
P11
Fill
0.05
Total
0.05
Perennial Stream Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Length
(LF)
Temporary
Impact Length
(LF)
S11.1
S4
Fill
320
0
S11.2
SA
Fill
175
0
S11.4
S20
Fill
124
0
Total
619
0
Intermittent Stream Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Length
(LF)
Temporary
Impact Length
(LF)
S11.1
S4
Fill
455
0
S11.3
S9
Fill
758
0
S11.5
S5
Fill
163
0
Total
1376
0
iyi
il il.= &MIN
IIIMMEN
ika,
_.„,,r14 ii
wimmt.
, wri a roil
KEY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
0
200'
400'
SCALE: 1" = 200'
F)1
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
PROJECT GRMS
SITE PLAN
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
05/25/2018
01 X-11
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116

W12.1
S12.1 -'
W12.4
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 8 FOR CONTINUATION
N\
PROPOSED INTERIOR
RAIL LINES
PROPOSED GRADING
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 16 FOR CONTINUATION
♦
♦
♦
♦
PROPOSED DUKE
ENERGY 5C
CORRIDOR
GENERAL NOTES:
1) SEE SHEET 1 FOR LEGEND AND
KEY MAP
Wetland Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Area
(AC)
Temporary
Impact Area
(AC)
W12.1
W22
Fill
0.07
0
W12.2
W20
Fill
0.10
0
W12.3
W21
Fill
0.09
0
W12.4
W24
Fill
0.22
0
Total
0.47
0
Perennial Stream Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Length
(LF)
Temporary
Impact Length
(LF)
S12.1
S20
Fill
949
0
S12.2
S22
Fill
607
0
S12.3
S21
Fill
1364
0
Total
2920
0
Intermittent Stream Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Length
(LF)
Temporary
Impact Length
(LF)
S12.4
S23
Fill
76
0
Total
76
0
KEY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
0
200'
400'
SCALE: 1" = 200'
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
PROJECT GRMS
SITE PLAN
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
05/25/2018
01X-12
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116

PROPOSED
POWER DISTRIBUTION
LINE TO SITE
_ l
// / I / �/J / 011\\\I
LA�1111��l
t ///� � / l / / 1 ) S d� I,I III1
II
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 9 FOR CONTINUATION
1
1
1
1
1
1
�
f /
\ 1�/ 1 // /-\\ �`` \\ \ \ 2 III \\ / / //�///\ 11��\� \ \ \- I �\I \\\
\ S13.1
� llI 1
,I i li rl r /l/ \\
\`\ ) 1 1/�Jl�11\f1 11�1 /\ 1 I I�
�)//�/�1 1III'l/ll/ti f< ll I I I�1��S11�
/`\\\\�, } \11I\11 > _ _ L � r..t _ l
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 17 FOR CONTINUATION
//l/7 l l l )/ ; `'\\ \\ \ \\I
S13.1
PROPOSED GRADING
II
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 14 FOR CONTINUATION
GENERAL NOTES:
1) SEE SHEET 1 FOR LEGEND AND
KEY MAP
Wetland Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Area
(AC)
Temporary
Impact Area
(AC)
W13.1
W18A
Fill
0.13
0
W13.2
W19
Fill
0.14
0
W13.3
WB
Excluded Feature
Total
0.27
0
Pond Impacts
I mpact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
I mpact
Type
Permanent
I mpact Area
(AC)
P13.1
P9
Excluded Feature
Total
0.00
Perennial Stream Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Length
(LF)
Temporary
Impact Length
(LF)
S13.1
S45
Fill
2140
0
Total
2140
0
Intermittent Stream Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Length
(LF)
Temporary
Impact Length
(LF)
S13.2
SY
Fill
107
0
Total
107
0
KEY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
0
200'
400'
SCALE: 1" = 200'
F)1
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
PROJECT GRMS
SITE PLAN
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
05/25/2018
01X-13
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116

Z Lr
O 1
Q 7
Zcr
O Z
o
ct
O I ct-
"1
M
I-
2
W
W
0.3
W
`0
W1
Z_
J
2
U
Q
2
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 10 FOR CONTINUATION
PROPOSED GRADING
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 18 FOR CONTINUATION
GENERAL NOTES:
1) SEE SHEET 1 FOR LEGEND AND
KEY MAP
Wetland Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Area
(AC)
Temporary
Impact Area
(AC)
W14.1
W9
Fill
0.34
0
W14.2
W12
Fill
0.26
0
Total
0.60
0
Pond Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Area
(AC)
P14.1
P13
Fill
3.77
Total
3.77
Perennial Stream Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Length
(LF)
Temporary
Impact Length
(LF)
S14.1
S1
Fill
1421
0
Total
1421
0
KEY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
0
200'
400'
SCALE: 1" = 200'
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
PROJECT GRMS
SITE PLAN
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
05/25/2018
01X-14
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116

MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 14 FOR CONTINUATION
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 11 FOR CONTINUATION
PROPOSED GRADING
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 19 FOR CONTINUATION
GENERAL NOTES:
1) SEE SHEET 1 FOR LEGEND AND
KEY MAP
Wetland Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Area
(AC)
Temporary
Impact Area
(AC)
W15.1
W35
Fill
0.25
0
W15.2
W25
Fill
0.24
0
Total
0.50
0
Perennial Stream Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Length
(LF)
Temporary
Impact Length
(LF)
S15.1
S25
Fill
420
0
Total
420
0
Intermittent Stream Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Length
(LF)
Temporary
Impact Length
(LF)
S15.3
HDR S9
Fill
105
0
S15.2
S26
Fill
163
0
Total
268
0
KEY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
0
200'
400'
SCALE: 1" = 200'
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
PROJECT GRMS
SITE PLAN
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
05/25/2018
01X-15
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116

r
MATCHLINE
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 12 FOR CONTINUATION
PROPOSED INTERIOR
RAIL LINES
PROPOSED GRADING
W16.2
S16.2
II
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 20 FOR CONTINUATION
1
li//i/// \ 1
GENERAL NOTES:
1) SEE SHEET 1 FOR LEGEND AND
KEY MAP
Wetland Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Area
(AC)
Temporary
Impact Area
(AC)
W16.1
W28
Fill
0.05
0
W16.2
W31
Fill
0.54
0
W16.3
HDRWG
Fill
0.11
0
W16.4
HDR WH
Fill
0.67
0
Total
1.37
0
Pond Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Area
(AC)
P16.1
PC
Fill
0.81
Total
0.81
Perennial Stream Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Length
(LF)
Temporary
Impact Length
(LF)
S16.1
S25/S25R
Fill
541
0
S16.2
S35
Fill
483
0
S16.3
S21
Fill
174
0
S16.4
S21
Fill
592
0
S16.5
S21
Fill
1152
0
Total
2942
0
KEY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
0
200'
400'
SCALE: 1" = 200'
F)1
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
PROJECT GRMS
SITE PLAN
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
05/25/2018
01X-16
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116

•
♦ r
♦
•
J
\\ \\\\\% C� J i
S17.1
S17.1
PROPOSED GRADING
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 13 FOR CONTINUATION
- S17.2
4,
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 21 FOR CONTINUATION
•//
/1'/J•/ ��-
/Ili (s(,/ -
) ( 4
7 z// /
r� / / 9
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 18 FOR CONTINUATION
GENERAL NOTES:
1) SEE SHEET 1 FOR LEGEND AND
KEY MAP
Wetland Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Area
(AC)
Temporary
Impact Area
(AC)
W17.1
W44
Fill
0.03
0
W17.2
W3
Fill
0.26
0
Total
0.29
0
Pond Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Area
(AC)
P17.1
P16
Fill
0.39
P17.2
P17
Fill
1.37
Total
1.76
Perennial Stream Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Length
(LF)
Temporary
Impact Length
(LF)
S17.1
545
Fill
861
65
S17.2
S44
Fill
756
0
Total
1617
65
OKI, EMI%
ihrk
Wililipi ii
KEY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
0
200'
400'
SCALE: 1" = 200'
F) 1
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
PROJECT GRMS
SITE PLAN
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
05/25/2018
01X-17
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116

BROWNS MEADO
VV18.4
S18.1
7r--
/,.._
,,_
,.....
//,�
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 14 FOR CONTINUATION
/
S18.2
S18.2
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 22 FOR CONTINUATION
PROPOSED GRADING
GENERAL NOTES:
1) SEE SHEET 1 FOR LEGEND AND
KEY MAP
Wetland Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Area
(AC)
Temporary
Impact Area
(AC)
W18.1
W9
Fill
0.07
0
W18.2
W10
Fill
0.16
0
W18.3
W13
Fill
0.14
0
W18.4
W3
Fill
0.005
0
Total
0.37
0
Pond Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Area
(AC)
P18.1
P13
Fill
1.88
P18.2
P15
Fill
6.32
P18.3
P14
Fill
1.21
Total
9.41
Perennial Stream Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Length
(LF)
Temporary
Impact Length
(LF)
S18.1
S12B
Fill
193
0
S18.2
S1
Fill
755
0
S18.3
Si1
Fill
232
0
Total
1180
0
—I 'I=— I r h..11.1 Oft illlia- ... _ _ _im•-•• ' I 41
miamniisa
it., witimmia;
��:
lik!Wilipli
KEY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
0
200'
400'
SCALE: 1" = 200'
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
PROJECT GRMS
SITE PLAN
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
05/25/2018
01X-18
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116

zl
O
z
1—
z
O
0
CtI
0
WIco
H
W
w
2
W
W
CO
zI
J
U
H
2
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 15 FOR CONTINUATION
W19.2
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 23 FOR CONTINUATION
S19.1
111.1.111n
INTERMITTENT
S19.1
INTERMITTE
NT
z
510
H
Q
z
H
IO
\. i U
a
0
u_
0
,-.1H
W
W
\I`,)
W19.3 •• w
Ico
PROPOSED GRADING
GENERAL NOTES:
1) SEE SHEET 1 FOR LEGEND AND
KEY MAP
Wetland Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Area
(AC)
Temporary
Impact Area
(AC)
W 19.1
W 34
Excluded Feature
W19.2
W14
Excluded Feature
W19.3
HDR WF
Fill
0.15
Total
0.15
0
Intermittent Stream Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Length
(LF)
Temporary
Impact Length
(LF)
S19.1
HDR S9
Fill
1427
0
Total
1427
0
MIN � !1'"
KEY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
0
200'
400'
SCALE: 1" = 200'
F)1
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
PROJECT GRMS
SITE PLAN
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
05/25/2018
01X-19
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116

S20.2
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 16 FOR CONTINUATION
PROPOSED GRADING
•
/ li
tT
/
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 24 FOR CONTINUATION
II
S20.1
II
II II
W20.
1 1 1 I
1
T
S20.5
J .
i
5 l /
I I 1 I
GENERAL NOTES:
1) SEE SHEET 1 FOR LEGEND AND KEY MAP
Wetland Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Area
(AC)
Temporary
Impact Area
(AC)
W20.1
W28
Fill
0.78
0
W20.2
W32
Fill
0.19
0
W20 3
HDR WE
Fill
1.60
0
Total
2.56
0
Perennial Stream Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Length
(LF)
Temporary
Impact Length
(LF)
S20.1
S35
Fill
1469
0
S20.2
S21
Fill
1264
0
S20.4
S30
Fill
1670
45
S20.5
S31
Fill
216
54
Total
4619
99
Intermittent Stream Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Length
(LF)
Temporary
Impact Length
(LF)
S20.3
HDR S9
Fill
875
0
Total
875
0
Row,
MINIIF.t,
KEY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
0
200'
400'
SCALE: 1" = 200'
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
PROJECT GRMS
SITE PLAN
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
05/25/2018
01X-20
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116

NN
��A.\,\\\\\
\ Ikki;11 \�` =��i \
• J 1 /Jill \ \\ �� )I
/ / II rII/� \ I 1
(l/(7/11/`I\\ \ L \\1\`.
l \ 1\ \ 1 1 ( I \�
/7 / )IIIIIII�III\\1 j;,
L��II�r�/ /II111\1111111111�`. I a �)h \
ti<
\\\.\
\ \\\\\ `\\\ \ \ \ \ I I t_��1\\ �\
` l J / ,� ,\\\ \ \\ \\
—
\\�\ (� I l l l l l\ ti `�� —� 1 _
\�\\\\�� ll� \Il\\ ��_
�\�� J III \\���_'�;✓ '�'� j 2
\\-� - i
\\\o\ � „Z�/ °J)
/
/� l
\\\. \-\'—'1\-- \;\\O \111{II) 1
\ \T 6/ a
\ it/l,—,<
�/s
I)\
' 1 `\ \\\ \\ ; if J I 1 ! 1/�/�— /,�/ ��� l�r\r
\ ti )) ) , 1 )1/r �� //J /li1l\
////// / III ��% J�I rI IIIJ
I1�
1 ( \+1 1)'
/ ,• / //// /Jj/lJ
/ //// /z/J
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 17 FOR CONTINUATION
4,
i// 1\111\1`\1
4,
4,
(\11(\1`Illlllllflll(��il � —` ,%� �/j/ l
1 II1� ll jll11\\� --_—�'
sk.
/ /// I 11 )L ��/,, 7/417 // ////
�// II /
\ /7„
))p,
///
// II/�(�
\
/ \ \`
\�� tl
-\\,\:�I
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 22 FOR CONTINUATION
GENERAL NOTES:
1) SEE SHEET 1 FOR LEGEND AND KEY MAP
2) NO JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS THIS SHEET
KEY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
0
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
PROJECT GRMS
SITE PLAN
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
05/25/2018
01X-21
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116

MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 18 FOR CONTINUATION
S22.1 /
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
r
GENERAL NOTES:
1) SEE SHEET 1 FOR LEGEND AND KEY MAP
Perennial Stream Impacts
Impact Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact Type
Permanent
Impact Length
(LF)
Temporary
Impact Length
(LF)
S22.1
S1
Fill
405
41
Total
405
41
KEY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
0
200'
400'
SCALE: 1" = 200'
F) 1
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
PROJECT GRMS
SITE PLAN
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
05/25/2018
01X-22
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116

MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 19 FOR CONTINUATION
W23.1
P23.1
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 25 FOR CONTINUATION
W23.2
111
GENERAL NOTES:
1) SEE SHEET 1 FOR LEGEND AND KEY MAP
Wetland Impacts
Impact Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact Type
Permanent
Impact Area
(AC)
Temporary
Impact Area
(AC)
W23.1
WW
Fill
0.15
0
W23.2
HDR WD
Excluded Features
Total
0.15
0.00
Pond Impacts
Impact Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact Type
Permanent
Impact Area
(AC)
P23.1
PB
Excluded Features
Total
0.00
Perennial Stream Impacts
Impact Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact Type
Permanent
Impact Length
(LF)
Temporary
Impact Length
(LF)
S23.1
S17
Fill
573
55
Total
573
55
KEY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
0
200'
400'
SCALE: 1" = 200'
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
PROJECT GRMS
SITE PLAN
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
05/25/2018
01X-23
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116

•
IIIIIIIIIIIII�
S24.3
•• � S24.2
r S24.5
S24.2 ,
1'
IIIIIIIIIIIII- IIIIIIIIIIIII- IIIIIIIIIIIII- IIIIIIIIIIIII- IIIIIIIIIIIII- IIIIIIIIIIIII- IIIIIIIIIIIII-
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 20 FOR CONTINUATION
W24.1
S24.4
PERENNIAL
I S24.2
I 1 'I
S24.4
INTERMITTENT
PROPOSED INTERIOR /
RAIL LINES
PROPOSED GRADING
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 26 FOR CONTINUATION
GENERAL NOTES:
1) SEE SHEET 1 FOR LEGEND AND KEY MAP
Wetland Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Area
(AC)
Temporary
Impact Area
(AC)
W24.1
HDR WB
Fill
0.12
0
Total
0.12
0
Perennial Stream Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Length
(LF)
Temporary
Impact Length
(LF)
S24.1
S21
Fill
344
0
S24.2
S30
Fill
2240
40
S24.4
HDR S3
Fill
834
0
Total
3418
40
Intermittent Stream Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Length
(LF)
Temporary
Impact Length
(LF)
S24.3
HDR S4
Fill
450
0
S24.4
HDR S3
Fill
834
0
S24.5
HDR S5
Fill
71
0
Total
1355
0
KEY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
0
200'
400'
SCALE: 1" = 200'
F)1
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
PROJECT GRMS
SITE PLAN
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
05/25/2018
01X-24
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116

I
zl
0
z_
I—
z
0
U
01
LL
in I
1-
w
w
w
w
CII
zI
•
2
IMP IMP
I
'�%--_ 7/1 71/ / ) z
,�(_ (.._��\ • \ L \•
- ,_�� \
\ :1/4-
r
1.\\ 'Ns\ t 1 / l 1
I / I / l
\ \ \ ti 91
!�J / / ! /\//
/ijj % / j /j�/� // //
r-�
j/ i\ i( r /r / r l
z/--~J�I1I l/l /
r-,-,',/ /--` (1 /
r�f�J� � I 1 1
// �—� L J ) I
/ / —_--`, I 'CI
yJ 7 --
\\\\\\\ //
— \\\ \ _ 7 /
lI I //
1 /
\1l1/��
I /J
/// / /�\�
1 I < f
\111 ( / <
P25.1 i
z
)�IIl/ \ac� 10
J 1//�\ llkl II11i \, \
t0
I"
L
N
w
w
w
w
1?
I
IJ
U
H
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 23 FOR CONTINUATION
< < �.� I \\
\(
% `-\
)/) )
/ll/� / �\ \
._--- / \\ \\II \ --..„____:\ ./,
II ++
/) / (/�,-- 1) 1)1\\ ///// (``
11 /1 /// // / \,,
l / t /7. // / /
II / /l ( I/ I (
) I l H----" � J I/ I I\ i f--
111\ WI r -� / 1 \ I \ 2
1 III 1 l \\ (\(�7 -\ )/ /
/(II \\\`) J ) 1 /
LI I l \\\\\`)/ ////
I (! I 1 \\ I\\�\\ ✓ — — \\e � / �./
/ 71--/--1-1-/ i
I ) J/ / �II •4 n \— — \\ \vti � J
r/((I//4LLI >>ll�.
\\ \ —� \�\ \\ —_—\�\ \\.
\\ `—� \ \\\\�~� �� Z\� \
\\ \ �\ \
\ \ \\\ `��\\\\\\\
�\ \ \ \ ~ \ \\ \ \ \ \
`\
\11\ \��\\ \1\\ \\
( r r \\
)1r . \ i \ 11 f i ))
GENERAL NOTES:
1) SEE SHEET 1 FOR LEGEND AND KEY MAP
Pond Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Area
(AC)
P25.1
PB
Excluded Features
Total
0.00
1 ._L_EI�
rfMNIIF*
ViosAmp
*TM
KEY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
0
200'
400'
SCALE: 1" = 200'
F)1
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
PROJECT GRMS
SITE PLAN
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
05/25/2018
01X-25
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116

T
/•
IMP
IMP IMP
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 24 FOR CONTINUATION
"=-7-77 T) \
C I l)
S)!
)
V/ S t 11 �
1,�
////, , /i /// II/ /
IMP IMP IMP IMP IMP IMP
IMP IMP
GENERAL NOTES:
1) SEE SHEET 1 FOR LEGEND AND KEY MAP
2) NO JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS THIS SHEET
Perennial Stream Impacts
Impact Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact Type
Permanent
Impact Length
(LF)
Temporary
Impact Length
(LF)
S26.1
HDR S2
Fill
68
47
Total
68
47
--Mee._ *-ZoiffillIti pus
Iliiimori
'�=Ia v
311 Mil.
lRIMINIIi
410
41,
viii
KEY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
0
200'
400'
SCALE: 1" = 200'
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
PROJECT GRMS
SITE PLAN
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
05/25/2018
01X-26
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116

Legend
Adjacent Parcels
Megasite Boundary
0 Feet 1,800 A
•
F�2
70
59 58 62
66
71 61
67
60
41
41
ADJACENT PARCELS MAP
FIGURE 1
PATH: Z:IGISIPROJECTS1995119 CITYOFGREENSBORO19259114 GBOROMSWATER-SEWERENVIROIMAP OOCSIMXOIGRMS NEPAIGRMS AOJACENTPARCELS MAP.MXO - USER: JGARVEY - DATE: 11/21/2017

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
1
PIN
ACCT_NAME
Address
City
State
ZIP
2
1
8708735760
ASHLEY, ROGER DALE
6135 JULIAN AIRPORT RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
3
2
8708735798
ASHLEY, ROGER DALE
6135 JULIAN AIRPORT RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
4
3
8708944178
BARKER, MARGARET S
8868 OLD 421 RD
JULIAN
NC
27283
5
4
8717993994
BEESON, MARJORIE S
5948 MACEDONIA LOOP RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
6
5
8718915221
BEESON, MARJORIE S
5948 MACEDONIA LOOP RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
7
6
8728002688
BEESON, MARJORIE S
5948 MACEDONIA LOOP RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
8
7
8708733381
BILLUPS, BRENDAC
4742CALHOUN DR
LIBERTY
NC
27298
9
8
8708710363
BOWMAN, JESSE D (CARPENTER, AMBER D)
5731 JULIAN AIRPORT RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
10
9
8728024087
BRAFFORD, JAMES TRUSTEE
TRUST
LIBERTY
NC
27298
11
10
8717312809
BREEDLOVE, LESTER LEE
6041 STARMOUNT RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
12
11
8717442907
BROWN, ALDA KING
4807 HOOTS HOLLOW RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
13
12
8708724777
BROWN, DONNIE WAY
P O BOX 333
PLEASANT GARDEN
NC
27313
14
13
8708849131
BULLARD, JAMES C (ELLIS, JEAN BULLARD)
5163 WALDEN MILL DR
NORCROSS
GA
30092
15
14
8717648977
COBLE, KELLY LEE
4595 TROY SMITH RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
16
15
8707990472
CRUTCHFIELD, ALFRED M
5536JULIAN AIRPORT RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
17
16
8708801435
CRUTCHFIELD, ALFRED NOLAND
5616JULIAN AIRPORT RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
18
17
8708748290
DEVRIES, DANIEL PETER (DEVRIES, TYRINA LOUISE)
9010 OLD 421 RD
JULIAN
NC
27283
19
18
8708734021
DYKES, KARLA SWAIM
6029JULIAN AIRPORT RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
20
19
8718446055
ELIZABETH A M E CHURCH
P O BOX 1691
LIBERTY
NC
27298
21
20
8718446221
ELIZABETH A M E CHURCH
P O BOX 1691
LIBERTY
NC
27298
22
21
8708616529
FOUSHEE, SHERRY LYNN MABE (WILDER, CAROL ANN MABE) - Additional Owners
5775 JULIAN AIRPORT RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
23
22
8708807291
GEORGEVICH, JAMES K (GEORGEVICH, JUDIANN E)
4606 CRUTCHFIELD FARM RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
24
23
8708743132
GILMORE, LANDSCAPING INC
9154 OLD 421 RD
JULIAN
NC
27283
25
24
8708722536
GRAY, BETSY D (GRAY, JAMES LARRY JR)
5925 JULIAN AIRPORT RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
26
25
8718540083
GREENSBORO RANDOLPH MEGASITE FOUNDATION INC
324 W WENDOVER AVE
GREENSBORO
NC
27408
27
26
8708723471
HAGIN, ELLA B
4813 WOODVERY DR
LIBERTY
NC
27298
28
27
8708847188
HARVELL, KELLIE LYNNE
8920 OLD 421 RD
JULIAN
NC
27283
29
28
8708940260
HARVELL, LILLIAN MARIE MARTIN
P O BOX 183
CLIMAX
NC
27283
30
29
8717728661
HAWFIELDS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 2
5466 STARMOUNT RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
31
30
8717982190
HOLT, FAYE BREEDLOVE
5230TROY SMITH RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
32
31
8717989604
HOLT, FAYE BREEDLOVE
5230TROY SMITH RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
33
32
8717442242
HUMBLE, MARTHA BLALOCK LIFE ESTATE
P O BOX 887
LIBERTY
NC
27298
34
33
8708942175
JENKINS, LINDA WRAY
187 N MAIN ST
STALEY
NC
27355
35
34
8708607893
LEVINSON, HARRY TRUSTEE
#7OLIVER CT
GREENSBORO
NC
27406
36
35
8708713955
LEVINSON, HARRY TRUSTEE
#7OLIVER CT
GREENSBORO
NC
27406
37
36
8708724709
LEVINSON, HARRY TRUSTEE
#7OLIVER CT
GREENSBORO
NC
27406
38
37
8708713423
MABE, MATTIE WHITTEN HEIRS
6178 HICKORY CREEK RD
HIGH POINT
NC
27263
39
38
8718738218
MACEDONIA BAPTIST CHURCH OF LIBERTY
7881 OLD 421 RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
40
39
8718823833
MACEDONIA BAPTIST CHURCH OF LIBERTY
7881 OLD 421 RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
41
40
8708614323
MAGET, JOHN HENRY II (MAGET, PAMELAA)
5729JULIAN AIRPORT RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
42
41
8718733763
MILLIKAN, JOY CELL FOX
7846 OLD 421 RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
43
42
8717520081
MONARD LLC
204 LOYD RD
STATESVILLE
NC
28625
44
43
8708704424
PIERCE, GENE (PIERCE, ELIZABETH)
5667JULIAN AIRPORT RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
45
44
8717996279
SHAFLEY, LANCE ROBERT
5334 TROY SMITH RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
46
45
8717950680
SHELTON, JIMMY D (SHELTON, SUE C)
4948 TROY SMITH RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
47
46
8708723262
SHOFFNER, DONNA GAIL
5085 STALEYS DAIRY RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
48
47
8718537779
SMITH, CICERO R HEIRS
81240LD 421 RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
49
48
8717960600
SMITH, MICKEY BLAINE (SMITH, TAMMY B)
5014 TROY SMITH RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
50
49
8717459812
STEPHENS, CHARLES BUDDY (STEPHENS, MARY W)
4883 HOOTS HOLLOW RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
51
50
8708734596
TOMAS, JOSE ARON ALEJO (SOSA, MARIA LOURDES FELIPE)
P 0 BOX 434
LIBERTY
NC
27298
52
51
8708713756
WILDER, NICHOLAS R
5781 JULIAN AIRPORT RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
53
52
8717558194
WILLIAMS, LYNDA C (FETNER, MARK DODSON) - Additional Owners
6767 BROOKBANK RD
SUMMERFIELD
NC
27358
54
53
8717456557
WILLIAMS, ROBERT DOUGLAS
4933 HOOTS HOLLOW RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
55
54
8717971072
WOLFE, GRACE E FERGUSON HEIRS
4977 PEARL FERGUSON RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
56
55
8717969801
WOLFE, GRACE FERGUSON (FERGUSON, ARVIN REID) - Additional Owners
4977 PEARL FERGUSON RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
57
56
8708723059
YATES, SHAUN MCMILLAN
600 PURTIS CREEK LN
GEORGETOWN
TX
78628
58
57
8718043525
BEESON, MARJORIE S
5948 MACEDONIA LOOP RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
59
58
8718244733
BERTOLOTTI, GAYLE V; BERTOLOTTI, GEORGE J II
7027 OLD 421 RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
60
59
8718144723
CHAPPELL, ELIZABETH C
7217 BOBBY JEAN ROAD
JULIAN
NC
27283
61
60
8718457365
CHILTON, CLARENCE G L/T; CHILTON, ROY DEAN
7059 OLD 421 RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
62
61
8718450972
CHILTON, ROY D ; CHILTON, LINDA
7059 OLD 421 RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
63
62
8718340658
FOLWELL, JERRY SMITH ; FOLWELL, VERLINE B
7041 OLD 421 RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
64
63
8708746792
GILMORE LANDSCAPING INC
9154 OLD 421 RD
JULIAN
NC
27283
65
64
8708848592
GILMORE LANDSCAPING INC
9154 OLD 421 RD
JULIAN
NC
27283
66
65
8718446157
GREENSBORO-RANDOLPH MEGASITE FOUNDATION INC
324 W WENDOVER AVE
GREENSBORO
NC
27408
67
66
8718248475
KENDRICK, ROGER D ; KENDRICK, CHERYL D
7039 OLD 421 RD
JULIAN
NC
27283
68
67
8718357641
KENNEDY, DOROTHY A
7055 OLD 421 RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
69
68
8718145450
SHOFFNER, JOHN TERRY ; SHOFFNER, PATRICIA F
2247 NC 62 EAST
JULIAN
NC
27283
70
69
8718275172
TIM S FARM AND, FORESTRY LLC
7157 BOBBY JEAN RD
JULIAN
NC
27283
71
70
8718241701
TIM S FARM AND, FORESTRY LLC
7157 BOBBY JEAN RD
JULIAN
NC
27283
72
71
8718354798
TIMS FARM & FORESTRY
7157 BOBBY JEAN ROAD
JULIAN
NC
27283

r
■
IOWA ea
//ate ■d/ milllll:►0��:
I/Jl�l►a.�...■...7■�U�II�I��J ��•- ��1 �OP ��i
E _=I11 1111111111 4
��1\IIIII��III,
miluw
' 111111■11111►�
F)1
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116
PROJECT GRMS
DUKE ENERGY CORRIDORS
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
05/25/2018
04X-01

y y y y y y
LEGEND
EXISTING WETLAND
EXISTING POND
- • - • - • - • - • - • - • - • - EXISTING PERENNIAL STREAM
EXISTING INTERMITTENT STREAM
PERMANENT WETLAND IMPACT
TEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACT
PERMANENT POND IMPACT
PERMANENT STREAM IMPACT
TEMPORARY STREAM IMPACT
•
♦
Wetland Impacts
Impact
Number
Sheet
Number
Wetland
ID
Lat. (decimal
degrees)
Long. (decimal
degrees)
Type of
Impact
Type of
Wetland
(Cowardin)
Area of
Permanent
Impact (acres)
Area of
Temporary
Impact
(acres)
WP6.1
6
WA
35.9088
-79.7334
Clearing
PEM1E
0.00
0.04
WP9.1
9
WB
35.9005
-79.7184
Clearing
PEM1E/PSS1E
0.00
0.02
WP10.1
10
WG
35.8974
-79.7048
Clearing
PEM1E
0.00
0.02
WP11.1
11
WF
35.8972
-79.7035
Clearing
PEM1E
0.00
0.01
WP11.2
11
WC
35.8971
-79.7003
Clearing
PSS
0.00
0.01
WP12.1
12
WH
35.8967
-79.6916
Clearing
PEM1E/PSS 1 B
0.00
0.01
WP13.1
13
WI
35.8957
-79.6835
Clearing
PEM1E
0.00
0.01
WP22.1
22
W39
35.9023
-79.6405
Clearing
PFO
0.00
0.08
Total
0.00
0.20
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
PROJECT GRMS
DUKE ENERGY CORRIDORS
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
05/25/2018
04X-02
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116

/
/
/
/ /
/,
.I
0
m
0
EXISTING DUKE
ENERGY CORRIDOR
SEE NOTE 2
OHE J
--/
IMP IMP IMP
OHE
OM IMP IMP
PROPOSED DUKE
ENERGY 100kV
CORRIDOR
• 1 /
.\ /
IMP
/
z
0
1-
Z
/ • • I-
/ 10
U
iSEE NOTE 2
OHE OHE
-- ---
I0)
w
•—• I(/)
w_
J
I 1 / z Q
00 ` / 2
•
`. '
Tri
a
F-1
GENERAL NOTES:
1. SEE SHEET 04X-02 FOR LEGEND.
2. NO IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL
RESOURCES ON THIS SHEET. STREAM
CROSSINGS WILL BE HAND CLEARED
AND SPAN BRIDGES WILL BE UTILIZED
FOR CROSSINGS IF NECESSARY.
riot
itlillike *ratrffillti
71' „� ..-1.11_ r
ollir #1,4114110 0 sjoi
CAI a
ri&Liww -- _ I
A' = Sul-■■�2 •
.
f'
14...eke.ir•Z‘%%1\'''
two411.1-11 II
Ian
Il=
mg
pi :Al
KEY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
0
200'
400'
SCALE: 1" = 200'
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
PROJECT GRMS
DUKE ENERGY CORRIDORS
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
05/25/2018
04X-03
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116

PROPOSED DUKE
ENERGY 100kV
CORRIDOR
F)1
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116
PROJECT GRMS
DUKE ENERGY CORRIDORS
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
NO IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL
RESOURCES ON THIS SHEET. STREAM
CROSSINGS WILL BE HAND CLEARED
AND SPAN BRIDGES WILL BE UTILIZED
FOR CROSSINGS IF NECESSARY.
DATE
SHEET
05/25/2018
04X-04

PROPOSED DUKE
ENERGY 100kV
CORRIDOR
F)1
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116
PROJECT GRMS
DUKE ENERGY CORRIDORS
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
NO IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL
RESOURCES ON THIS SHEET. STREAM
CROSSINGS WILL BE HAND CLEARED
AND SPAN BRIDGES WILL BE UTILIZED
FOR CROSSINGS IF NECESSARY.
DATE
SHEET
05/25/2018
04X-05

PROPOSED DUKE
ENERGY 100kV
CORRIDOR
SHEET 7 FOR CONTINUATION
F)1
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116
NO IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL
STREAMS ON THIS SHEET. STREAM
CROSSINGS WILL BE HAND CLEARED
AND SPAN BRIDGES WILL BE UTILIZED
FOR CROSSINGS IF NECESSARY.
3. WETLANDS IN THE PROPOSED DUKE
ENERGY CORRIDOR WILL BE HAND
CLEARED.
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Area
(AC)
Temporary
Impact Area
(AC)
WP6.1
WA
CLEARING
0.00
0.04
Total
0.00
0.04
PROJECT GRMS
DUKE ENERGY CORRIDORS
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
05/25/2018
04X-06

MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 6 FOR CONTINUATION
PROPOSED DUKE
ENERGY 100kV
CORRIDOR
F)1
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116
PROJECT GRMS
DUKE ENERGY CORRIDORS
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
NO IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL
RESOURCES ON THIS SHEET. STREAM
CROSSINGS WILL BE HAND CLEARED
AND SPAN BRIDGES WILL BE UTILIZED
FOR CROSSINGS IF NECESSARY.
DATE
SHEET
05/25/2018
04X-07

PROPOSED DUKE
ENERGY 100kV
CORRIDOR
F)1
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116
PROJECT GRMS
DUKE ENERGY CORRIDORS
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
2. NO IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL
RESOURCES ON THIS SHEET.
DATE
SHEET
05/25/2018
04X-08

OI
< ••
•
_
0
0
0
uI
co
1-
w
w
w
0)
w
w
ZI
J
0
Q
2
7
SEE NOTE 2
WP9.1
SEE NOTE 3
Z
I 0
0
0
7
SEE NOTE 2
i
7
PROPOSED DUKE
ENERGY 100kV
CORRIDOR
GENERAL NOTES:
1. SEE SHEET 04X-02 FOR LEGEND.
2. NO IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL
STREAMS ON THIS SHEET. STREAM
CROSSINGS WILL BE HAND CLEARED
AND SPAN BRIDGES WILL BE UTILIZED
FOR CROSSINGS IF NECESSARY.
3. WETLANDS IN THE PROPOSED DUKE
ENERGY CORRIDOR WILL BE HAND
CLEARED.
Wetland Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Area
(AC)
Temporary
Impact Area
(AC)
WP9.1
WB
CLEARING
0.00
0.02
Total
0.00
0.02
iap4mi lviii ,�r�
.er.4 ;--,,--mt.-,
,II
.= •..
Imo . Diu �"""14.6.
I.1 ` -,
—51
��J��._III►�,a'<<.�_'i`�nr1/►�I.M
KEY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
0
200'
400'
SCALE: 1" = 200'
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
PROJECT GRMS
DUKE ENERGY CORRIDORS
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
05/25/2018
04X-09
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116

FOA.ft
OI•
z
o ••
0
yF
0LL
rn
I
PROPOSED DUKE
ENERGY 100kV
CORRIDOR
WP10.1
SEE NOTE 3
GENERAL NOTES:
1. SEE SHEET 04X-02 FOR LEGEND.
2. NO IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL
STREAMS ON THIS SHEET. STREAM
CROSSINGS WILL BE HAND CLEARED
AND SPAN BRIDGES WILL BE UTILIZED
FOR CROSSINGS IF NECESSARY.
3. WETLANDS IN THE PROPOSED DUKE
ENERGY CORRIDOR WILL BE HAND
CLEARED.
Wetland Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Area
(AC)
Temporary
Impact Area
(AC)
WP10.1
WG
CLEARING
0.00
0.02
Total
0.00
0.02
1 .,I_"`�� All III L.�4PeTs‘�" �=�
ft
sir 1�1111 'C'- i ��� 1'1'�� �4.r f�
•
�Ir•�iL►'i�ia+!� 114,11 /111:11:4.
+_�1�IIII�111
%t'�':11
IIIIt�� llo���� flr1�
mai
lta�_��l� � _1 �� 1� w�w��F�a �hli ��
KEY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
0
200'
400'
SCALE: 1" = 200'
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
PROJECT GRMS
DUKE ENERGY CORRIDORS
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
05/25/2018
04X-10
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116

PROPOSED DUKE
ENERGY 100kV
CORRIDOR
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116
NO IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL
STREAMS ON THIS SHEET. STREAM
CROSSINGS WILL BE HAND CLEARED
AND SPAN BRIDGES WILL BE UTILIZED
FOR CROSSINGS IF NECESSARY.
WETLANDS IN THE PROPOSED DUKE
ENERGY CORRIDOR WILL BE HAND
CLEARED.
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Area
(AC)
Temporary
Impact Area
(AC)
WP11.1
WF
CLEARING
0.00
0.01
WP11.2
WC
CLEARING
0.00
0.01
Total
0.00
0.02
PROJECT GRMS
DUKE ENERGY CORRIDORS
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
05/25/2018
04X-11

PROPOSED DUKE
ENERGY 100kV
CORRIDOR
F)1
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116
NO IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL
STREAMS ON THIS SHEET. STREAM
CROSSINGS WILL BE HAND CLEARED
AND SPAN BRIDGES WILL BE UTILIZED
FOR CROSSINGS IF NECESSARY.
WETLANDS IN THE PROPOSED DUKE
ENERGY CORRIDOR WILL BE HAND
CLEARED
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Area
(AC)
Temporary
Impact Area
(AC)
WP12.1
WH
CLEARING
0.00
0.01
Total
0.00
0.01
PROJECT GRMS
DUKE ENERGY CORRIDORS
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
05/25/2018
04X-12

i
SEE NOTE 2
SEE NOTE 2
OHE ---
i
�H1
GREESON COUNTRY RD
J
/
/
MEI
OHE
PROPOSED DUKE
ENERGY 100kV
CORRIDOR
J
I I
I
WP13.1
SEE NOTE 3
z
O
I=
z
1-
to
I"
O
GENERAL NOTES:
1. SEE SHEET 04X-02 FOR LEGEND.
2. NO IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL
STREAMS ON THIS SHEET. STREAM
CROSSINGS WILL BE HAND CLEARED
AND SPAN BRIDGES WILL BE UTILIZED
FOR CROSSINGS IF NECESSARY.
PONDS WILL BE SPANNED.
3. WETLANDS IN THE PROPOSED DUKE
ENERGY CORRIDOR WILL BE HAND
CLEARED.
Wetland Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Area
(AC)
Temporary
Impact Area
(AC)
WP13.1
WI
CLEARING
0.00
0.01
Total
0.00
0.01
"��lilllll ► ���� —��
:111111.-.11:11:1111111:;"1:1111171:111.11-11111(1"111-
.
Elk
III
�:►;! Icy ■r��` �7�� " .
KEY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
0
200'
400'
SCALE: 1" = 200'
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
PROJECT GRMS
DUKE ENERGY CORRIDORS
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
05/25/2018
04X-13
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116

zI
O
z
I=
z
O
0
aI
0
"I
c)
1-
w
w
w
w
COI
wI
z_
J
U'
2
OHE
OHE
PROPOSED DUKE
ENERGY 100kV
CORRIDOR
OHE
OHE
MEI
SEE NOTE 2
OHE
•
.11
z
0
I=
Q
D
z
H
Iz
O
I"
CC
O
u_
Ln
OM MEI —cn
OHE w
—..I cn
\ w
z
_I..-J
U
Q
I2
GENERAL NOTES:
1. SEE SHEET 04X-02 FOR LEGEND.
2. NO IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL
RESOURCES ON THIS SHEET. STREAM
CROSSINGS WILL BE HAND CLEARED
AND SPAN BRIDGES WILL BE UTILIZED
FOR CROSSINGS IF NECESSARY.
• illEt-4-11(w
��r ��IIII ■
Warr •
411Ir Itollt(440
Jae
reinotAi
_ welt!:u.
�■■7► •�► `�, i.■fir%//i1�: �_— 1
y!,
III 1 :i .. ►ly ■1 _allilli
ii���
Sul �■� �• {' �\
1.1 AMR IIIII�jII 17.
KEY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
0
200'
400'
SCALE: 1" = 200'
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
PROJECT GRMS
DUKE ENERGY CORRIDORS
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
05/25/2018
04X-14
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116

PROPOSED DUKE
ENERGY 100kV
CORRIDOR
F)1
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116
PROJECT GRMS
DUKE ENERGY CORRIDORS
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
NO IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL
RESOURCES ON THIS SHEET. STREAM
CROSSINGS WILL BE HAND CLEARED
AND SPAN BRIDGES WILL BE UTILIZED
FOR CROSSINGS IF NECESSARY.
DATE
SHEET
05/25/2018
04X-15

PROPOSED DUKE
ENERGY 100kV
CORRIDOR
F)1
EXISTING DUKE
ENERGY 500kV
CORRIDOR
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116
PROJECT GRMS
DUKE ENERGY CORRIDORS
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
2. NO IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL
RESOURCES ON THIS SHEET.
DATE
SHEET
05/25/2018
04X-16

PROPOSED DUKE
ENERGY 100kV
CORRIDOR
F)1
EXISTING DUKE
ENERGY 500kV
CORRIDOR
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116
PROJECT GRMS
DUKE ENERGY CORRIDORS
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
2. NO IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL
RESOURCES ON THIS SHEET.
DATE
SHEET
05/25/2018
04X-17

PROPOSED DUKE
ENERGY 100kV
CORRIDOR
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 20 FOR CONTINUATION
F)1
PROPOSED DUKE
ENERGY 500kV
CORRIDOR
EXISTING DUKE
ENERGY 500kV
CORRIDOR
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116
PROJECT GRMS
DUKE ENERGY CORRIDORS
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
2. NO IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL
RESOURCES ON THIS SHEET.
DATE
SHEET
05/25/2018
04X-18

PROPOSED DUKE
ENERGY 100kV
CORRIDOR
EXISTING DUKE
ENERGY 500kV
CORRI DOR
F)1
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116
PROJECT GRMS
DUKE ENERGY CORRIDORS
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
NO IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL
STREAMS ON THIS SHEET. STREAM
CROSSINGS WILL BE HAND CLEARED
AND SPAN BRIDGES WILL BE UTILIZED
FOR CROSSINGS IF NECESSARY.
DATE
SHEET
05/25/2018
04X-19

MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 21 FOR CONTINUATION
PROPOSED DUKE
ENERGY 500kV
CORRIDOR
1_ \.__2
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 18 FOR CONTINUATION
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116
PROJECT GRMS
DUKE ENERGY CORRIDORS
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
NO IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL
RESOURCES ON THIS SHEET. STREAM
CROSSINGS WILL BE HAND CLEARED
AND SPAN BRIDGES WILL BE UTILIZED
FOR CROSSINGS IF NECESSARY.
DATE
SHEET
05/25/2018
04X-20

SITE GRADING BOUNDARY
(RAIL SPUR INTO PAD)
PROPOSED DUKE
ENERGY 500kV
CORRIDOR
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 20 FOR CONTINUATION
F)1
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116
PROJECT GRMS
DUKE ENERGY CORRIDORS
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
NO IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL
RESOURCES ON THIS SHEET.
DATE
SHEET
05/25/2018
04X-21

SEE SHEET
MATCHLINE
MEGASITE PROPERTY BOUNDARY
� r
OM IMP OM
IMP IMP IMP
ORES
OHE
1
1
1
1
1
1
IIMP
OM IMP OM
OHE
PROPOSED DUKE
ENERGY 500kV
CORRIDOR
NMI
OLD 421 RD
OHE
OM IMP OM
WP22.1
SEE NOTE 3
SITE PAD BOUNDARY
INN MINI ION NM Mill
SEE SITE PLAN IMPACT SHEETS FOR CONTINUATION
GENERAL NOTES:
1. SEE SHEET 04X-02 FOR LEGEND.
miL
I I O 3. WETLANDS IN THE PROPOSED DUKE
co 1Q ENERGY CORRIDOR WILL BE HAND
Om 13 CLEARED.
m
H
O
U
NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILROAD 2
107)
SEE NOTE 2
OHE
IMP IMP IMP
11-
w
w
-_
-- (/)
w
w
OHE
U
w
IJ
----1(=j
SITE GRADING BOUNDARY
11111
2. NO IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL
STREAMS ON THIS SHEET. STREAM
CROSSINGS WILL BE HAND CLEARED
AND SPAN BRIDGES WILL BE UTILIZED
FOR CROSSINGS IF NECESSARY.
PONDS WILL BE SPANNED.
Wetland Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Area
(AC)
Temporary
Impact Area
(AC)
WP22.1
W39
CLEARING
0.00
0.08
Total
0.00
0.08
[�lill.l al �4te . it
' NENirs: i 2 iV- I �..
111,1.1�� .�d��l7; �� j��L'C'.,,'-��111�,1��ir��i � , ►�;�7���
!1IIII 'C'- i I Lr111 ! ■ �t R � � .1►'irk
11.
�►+1 i o-
11.1
�� uurr.Hr r
�Lli:i'i�i�'il�. i zooi`11!iilan;,=`'I'!'um.- _�.._ t��
te NI:.1041.5tir:
litlaira.tarWm-11111kLifiLL.,aAal0°-Iii1111
KEY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
0
200'
400'
SCALE: 1" = 200'
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
PROJECT GRMS
DUKE ENERGY CORRIDORS
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
05/25/2018
04X-22
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116

PROPOSED DUKE
ENERGY 500kV
CORRIDOR
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
0
SEE SITE IMPACTS SHEETS I i1
FOR IMPACTS TO THIS POND N
0 w
w
0)
I
Z_
2
U
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116
PROJECT GRMS
DUKE ENERGY CORRIDORS
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
NO IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL
STREAMS ON THIS SHEET.
DATE
SHEET
05/25/2018
04X-23

i
PROPOSED DUKE
ENERGY 500kV
CORRIDOR
F)1
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116
2. NO IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL
STREAMS ON THIS SHEET. STREAM
CROSSINGS WILL BE HAND CLEARED
AND SPAN BRIDGES WILL BE UTILIZED
FOR CROSSINGS IF NECESSARY.
PROJECT GRMS
DUKE ENERGY CORRIDORS
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
05/25/2018
04X-24

PROPOSED DUKE
ENERGY 500kV
CORRIDOR SEE SITE IMPACT
SHEETS FOR IMPACT
TO THIS WETLAND
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116
PROJECT GRMS
DUKE ENERGY CORRIDORS
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
NO IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL
STREAMS ON THIS SHEET.
DATE
SHEET
05/25/2018
04X-25

PROPOSED DUKE
ENERGY 500kV
CORRIDOR
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 27 FOR CONTINUATION
F)1
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116
2. NO IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL
STREAMS ON THIS SHEET.
PROJECT GRMS
DUKE ENERGY CORRIDORS
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
05/25/2018
04X-26

PROPOSED DUKE
ENERGY 500kV
CORRIDOR
MATCHLINE -SEE SHEET 28 FOR CONTINUATION
F)1
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116
2. NO IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL
RESOURCES ON THIS SHEET.
PROJECT GRMS
DUKE ENERGY CORRIDORS
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
05/25/2018
04X-27

MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 27 FOR CONTINUATION
I
EXISTING DUKE
ENERGY 500kV
CORRI DOR
F)1
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116
PROJECT GRMS
DUKE ENERGY CORRIDORS
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
NO IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL
RESOURCES ON THIS SHEET. STREAM
CROSSINGS WILL BE HAND CLEARED
AND SPAN BRIDGES WILL BE UTILIZED
FOR CROSSINGS IF NECESSARY.
DATE
SHEET
05/25/2018
04X-28

Legend
Study Area
Adjacent Parcels
•
F�2
PATH: Z:IGISIPROJECTS1995119 CITYOFGREENSBOR019259114 GBOROMSWATER-SEWERENVIROIMAP OOCSIMXOIGRMS NEPAIPERMIT FIGURESIOUKEIOUKE AOJACENTPARCELS MAP.MXO - USER: JGARVEY - DATE: 1113912917
ADJACENT PARCELS MAP
DUKE ENERGY 100KV TRANSMISSION LINE STUDY AREA
FIGURE 1

A
E
H
I
J
K
L
1
Number on Map
PIN
Owner
Address
City
State
Zip
2
1
7788530715
FIELDS, BEN R
7030 MCCLELLAN RD
PLEASANT GARDEN
NC
27313
3
2
7788064546
HALL, ANTHONY L; HALL, BERNADETTE M
821 NC HWY 62 EAST
PLEASANT GARDEN
NC
27313
4
3
7788063394
HALL, ANTHONY L; HALL, BERNADETTE M
821 NC HIGHWAY 62 EAST
PLEASANT GARDEN
NC
27313
5
4
7788263445
HALL, BANTEE L
839 NC 62 EAST
PLEASANT GARDEN
NC
27313
6
5
7788264086
HALL, TED RAYMOND
9280 RACINE RD
PLEASANT GARDEN
NC
27313
7
6
7778834868
KGW ENTERPRISES
5818 RAMSEUR JULIAN RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
8
7
7778571012
KIRKMAN, CHARLES CLINTON ; KIRKMAN, BRITTANIE; KIRKMAN, DAVID JR
7223 HOCKETT ROAD
PLEASANT GARDEN
NC
27313
9
8
7788243302
HOCKETT, THOMAS WALLACE (HOCKETT, CARRIE MAE)
9038 RACINE RD
PLEASANT GARDEN
NC
27313
10
9
7788357062
SMITH, EVERETTE P JR (SMITH, JACQUELIN LEE)
2416 OLD CLIMAX RD
PLEASANT GARDEN
NC
27313
11
10
7788732658
STINSON, JASON D (STINSON, KIMBERLEE A)
6489 HUNTING LODGE RD
CLIMAX
NC
27233
12
11
7788739290
HODGES, JOHN T (HODGES, ANGELA K)
6454 HUNTING LODGE RD
CLIMAX
NC
27233
13
12
7788924128
CURTIS, C MARSHALL
3336 MAIN ST
CHINCOTEAQUE ISLANC
VA
23336
14
13
7798028817
CURTIS, JOHN RANDOLPH (CURTIS, TAMARA ANN) - Additional Owners
P 0 BOX 156
CLIMAX
NC
27233
15
14
7798129585
WILLIS, JULIA ANDERSON (WILLIS, WILLIAM FRANKLIN)
8833 NC HWY 22 N
CLIMAX
NC
27233
16
15
7798215519
LEDBETTER, MARION M (LEDBETTER, NANCY)
8657 NC HWY 22 N
CLIMAX
NC
27233
17
16
7798322243
ROUTH, JASON ALLEN
P 0 BOX 84
CLIMAX
NC
27233
18
17
7798416293
COBLE, KENNETH NORMAN (COBLE, RUTH T)
3276 GREESON COUNTRY RD
CLIMAX
NC
27233
19
18
7798615994
CICERO, MICHAEL C SR (CICERO, DORIS F)
1065 GEORGE ANDERSON ST
ORMOND BEACH
FL
32174
20
19
7798620389
FORREST, DON G (FORREST, DEBRA P)
3307 GREESON CTRY RD
CLIMAX
NC
27233
21
20
7798710517
BARCLAY, CHRISTOPHER S (BARCLAY, SANDRA H)
P 0 BOX 313
CLIMAX
NC
27233
22
21
7798712577
SHULAR, BRADLEY E
3523 GREESON CTRY RD
CLIMAX
NC
27233
23
22
7798718627
DILLARD, BRENDA COOPER
P 0 BOX 291
CLIMAX
NC
27233
24
23
7798817761
HINSHAW, DOROTHY F (HINSHAW, OTHERS)
303 LAUREL HILL DR
BURLINGTON
NC
27215
25
24
7798919504
GARNER, RANDYJOE
3582 WESTHAM LANE
TOANO
VA
23168
26
25
8708106667
KOOPMAN DAIRIES INC
204 LOYD RD
STATESVILLE
NC
28625
27
26
8708111770
GARNER, RANDYJOE (GARNER, CYNTHIA L)
3582 WESTHAM LANE
TOANO
VA
23168
28
27
8708114338
KOOPMAN DAIRIES INC
204 LOYD RD
STATESVILLE
NC
28625
29
28
8708218453
STALEY, GAY NELL
P 0 BOX 273
CLIMAX
NC
27233
30
29
8708408823
ROGERS FRIENDLY FARMS LLC
4802 ARCHWOOD DR
GREENSBORO
NC
27406
31
30
8708607893
LEVINSON, HARRY TRUSTEE
#7OLIVER CT
GREENSBORO
NC
27406
32
31
8708704424
PIERCE, GENE (PIERCE, ELIZABETH)
5667 JULIAN AIRPORT RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
33
32
8708800779
HILDEBRAND, TERENCE NEALE (HILDEBRAND, DEBRA MARIE)
4593 CRUTCHFIELD FARM RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
34
33
8708801435
CRUTCHFIELD, ALFRED NOLAND
5616 JULIAN AIRPORT RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
35
34
8708805737
HILDEBRAND, TERENCE N (HILDEBRAND, DEBRA M)
4593 CRUTCHFIELD FARM RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
36
35
7798328105
ROUTH, JASON ALLEN
P 0 BOX 84
CLIMAX
NC
27233
37
36
7788830628
KIVETT, GREGORY THOMAS (KIVETT, REBECCA FAYE)
6508 HUNTING LODGE RD
CLIMAX
NC
27233
38
37
7788637578
PARKER, OBILLY GRAY (PARKER, ASHLEY)
6319 HUNTING LODGE RD
CLIMAX
NC
27233
39
38
7788633204
PARKER, JOSEPH MATTHEW (PARKER, HOPE W)
6319 HUNTING LODGE RD
CLIMAX
NC
27233
40
39
7788446812
LANGLEY, ALBERT W TRUSTEE (LANGLEY, CAROL M TRUSTEE)
794 EATON DR
PASADENA
CA
91107
41
40
8708808779
GREENSBORO RANDOLPH MEGASITE FOUNDATION INC
324 WENDOVER AVE W #207
GREENSBORO
NC
27408
42
41
8708901767
GREENSBORO RANDOLPH MEGASITE FOUNDATION INC
324 WENDOVER AVE W #207
GREENSBORO
NC
27408
43
42
8718006776
NORTH CAROLINA RAILROAD HOLDINGS I LLC
2809 HIGHWOODS BLVD
RALEIGH
NC
27604
44
43
8718203615
NORTH CAROLINA RAILROAD HOLDINGS I LLC
2809 HIGHWOODS BLVD SUITE 100
RALEIGH
NC
27604
45
44
8718326247
NORTH CAROLINA RAILROAD HOLDINGS I LLC
2809 HIGHWOODS BLVD SUITE 100
RALEIGH
NC
27604

LEGEND
W W W W W W
EXISTING WETLAND
EXISTING POND
EXISTING PERENNIAL
STREAM
EXISTING INTERMITTENT
STREAM
'MENEM
NOT TO SCALE
PERMANENT WETLAND
IMPACT
TEMPORARY WETLAND
IMPACT
PERMANENT POND
IMPACT
PERMANENT STREAM
IMPACT
TEMPORARY STREAM
IMPACT
TRANSPORTATION
COORIDOR BOUNDARY
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
PROJECT GRMS
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
06/12/2018
02X-01
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116

Wetland Impacts
Impact
Number
Sheet
Number
Wetland ID
Lat.
(decimal
degrees)
Long. (decimal
degrees)
Type of
Impact
Type of
Wetland
(Cowardin)
Area of
Permanent
Impact (acres)
Area of
Temporary
Impact
(acres)
WT2.1
2
WB
35.89383
-79.6541203
Fill
PFO
0.018
0
WT3.1
3
W50
35.89489
-79.6452399
Fill
PFO
0.099
0
WT4.1
4
WO
35.89289
-79.6543259
Fill
PFO
0.0004
0
WT8.1
8
WH
35.87717
-79.6327779
Fill
PFO
0.0004
0
WT8.2
8
HDR WC
35.87958
-79.6275104
Fill
PEM
0.003
0
WT9.1
9
WSA
35.8751
-79.6281868
Fill
PEM
0.035
0
WT9.2
9
WS
35.87448
-79.6284527
Fill
PFO
0.014
0
WT9.3
9
WK
35.8741
-79.6292021
Fill
PEM
0.168
0
WT9.4
9
WN
35.87394
-79.6260799
Fill
PFO
0.066
0
Total
0.404
0
Open Water Impacts
Impact
Number
Sheet
Number
Open Water
ID
Lat. (decimal
degrees)
Long. (decimal
degrees)
Type of
Impact
Waterbody
Type
Area of
Impact
(acres)
PT8.1
8
P18
35.8777355
-79.6078387
Fill
Pond
0.1101
PT8.2
8
P19
35.8780052
-79.6280614
Fill
Pond
0.0066
PT9.1
9
PB
35.8740277
-79.6296036
Fill
Pond
0.38
Total
0.50
Stream Impacts
Impact
Number
Sheet
Number
Stream
ID
Lat.
(decimal
degrees)
Long. (decimal
degrees)
Type of
Impact
Perennial
(PER) or
Intermittent
(INT)
Average
Stream
Width
(feet)
Permanent
Impact
Length
(linear feet)
Temporary
Impact
Length
(linear feet)
Impact Area
(square feet)
ST2.1
2
SE
35.894183
-79.6546671
Culvert
PER
6
32
0
190
ST3.1
3
S49/SI
35.895054
-79.6466289
Culvert
PER
3
383
0
1,148
ST3.2
3
S47
35.895162
-79.6452019
Culvert
PER
4
172
0
689
ST4.1
4
SE
35.892565
-79.6541181
Culvert
PER
10
584
0
5,845
ST4.2
4
SE1
35.891597
-79.6543983
Culvert
PER
5
170
0
850
ST4.3
4
SW
35.890681
-79.6520941
Culvert
INT
4
727
0
2,908
ST5.1
5
SJ
35.891874
-79.6446361
Culvert
PER
3
210
0
629
ST5.2
5
SK
35.891585
-79.6460359
Culvert
INT
3
395
0
1,185
ST6.1
6
SJ
35.886516
-79.6415857
Culvert
PER
3
95
0
286
ST6.2
6
SE
35.886469
-79.6414069
Culvert
PER
10
419
0
4,188
ST6.3
6
SE
35.886031
-79.6434009
Culvert
PER
10
8
0
83
ST7.1
7
S17
35.883069
-79.6270705
Culvert
PER
3
309
0
927
ST8.1
8
HDRS6
35.879249
-79.6278092
Culvert
PER
3
469
0
1,406
ST9.1
9
SX
35.875076
-79.6281908
Culvert
PER
3
416
0
1,247
ST9.2
9
SQ
35.874564
-79.6288686
Culvert
PER
5
391
0
1,957
ST9.3
9
SS
35.874564
-79.6288686
Culvert
INT
3
168
0
505
Perennial
Sub -Total
3,657
19442.73
Intermittent
Sub -Total
1,290
4598.00
Grand -Total
4,948
r 0
24,041
F)1
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
PROJECT GRMS
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
06/12/2018
02X-01A
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116

\% `
\\ \\
%% \�
%
\ • N
\\
NN \\\\\ �\\\\\ %.....
\\\\\N.
\% \% \
NN \ \N.
N
\\\ \\\% \%\\\\ N
!•
\ % \\
% o% .._.......
N% % O \\ `'+
\
\ o 0
\\ \\ \ \ \ft.... j
\\%\ \%\ \\°o\�
\\ \ N •'
\%\\ N\\ O\ \ ` +t•
N \N\ \% o °o •,,'
\ N \\\ ��\� \ ��\gip `+� _..�'r �+ Z
+` O_LL
\\\ \\ \,� \, ` h. Q
\ N t `.• D
% O� \oN\ \ Z
\ \ 0S'
• ti \% 0
CD
0
� g�j �o °o \• X
\� \�\ �� `\ /ST2.1
CV
N %% \ o
%
\%\ \ \\\\% . '+ W
~\ „ % % IW
\\°\\,` \�`\\% • WT2.1 rn
II
\\\\ o 0
\\\ \`\ °� °% r
Z
NNNNN
\\ \\ \ \ V:
\\\\\\�\\`� \\O\\\
\� ° ~
\ \\ Q
\\\\\\\\ o\\o\\\
\\%\
N.
\ \\\\\\\\\\ �\\ \\%�\ gip\
\ \
\\\\ \\�. \%�\moo.
i
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 02X-04 FOR CONTINUATION
I
I
Wetland Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Area
(AC)
Temporary
Impact Area
(AC)
WT2.1
WB
Fill
0.018
0
0
0
Total
0.018
0
Perennial Stream Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Length
(LF)
Temporary
Impact Length
(LF)
ST2.1
SE
Culvert
32
0
Total
32
0
0
KEY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
200'
400'
SCALE: 1" = 200'
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
PROJECT GRMS
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
06/12/2018
02X-02
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116

I
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 02X-02 FOR CONTINUATION
I
I
1
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 02X-04 FOR CONTINUATION
ST3.1
WT3.1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
•
1
1
/ !
1
•I
I•
' 1
1
ST3.2
00.
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 02X-05 FOR CONTINUATION
1
Wetland Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Area
(AC)
Temporary
Impact Area
(AC)
WT3.1
W50
Fill
0.10
0
Total
0.10
0
Perennial Stream Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Length
(LF)
Temporary
Impact Length
(LF)
ST3.1
S49/SI
Culvert
383
0
ST3.2
S47
Culvert
172
0
Total
555
0
0
KEY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
200'
400'
SCALE: 1" = 200'
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
PROJECT GRMS
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
06/12/2018
02X-03
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116

•
I
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 02X-02 FOR CONTINUATION
\
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \ i
\ \
\ \ i1
\ \ •.
`-1
\' ' �-_'-.-,1
•X \ N.
..
\ \
,..) /
\ ` !
\ /
\ �. /
ST4.2 \ t .`
\ N `, l
N i�
A.
N 1
N
•
ST4.1
% N
WT4.1\� \ ♦
ST4.% % \
\\ \`
\\ \
%
\% N
\\\ %\ \\\` % \ ` N
%
N \\`
\ \ p
`\N
`\ o \� • \\
\�
N. \`�\ \\moo\• �O
N � %
`\\ N%� %
/ "\\ `o '
/ o
/ `\\
•' %
l`\
__ \
� � \\
I N \\ \\\NN \ `,\\\\\\\
\ ST4.3 NN ��%� °N� '�%
\\� ono
N%
N. J
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 02X-03
FOR CONTINUATION
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\
\ \
\ \
\
\
\\
%
`%
o\
\\ N\ % %
� \
NN • °w
/ `\\ `• % w
/ / `` \\\\ \\ 0)
\\ \�: in
/ \ \
N` Iw
z
1=
U
Wetland Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Area
(AC)
Temporary
Impact Area
(AC)
WT4.1
WO
Fill
0.0004
0
Total
0.0004
0
Perennial Stream Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Length
(LF)
Temporary
Impact Length
(LF)
ST4.1
SE
Culvert
584
0
ST4.2
SE1
Culvert
727
Total
1312
0
Intermittent Stream Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Length
(LF)
Temporary
Impact Length
(LF)
ST4.3
SW
Culvert
506
0
Total
506
0
z
IF0
z
1-
z
0
0
O
u_
U)
O
X
N
2
0
KEY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
200'
400'
SCALE: 1" = 200'
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
PROJECT GRMS
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
06/12/2018
02X-04
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116

I
z_
1-
z
O
U
0
X
N
1-
w
w
2
w
w
w
z_
J
0
1-
/
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 02X-03 FOR CONTINUATION
\
x\
\\
14
41
I I
II
II
I I
II
II
I I
I I
I I
I I
II
II
I
II
II
N II
I
- —
/
/
/
1
I 1
I
1 1
J
/
ST5.1
,'ST5.2 1
WT5.1
/
li
i
•
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 02X-06 FOR CONTINUATION
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I 1
I I
I I
I
I I
I I
I 1
I I
I
1 1
1 I
1 I
1 I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
Wetland Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Area
(AC)
Temporary
Impact Area
(AC)
WT5.1
WD
Fill
0.03
0
Total
0.03
0
Perennial Stream Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Length
(LF)
Temporary
Impact Length
(LF)
ST5.1
SJ
Culvert
210
0
Total
210
0
Intermittent Stream Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Length
(LF)
Temporary
Impact Length
(LF)
ST5.2
SK
Culvert
395
0
Total
395
0
0
KEY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
200'
400'
SCALE: 1" = 200'
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
PROJECT GRMS
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
06/12/2018
02X-05
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116

\\
NN
NN
NN
NN
NN
NN
I
I
I
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 02X-05 FOR CONTINUATION
— — —
•
•
•
•
\\
N
NN
NN
NN
NN
NN
NN
NN
NN
NN
NN
NN
NN
`\\N �/ NN
\\
NN
_.a
o.
1
1
•
•
•
•
•
•
NN
S
y i
g�� :
\% \N N j
.
NN \\ N
N -% \\ \\
N. `\
`\
`o "\\ % "\\ ST6.2
, `�\ ,
`\\,
\\\ `.
•
•
•
•
NN
NN
• \N
1
1
/
1
/ I
/ I
/ I
/ I
/
-•- -.
/
/
/
1
1
1
/
/
/
ST6.1
/
�.
\ N
\\ \\
%
\ N.
%
` �.....
I
` \°�\\\ \ NN \%� `\\
I
•
•
•
•
,
•
Perennial Stream Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Length
(LF)
Temporary
Impact Length
(LF)
ST6.1
SJ
Culvert
95
0
ST6.2
SE
Culvert
419
ST6.3
SE
Culvert
8
Total
522
0
115V:il
001
Tr 1
0
KEY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
200'
400'
SCALE: 1" = 200'
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
PROJECT GRMS
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
06/12/2018
02X-06
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116

♦,
I
♦♦•
I
1
r
•`
.`
3
1
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
♦,
•
- 1 - -1
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ 1
./ /
/ /
/ /
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 02X-08 FOR CONTINUATION
/
1
/
•
•
1
Perennial Stream Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Length
(LF)
Temporary
Impact Length
(LF)
ST7.1
S17
Culvert
309
0
Total
309
0
0
KEY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
200'
400'
SCALE: 1" = 200'
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
PROJECT GRMS
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
06/12/2018
02X-07
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116

\
Cj ,\ \
I \,\ \\\\\ \\`\
\ \, \`A
\\ 0 \
1
1
i
WT8.1
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 02X-07 FOR CONTINUATION
ST8.1
PT8.2
1
/
/
/
I
1
I
I
I
\
I
I
1
I
1
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 02X-09 FOR CONTINUATION
WT8.2
PT8.1
1
1
1
Wetland Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Area
(AC)
Temporary
Impact Area
(AC)
WT8.1
WH
Fill
0.0004
0
WT8.2
HDR WC
Fill
0.003
0
Total
0.00
0
Pond Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Area
(AC)
PT8.1
P18
Fill
0.11
PT8.2
P19
Fill
0.01
Total
0.12
Perennial Stream Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Length
(LF)
Temporary
Impact Length
(LF)
ST8.1
HDR S6
Culvert
469
0
Total
469
0
0
KEY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
200'
400'
SCALE: 1" = 200'
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
PROJECT GRMS
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
06/12/2018
02X-08
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116

•
I
I
•
•
•
•
\V
•
•
•
•
\
\
•
•
\
\
•
•
\
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 02X-08 FOR CONTINUATION
PT9.1
,!1
WT9.1
ST9.1
ST9.2
.001
►i 1
\
\
/ WT9.2
•
WT9.4
ST9.3
I
Wetland Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Area
(AC)
Temporary
Impact Area
(AC)
WT9.1
WSA
Fill
0.04
0
WT9.2
WS
Fill
0.01
WT9.3
WK
Fill
0.17
WT9.4
WN
Fill
0.07
Total
0.28
0
Pond Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Area
(AC)
PT9.1
PB
Fill
0.38
Total
0.38
Perennial Stream Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Length
(LF)
Temporary
Impact Length
(LF)
ST9.1
SX
Culvert
416
0
ST9.2
SQ
Culvert
391
Total
807
0
Intermittent Stream Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact
Type
Permanent
Impact Length
(LF)
Temporary
Impact Length
(LF)
ST9.3
SS
Culvert
168
0
Total
168
0
0
KEY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
200'
400'
SCALE: 1" = 200'
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
PROJECT GRMS
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
06/12/2018
02X-09
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116

Legend
Potential Extent of Roadway Impacts
Transportation Improvements
Adjacent Parcels
•
67 75
18 8 64 56 65
63
F�2
PATH: Z:IGISIPROJECTS1995119 CITYOFGREENSBOR019259114 GBOROMSWATER-SEWERENVIROIMAP OOCSIMXOIGRMS NEPAIPERMIT FIGURESITRANSPORTATIONIROAOWAY AOJACENTPARCELS MAP.MXO - USER: JGARVEY - DATE: 1113912917
ADJACENT PARCELS MAP
FIGURE 1

Number on Map
PIN
ACCT_NAME
Address
ACCT_ADDR2
City
State
ZIP
1
8717046253
ALLEN, DAVID LEE
6411 SHILOH RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
2
8717153169
ALLEN, DAVID LEE
6411 SHILOH RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
3
8717069331
ALLEN, DAVID LEE
6411 SHILOH RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
4
8708710363
BOWMAN, JESSE D (CARPENTER, AMBER D)
5731 JULIAN AIRPORT RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
5
8717312809
BREEDLOVE, LESTER LEE
6041 STARMOUNT RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
6
8708226824
BULLA, TARA
5769 HAROLD MEADOW RD
JULIAN
NC
27283
7
8707786958
BULLA, VICKIE DUNCAN
5307 LAMINA LN
LIBERTY
NC
27298
8
8708212987
CHAFEE, FRANKLIN W (CHAFEE, ADRIENNE S)
4070 OLD RED CROSS RD
JULIAN
NC
27283
9
8708822458
COUNTY OF RANDOLPH
725 MCDOWELL RD
ASHEBORO
NC
27205
10
8708929917
COUNTY OF RANDOLPH
725 MCDOWELL RD
ASHEBORO
NC
27205
11
8708140735
COX, KATHYIA LINNINS
6054 HAROLD MEADOW RD
JULIAN
NC
27283
12
8708438108
COX, NATHAN GREGORY (COX, LISA MCCLURE)
5300 MANSON RD
JULIAN
NC
27283
13
8707990472
CRUTCHFIELD, ALFRED M
5536JULIAN AIRPORT RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
14
8708801435
CRUTCHFIELD, ALFRED NOLAND
5616JULIAN AIRPORT RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
15
8708240669
DILLON, MARK (DILLON, LISA)
5303 BURROW RD
JULIAN
NC
27283
16
8708208905
DUVALL, CHARLES ANDREW (DUVALL, MICHELE LAMY)
5370AMICK RD
JULIAN
NC
27283
17
8708616529
FOUSHEE, SHERRY LYNN MABE (WILDER, CAROL ANN MABE) -Additional Owners
5775 JULIAN AIRPORT RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
18
8708111770
GARNER, RANDY JOE (GARNER, CYNTHIA L)
3582 WESTHAM LANE
TOANO
VA
23168
19
8708807291
GEORGEVICH, JAMES K (GEORGEVICH, JUDIANN E)
4606 CRUTCHFIELD FARM RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
20
8708706808
GREENSBORO RANDOLPH MEGASITE FOUNDATION INC
324 WENDOVER AVE W #207
GREENSBORO
NC
27408
21
8708718522
GREENSBORO RANDOLPH MEGASITE FOUNDATION INC
324 WENDOVER AVE W 207
GREENSBORO
NC
27408
22
8708805737
GREENSBORO RANDOLPH MEGASITE FOUNDATION INC
324 WENDOVER W #207
GREENSBORO
NC
27408
23
8708808779
GREENSBORO RANDOLPH MEGASITE FOUNDATION INC
324 WENDOVER AVE W #207
GREENSBORO
NC
27408
24
8708812608
GREENSBORO RANDOLPH MEGASITE FOUNDATION INC
324 WENDOVER AVE W #207
GREENSBORO
NC
27408
25
8708901767
GREENSBORO RANDOLPH MEGASITE FOUNDATION INC
324 WENDOVER AVE W #207
GREENSBORO
NC
27408
26
8708716649
GREENSBORO RANDOLPH MEGASITE FOUNDATION INC
324 WENDOVER AVE W # 207
GREENSBORO
NC
27408
27
8707882383
HUBER, GEORGE G (HUBER, CHRISTINE E)
5274JULIAN AIRPORT RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
28
8717442242
HUMBLE, MARTHA BLALOCK LIFE ESTATE
P O BOX 887
LIBERTY
NC
27298
29
8717063755
JERNIGAN, DANNY R (JERNIGAN, KIMBERLY B)
3299 RANDOLPH CHURCH RD
CLIMAX
NC
27233
30
8717064874
JERNIGAN, DANNY R (JERNIGAN, KIMBERLY B)
3299 RANDOLPH CHURCH RD
CLIMAX
NC
27233
31
8708106667
KOOPMAN DAIRIES INC
204 LOYD RD
STATESVILLE
NC
28625
32
8716399872
KOOPMAN DAIRIES INC
204 LOYD RD
STATESVILLE
NC
28625
33
8708607893
LEVINSON,HARRYTRUSTEE
#7OLIVERCT
GREENSBORO
NC
27406
34
8708713955
LEVINSON,HARRYTRUSTEE
#7OLIVERCT
GREENSBORO
NC
27406
35
8708713423
MABE, MATTIE WHITTEN HEIRS
6178 HICKORY CREEK RD
C/O MARIE SUITS
HIGH POINT
NC
27263
36
8708614323
MAGET, JOHN HENRY II (MAGET, PAMELAA)
5729JULIAN AIRPORT RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
37
8717222927
MARTIN, JEFFREY A
P O BOX 2189
THOMASVILLE
NC
27361
38
8708138602
MILK MOOVERS LLC
3720 WILLIAMS DAIRY RD
GREENSBORO
NC
27406
39
8717520081
MONARD LLC
204 LOYD RD
STATESVILLE
NC
28625
40
8708134713
MULLER,GEORGEK
5972EARL TRL
JULIAN
NC
27283
41
8707969260
MURPHY, GARRY STEVEN (MURPHY, CHAD EVERETT) - Additional Owners
6511 LIBERTY RD
JULIAN
NC
27283
42
8717084158
NORTH CAROLINA RAILROAD HOLDINGS I LLC
2809 HIGHWOODS BLVD SUITE 100
RALEIGH
NC
27604
43
8717097208
NORTH CAROLINA RAILROAD HOLDINGS I LLC
2809 HIGHWOODS BLVD
SUITE 100
RALEIGH
NC
27604
44
8717257655
NORTH CAROLINA RAILROAD HOLDINGS I LLC
2809 HIGHWOODS BLVD SUITE 100
RALEIGH
NC
27604
45
8718006776
NORTH CAROLINA RAILROAD HOLDINGS I LLC
2809 HIGHWOODS BLVD
SUITE 100
RALEIGH
NC
27604
46
8717164916
NORTH CAROLINA RAILROAD HOLDINGS LLC
2809 HIGHWOODS BLVD
SUITE 100
RALEIGH
NC
27604
47
8708704424
PIERCE, GENE (PIERCE, ELIZABETH)
5667JULIAN AIRPORT RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
48
8707962156
PRIDDY, WILLIAM (PRIDDY, TRACY W)
6059 WINDSOR FARM RD
SUMMERFIELD
NC
27358
49
8708408823
ROGERS FRIENDLY FARMS LLC
4802ARCHWOOD DR
GREENSBORO
NC
27406
50
8708442079
ROGERS,JAMESANNA
1812CARMELRD
GREENSBORO
NC
27408
51
8708223485
ROTH, LORRIE Z
4125 OLD RED CROSS RD
JULIAN
NC
27283
52
8707595907
SALMON, ELIZABETH M (SALMON, .1 LARRY)
7302 SHILOH RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
53
8707598246
SALMON, JOHN LARRY (SALMON, ELIZABETH)
7302 SHILOH RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
54
8708333516
SMITH, GRADY (SNITH, KATHLEEN F)
8075 COLONIAL TRADING PATH
JULIAN
NC
27283

Number on Map
PIN
ACCT_NAME
Address
ACCT_ADDR2
City
State
ZIP
1
8717046253
ALLEN, DAVID LEE
6411 SHILOH RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
2
8717153169
ALLEN, DAVID LEE
6411 SHILOH RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
3
8717069331
ALLEN, DAVID LEE
6411 SHILOH RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
4
8708710363
BOWMAN, JESSE D (CARPENTER, AMBER D)
5731 JULIAN AIRPORT RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
5
8717312809
BREEDLOVE, LESTER LEE
6041 STARMOUNT RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
6
8708226824
BULLA, TARA
5769 HAROLD MEADOW RD
JULIAN
NC
27283
7
8707786958
BULLA, VICKIE DUNCAN
5307 LAMINA LN
LIBERTY
NC
27298
8
8708212987
CHAFEE, FRANKLIN W (CHAFEE, ADRIENNE S)
4070 OLD RED CROSS RD
JULIAN
NC
27283
9
8708822458
COUNTY OF RANDOLPH
725 MCDOWELL RD
ASHEBORO
NC
27205
10
8708929917
COUNTY OF RANDOLPH
725 MCDOWELL RD
ASHEBORO
NC
27205
11
8708140735
COX, KATHYIA LINNINS
6054 HAROLD MEADOW RD
JULIAN
NC
27283
12
8708438108
COX, NATHAN GREGORY (COX, LISA MCCLURE)
5300 MANSON RD
JULIAN
NC
27283
13
8707990472
CRUTCHFIELD, ALFRED M
5536JULIAN AIRPORT RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
14
8708801435
CRUTCHFIELD, ALFRED NOLAND
5616JULIAN AIRPORT RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
15
8708240669
DILLON, MARK (DILLON, LISA)
5303 BURROW RD
JULIAN
NC
27283
16
8708208905
DUVALL, CHARLES ANDREW (DUVALL, MICHELE LAMY)
5370AMICK RD
JULIAN
NC
27283
17
8708616529
FOUSHEE, SHERRY LYNN MABE (WILDER, CAROL ANN MABE) -Additional Owners
5775 JULIAN AIRPORT RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
18
8708111770
GARNER, RANDY JOE (GARNER, CYNTHIA L)
3582 WESTHAM LANE
TOANO
VA
23168
19
8708807291
GEORGEVICH, JAMES K (GEORGEVICH, JUDIANN E)
4606 CRUTCHFIELD FARM RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
20
8708706808
GREENSBORO RANDOLPH MEGASITE FOUNDATION INC
324 WENDOVER AVE W #207
GREENSBORO
NC
27408
21
8708718522
GREENSBORO RANDOLPH MEGASITE FOUNDATION INC
324 WENDOVER AVE W 207
GREENSBORO
NC
27408
22
8708805737
GREENSBORO RANDOLPH MEGASITE FOUNDATION INC
324 WENDOVER W #207
GREENSBORO
NC
27408
23
8708808779
GREENSBORO RANDOLPH MEGASITE FOUNDATION INC
324 WENDOVER AVE W #207
GREENSBORO
NC
27408
24
8708812608
GREENSBORO RANDOLPH MEGASITE FOUNDATION INC
324 WENDOVER AVE W #207
GREENSBORO
NC
27408
25
8708901767
GREENSBORO RANDOLPH MEGASITE FOUNDATION INC
324 WENDOVER AVE W #207
GREENSBORO
NC
27408
26
8708716649
GREENSBORO RANDOLPH MEGASITE FOUNDATION INC
324 WENDOVER AVE W # 207
GREENSBORO
NC
27408
27
8707882383
HUBER, GEORGE G (HUBER, CHRISTINE E)
5274JULIAN AIRPORT RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
28
8717442242
HUMBLE, MARTHA BLALOCK LIFE ESTATE
P O BOX 887
LIBERTY
NC
27298
29
8717063755
JERNIGAN, DANNY R (JERNIGAN, KIMBERLY B)
3299 RANDOLPH CHURCH RD
CLIMAX
NC
27233
30
8717064874
JERNIGAN, DANNY R (JERNIGAN, KIMBERLY B)
3299 RANDOLPH CHURCH RD
CLIMAX
NC
27233
31
8708106667
KOOPMAN DAIRIES INC
204 LOYD RD
STATESVILLE
NC
28625
32
8716399872
KOOPMAN DAIRIES INC
204 LOYD RD
STATESVILLE
NC
28625
33
8708607893
LEVINSON,HARRYTRUSTEE
#7OLIVERCT
GREENSBORO
NC
27406
34
8708713955
LEVINSON,HARRYTRUSTEE
#7OLIVERCT
GREENSBORO
NC
27406
35
8708713423
MABE, MATTIE WHITTEN HEIRS
6178 HICKORY CREEK RD
C/O MARIE SUITS
HIGH POINT
NC
27263
36
8708614323
MAGET, JOHN HENRY II (MAGET, PAMELAA)
5729JULIAN AIRPORT RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
37
8717222927
MARTIN, JEFFREY A
P O BOX 2189
THOMASVILLE
NC
27361
38
8708138602
MILK MOOVERS LLC
3720 WILLIAMS DAIRY RD
GREENSBORO
NC
27406
39
8717520081
MONARD LLC
204 LOYD RD
STATESVILLE
NC
28625
40
8708134713
MULLER,GEORGEK
5972EARL TRL
JULIAN
NC
27283
41
8707969260
MURPHY, GARRY STEVEN (MURPHY, CHAD EVERETT) - Additional Owners
6511 LIBERTY RD
JULIAN
NC
27283
42
8717084158
NORTH CAROLINA RAILROAD HOLDINGS I LLC
2809 HIGHWOODS BLVD SUITE 100
RALEIGH
NC
27604
43
8717097208
NORTH CAROLINA RAILROAD HOLDINGS I LLC
2809 HIGHWOODS BLVD
SUITE 100
RALEIGH
NC
27604
44
8717257655
NORTH CAROLINA RAILROAD HOLDINGS I LLC
2809 HIGHWOODS BLVD SUITE 100
RALEIGH
NC
27604
45
8718006776
NORTH CAROLINA RAILROAD HOLDINGS I LLC
2809 HIGHWOODS BLVD
SUITE 100
RALEIGH
NC
27604
46
8717164916
NORTH CAROLINA RAILROAD HOLDINGS LLC
2809 HIGHWOODS BLVD
SUITE 100
RALEIGH
NC
27604
47
8708704424
PIERCE, GENE (PIERCE, ELIZABETH)
5667JULIAN AIRPORT RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
48
8707962156
PRIDDY, WILLIAM (PRIDDY, TRACY W)
6059 WINDSOR FARM RD
SUMMERFIELD
NC
27358
49
8708408823
ROGERS FRIENDLY FARMS LLC
4802ARCHWOOD DR
GREENSBORO
NC
27406
50
8708442079
ROGERS,JAMESANNA
1812CARMELRD
GREENSBORO
NC
27408
51
8708223485
ROTH, LORRIE Z
4125 OLD RED CROSS RD
JULIAN
NC
27283
52
8707595907
SALMON, ELIZABETH M (SALMON, .1 LARRY)
7302 SHILOH RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
53
8707598246
SALMON, JOHN LARRY (SALMON, ELIZABETH)
7302 SHILOH RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
54
8708333516
SMITH, GRADY (SNITH, KATHLEEN F)
8075 COLONIAL TRADING PATH
JULIAN
NC
27283

55
8708523178
SMITH, GRADY DOUGLAS (SMITH, MARY ELLEN)
9051 RIVER MILL RD
RANDLEMAN
NC
27317
56
8708311849
SMITH,JEFFREYD
7755SHILOH RD
JULIAN
NC
27283
57
8708228693
SMITH, NELSON DALE (SMITH, GERALDINE G)
8207 COLONIAL TRADING
JULIAN
NC
27283
58
8708233073
SMITH, NELSON DALE (SMITH, GERALDINE G)
8207 COLONIAL TRADING
JULIAN
NC
27283
59
8708249171
SMITH, NELSON DALE (SMITH, GERALDINE G)
8207 COLONIAL TRADING
JULIAN
NC
27283
60
8708330651
SMITH, NELSON DALE (SMITH, GERALDINE G)
8207 COLONIAL TRADING
JULIAN
NC
27283
61
8708425279
SMITH, NELSON DALE (SMITH, GERALDINE G)
8207 COLONIAL TRADING
JULIAN
NC
27283
62
8707697435
SMITH, PAUL B LIFE ESTATE
P O BOX 771
LIBERTY
NC
27298
63
8708311642
SMITH, W D (SMITH, REBECCA S)
7733SHILOH RD
JULIAN
NC
27283
64
8708216766
SMITH, WINFRED DEWITT (SMITH, REBECCA S)
7733 SHILOH RD
JULIAN
NC
27283
65
8708318860
SMITH, WINFRED DEWITT (SMITH, REBECCA S)
7733 SHILOH RD
JULIAN
NC
27283
66
8708218453
STALEY, GAY NELL
P 0 BOX 273
CLIMAX
NC
27233
67
8708129102
STALEY, GENEVA HINSHAW LIFE ESTATE
4057 OLD RED CROSS RD
CLIMAX
NC
27233
68
8708122751
STALEY, GENEVA HINSHAW LIFE ESTATE
4057 OLD RED CROSS RD
CLIMAX
NC
27233
69
8708231307
STALEY, MILTON LEWIS (STALEY, DONNA R)
1083 CHARTER OAKS DR
RANDLEMAN
NC
27317
70
8707797855
TUCKER, STEVEN E
5585JULIAN AIRPORT RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
71
8707895702
VESS, BRENDA C
5564JULIAN AIRPORT RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
72
8708713756
WILDER, NICHOLAS R
5781JULIAN AIRPORT RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
73
8707872846
WILLIAMS, LYNDA C (FETNER, MARK DODSON) - Additional Owners
6767 BROOKBANK RD
SUMMERFIELD
NC
27358
74
8707972534
WOODWARD,JOSEPH
7283NCHWY87N
REIDSVILLE
NC
27320
75
8708226264
WRENN, SHELIA SMITH (WRENN, OTHER)
7733 SHILOH RD
JULIAN
NC
27283
76
8708723059
YATES, SHAUN MCMILLAN
600 PURTIS CREEK LN
GEORGETOWN
TX
78628

HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116
PROJECT NE❑ ❑ ORLD
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
05/31 /2018
03X-00

Wetland Impacts
Impact
Number
Sheet
Number
Wetland ID
Lat. (decimal
degrees)
Long.
(decimal
degrees)
Type of
Impact
Type of
Wetland
(Cowardin)
Area of
Permanent
Impact (acres)
Area of
Temporary
Impact (acres)
WS5.1
5
W-A-190-1
35.869143
-79.627752
CLEARING
PFD
0.00
0.11
WS6.1
6
W-B-181-6
35.870524
-79.628747
CLEARING
PEM
0.00
0.07
WS6.2
6
W-B-181-6
35.870986
-79.629054
CLEARING
PEM
0.00
0.05
WS8.1
8
W-C-183-3
35.883935
-79.638183
CLEARING
PSS
0.00
0.01
WS9.1
9
W-D-182-2
35.902671
-79.649545
CLEARING
PSS
0.00
0.07
WS9.2
9
W-E-182-3
35.902626
-79.646441
CLEARING
PEM/PSS
0.00
0.08
WS9.3
9
W-B-183-1
35.902961
-79.639914
CLEARING
PEM
0.00
0.01
WS10.1
10
W-B-183-2
35.903147
-79.636891
CLEARING
PEM
0.00
0.01
WS10.2
10
W-D-183-2
35.90319
-79.635919
CLEARING
PEM
0.00
0.01
WS11.1
11
W-D-182-4
35.902781
-79.622182
CLEARING
PSS
0.00
0.01
WS12.1
12
W-A-182-5
35.901815
-79.618279
CLEARING
PEM
0.00
0.01
WS12.2
12
W-A-182-2
35.900386
-79.612446
CLEARING
PFO/PEM
0.00
0.01
WS13.1
13
W-C-182-2
35.905386
-79.654074
CLEARING
PFD
0.00
0.01
WS14.1
14
W-E-182-2
35.917792
-79668686
CLEARING
PFD
0.00
0.02
WS15.1
15
W-E-182-1
35.923044
-79.674129
CLEARING
PFD
0.00
0.04
Total
0.00
0.51
F)1
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
PROJECT NE❑ ❑ ORLD
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
05/31/2018
03X-01
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116

Stream Impacts
Impact
Number
Sheet
Number
Stream ID
Lat.
(decimal
degrees)
Long.
(decimal
degrees)
Type of Impact
Perennial (P)
or
Intermittent
(I)
Average
Stream
Width
(feet)
Permanent
Impact
Length
(linear feet)
Temporary
Impact
Length (linear
feet)
ImpactArea
(square feet)
SS5.1
5
S-A-190-4
35.866464
-79.622251
STABILIZATION
I
6
20
20
240
SS5.2
5
S-A-190-4
35.866488
-79.622650
STABILIZATION
I
6
20
20
240
SS5.3
5
S-A-190-2
35.866531
-79.623971
STABILIZATION
P
15
21
21
630
SS5.4
5
S-A-190-1
35.868492
-79.627243
STABILIZATION
P
15
20
20
600
SS7.1
7
S-A-183-2
35.789130
-79.633727
STABILIZATION
I
4
32
21
212
SS7.2
7
S-A-183-3
35.882835
-79.636832
STABILIZATION
P
4
21
25
184
SS8.1
8
S-C-183-1
35.883935
-79.638183
STABILIZATION
I
4
0
41
164
SS8.2
8
S-D-183-4
35.886291
-79.641971
STABILIZATION
P
7
21
22
301
SS10.1
10
S-D-183-2
35.903195
-79.635911
STABILIZATION
I
3
13
0
39
SS13.1
13
S-B-182-4
35.907172
-79.656435
STABILIZATION
I
4
0
43
172
SS13.2
13
S-E-182-3
35.910407
-79.660758
STABILIZATION
I
4
25
20
180
SS14.1
14
S-E-182-1
35.919983
-79.670978
STABILIZATION
P
6
0
38
228
Total
193
291
3,190
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
PROJECT NEE ❑ ORLD
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
05/31/2018
03X-02
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116

I
r,:\Fxc hang e\Sienderps\woAKING FILES\UpOetes June 2GQ5XCOG21.4,pro • :!:GJTAL FILE .23 Mey 2G05
20 ' PERM.
EASMENT
(MIN.)
-�
Q �r
10•
TOP OF BANK
4
4• ,
w 3��
STREAM r . dO�p
AO
n �a�
so- ® 9ii;i9oar•
b�lF
'• ":>-- : :: :.
FLOW ��sy{o���tOroQ
°AI.
`�e..:K
,-914a
asv
� _° .edw'•d
+ o5f���y',--
i.
a roa
ocr-to
's7f ?..
n,,•
shrr:
•tiv
NA TURAL
c---- GROUND
CROSSING
Q
f
RIP -RAP
TYPICAL
PIPE
PLAN
SYNTHETIC FILTER
FABRIC
TOP OF BANK RIP RAP SHALL NOT
DRAINAGE DIrCN EXTEND ABOVE NORMAL
OR SMALL STREAM HIGH WA TEA MARK
SAA,
O
3
SYNTHETIC FIL TER
= FABRIC PER
EX. INV. t
CREEK sC
es
(AS
'i NCOOT SPEC #1056•
TYPE-2)
CROSSING PIPE
1B" CLASS I
RIP -RAP
SECTION A -A
NO rFS.'
1) PERMANENT CROSSING FOR VEHICLE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT.
2) CLASS I RIP -RAP TO 8E LAID MIN. 1B INCHES THICK OVER ENTIRE AREA OF DISTURBANCE
(AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER).
3) CLASS II RIP --RAP USED IN LARGER STREAMS (AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER) .
4) AS PROJECT IS STA8ILIZED PLACE SYNTHETIC FIL rER FABRIC G SPREAD ALL EXISTING
EROSION STONE INTO PERMANENT L INER AS SHOWN. ADO STONE AS NEEDED.
5) ANY REOUIRE0 ARMORING ABOVE NORMAL HIGH WATER MARK SHALL CONSIST OF
MA TTING OR APPROVED VEGETA TIVE COVER.
CITV OF GREENSBORO
STANDARD PERMANENT CREEK STABIL IZA TION
STD. NO.
REV.
WITH MAINTENANCE CROSSING
214
41-91 06-05
03--97
93-➢5
'
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
PROJECT NEE ❑ ORLD
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
05/31/2018
03X-03
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116

8
.4I9. T!a F1‘E
ARDATES. 5EP7.2PPS\COG.W. pro
PUMP
a
STREAM
TEMP.
24' TO
42" CMP
CLASS. "I"
RIP RAP
PROPOSED
EARTH BERM
(TYP.)
TEMP. CONSTRUCTION
STREAM CROSSING
FLOW —�
CROSSING/ '2
PIPE
20'
PROPOSED
EARTH BERM
(TYP. )
10'
CLASS "I "
RIP RAP ti
'
M5IN
P ' CLASS -A"
EROSION CONTROL
STONE WEIR
50" CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
(SEE NOTE 41
PROPOSED
EARTH BERM
(TYP,)
POLYETHYLENE FABRIC
ON FACE (8 AIL. THICK)
12'
ro 1 MIN. TOP OF
PUMP BANK
/
PLAN
POLYETHYLENE FABRIC
ON FACE (8 I.E. THICKJ
TEMP.
24" TO
42" CMP
MIN.
EX. INV. -
CREEK
TEMPORARY
STONE DAM
POL YETHYL ENE FABRIC
ON FACE (8 ML . THICK)
CROSSING
PIPE
10' X 10'
J SEDIMENT TRAP
\ J ®2 1 SIDE SLOPE
OR SILT BAG,
/ ti
'
10 '
MIN.
Af
10' X 10'
❑EWA TERING BASIN
2.1 SIDE SLOPE
OR Bar BAc..
A INSTALL SANDBAGS IN PIPE INVERT 6 FABRIC WHILE PUMPING
— AROUND DURING CONSTRUCTION IN STREAM.
8 REMOVE SANDBAGS & FABRIC TO ALLOW FLOW THROUGH
— PIPE WHEN NOT PUMP INS AROUND.
SECTION A -A
1 OF 2
CITY OF GREENSBORO
STANDARD TEMPORARY CREEK
CROSSING DURING CONSTRUCTION
STD. NO. REV.
01-91 05-05
03-97 09-05
03-05
213
1
8
NOTES:
1)
EROSION STONE TO BE "CLASS I" RIP -RAP UNLESS DESIGNATED DIFFERENTLY ON
CONSTRUCTION PLAN.
2)
PIPE SIZE AND AMOUNT NEEDED TO BE DETERMINED BY ENGINEER ON CONSTRUCTION
PLAN.
3)
TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING TO BE CONVERTED TO COG #214 UPON PROJECT
CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION IF CALLED FOR ON THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS.
4)
PUMP AND LINE SIZE TO BE DETERMINED BY THE CONTRACTOR USING THE BASE FLOW
SHOWN ON THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS.
5)
WIDTH OF CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT SHALL BE MINIMIZED' BASED UPON FIELD CONDITIONS.
ANY DISTURBANCE (S) EXCEEDING 40 ' MAY REOUIRE ADDI TIONAL HATER QUALITY PERMITTING
OR MITIGATION.
CONSTRUCTION SEGUENCE FOR STREAM CROSSING
1)
INSTALL PUMP AND' LINE TO PUMP FLOW FROM AREA UPSTREAM OF TEMPORARY STREAM
CROSSING TO AREA DOWNSTREAM OF CONSTRUCTION AREA. BEGIN PUMPING AND
CONTINUING PUMPING WHILE WORKING WITHIN THE STREAM.
2)
INSTALL UPSTREAM DAM, FILTER FABRIC. AND TEMPORARY CMP. COVER PIPE INLET
WI TN FABRIC AND SAND BAGS AS SHOWN IN INSET "A " WHILE WORKING IN THE STREAM.
ALLOW STREAM FLOW THROUGH CMP. AS SHOWN IN INSET "B" WHEN NOT WORKING WITHIN
THE STREAM.
3)
INSTALL DOWNSTREAM TEMPORARY STONE DAM AND FILTER FABRIC TO PREVENT
BACK FLOW INTO CONSTRUCTION AREA.
4)
INSTALL PROPOSED EARTH BERMS ALONG TOP OF BANK ON EACH SIDE OF THE
CONSTRUCTION AREA.
5)
INSTALL DEWATERING BASIN OR SILT BA.G AT TOP OF BANK. °EWATER CONSTRUCTION
AREA BETWEEN TEMPORARY DAM USING THIS BASIN.
6)
INSTALL THE 10 ' X 1O ' SEDIMENT TRAP OR 5IL T BAG.
7)
UPON CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION, REMOVE TEMPORARY DAMS, FILTER FABRIC, AND
TEMPORARY CMP. DEPRESS TEMPORARY DAM BOTTOMS INTO STREAM BED UNTIL TOP OF
RIP RAP IS LEVEL WITH STREAM BOTTOM. CONVERT TO COG STANDARD .#214 IF CALLED
FOR IN THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS.
B)
UPON STABILIZATION OF CLEARED AREAS, REMOVE TEMPORARY EARTH BERM, SEDIMENT
TRAP, AND' DEWA TERING BASIN.
m
g.
2 OF 2
C I T Y OF GREENSBORO
STANDARD TEMPORARY CREEK
STD. NO.
REV.
213
01-91 05-05
03-97 09--05
CROSSING DURING CONSTRUCTION
03-05
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
PROJECT NEE ❑ ORLD
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
05/31/2018
03X-04
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116

MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 03X-06 FOR CONTINUATION
z
U I \\\\\ \\\ 1
ct WS5.1'
0
I \` \\\\\\\
coco
X \\ \.\\\\ \.\
w �`�`;`\\\\\\�
uJ
• .V \\\V
\ \ \\\ \
° I \. \,\\\
wI \
0
tu
z \
\�\\
0
Q t.Pk\\
\\\
QyA\/ /
\ \-\D \ —4
fi, SS5.4
Sand`J Creek
yVA\
\. \
\ \\���\
KEYMAP
Wetland Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact Type
Permanent
Impact Area
(AC)
Temporary
Impact Area
(AC)
WS5.1
W-A-190-1
CLEARING
0.00
0.11
Total
0.00
0.11
Perennial Stream Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact Type
Permanent
Impact Length
(LF)
Temporary
Impact Length
(LF)
555.3
S-A-190-2
STABILIZATION
21
21
555.4
S-A-190-1
STABILIZATION
20
20
Total
41
41
Intermittent Stream Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJ D
Impact Type
Permanent
Impact Length
(LF)
Temporary
Impact Length
(LF)
555.1
S-A-190-4
STABILIZATION
20
20
555.2
S-A-190-4
STABILIZATION
20
20
Total
40
40
\EN
(/
SS5.3_
N
c
.. 1 ( - SS5.2
'%%
,�vyvyv�� -y �� 1\ 1(�( \ � / A V -_
: (
,,,, � V
vV�V�/1V
I I 1\i
A-1_..,--��A\,�;i��'�A\AS
\\\\\V
\,Vv\r 7, _AVA\V-VvVv vvvim\`.v'-* _,AvvV) JAII)I\(
\ b (�
\/77/
I A )
U
FM
v/\\ /
( ) 1 v(; / v
/ \\ \_ Y il
\ \
v
\/ l
cc
i i l I I I I \\
\\ \\
�\ VA
W
LEGEND
EXISTING WETLAND
EXISTING POND
— • — EXISTING PERENNIAL STREAM
10 WWI WWI WWI Oil
100 0110. WWI gill
soli
EXISTING INTERMITTENT STREAM
PERMANENT WETLAND IMPACT
TEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACT
PERMANENT STREAM IMPACT
COG STD. 214 - SEE 03X-03)
TEMPORARY STREAM IMPACT
COG STD. 213 - SEE 03X-04)
PROPOSED SEWER MAIN
PROPOSED WATER MAIN
r \ ) I W ) ), ) 2772) )/ s/ / 77 7- \ )40
1 (\ \(! v ////,\ —'
( III (\\ /" \//
l ll PUP
r7/2
1 1 STA1
SS5.1 1 cis
\ S ARMOUNT RD
�FM _ , �� �_SR 2407)
yi/l ��\
77, \
ti
0
200'
400'
SCALE: 1" = 200'
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
PROJECT NE❑ ❑ ORLD
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
05/31/2018
03X-05
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116

Z
OI
of
•
�,.�" �< \ A�tv AL, 1\ Lake . ••'• // %%
•
Ion C� �ma. ........r.,-,a,---.1.1.11.1.M...—,IL • • 111-4__T'i::-.-......—ZTE-L--•-1----ja...:- ----- ����
Wetland Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJ D
Impact Type
Permanent
Impact Area
(AC)
Temporary
Impact Area
(AC)
WS6.1
W-B-181-6
CLEARING
0.00
0.07
WS6.2
W-B-181-6
CLEARING
0.00
0.05
Total
0.00
0.12
y
j
F
0 li!..
_ �__ _� -��---'1`.
lei _ 1� A� / 7
2
I co
E
//// Jl�� 0 l�
LEGEND
EXISTING WETLAND
EXISTING POND
•
— — — EXISTING PERENNIAL STREAM
— — — — — — EXISTING INTERMITTENT STREAM
PERMANENT WETLAND IMPACT
TEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACT
PERMANENT STREAM IMPACT
J V� � AA\V \\)
__ _; — ____ __ _= >r )S HWY421 � =
0
200'
400'
SCALE: 1" = 200'
FM
W
WS6.2
COG STD. 214 - SEE 03X-03)
TEMPORARY STREAM IMPACT
COG STD. 213 - SEE 03X-04)
PROPOSED SEWER MAIN
PROPOSED WATER MAIN
WS6.1
FM
V ----us aziP�oR-- -
NOLLVf1NILNOO elOA 90-X£O J. HS 33S - 3NI-1HOLVW
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
PROJECT NE❑ ❑ ORLD
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
05/31 /2018
03X-06
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116

zl
O
1-
z_
H
z
0
U
of
coI
O
M
O
1-
w
I
E.
WOW
OLD 421 RD
k07
KEYMAP
Perennial Stream Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact Type
Permanent
Impact Length
(LF)
Temporary
Impact Length
(LF)
557.2
S-A-183-3
STABILIZATION
21
25
Total
21
25
Intermittent Stream Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact Type
Permanent
Impact Length
(LF)
Temporary
Impact Length
(LF)
557.1
S-A-183-2
STABILIZATION
32
21
Total
32
21
SS7.2 \�'/—
557 1
�s42r( o,� —_jJS HWY421 — _ _ _ _=
- - - �- °s 421 (NORTH BOUND)
LEGEND
EXISTING WETLAND
EXISTING POND
•
— — — EXISTING PERENNIAL STREAM
— — — — — — EXISTING INTERMITTENT STREAM
PERMANENT WETLAND IMPACT
TEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACT
FM
PERMANENT STREAM IMPACT
COG STD. 214 - SEE 03X-03)
TEMPORARY STREAM IMPACT
COG STD. 213 - SEE 03X-04)
PROPOSED SEWER MAIN
W PROPOSED WATER MAIN
\A\\\\ v\v\\�A\\�__
L
- sue _ —
W /ice a2,�o �"
J-ice / - — — — ���
U — -- ia�,- _-�
y f
f = /%
Q • r— �„--
0
200'
400'
SCALE: 1" = 200'
m
m
m
m
O
W
0
0
n
0
z
z
c
O
z
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
PROJECT NEE ❑ ORLD
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
05/31/2018
03X-07
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116

�7$�OAT
21
Wetland Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact Type
Permanent
Impact Area
(AC)
Temporary
Impact Area
(AC)
WS8.1
W-C-183-3
CLEARING
0.00
0.01
Total
0.00
0.01
Perennial Stream Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact Type
Permanent
Impact Length
(LF)
Temporary
Impact Length
(LF)
558.2
S-D-183-4
STABILIZATION
21
22
Total
21
22
Intermittent Stream Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact Type
Permanent
Impact Length
(LF)
Temporary
Impact Length
(LF)
558.1
S-C-183-1
STABILIZATION
0
41
Total
0
41
SS8.2
S
>U9 -Z m'OATHBQUND) ) \ — ----- —
4. \\\
HWY421> ----= - -
LEGEND
EXISTING WETLAND
EXISTING POND
•
•
•
— • — • — EXISTING PERENNIAL STREAM
— — — — — — EXISTING INTERMITTENT STREAM
PERMANENT WETLAND IMPACT
TEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACT
PERMANENT STREAM IMPACT
COG STD. 214 - SEE 03X-03)
FM
TEMPORARY STREAM IMPACT
COG STD. 213 - SEE 03X-04)
PROPOSED SEWER MAIN
W PROPOSED WATER MAIN
SS8.1
E„
HBO D)
0
200'
400'
SCALE: 1" = 200'
v(s)
1 WS8.1 _ m
--- _ - - A -1
0
w
o
= o
0
0
0
z
I -I
z
Ic
D
I 5
z
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
PROJECT NE❑ ❑ ORLD
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
05/31 /2018
03X-08
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116

i
i
/ / a
Ail A,
RON HOR Er�t
o��
Impacts on this sheet are within the
Haw River Subasin (Cape Fear 02)
Wetland Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact Type
Permanent
Impact Area
(AC)
Temporary
Impact Area
(AC)
WS9.1
W-D-182-2
CLEARING
0.00
0.07
WS9.2
W-E-182-3
CLEARING
0.00
0.08
WS9.3
W-B-183-1
CLEARING
0.00
0.01
Total
0.00
0.16
•
0
I
W
OLD 421 RD — - --
(SR 1006) -- �c� )�
(\ V C� t S ) ,c , N I 1 t \\
LEGEND
EXISTING WETLAND
EXISTING POND
•
•
•
— • — • — EXISTING PERENNIAL STREAM
— — — — — — EXISTING INTERMITTENT STREAM
PERMANENT WETLAND IMPACT
TEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACT
PERMANENT STREAM IMPACT
COG STD. 214 - SEE 03X-03)
200'
SCALE: 1" = 200'
400'
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
PROJECT NE❑ ❑ ORLD
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
FM
TEMPORARY STREAM IMPACT
COG STD. 213 - SEE 03X-04)
PROPOSED SEWER MAIN
W PROPOSED WATER MAIN
OLD 21 RD SR 1006
—70
JIl (I IJf
IIIIII ` WS9.3 --
DATE
SHEET
05/31 /2018
03X-09
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116

I
ZI
w
I �
I I>-
11I ka WS10.1
OLD 4rRDD — SR 100
SS10.1
Impacts on this sheet are within the
Haw River Subasin (Cape Fear 02)
Wetland Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact Type
Permanent
Impact Area
(AC)
Temporary
Impact Area
(AC)
WS10.1
W-B-183-2
CLEARING
0.00
0.01
WS10.2
W-D-183-2
CLEARING
0.00
0.01
Total
0.00
0.02
Intermittent Stream Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact Type
Permanent
Impact Length
(LF)
Temporary
Impact Length
(LF)
SS10.1
S-D-183-2
STABILIZATION
13
0
Total
13
0
•
y=f = (SR 1006)
`? l l (<^ ` i% %i N 7V) ` J %<
N
COCt
0
CO
a <
r
-------._
LEGEND
EXISTING WETLAND
EXISTING POND
•
— — — EXISTING PERENNIAL STREAM
— — — — — — EXISTING INTERMITTENT STREAM
PERMANENT WETLAND IMPACT
TEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACT
PERMANENT STREAM IMPACT
COG STD. 214 - SEE 03X-03)
FM
TEMPORARY STREAM IMPACT
COG STD. 213 - SEE 03X-04)
PROPOSED SEWER MAIN
W PROPOSED WATER MAIN
</ //rf
r /
• OLD-3121 RD SR 1006—, .T w
Fo9_.r ��—_ oe Foy _ �o�_ F 11II w—_ --row= <� rec— V2'
_
\ --,. z f �S �— �� � =---_-_.— auNDesLos�s MDrz t W
X
m
0
200'
400'
SCALE: 1" = 200'
0
0
I0
z
Iz
c
D
O
z
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
PROJECT NE❑ ❑ ORLD
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
05/31 /2018
03X-10
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116

OI
<I
z
I=
z
O
U
OI
OI
M
0
1-
w
w
uJ
w
J �
1t 111Rio_016124-&—
Ill
905
-- —
Impacts on this sheet are within the
Haw River Subasin (Cape Fear 02)
Wetland Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact Type
Permanent
Impact Area
(AC)
Temporary
Impact Area
(AC)
WS11.1
W-D-182-4
CLEARING
0.00
0.01
Total
0.00
0.01
0
200'
400'
SCALE: 1" = 200'
LEGEND
EXISTING WETLAND
EXISTING POND
•
— — • — EXISTING PERENNIAL STREAM
— — — — — — EXISTING INTERMITTENT STREAM
PERMANENT WETLAND IMPACT
TEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACT
PERMANENT STREAM IMPACT
COG STD. 214 - SEE 03X-03)
4 �J
/(/
FM
TEMPORARY STREAM IMPACT
COG STD. 213 - SEE 03X-04)
PROPOSED SEWER MAIN
W PROPOSED WATER MAIN
•
sa,00
(SJ 10p6 •
r / / / /,/
/// jj//0///
I�
n
Im
cn
m
m
(n
m
0
3
N
0
n
0
z
z
c
O
z
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
PROJECT NE❑ ❑ ORLD
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
05/31 /2018
03X-11
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116

DI
z_
H
z
0
U
SI
u_
TI
X
Impacts on this sheet are within the
Haw River Subasin (Cape Fear 02)
Wetland Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact Type
Permanent
Impact Area
(AC)
Temporary
Impact Area
(AC)
WS12.1
W-A-182-5
CLEARING
0.00
0.01
WS12.2
W-A-182-2
CLEARING
0.00
0.01
Total
0.00
0.02
/9 //?I i / t I l f X / ) // — �\
Ar wow
oco azi xo s'tcy o06 -- — —
)
0
LD
4
(SR 1006)
\71) \?t§b‘
D=
200'
400'
SCALE: 1" = 200'
LEGEND
EXISTING WETLAND
EXISTING POND
•
— — • — EXISTING PERENNIAL STREAM
— — — — — — EXISTING INTERMITTENT STREAM
PERMANENT WETLAND IMPACT
TEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACT
PERMANENT STREAM IMPACT
COG STD. 214 - SEE 03X-03)
FM
TEMPORARY STREAM IMPACT
COG STD. 213 - SEE 03X-04)
PROPOSED SEWER MAIN
W PROPOSED WATER MAIN
/ /i1��` 1I H/ I / Ire J�'c - , i
1r
/
•
J /fr
r
- `OLD 42-1 RD
/ (SR 1006) '7-77
V/ ( WS12.2.0 )a2f Ii I
IIf I / / I� `\ZA+•� �n
mod, -13
02
.D 7
�s 00-o
-O
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
PROJECT NE❑ ❑ ORLD
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
05/31/2018
03X-12
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116

ib
1• 1
OLD 421 RD
o SS13.2 = 'N
0
•
TL•
OH
62
nfterr
� r� :•,a. a •1If
6<�iW���:.'eti
Wetland Impacts
Impacts on this sheet are within the
Haw River Subasin (Cape Fear 02)
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact Type
Permanent
Impact Area
(AC)
Temporary
Impact Area
(AC)
WS13.1
W-C-182-2
CLEARING
0.00
0.01
Total
0.00
0.01
Intermittent Stream Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact Type
Permanent
Impact Length
(LF)
Temporary
Impact Length
(LF)
SS13.1
S-B-182-4
STABILIZATION
0
43
SS13.2
S-E-182-3
STABILIZATION
25
20
Total
25
63
\\-
C
.ff ,,
II
-o——
\
01
1
o c Q 0
Oa=
ova
0
200'
C
Jl
z
•
//
/I
// J
LEGEND
EXISTING WETLAND
EXISTING POND
•
•
•
— • — • — EXISTING PERENNIAL STREAM
— — — — — — EXISTING INTERMITTENT STREAM
PERMANENT WETLAND IMPACT
TEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACT
PERMANENT STREAM IMPACT
COG STD. 214 - SEE 03X-03)
////////
�// / 11
//7)
•
7-- OLD
FM
TEMPORARY STREAM IMPACT
COG STD. 213 - SEE 03X-04)
PROPOSED SEWER MAIN
PROPOSED WATER MAIN
•421 RD (SRC 1006)
WS13
11 t
c o- TfSL/!.�'-- :Yi'lkr`s1!APv- i�7ri�l�l INIUM 1.`71fa[..
���� �� � .�. �ei+'te�/I Y ��A��1!A9r�+L611�f�►I�`,I/ — II , � g►
400'
SCALE: 1" = 200'
/
111//i/[
SS13.1%'j
6)0
//
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
PROJECT NE❑ ❑ ORLD
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
05/31/2018
03X-13
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116

( / ((
\\ SS14.1
Arr rr
tii � 1r iiQr•�w�•�i[ �� Sri a aT������ 'iv'u�i a..� ��i-�"•
11� /i// i/�� \1' �\� II
mow
OLD 421 RD
07
KEYMAP
Impacts on this sheet are within the
Haw River Subasin (Cape Fear 02)
Wetland Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact Type
Permanent
Impact Area
(AC)
Temporary
Impact Area
(AC)
WS14.1
W-E-182-2
CLEARING
0.00
0.02
Total
0.00
0.02
Perennial Stream Impacts
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact Type
Permanent
Impact Length
(LF)
Temporary
Impact Length
(LF)
SS 14.1
S-E-182-1
STABILIZATION
0
38
Total
0
38
WS 14.1 1 I r ��/�i/ ��� \� \\
l �i � w
i � ram-
/
0
q//////((I //
/'‘�/fl\ \I(/�
0
200'
400'
SCALE: 1" = 200'
1
,®
ii v////,
LEGEND
EXISTING WETLAND
EXISTING POND
•
•
•
— • — • — EXISTING PERENNIAL STREAM
— — — — — — EXISTING INTERMITTENT STREAM
PERMANENT WETLAND IMPACT
TEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACT
PERMANENT STREAM IMPACT
COG STD. 214 - SEE 03X-03)
FM
TEMPORARY STREAM IMPACT
COG STD. 213 - SEE 03X-04)
PROPOSED SEWER MAIN
W PROPOSED WATER MAIN
44r, lllWaft
.. ��wr rYr t.c
air „,
\\\\\\„\ i t l '-\j (i /
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
PROJECT NE❑ ❑ ORLD
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
DATE
SHEET
05/31 /2018
03X-14
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116

Impacts on this sheet are within the
Haw River Subasin (Cape Fear 02)
Impact
Site
Feature ID
from PJD
Impact Type
Permanent
Impact Area
(AC)
Temporary
Impact Area
(AC)
WS15.1
W-E-182-1
CLEARING
0.00
0.04
Total
0.00
0.04
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116
— — — — — — EXISTING INTERMITTENT STREAM
PROJECT NE❑ ❑ ORLD
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
PERMANENT STREAM IMPACT
COG STD. 214 - SEE 03X-03)
TEMPORARY STREAM IMPACT
COG STD. 213 - SEE 03X-04)
DATE
SHEET
05/31 /2018
03X-15

LEGEND
City of Greensboro Wastewater Extension
City of Greensboro Water Extension
Adjacent Parcels
Megasite Boundary
u
tc; .1114,
FY
•
0.10P
e?.c
k
PATH: IICLTSMAINIGIS_DATAIGISIPROJECTS1006770_CITY0FGREENSBOR010259114_GBOROMSWATER-SEWERENVIROIMAP_DOCSIMXDIGRMS_NEPAIPERMIT_FIG_0601181WATER_SEWER_GRMS_PORT1ONIWS_ADJACENTPARCELS_STRIP_MAP_053118.MX0 - USER: JGARVEY - DATE: 513112018
•
•
4!'
10.-J11•
38
ADJACENT PARCELS MAP
PAGE 1 OF 4

LEGEND
City of Greensboro Wastewater Extension
City of Greensboro Water Extension
Adjacent Parcels
Megasite Boundary
0 Fe
64 65 67
62 63
ADJACENT PARCELS MAP
F�2
PAGE 2 OF 4
PATH: IICLTSMAINIGIS OATAIGISIPROJECTS1006]]0 CITYOFGREENSBOR010259114 GBOROMSWATER-SEWERENVIROIMAP OOCSIMXOIGRMS NEPAIPERMIT FIG 0601181WATER SEWER GRMS PORTIONIWS AOJACENTPARCELS STRIP MAP 050118.MX0 - USER: JGARVEY - OATE: 513112018
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

LEGEND
City of Greensboro Wastewater Extension
City of Greensboro Water Extension
Adjacent Parcels
Megasite Boundary
Feet 750
j 47
46 4,
17, 10
38 67
65'
/
_64
63'
/62 E: _
47 , -i
•
42
34
Sandy free
... _ '.��'c.
ADJACENT PARCELS MAP
F�2
PAGE 3 OF 4
PATH: IICLTSMAINIGIS OATAIGISIPROJECTS1005]]0 CITYOFGREENSHOR010259114 GHOROMSWATER-SEWERENVIROIMAP OOCSIMXOIGRMS NEPAIPERMIT FIG 0501181WATER SEWER GRMS PORTIONIWS AOJACENTPARCELS STRIP MAP 050118.MX0 - USER: JGARVEY - OATE: 5/31/2018
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

LEGEND
City of Greensboro Wastewater Extension
City of Greensboro Water Extension
Adjacent Parcels
Megasite Boundary
750 7
`-411Ec.,, ter•
ADJACENT PARCELS MAP
F�2
PAGE 4 OF 4
PATH: IICLTSMAINIGIS OATAIGISIPRGJECTS1008110 CITYOFGREENSBGR010259114 GBGRGMSWATER-SEWERENVIRGIMAP UGCSIMXUIGRMS NEPAIPERMIT FIG 0801181WATER SEWER GRMS PGRTIGNIWS AUJACENTPARCELS STRIP MAP 058118.MXU - USER: JGARVEY - DATE: 5/31/2018
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

D
E
H
I
J
K
L
1
Number of
PIN
Owner
Address
City
State
ZIP
2
1
8708468271
BROOKS, ALAN LYNN
6542 LIBERTY RD
JULIAN
NC
27283
3
2
8709013468
CHAVIS, ERIC M
6316 LIBERTY RD
JULIAN
NC
27283
4
3
8709101476
COFFMAN, JOHN
520 BECKENHILL DR
JULIAN
NC
27283
5
4
8708374900
COLEY, CAROLYN HEMPHILL
5832 MONNETT RD
JULIAN
NC
27283
6
5
8708641848
COLLINS, DAWN GILMORE
6630 LIBERTY RD
JULIAN
NC
27283
7
6
8708291184
EAGLE, GEORGE L
6412 LIBERTY RD
JULIAN
NC
27283
8
7
8708373229
FISHER, RAY ANDREW JR ; FISHER, NANCY H
4806 OLD JULIAN RD
JULIAN
NC
27283
9
8
8709105017
GARRETT, MARSHA L
6350 LIBERTY RD
JULIAN
NC
27283
10
9
8708746792
GILMORE LANDSCAPING INC
9154 OLD 421 RD
JULIAN
NC
27283
11
10
8708644697
GILMORE LANDSCAPING INC
9154 OLD 421 RD
JULIAN
NC
27283
12
11
8708461659
GILMORE MEMORIAL PK CORP
PO BOX 173
JULIAN
NC
27283
13
12
8708555539
GILMORE, WILLIAM W ; GILMORE, LINDA S
6616 LIBERTY RD
JULIAN
NC
27283
14
13
8709100703
GLENDA G SIZEMORE REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST; SIZEMORE, GLENA G TRUSTEE
519 BECKENHILL DR
JULIAN
NC
27283
15
14
8708286655
HAMILTON, KATHY F
P 0 BOX 321
JULIAN
NC
27283
16
15
8708381133
HEMPHILL, MARY E
1925 E NC 62 HWY
JULIAN
NC
27283
17
16
8708198261
HILL, LEONARD A
1901 NC 62 EAST
JULIAN
NC
27283
18
17
8708643878
HOLLEMAN, MARSHALL A ; HOLLEMAN, BARBARA C
5132 WATCHTOWER RD
JULIAN
NC
27283
19
18
8709014351
KIMBLE, RONNIE LEE; KIMBLE, EDNA M
6318 LIBERTY RD
JULIAN
NC
27283
20
19
8708650185
LAYTON, VICKIE LYNN GILMORE
6626 LIBERTY RD
JULIAN
NC
27283
21
20
8708559231
LAYTON, VICKIE LYNN GILMORE
6626 LIBERTY RD
JULIAN
NC
27283
22
21
8709015260
MACIAS, DELLA V; MACIAS, RAMIRO
6320 LIBERTY RD
JULIAN
NC
27283
23
22
8709005348
ORTIZ, JOSE R; ORTIZ, LUCY
6328 LIBERTY RD
JULIAN
NC
27283
24
23
8709012708
SHARPE, CONNIE HOLLAND ; SHARPE, RONNIE WAYNE
6310 LIBERTY RD
JULIAN
NC
27283
25
24
8708287591
SIMMONS, JAMES E J/T R/S; SIMMONS, WENDY W J/T R/S ; SIMMONS, KATIE DANELLE J/T R/S
6428 LIBERTY RD
JULIAN
NC
27283
26
25
8708553835
SUGG, JOE HAYWOOD SR; SUGG, MARY ANN
4341 KIMMERIDGE RD
GREENSBORO
NC
27406
27
26
8708285818
TERRELL, BARRY D JR
6420 LIBERTY RD
JULIAN
NC
27283
28
27
8708283814
TERRELL, BARRY D JR
6420 LIBERTY RD
JULIAN
NC
27283
29
28
8708560080
USPS NORTH BONNEVILLE LLC
40 ALTURA WAY
GREENBRAE
CA
94904
30
29
8709016191
WELLS, JANAE LYNN
6322 LIBERTY RD
JULIAN
NC
27283
31
30
8708467315
WHITE, ANDREW SHANE ; WILKINS, SANDY LASHEA
6524 LIBERTY RD
JULIAN
NC
27283
32
31
8718043525
BEESON, MARJORIE S
5948 MACEDONIA LOOP RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
33
32
8718244733
BERTOLOTTI, GAYLE V; BERTOLOTTI, GEORGE J II
7027 OLD 421 RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
34
34
8718144723
CHAPPELL, ELIZABETH C
7217 BOBBY JEAN ROAD
JULIAN
NC
27283
35
35
8718457365
CHILTON, CLARENCE G L/T; CHILTON, ROY DEAN
7059 OLD 421 RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
36
36
8718450972
CHILTON, ROY D ; CHILTON, LINDA
7059 OLD 421 RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
37
37
8718340658
FOLWELL, JERRY SMITH ; FOLWELL, VERLINE B
7041 OLD 421 RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
38
38
8708848592
GILMORE LANDSCAPING INC
9154 OLD 421 RD
JULIAN
NC
27283
39
39
8718557002
HOLDER, R C
4283 HOLDER FARM RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
40
40
8718248475
KENDRICK, ROGER D ; KENDRICK, CHERYL D
7039 OLD 421 RD
JULIAN
NC
27283
41
41
8718357641
KENNEDY, DOROTHY A
7055 OLD 421 RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
42
42
8718145450
SHOFFNER, JOHN TERRY; SHOFFNER, PATRICIA F
2247 NC 62 EAST
JULIAN
NC
27283
43
43
8718275172
TIM S FARM AND, FORESTRY LLC
7157 BOBBY JEAN RD
JULIAN
NC
27283
44
44
8718241701
TIM S FARM AND, FORESTRY LLC
7157 BOBBY JEAN RD
JULIAN
NC
27283
45
45
8718354798
TIMS FARM & FORESTRY
7157 BOBBY JEAN ROAD
JULIAN
NC
27283
46
46
8708646497
BROWN, WILLIE A (BROWN, SYLVIA)
6807 MIDDLEBURG RD
GREENSBORO
NC
27406
47
47
8708647091
CORUM, JAY CHARLES
4464 FOLGER RD
JULIAN
NC
27283
48
48
8708706808
GREENSBORO RANDOLPH MEGASITE FOUNDATION INC
324 WENDOVER AVE W #207
GREENSBORO
NC
27408
49
49
8708716649
GREENSBORO RANDOLPH MEGASITE FOUNDATION INC
324 WENDOVER AVE W # 207
GREENSBORO
NC
27408
50
50
8708727822
GREENSBORO RANDOLPH MEGASITE FOUNDATION INC
324 WENDOVER AVE W #207
GREENSBORO
NC
27408
51
51
8708735760
ASHLEY, ROGER DALE
6135 JULIAN AIRPORT RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298

D
E
H
I
J
K
L
52
52
8708735798
ASHLEY, ROGER DALE
6135 JULIAN AIRPORT RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
53
53
8708738605
GREENSBORO RANDOLPH MEGASITE FOUNDATION INC
324 WENDOVER AVE W # 207
GREENSBORO
NC
27408
54
54
8708738745
GREENSBORO RANDOLPH MEGASITE FOUNDATION INC
324 WENDOVER AVE W 207
GREENSBORO
NC
27408
55
55
8708743132
GILMORE, LANDSCAPING INC
9154 OLD 421 RD
JULIAN
NC
27283
56
56
8708748290
DEVRIES, DANIEL PETER (DEVRIES, TYRINA LOUISE)
9010 OLD 421 RD
JULIAN
NC
27283
57
57
8708800779
GREENSBORO RANDOLPH MEGASITE FOUNDATION INC
324 WENDOVER W #207
GREENSBORO
NC
27408
58
58
8708801435
CRUTCHFIELD, ALFRED NOLAND
5616 JULIAN AIRPORT RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
59
59
8708812608
GREENSBORO RANDOLPH MEGASITE FOUNDATION INC
324 WENDOVER AVE W #207
GREENSBORO
NC
27408
60
60
8708822458
COUNTY OF RANDOLPH
725 MCDOWELL RD
ASHEBORO
NC
27205
61
61
8708832126
COUNTY OF RANDOLPH
725 MCDOWELL RD
ASHEBORO
NC
27205
62
62
8708847188
HARVELL, KELLIE LYNNE
8920 OLD 421 RD
JULIAN
NC
27283
63
63
8708849131
BULLARD, JAMES C (ELLIS, JEAN BULLARD)
5163 WALDEN MILL DR
NORCROSS
GA
30092
64
64
8708940260
HARVELL, LILLIAN MARIE MARTIN
P 0 BOX 183
CLIMAX
NC
27283
65
65
8708942175
JENKINS, LINDA WRAY
187 N MAIN ST
STALEY
NC
27355
66
67
8708944178
BARKER, MARGARET S
8868 OLD 421 RD
JULIAN
NC
27283
67
68
8717084158
NORTH CAROLINA RAILROAD HOLDINGS I LLC
2809 HIGHWOODS BLVD SUITE 100
RALEIGH
NC
27604
68
69
8717097208
NORTH CAROLINA RAILROAD HOLDINGS I LLC
2809 HIGHWOODS BLVD SUITE 100
RALEIGH
NC
27604
69
70
8717164916
NORTH CAROLINA RAILROAD HOLDINGS LLC
2809 HIGHWOODS BLVD SUITE 100
RALEIGH
NC
27604
70
71
8717257655
NORTH CAROLINA RAILROAD HOLDINGS I LLC
2809 HIGHWOODS BLVD SUITE 100
RALEIGH
NC
27604
71
72
8717312809
BREEDLOVE, LESTER LEE
6041 STARMOUNT RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
72
73
8718537779
SMITH, CICERO R HEIRS
8124 OLD 421 RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
73
74
8718631987
CAUSEY, B WINFIELD JR (CAUSEY, CHARLES)
6140 SMITHWOOD RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
74
75
8718635901
EMERALD VIEW LLC
6140 SMITHWOOD RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
75
76
8718733763
MILLIKAN, JOY CELL FOX
7846 OLD 421 RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
76
77
8707990472
CRUTCHFIELD, ALFRED M
5536 JULIAN AIRPORT RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
77
78
8707895702
VESS, BRENDA C
5564 JULIAN AIRPORT RD
LIBERTY
NC
27298
78
79
8717520081
MONARD LLC
204 LOYD RD
STATESVILLE
NC
28625
79
80
8716695758
MONARD LLC
204 LOYD RD
STATESVILLE
NC
28625
80
81
8708738567
GREENSBORO RANDOLPH MEGASITE FOUNDATION INC
324 WENDOVER AVE W #207
GREENSBORO
NC
27408

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
Appendix C
USFWS Concurrence
4825-1232-0875.v1

U.s.
FE LIa WILD IFE
SLcNVLct
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICEs„F.
Raleigh Field Office
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Date: 1 0/18/2019
Self -Certification Letter
Project Name Greensboro Randolph Megasite
Dear Applicant:
Thank you for using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) Raleigh Ecological
Services online project review process. By printing this letter in conjunction with your
project review package, you are certifying that you have completed the online project
review process for the project named above in accordance with all instructions
provided, using the best available information to reach your conclusions. This letter,
and the enclosed project review package, completes the review of your project in
accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 Stat.
884), as amended (ESA), and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C.
668-668c, 54 Stat. 250), as amended (Eagle Act). This letter also provides
information for your project review under the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (P.L. 91-190, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, 83 Stat. 852), as amended. A copy of this
letter and the project review package must be submitted to this office for this
certification to be valid. This letter and the project review package will be maintained
in our records.
The species conclusions table in the enclosed project review package summarizes
your ESA and Eagle Act conclusions. Based on your analysis, mark all the
determinations that apply:
"no effect" determinations for proposed/listed species and/or
proposed/designated critical habitat; and/or
"may affect, not likely to adversely affect" determinations for proposed/listed
species and/or proposed/designated critical habitat; and/or
"may affect, likely to adversely affect" determination for the Northern long-
eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) and relying on the findings of the January 5,
2016, Programmatic Biological Opinion for the Final 4(d) Rule on the
Northern long-eared bat;
"no Eagle Act permit required" determinations for eagles.

Applicant Page 2
We certify that use of the online project review process in strict accordance with the
instructions provided as documented in the enclosed project review package results in
reaching the appropriate determinations. Therefore, we concur with the "no effect" or
"not likely to adversely affect" determinations for proposed and listed species and
proposed and designated critical habitat; the "may affect" determination for Northern
long-eared bat; and/or the "no Eagle Act permit required" determinations for eagles.
Additional coordination with this office is not needed. Candidate species are not
legally protected pursuant to the ESA. However, the Service encourages consideration
of these species by avoiding adverse impacts to them. Please contact this office for
additional coordination if your project action area contains candidate species.
Should project plans change or if additional information on the distribution of
proposed or listed species, proposed or designated critical habitat, or bald eagles
becomes available, this determination may be reconsidered. This certification letter is
valid for 1 year. Information about the online project review process including
instructions, species information, and other information regarding project reviews
within North Carolina is available at our website http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/pp.html.
If you have any questions, you can write to us at [e-mail] or please contact
Leigh Mann of this office at 919-856-4520, ext. 10.
Sincerely,
/s/Pete Benjamin
Pete Benjamin
Field Supervisor
Raleigh Ecological Services
Enclosures - project review package

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
In Reply Refer To:
Consultation Code: 04EN2000-2020-SLI-0072
Event Code: 04EN2000-2020-E-00191
Project Name: Greensboro Randolph Megasite
October 16, 2019
Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project
location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:
The species list generated pursuant to the information you provided identifies threatened,
endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical
habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by
your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of
species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to
contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to
federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical
habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the
Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be
completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be
completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and
implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested
through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.
Section 7 of the Act requires that all federal agencies (or their designated non-federal
representative), in consultation with the Service, insure that any action federally authorized,
funded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
federally -listed endangered or threatened species. A biological assessment or evaluation may be
prepared to fulfill that requirement and in determining whether additional consultation with the
Service is necessary. In addition to the federally -protected species list, information on the
species' life histories and habitats and information on completing a biological assessment or

10/16/2019 Event Code: 04EN2000-2020-E-00191
evaluation and can be found on our web page at http://www.fws.gov/raleigh. Please check the
web site often for updated information or changes
If your project contains suitable habitat for any of the federally -listed species known to be
present within the county where your project occurs, the proposed action has the potential to
adversely affect those species. As such, we recommend that surveys be conducted to determine
the species' presence or absence within the project area. The use of North Carolina Natural
Heritage program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys.
If you determine that the proposed action may affect (i.e., likely to adversely affect or not likely
to adversely affect) a federally -protected species, you should notify this office with your
determination, the results of your surveys, survey methodologies, and an analysis of the effects
of the action on listed species, including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects,
before conducting any activities that might affect the species. If you determine that the proposed
action will have no effect (i.e., no beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect effect) on federally
listed species, then you are not required to contact our office for concurrence (unless an
Environmental Impact Statement is prepared). However, you should maintain a complete record
of the assessment, including steps leading to your determination of effect, the qualified personnel
conducting the assessment, habitat conditions, site photographs, and any other related articles.
Please be aware that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.), and projects affecting these species may require
development of an eagle conservation plan (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/
eagle_guidance.html). Additionally, wind energy projects should follow the wind energy
guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/) for minimizing impacts to migratory birds and
bats.
Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for projects including communications
towers (e.g., cellular, digital television, radio, and emergency broadcast) can be found at: http://
www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdlssues/Hazards/towers/towers.htm; http://
www.towerkill.com; and http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdlssues/Hazards/towers/
comtow.html.
Not all Threatened and Endangered Species that occur in North Carolina are subject to section 7
consultation with the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon, sea
turtles,when in the water, and certain marine mammals are under purview of the National Marine
Fisheries Service. If your project occurs in marine, estuarine, or coastal river systems you should
also contact the National Marine Fisheries Service, http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/
We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages
Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project
planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in
the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project
that you submit to our office. If you have any questions or comments, please contact John Ellis
of this office at [e-mail].

10/16/2019
Event Code: 04EN2000-2020-E-00191 3
Attachment(s):
• Official Species List

10/16/2019
Event Code: 04EN2000-2020-E-00191 1
Official Species List
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the
requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether
any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed
action".
This species list is provided by:
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
[phone]

10/16/2019
Event Code: 04EN2000-2020-E-00191 2
Project Summary
Consultation Code: 04EN2000-2020-SLI-0072
Event Code: 04EN2000-2020-E-00191
Project Name: Greensboro Randolph Megasite
Project Type: DEVELOPMENT
Project Description: The Greensboro Randolph Megasite is located south of Greensboro in
Randolph County near the Town of Liberty. This site has been identified
as a possible site for an advanced manufacturing and assembly plant.
Highway 421 runs adjacent to the site which provides good access to
major interstates and an existing railroad parallels the northern boundary
of the site. This combined with a large employment base in the greater
Greensboro area makes the GRMS very attractive to potential advanced
manufacturers.
General Purpose and Need
The purpose of the proposed project is generation of jobs and labor
income to improve unemployment, increase median income, and decrease
the poverty rate in Randolph County and the region. In addition, an
advanced manufacturing plant could generate state and local revenue.
Proposed Action
The proposed action includes development of facilities and infrastructure
necessary to create a megasite to attract and support an advanced
manufacturing operation.
Project Location:
Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https://
www.google.com/maps/place/35.888659475155066N79.62663251578857W

10/16/2019
Event Code: 04EN2000-2020-E-00191 3
Counties: Randolph, NC

10/16/2019
Event Code: 04EN2000-2020-E-00191 4
Endangered Species Act Species
There is a total of 3 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.
Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include
species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species
list because a project could affect downstream species.
IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA
Fisheriesl, as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the
Department of Commerce.
See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially
within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office
if you have questions.
1. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an
office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of
Commerce.
Fishes
NAME STATUS
Cape Fear Shiner Notropis mekistocholas Endangered
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6063
Clams
NAME STATUS
Atlantic Pigtoe Fusconaia masoni
There is proposed critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5164
Flowering Plants
Proposed
Threatened
NAME STATUS
Schweinitz's Sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii Endangered
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3849

10/16/2019
Event Code: 04EN2000-2020-E-00191 5
Critical habitats
HERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S
JURISDICTION.

a Mall
a� i NC DEPARTMENT OF
■ ■F:aa1 NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
• Eon
Jessica Tisdale
HDR
555 Fayetteville Street
Raleigh, NC 27601
RE: Greensboro Randolph Megasite
Dear Jessica Tisdale:
Roy Cooper. Governor
Susi Hamiiton. Secretary
Walter Clark. Director. Land and Water Stewardship
October 17, 2019
NCNHDE-10509
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide
information about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above.
Based on the project area mapped with your request, a query of the NCNHP database indicates that
there are no records for rare species, important natural communities, natural areas, and/or
conservation/managed areas within the proposed project boundary. Please note that although there
may be no documentation of natural heritage elements within the project boundary, it does not
imply or confirm their absence; the area may not have been surveyed. The results of this query
should not be substituted for field surveys where suitable habitat exists. In the event that rare
species are found within the project area, please contact the NCNHP so that we may update our
records.
The attached `Potential Occurrences' table summarizes rare species and natural communities that
have been documented within a one -mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these
records suggests that these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area
if suitable habitat exists. Tables of natural areas and conservation/managed areas within a one -mile
radius of the project area, if any, are also included in this report.
If a Federally -listed species is found within the project area or is indicated within a one -mile radius of
the project area, the NCNHP recommends contacting the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for
guidance. Contact information for USFWS offices in North Carolina is found here:
https://www.fws.gov/offices/Directory/ListOffices.cfm?statecode=37.
Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation
planning, project review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria
for regulatory decisions. Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published
without prior written notification to the NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information
source in these publications. Maps of NCNHP data may not be redistributed without permission.
The NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional correspondence if a
Dedicated Nature Preserve, Registered Heritage Area, Clean Water Management Trust Fund
easement, or Federally -listed species are documented near the project area.
If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance,
please contact Rodney A. Butler at [e-mail] or 919-707-8603.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
1) 121 W. JONES STREET, RALE1 1_ NC 27603 • 1651 MAIL SERVICE CENTER. f ALEIGH_ NC 27699
OFC V19 707.9120 • FAX [phone]

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Greensboro Randolph Megasite
October 17, 2019
NCNHDE-10509
Element Occurrences Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Taxonomic EO ID Scientific Name Common Name Last-lir Element Accuracy Federal State Global State
Group servation Occurrence Status tatus Rank Rank
A Date Rank
Vascular Plant 38672 Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz's Sunflower 2018-09-27 E 2-High Endangered Endangered G3 S3
No Natural Areas are Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Areas Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Area Name Owner Owner Type
NC Division of Mitigation Services Easement NC DEQ, Division of Mitigation Services State
Piedmont Land Conservancy Easement Piedmont Land Conservancy Private
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/content/help. Data query generated on October 17, 2019
Please resubmit your information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
source
NCNHP, Q3 Jul 2019.
Page 2 of 3

NCNHDE-10509: Greensboro Randolph Megasite
832
GUILE❑
RANOOLP
y Rd
11
+E,
S •
Julian 8 �D
04a Po
Nato. P r errp S f,n%°-. o
O
rM rtv Rd
Smithresed Re
Loop aS
2
3
Rchland Church
October 17, 2019
❑ Project Boundary
❑ Buffered Project Boundary
LI Managed Area (MAREA)
1:40,407
O 0.35 0.7 1.4mi
r I r ti I
O 0.5 1 2 km
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Iniermap, increment P Corp., GERCO, USGS,
FAO, NFS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadester NL, Ordnance Surrey, E,,ri Japan.
IiEYI. Esri China (Hong Kong), () Open5lreelMap contributors, and the GIS
User Community
Page 3 of 3

Species Conclusions Table
Project Name: Greensboro Randolph Megasite
Date:
10/18/2019
Species / Resource Name
Conclusion
ESA Section 7 / Eagle Act Determination
Notes / Documentation
Cape Fear Shiner (Notropis
mekistocholas)
No suitable habitat present
No effect
Field visit confirmations of habitat — 2015-
2019. Species survey was conducted in the
Study Area and in Sandy Creek by qualified
biologist on September 26, 2017. Species
was not found. Low flow conditions in
streams prevent suitability. Please see
attached survey report for more details.
Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconaia
masoni)
No suitable habitat present
No effect
Field visit confirmations of habitat — 2015-
2019. No survey conducted. Low flow
conditions in streams prevent suitability.
Please see attached Cape Fear Shiner
survey report for more details
Schweinitz's Sunflower
(Helianthus schweinitzii)
Suitable habitat present,
species not present
Not likely to adversely affect
Field visit confirmations of habitat — 2015-
2019. Field survey during optimal flower
season conducted Oct 8th and 9th, 2019
with no species found. Confirms prior Sep
18th and 19th, 2017 surveys.
Critical Habitat
No critical habitat present
No effect
Critical habitat for Cape Fear Shiner is
located in Randolph County, but not within
one mile of the Study Area.
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus
Ieucocephalus)
Unlikely to disturb nesting
bald eagles
No Eagle Act Permit Required
Suitable foraging habitat exists for the bald
eagle at Dodsons Lake. No impacts to the
lake are expected and no eagle nests have
been documented.
Acknowledgement: I agree that the above information about my proposed project is true. I used all of the provided resources to make an
informed decision about impacts in the immediate and surrounding areas.
Signature /Title
Date
10/18/2019

hdrinc.com
MEMORANDUM
DATE: Friday, October 18, 2019
PROJECT:
TO:
Greensboro Randolph Megasite
Project File
FROM: Vickie Miller - HDR
SUBJECT: Schweinitz's Sunflower Survey for the Greensboro Randolph
Megasite
This memo serves to document the field review for the federally protected Schweinitz's
sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) for the Greensboro Randolph Megasite (GRMS)
(Figure 1). The GRMS is located south of Greensboro in Randolph County near the Town
of Liberty and has been identified as a possible site for an advanced manufacturing and
assembly plant.
Field surveys for the presence of Schweinitz's sunflowers within suitable habitat was
conducted on September 18, 19, 20; October 11, 12, and 20, 2017; and conducted again
on October 8 and 9, 2019 during the United States Fish and Wildlife Service optimal
survey window. Prior to conducting the onsite assessment, a review of North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program data, last updated in July 2019, indicated one known record of
Schweinitz's sunflower within one mile of the study area. Recent aerial photographs were
evaluated to identify areas of likely habitat within the study areas.
The field crews visited the known population to ensure the plants vegetative state prior to
beginning the surveys. Suitable habitat for the species was determined to be areas with
open woods and other sunny or semi -sunny habitats which were typically created by
disturbance such as mowing, clearing, or grazing. Because the species is intolerant to
shade and grows best in areas with disturbance, railroad, roadsides, power lines, and
utility rights -of -way; areas where forest canopies were opened up; areas adjacent to
agricultural fields; along pastured areas; areas adjacent to yards; and in and along edges
of other artificially maintained clearings undergoing natural succession were all reviewed
during the survey.
555 Fayetteville Street, Suites 900 & 210, Raleigh, NC 27601-3034
[phone]

Survey Results: The field teams spent 2 days reviewing the study area. Suitable habitat
for the species occurs throughout the study area; however, no occurrences of Schweinitz's
sunflower were found. Based upon these findings, it was determined the project would
have no effect on Schweinitz's sunflower.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Field Investigators
Investigators/Years of Experience: Vickie Miller — 20+ years
Sara Easterly — 20+ years
Jessica Tisdale — 15 years
Ryan Dugger — 5 years
Eanas Alia — 3 years
Jackson Garvey — 3 years
If you have any questions please contact Vickie Miller at 919-232-6637 or
[e-mail].
hdrinc.com 555 Fayetteville Street, Suites 900 & 210, Raleigh, NC 27601-3034
[phone]
2

Megasite Boundary
County Boundary
SCHWEINITZ'S SUNFLOWER SURVEY
F�2
FIGURE 1
PATH: IICLTSMAINIGIS DATAIGISIPROJECTS1006TT0 CITVOFGREENSBOR010259114 GBOROMSWATER-SEWERENVIROIMAP DOCSIMXDIGRMS NEPAISUNFLOWER SURVEV OCT20191GRMS SUNFLOWWER MEMO MAP 101T2019.MXD - USER: JGARVEY - DATE: 1011712019

Cape Fear Shiner Survey Report
For
Greensboro Randolph Megasite
Randolph County, North Carolina
Prepared For:
555 Fayetteville St., Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
Contact Person:
Vickie Miller
Senior Environmental Planner
HDR
[e-mail]
November 7, 2017

Prepared by:
RKK
900 Ridgefield Drive, Suite 350
Raleigh, NC 27609
Contact Person:
Neil Medlin
Senior Project Scientist
[e-mail]
919-878-9560

Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Waters Affected 1
2.1 NPDES Dischargers 1
2.2 303(d) Classification 1
3.0 Target Federally Protected Species Description 1
3.1 Cape Fear Shiner (Notropis mekistocholas) 1
3.1.1 Characteristics 2
3.1.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements 2
3.2 Survey Efforts 2
3.3 Stream Conditions at Time of Survey: Sandy Creek at US 421 3
3.4 Assessment Location (AL) Conditions at Time of Observation 4
3.5 Methodology 4
3.6 Results 4
4.0 Discussion/Conclusions 5
5.0 References 6
Appendix A. Figures:
Figure 1: Project Vicinity & Survey Location
Figure 2: NCNHP Element Occurrences
Figure 3: NPDES Dischargers and 303(d) Listed Streams

1.0 Introduction
This evaluation was conducted as part of the environmental studies currently underway for the
potential development of a tract of land located in northeast Randolph County typically referred
to as the Greensboro Randolph Megasite (Appendix A, Figure 1). This portion of Randolph
County is located in the Cape Fear River Basin. The Cape Fear Shiner (Notropis mekistolas) is
listed for Randolph County by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as Endangered
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
A review of the NC Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) records, last accessed on October 12,
2017, indicates there are no element occurrences (EOs) for the Cape Fear Shiner within a 5-mile
buffer of the site (Figure 2). The closest EO for the Cape Fear Shiner (EO ID 218) is in the Deep
River, approximately 19 stream miles downstream from the site. The only observation date
listed for EO 218 is August 2, 2007 and the EO is considered to be current.
2.0 Waters Affected
The Greensboro Randolph Megasite and the potential interchange projects that are associated
with the site's future development are located within the Sandy Creek watershed in the Cape
Fear River Basin (HUC# 03030003). From the southernmost Megasite property boundary a UT
and then Sandy Creek flows approximately 13.5 stream miles to its confluence with the Deep
River. Two dams are located between the Megasite and the Deep River. An old mill dam is
located immediately above SR 2453 (Kidds Millpond Road) on Sandy Creek approximately
seven stream miles below the property boundary. The Ramseur Lake Dam is also located on
Sandy Creek less than one stream mile above its confluence with the Deep River.
2.1 NPDES Dischargers
There is one NPDES permitted discharger located within the 5-mile buffer of the Megasite.
However, it does not discharge into the Sandy Creek watershed and therefore has no effect on
Sandy Creek at any of the assessment locations or the survey location.
2.2 303(d) Classification
Sandy Creek is not on the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) -
Division of Water Resources 2014 303(d) list of impaired streams or the 2016 draft list.
3.0 Target Federally Protected Species Description
3.1 Cape Fear Shiner (Notropis mekistocholas)
3.1.1 Characteristics
The Cape Fear Shiner was first described as a new species in 1971. It is a small (approximately
2 inches long), yellowish minnow with a black band along the sides of its body. The shiner's
fins are yellow and somewhat pointed. It has a black upper lip, and the lower lip bears a thin
Cape Fear Shiner Survey, HDR1, Randolph County
November 2017
Page 1

black bar along its margin. The Cape Fear Shiner is known to consume plant and animal
material. However, unlike most other minnows in the genus Notropis spp., the Cape Fear
Shiner's digestive tract is modified primarily for a plant diet by having an elongated, convoluted
intestine.
3.1.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements
The Cape Fear Shiner is endemic to the upper Cape Fear River Basin in the Central Piedmont of
North Carolina. The species is known from tributaries and mainstreams of the Cape Fear, Deep,
Haw and Rocky Rivers in Chatham, Harnett, Lee, Moore and Randolph counties.
This shiner is generally associated with gravel, cobble, and boulder substrates, and has been
observed in slow pools, riffles, and slow runs. These areas occasionally support water willow
(Justicia americana), which may be used as cover or protection from predators {e.g. flathead
catfish (Pylodictis olivaris), bass (Micropterus spp.) and crappie (Pomoxis spp.)}. The Cape
Fear Shiner can be found swimming in schools of other minnow species but is never the most
abundant species.
3.2 Survey/Assessment Efforts
A fish survey was conducted in association with this project by RK&K employees Neil Medlin
(NC Wildlife Resources Commission Permit #17-ES00030 and #17-SFC00091), Hal Bain and
Tris Ford on September 26, 2017.
3.3 Stream Conditions at Time of Survey: Sandy Creek at US 421
This survey location was selected as a general representative for the upper Sandy Creek
watershed, including the Unnamed Tributaries (UTs) to Sandy Creek that drain the Megasite
parcel. In addition, this location is the closest to known Cape Fear Shiner records and therefore
should have a greater potential to have the species present than the upstream assessment
locations on Sandy Creek and all the UTs above the survey location. Sandy Creek in the survey
reach was estimated to have a channel width that varied between 30 and 35 feet. The actual wet
width of the stream within the channel varied greatly. The stream segment underneath the
southbound US 421 bridge had water in the entire channel. The pattern below the road was quite
different with stream segments approximately three feet wide flowing between pools or slightly
deeper runs that occupied at least half of the stream channel. Numerous large sand bars were
exposed in the areas between the runs and pools.
The banks were approximately five feet high with some areas exhibiting erosion and/or
undercutting. The maximum depth was three feet with an average depth of one foot. The
substrate was dominated by sand with clay as greatly subdominant. Gravel and silt were also
present in the survey reach. Beaver activity in the form of gnawed sticks was observed at the
survey location. A narrow to moderately wide forested buffer is present along the survey
location with a mix of active crop and pasture land use outside of the buffer. However, Sandy
Creek had no wooded stream buffer for the portion of the stream located on the north side of US
Cape Fear Shiner Survey, HDR1, Randolph County
November 2017
Page 2

421. This unbuffered stream reach is located roughly 325 feet above the upper end of the survey
reach.
3.5 Assessment Location (AL) Conditions at Time of Observation
Two assessment locations (locations where stream habitat was assessed but no fish surveys were
conducted) were on Sandy Creek. The other four were on UTs to Sandy Creek (Figure 1).
These UTs have been assigned stream numbers as part of other environmental studies currently
being conducted on the Greensboro Randolph Megasite. These stream numbers, as of the date of
this report, are included in the assessment location descriptions below.
AL-7 Sandy Creek at SR 2406 (Hollow Hill Road)
This was the most upstream location assessed on Sandy Creek. The stream channel at this road
crossing averaged roughly 13 feet wide but the width varied greatly. The substrate was very
rocky and dominated by bedrock and boulder with cobble, gravel, and sand also present. The
only flowing water observed was a trickle between small rocky pools and runs.
AL-6 Sandy Creek at SR 2442 (Ramseur -Julian Road)
This site is located approximately 1.5 stream miles below the SR 2406 crossing. The stream
channel was estimated to average 20 feet wide with a wet width that varied from six feet to the
full channel width in some runs. Sand was the dominant substrate type at this location with
gravel as the subdominant type. Cobble and sparse boulder were also present.
AL-5 UT at SR 2408 (Browns Meadow Road)
Stream 40 was approximately eight to ten feet wide at the road crossing but narrowed to less than
two feet wide and only one inch deep roughly 125 feet downstream of the road. Water flow was
barely visible in this narrow, shallow reach. From the constriction, the stream continued another
150 feet before becoming part of the upper end of Dodsons Lake. Heavy sediment deposition
was noted in the floodplain below the road crossing, possibly the results of the heavy rainfall and
high flows resulting from Hurricane Matthew. Above Browns Meadow Road, the UT had a
channel width of approximately 10 feet. A small beaver dam was observed 150 feet above the
road with very little flowing water moving around one end of it. The substrate throughout the
reach assessed was dominated by sand with gravel as subdominant.
AL-4 UT at Cow Pasture
Stream 21 at this location was completely dry at the time of observation. The channel was
approximately six feet wide with a sand and gravel substrate along with a very small amount of
cobble.
AL-3 UT at SR 2407 (Starmount Road) below Dodsons Lake
This section of stream 18 comes out of Dodsons Lake and was wooded above the road crossing.
The stream was estimated to be six feet wide with minimal flow observed only in very shallow
(— one inch deep) areas of this stream reach. Some areas of bank erosion were observed in bends
suggesting periods of high flows. Below the road crossing, the stream narrowed and flowed
through a completely clear-cut area until its confluence with Sandy Creek.
Cape Fear Shiner Survey, HDR1, Randolph County
November 2017
Page 3

AL-2 UT at SR 2407 (Starmount Road)
Stream 21 at this road crossing was incised and had a stream bed that varied between 16 and 22
feet wide. The banks were as much as six feet high with areas of erosion. Little water was
present within the stream bed and very minimal flow was observed between isolated small pools.
This stream was completely dry upstream at the Cow Pasture assessment location (AL-4).
3.5 Methodology
A freshwater fish survey was conducted from approximately 450 yards downstream of the
southbound bridge of US 421 to approximately 50 yards upstream of the bridge (but still just
downstream of the northbound bridge) for a total distance of approximately 500 yards. The
survey reach was selected to include the deep run between the US 421 bridges. The survey was
conducted using a Smith -Root model LR-24 backpack electrofishing unit, dip nets, and a seine.
The electrofishing unit was set to provide an output consistent with the nonlethal levels
established by Holliman et. al., 2003. The stream was sampled with one biologist operating the
electrofishing unit while the other biologists collected the stunned fish with dip nets. All stunned
fish were collected and temporarily placed in five (5) gallon buckets. In addition to the backpack
electrofishing efforts, active seine hauls were made in areas of habitat appropriate for this
collection technique. All fish were identified and released onsite.
3.6 Results
Fourteen freshwater fish species were identified during the survey with a total of 340 individuals
observed (Table 1). The number of individuals of Eastern Mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki)
included in the total was a conservative estimate as many more individuals were observed than
were collected. This species is common and is often the only species of fish found in extremely
low dissolved oxygen, stagnant bodies of water such as ditches. No Cape Fear Shiners were
collected or observed during the survey. A total of 923 shocking seconds were utilized during
this survey along with six seine hauls.
Table 1. Freshwater Fish Sbecies in Sand v Creek.
Common Name
Scientific Name
No. Individuals
Redbreast Sunfish
Lepomis auritus
41
Bluegill
Lepomis macrochirus
27
Green Sunfish
Lepomis cyanellus
1
Bluehead Chub
Nocomis leptochephalus
6
Creek Chub
Semotilus atromaculatus
11
Margined Madtom
Noturus insignis
2
Flat Bullhead
Ameiurus platycephalus
4
Redfin Pickerel
Esox americanus
4
Highfin Shiner
Notropis altipinnis
1
Golden Shiner
Notemigonus crysoleucas
1
Pirate Perch
Aphredoderus sayanus
1
Creek Chub Sucker
Erimyzon oblongus
1
Eastern Mosquitofish
Gambusia holbrooki
>200*
Cape Fear Shiner Survey, HDR1, Randolph County
November 2017
Page 4

Common Name
Scientific Name
No. Individuals
Tessellated Darter
Etheostoma olmstedi
42
Total Number of Individuals
340**
Total Number of Species
14
Electrofishing Seconds
923
*This conservative estimate was derived from over 100 individuals being collected and several
times that number being observed.
**The total number of individuals includes an estimated number of Eastern Mosquitofish.
4.0 Discussion/Conclusions
The site assessment results indicate that the small streams in the study area were experiencing
low flow conditions at the time of observation. One assessment location, AL-4, was completely
dry and all the other locations had very low water levels. While these stream conditions may not
be common throughout the year, streams experiencing these conditions tend to support a more
limited aquatic fauna than streams not subjected to such low flow conditions. Although a total of
14 species of fish were collected at the survey location in Sandy Creek, five of the species were
represented by only a single individual. In terms of the number of individuals collected and/or
observed, the Eastern Mosquitofish was by far the dominant species at the survey location. As
previously pointed out, this species is very tolerant of extremely low dissolved oxygen (DO)
levels and its dominance within the survey reach of Sandy Creek suggests the stream has
experienced low DO levels for at least a moderate amount of time.
In addition to the portion of Sandy Creek surveyed for this project, NCDOT has previously
conducted fish surveys at two locations further downstream in Sandy Creek. Sandy Creek at SR
2453 (Kidds Mill Road) was surveyed on April 19, 2016 and Sandy Creek at SR 2481 (Low
Bridge Road) was surveyed on April 19, 2012. No Cape Fear Shiners were collected or observed
during either of these surveys. The results of all three surveys indicate Cape Fear Shiners are not
present in Sandy Creek.
Based the distance to known Cape Fear Shiner records, the current and previous Sandy Creek
fish survey results, and the presence of two dams isolating Sandy Creek from possible
colonization from known downstream populations, impacts to the species will not occur due to
the development of the Greensboro Randolph Megasite.
Biological Conclusion for Cape Fear Shiner: No Effect
Cape Fear Shiner Survey, HDR1, Randolph County
November 2017
Page 5

5.0 References.
Holliman,F.M., J.B. Reynolds, and T.J. Kwak. 2003. A predictive risk model for electroshock -
induced mortality of the endangered Cape Fear shiner. North American Journal of
Fisheries Management 23: 90-912.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E., J.T. Finnegan, S.E. McRae, S.P. Hall. 2010. Natural Heritage Program List of
the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. N.C. Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh,
NC.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality - Division of Water Resources.2014. 2014
North Carolina 303(d) and Draft 2016 Lists.
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/mtu/assessment
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality. NPDES Wastewater Treatment Facility
Permits. Accessed July 21, 2017. http://data-
ncdenr.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/a86af4f7549343419b4c8177cedb3e4b_0
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP). 2017. nheo-2017-04. Natural Heritage
Element Occurrence polygon shapefile. April 12, 2017.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. Cape Fear Shiner (Notropis mekistocholas).
http://www.ncwildlife.org/Learning/Species/Fish/Cape-Fear-Shiner.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. Unpublished Aquatics Database.
Pottern, G.B. 2009. 2007 Status update of the Cape Fear Shiner (Notropis mekistocholas).
Report to the North Carolina Resources Commission. 27 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Cape Fear Shiner (Notropis mekistocholas) Fact Sheet.
USFWS, Raleigh, NC. https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/escape fear shiner. hmtl.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. Cape Fear Shiner Recovery Plan. USFWS, Atlanta, GA.
58 pp.
Cape Fear Shiner Survey, HDR1, Randolph County
November 2017
Page 6

Appendix A
Figures

Prepared By:
Prepared For:
GREENSBORO
RANDOLPH
Freshwater Fish Survey
SURVEY LOCATION ON
SANDY CREEK AT US421
RANDOLPH COUNTY
Date:
November 2017
Scale
1,000 2,000 Feet
Job No
Figure
Drawn by: GSM
Checked by: KNM

leasant
Legend
Survey Location
Assessment Locations
Cape Fear Shinner
Prepared By:
FMK
Prepared For:
GREENSBORO
RANDOLPH
rIa
NC NHP
Element Occurrence
SURVEY LOCATION ON
SANDY CREEK AT US421
RANDOLPH COUNTY
Date:
November 2017
Liberty
Scale
0
1 Miles
Job No
Figure
Drawn by: GSM
Checked by: KNM

leasant
Legend
C NPDES Sites
Assessment Locations
Survey Location
5-Mile Buffer
303(d) Listed Streams
ALL �1�ti v—�
r
NCO, ]p �1400i :Ge
Board
graphic ratio , d A gly.,
Prepared By:
FMK
Prepared For:
GREENSBORO
RANDOLPH
NPDES Dischargers and
303(d) Listed Streams
SURVEY LOCATION ON
SANDY CREEK AT US421
RANDOLPH COUNTY
Date:
November 2017
Scale
0
1 Miles
Job No
Figure
Drawn by: GSM
Checked by: KNM

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
Appendix D
NCSHPO Concurrence

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper Office of Archives and History
Secretary Susi 1-1. Hamilton Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
September 27, 2017
Vickie Miller
HDR
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601-3034
[e-mail]
Re: Greensboro -Randolph Megasite additional acreage, Randolph County, ER 14-0959
Dear Ms. Miller:
Thank you for your letter of September 25, 2017, submitting additional acreage to be included in the above -
referenced project.
Based on the results of the 2015 archaeological survey of the originally proposed project, it is unlikely that
any archaeological sites which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places will
be affected by the addition of this acreage and any subsequent development. We, therefore, recommend
that no archaeological investigation be conducted for this project.
We have determined that the project, as proposed, will not affect any historic structures.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or
cnvirolunental.review(ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above -referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Qta,w— agAjat.Qtet.
Ramona M. Bartos
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Pax: [phone]/807-6599

STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE MAP
FY2
FIGURE 1
PATH: Z:IGISIPROJECTS1995119 CITYOFGREENSBOR019259114 GBOROMSWATER-SEWERENVIROIMAP OOCSIMXOIGRMS NEPAIGRMS SHPO MAP.MXO - USER: JGARVEY - DATE: 9/28/2017

hdrinc.com
September 25, 2017
Renee Gledhill -Earley
State Historic Preservation Office
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4617
RE: ER 14-0959 Archaeological Investigation
Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Environmental Review
Randolph County, North Carolina
Dear Mrs. Gledhill -Earley:
HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas (HDR) has been retained to prepare environmental
documentation, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, for the proposed
Greensboro Randolph Megasite (GRMS). Figure 1 illustrates the project vicinity and the project
area for the megasite. The purpose of this letter is to request exemption from archaeological
investigation for parcels not covered previously, based on the findings of the 2015 review (ER 14-
0959) of the megasite area.
The Greensboro Randolph Megasite is located south of Greensboro in Randolph County near the
Town of Liberty. This site has been identified as a possible site for an advanced manufacturing and
assembly plant. The total project area includes approximately 1,800 acres. Highway 421 runs
adjacent to the site and an existing railroad parallels the northern boundary of the site.
We have reviewed the NCHPO GIS Service and no known historic resources are noted within the
boundaries of the site. The prior archaeological investigation of the site found that "due to the
generally eroded nature of the soils within the project area, none of these sites retains stratigraphic
integrity nor contains information important to prehistory or history. No additional investigation in
connection with this project was recommended" (see attached letter). Please refer to Figure 2
which illustrates the areas which were not included in the original study of the GRMS project.
Please also see the attached ER 14-0959 letter and USGS map (Figure 3).
We look forward to your comments and please contact me with any questions you may have at
919-559-2632 or vickie.miller©hdrinc.com.
Sincerely,
HDR Engineering
zpk[Gur
Vickie Miller
Environmental Project Manager
Attachments
Figure 1: Vicinity
Figure 2: SHPO Map (Aerial Imagery)
Figure 3: USGS Topo Map
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900, Raleigh, NC 27601-3034
[phone]

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Pat McCrory Office of Archives and History
Secretary Susan Kluttz Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
June 18, 2015
Eric J. McClanahan
ECS Carolinas, LLP
4811 Koger Boulevard
Greensboro, NC 27407
Re: Develop Industrial Site, Liberty Mega Site, ECS 09-24105; Randolph County, ER 14-0959
Dear Mr. McClanahan:
We have received the archaeological survey report by Dawn Reid and Katherine Carter of Archaeological
Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. concerning the above project. For purposes of compliance with Section 106
of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur that the following properties are not eligible for inclusion
in the National Register of Historic Places:
31RD1525&1525**, 31RD1526&1526**, 31RD1527**, 31RD1528, 31RD1529, 31RD1530, 31RD1531,
31RD1532, 31RD1533, 31RD1534, 31RD1535, 31RD1536, 31RD1537&1537**, 31RD1538, 31RD1539,
31RD1540, 31RD1541, 31RD1542, 31RD1543, 31RD1544, 31RD1545, 31RD1546, 31RD1547, 31RD1548,
31RD1549, 31RD1550, 31RD1551, 31RD1552, 31RD1553, 31RD1554, 31RD1555, 31RD1556, 31RD1557,
and 31RD1558
Due to the generally eroded nature of the soils within the project area, none of these sites retains stratigraphic
integrity nor contains information important to prehistory or history.
Ms. Reid and Ms. Carter have recommended no additional archaeological investigation in connection with this
project. We concur with this recommendation. The report meets our office's guidelines and those of the
Secretary of the Interior.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or
environmental.review@a,ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
_f4_,Lcu2_, )14_63ka—&i—(10.6
11:7/Ramona M. Bartos
cc: Dawn Reid, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
Bonnie Renfro, Randolph County Economic Development Commission, [e-mail]

Legend
Megasite Boundary
0 Feet 10,000
GUILFORD
^RANDOLPi-
Pleasant
Garden
Hage n-
Stone:Camp
Forest Oaks
Climax
Liberty
Randleman
F�2
PATH: IICLTSMAINIGIS OATAIGISIPROJECTS1006]]0 CITYOFGREENSBOR010259114 GBOROMSWATER-SEWERENVIROIMAP OOCSIMXOIGRMS NEPAIGRMS VICINITY MAP.MXO - USER: JGARVEY - OATE: 9/25/2017
Cedalock
Park
974 f
CANE CREEK MO UN TAINS
Snow Camp
' "1e04'6 i
ALAN
CI -IA
OJ
co
VICINITY MAP
FIGURE 1

STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE MAP
FY2
FIGURE 2
PATH: Z:IGISIPROJECTS1995119 CITYOFGREENSBOR019259114 GBOROMSWATER-SEWERENVIROIMAP OOCSIMXOIGRMS NEPAIGRMS SHPO MAP.MXO - USER: JGARVEY - DATE: 9/2512017

LEGEND
Megasite Boundary
0 Feet 2,000 A
F�2
{-i
USGS TOPO MAP
FIGURE 3
PATH: IICLTSMAINIGIS OATAIGISIPROJECTS1005]]0 CITYOFGREENSBOR010259114 GBOROM SWATER-SEWERENVIROIMAP OOCSIMXOIGRMS NEPAIGRMS USGS MAP.MXO - USER: JGARVEY - DATE: 9/25/2017

NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOLUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
COTT/44'n': GUILFORD
RANDOLPH
H01:WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS
MS RENEE GLEDHILL-EARLEY
CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR
DEPT OF CULTURAL RESOURCES
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
MSC 4617 - ARCHIVES BUILDING
RALEIGH NC
REVIEW DISTRIBUTION
DENR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
DEPT OF CULTURAL RESOURCES
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
DPS - DIV OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
PIEDMONT TRIAD REGIONAL COUNCIL
PROJECT INFORMATION
APPLICANT: City of Greensboro
TYPE: State Environmental Policy Act
Scoping
STATE NUMBER: 16-E-0000-0041
DATE RECEIVED: 08/07/2015
AGENCY RESPONSE: 09/02/2015
REVIEW CLOSED: 09/08/2015
0944
DESC: Proposed project is for the water and sewer transmission pipelines associated
with development of a Mega Site, Project includes approx. 87,900 If of waterline,
42,700 if of force main and sewer lift station.
The attached project has been submitted to the N. C. State Clearinghouse for
intergovernmental review. Please review and submit your response by the above
indicated date to 1301 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-1301,
If additional review time is needed, please contact this office at {919)807-2425.
AS A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED:
SIGNED BY:
NO COMMENT
cr
AUG 405
_ate
COMMENTS ATTACHED
DATE: g
AUG 122615

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Pat McCrory Office of Archives and History
Secretary Susan Kluttz Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
June 18, 2015
Eric J. McClanahan
ECS Carolinas, LLP
4811 Koger Boulevard
Greensboro, NC 27407
Re: Develop Industrial Site, Liberty Mega Site, ECS 09-24105; Randolph County, ER 14-0959
Dear Mr. McClanahan:
We have received the archaeological survey report by Dawn Reid and Katherine Carter of Archaeological
Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. concerning the above project. For purposes of compliance with Section 106
of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur that the following properties are not eligible for inclusion
in the National Register of Historic Places:
31RD1525&1525**, 31RD1526&1526**, 31RD1527**, 31RD1528, 31RD1529, 31RD1530, 31RD1531,
31RD1532, 31RD1533, 31RD1534, 31RD1535, 31RD1536, 31RD1537&1537**, 31RD1538, 31RD1539,
31RD1540, 31RD1541, 31RD1542, 31RD1543, 31RD1544, 31RD1545, 31RD1546, 31RD1547, 31RD1548,
31RD1549, 31RD1550, 31RD1551, 31RD1552, 31RD1553, 31RD1554, 31RD1555, 31RD1556, 31RD1557,
and 31RD1558
Due to the generally eroded nature of the soils within the project area, none of these sites retains stratigraphic
integrity nor contains information important to prehistory or history.
Ms. Reid and Ms. Carter have recommended no additional archaeological investigation in connection with this
project. We concur with this recommendation. The report meets our office's guidelines and those of the
Secretary of the Interior.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or
environmental.review@a,ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
_f4_,Lcu2_, )14_63ka—&i—(10.6
11:7/Ramona M. Bartos
cc: Dawn Reid, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
Bonnie Renfro, Randolph County Economic Development Commission, [e-mail]

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper Office of Archives and History
Secretary Susi H. Hamilton Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
April 12, 2018
Vickie Miller
HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601-3034
vckie. miller@hdrinc. com
Re: Pleasant Garden to the Greensboro Randolph Megasite 100 kV Transmission Line,
Guilford and Randolph Counties, ER 18-0568
Dear Ms. Miller:
Thank you for your March 13, 2018, submission concerning the above -referenced undertaking. We have
reviewed the information provided and offer the following comments:
The 6.7-mile transmission corridor crosses two creeks and several unnamed tributaries. There are no recorded
archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Though the new transmission line will parallel an existing
transmission corridor, the proposed project area has not been subject to an archaeological survey.
Prior to the initiation of ground disturbing activities in the project area, we recommend that a comprehensive
archaeological survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist. The purpose of this survey is to locate
archaeological sites and make recommendations regarding their eligibility for the National Register of Historic
Places.
Much of the project area is underlain by soils classified as eroded and/or sloped; therefore, the entire project
area may not require systematic shovel tests. Rather, the corridor should be subjected to a pedestrian
reconnaissance. Please note that our office now requests consultation with the Office of State Archaeology
Review Archaeologist to discuss appropriate field methodologies prior to the archaeological field investigation.
One paper copy and one digital copy (PDF) of all resulting archaeological reports, as well as one paper
copy and one digital copy (MS Word) of the North Carolina site form for each site recorded, should be
forwarded to the Office of State Archaeology through this office for review and comment as soon as
they are available and in advance of any construction or ground disturbance.
A list of archaeological consultants who have conducted or expressed an interest in contract work in
North Carolina is available at www.archaeology.ncdcr.gov/ncarch/resource/consultants.htm. The
archaeologists listed, or any other experienced archaeologist, may be contacted to conduct the
recommended survey.
We have determined that the project as proposed will not have an effect on any historic structures.
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or
environmental.review@a,ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
12e,.., Tao
tramona M. Bartos

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
Appendix E
Economic Impact
Assessment

THE ECONOMIC POTENTIAL OF AN
AUTO ASSEMBLY PLANT IN
NORTH CAROLINA
A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE GREENSBORO-RANDOLPH
MEGASITE FOUNDATION, INC.
Michael L. Walden
William Neal Reynolds Distinguished Professor
North Carolina State University
November 2017
1

This report was prepared as a public service by North Carolina State University
INTRODUCTION
If an auto assembly plant comes to North Carolina, what would it mean for the state
economy? 1 What kind of economic boost would the factory give to employment, wages and
salaries, and public revenues? What would be the impacts on supply -chain and affiliated
companies, as well as the effects on consumer spending and public revenues?
This report addresses these and other questions by estimating the economic potential,
should an auto assembly plant locate in the state.
The report is divided into four sections. First is a look at the current status of the U.S.
auto manufacturing industry, including geographical trends and production forecasts. The
second section reviews and summarizes recent studies measuring the economic impact of auto
assembly plants in other states. Particular attention is given to economic impact studies of auto
assembly plants in southern states. The third section uses a standard economic model to
construct the likely statewide impacts an auto assembly factory would have on North Carolina's
economy. Implications and conclusions are offered in the final section.
1 There is a truck assembly plant in the Charlotte region, but currently there are no auto assembly plants in the
state.
2

TRENDS AND PROSPECTS IN THE U.S. AUTO MANUFACTURING SECTOR
There have been two major changes in the U.S. auto manufacturing industry in recent
decades. First is the reduction in its share of world auto production, especially as Asian
(Japanese, Korean) and European auto companies increased production after World War 11. The
U.S. share of world auto production dropped from 76% in 1950 to 21% in 1980 to 14% in 2016
(Figure 1). Still, the U.S. is currently the second-largest manufacturer of vehicles behind China.
The second trend has been the geographic shift of auto production within the U.S. Since
1978, fifteen auto assembly plants have been built or announced in the South.2 Southeastern
states' share of U.S. auto and parts production has steadily risen from 4% in the early 1960s to
27% in 2015 (Figure 2).3 A major reason for the geographic shift has been significantly lower
labor costs in southern states compared to northern states.4
Future world auto production is expected to increase as world sales rise, but the
distribution of those sales will continue to change. Vehicle sales have been shifting from
developed countries in North America and Western Europe to developing countries in Asia,
Eastern Europe, and the Middle East. For example, for the decade 2004 — 2014, the annual rate
of growth of vehicle sales was 0.9% in North America and 1.4% in Western Europe, but sales
Figure 1. U.S. Auto Production as a Share of World Production.
2 Platzer, Michaels and Glennon Harrison. The U.S. Automotive Industry: National and State Trends in
Manufacturing Employment, Congressional Research Service, Washington, D.C., 2009; LeBean, Phil. "Volvo
Expanding U.S. Production Plans in South Carolina, CNBC, 9/19/2017, https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/19/volvo-
expanding-us-production-plans-in-south-carolina.html.
3 Southeastern states include Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia.
4 Southern states are "right to work" states, meaning established unions cannot compel workers to become
members. Many northern states allow unions to make membership a requirement for work in unionized
industries.
3

80
70
60
50
0 40
30
20
10
0
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2013 2016
Source: Intemational Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers.
Figure 2. U.S. Auto & Parts Production in Southeastern States as a % of U.S. Production.
25
20
0 15
10
5
0
1963 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.
4

growth was 11.4% annually in China and 2.7% annually in the rest of the world. Sales actually
declined 0.5% annually in Japan.5 Chinese and rest -of -the -world sales are being — and will
continue to be — driven by more rapid economic growth and a fast expanding middle class. Still,
sales are projected to be strong in the U.S. for two fundamental reasons. First, as the millennial
generation moves into the workforce and establishes households, personal vehicles will be the
transportation choice for many. Second, obsolescence of existing vehicles and the development
of new vehicles with improved quality and technology will motivate many existing vehicle
owners to purchase new vehicles. U.S. vehicle sales are expected to rise 1.1% between 2017 and
2020 and be in the mid-17 million annual range for all of the intervening years.6
STUDIES MEASURING THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF AUTO ASSEMBLY PLANTS
Studies of the economic impact of auto assembly plants typically include four identifiable
impacts for each of several measures. The four impacts are the direct, indirect, induced, and
total effects, and the measures are the value-added of output (often referred to as gross domestic
product, or GDP), employment, labor compensation, and public revenues.
Direct effects measure those economic activities at the auto assembly plant. Examples
are the value-added of manufactured autos and the number of employees at the factory. Indirect
effects can be thought of as "supply chain" impacts, in that they measure the change in economic
activity of input suppliers to the auto assembly plant. North Carolina's significant auto parts
industry would be expected to see increased production as a result of an auto assembly plant
5 Gao, Paul, Russell Hensley, and Andreas Zielke, "A Road Map to the Future for the Auto Industry", McKinsey
Quarterly, October 2014.
6 "Projected Light Vehicle Sales in the U.S. between 2016 and 2020," Statista,
https://www.statista.com/statistics/605157/projected-car-sales-in-united-states/
5

locating in the state. Induced effects capture impacts on consumer spending industries when
additional workers at both the auto assembly plant and its supplier businesses spend their
additional income in the state economy. Total effects are the sum of the direct, indirect, and
induced effects. A multiplier is often calculated to show how the direct effect creates a larger
total effect. The multiplier is defined as the total effect divided by the direct effect.
The four impacts can be applied to any economic measure, but the most common are the
value-added of output, employment, labor compensation, and public revenues. The value-added
of output is the market value of production (autos in the case of an auto assembly plant) after
subtracting the value of purchased inputs. Value-added, or GDP, thus avoids the potential
problem of multiple -counting of inputs, particularly inputs that are produced outside of the state.
The value of inputs from in -state suppliers is captured by the indirect effect. Employment is the
number of workers, with generally no distinction made between full-time and part-time workers.
Labor compensation is the value of wages, salaries, and benefits paid to the employees. Public
revenues are taxes and fees paid to governments from both businesses and workers involved in
the economic impacts. Public revenues are not in addition to these impacts; instead, they are an
allocation of the impacts.
Leakage is an important concept in the measurement of the direct, indirect, induced, and
total effects. Leakage accounts for spending that flows outside of the geographic area of interest
— such as a state — and therefore does not have an economic impact on the state. For example,
an auto assembly plant might purchase the tires, frame, fenders, and doors from parts
manufacturers within the state, but the plant may purchase the engine from a supplier outside the
state. In this case, the assembly plant would create new economic activity for the within -state
6

Table 1. Summary of Auto Assembly Plant Economic Impact Studies (annual impacts; all
$ values are quoted in 2017 purchasing -power million dollars).
VW -Tennessee
BMW -SC
Mercedes -Alabama
Toyota -Mississippi
Year
2012
2001
1998
2012
GDP
direct
$170 million
$3716 million
$397 million
n.a.
other
$517 million
$1871 million
$618 - $653 million
n.a.
total
$687 million
$5587 million
$1015 - $1050
million
n.a.
Employment
direct
2415
4327
1500
2000
other
9985
12,364
9052 - 9448
3570
total
12,400
16,691
10,552 — 10,948
5570
Labor
Compensation
direct
n.a.
$475 million
$251 million
n.a.
other
n.a.
$476 million
$359 - $381 million
n.a.
total
n.a.
$951 million
$610 - $632 million
$430 million
State and local
revenues
$57 million
$46 million
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.= not available, "other" refers to indirect and induced effects
Sources: VW -Tennessee: Fox, William and William Hamblen, Economic Impact of the Volkswagen Assembly Plant
in 2012, Center for Business and Economic Research, University of Tennessee, May 2013; BMW -SC: Moore
School of Business, The Economic Impact of BMW on South Carolina, University of South Carolina, May 2002;
Mercedes -Alabama: Ellene, Kebede and Mudiayi Ngandu, "The Economic Impact of the Mercedes Benz Investment
on the State of Alabama", Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 31, 2, August 1999, pp. 371-382;
Toyota -Mississippi: Center for Automotive Research, Contribution of Toyota Motor North America to the
Economics of Sixteen States in the U.S., 2011.
suppliers of tires, frames, fenders, and doors, but it would not create new economic activity for
manufacturers of engines. Careful economic impact studies do not include leakage in state
impacts.
In addition to the economic impact of annual production, estimates can also be calculated
for the economic impact of building an assembly plant facility. However, this impact only
occurs during the construction of a facility.
7

Table 1 summarizes the recent findings of economic impact studies of auto assembly
plants in other southern states. In some cases important values are proprietary and not readily
available. The impacts are significant, with total new GDP ranging between $600 million and
$5.5 billion and total employment spanning 5,000 to almost 17,000. The differences reflect both
the quantity of annual output from the plant and the extent of the within -state supply chain.
ESTIMATED ECONOMIC IMPACT OF AN AUTO ASSEMBLY PLANT IN NORTH
CAROLINA
The purpose of this section is to estimate the likely economic impact an auto assembly
plant would have in North Carolina. Of course, the specifics of any new plant are unknown.
For this report, it is estimated the construction cost of an assembly plant would be $1.6 billion
(2017$). Manufacturing and assembly plants typically scale -up production and employment
over time. Thus, it is also assumed this would take place in three phases:
Phase 1 with 1,330 direct jobs and 100,000 vehicles produced annually;
Phase 2 with 2,660 direct jobs and 200,000 vehicles produced annually; and
Phase 3 with 4,000 direct jobs and 300,000 vehicles produced annually.
To convert vehicle numbers to value of production, it is assumed each vehicle has a market value
of approximately $21,000 (2017$).
8

Table 2. Estimated Statewide Economic Impact of Construction of an Auto Assembly Plant
in North Carolina (all dollars are quoted in 2017 purchasing power dollars).'
GDP (value-
added)
Employment `
Labor
Compensation
State and Local
Public Revenues
Direct effect
$816 million
13,782
$596 million
$86 million
Other effects b
$571 million
8,269
$298 million
$60 million
Total effect
$1387 million
22,051
$894 million
$146 million
' leakage rate for direct effect and multipliers for other effects and total effects are from IMPLANfor North
Carolina, LLC, Huntersville, North Carolina; b indirect and induced effects; ° person -years
The first set of estimated economic impacts are from construction of the facility and are
given in Table 2. Employment is measured in "person -years," where a one person -year is one
job held by a person for one year. State and local public revenues are calculated as 10.5% of
GDP.7 The economic impacts are aggregated over the period of construction. The numbers are
significant, with a boost to statewide GDP of almost $1.4 billion, an addition to employment
person -years of over 22,000 during the construction period, a gain of almost $900 million in
labor compensation, and an increase of $146 million in state and local public revenues.8
The second set of estimated economic impacts are from the annual production of the
facility once the assembly plant is operational. The estimates are presented for the
aforementioned three phases of operation. After taking into account supply -chain and induced
consumer spending impacts, during Phase 1 statewide GDP will be $882 million higher,
employment will be higher by 4,655 permanent positions, labor compensation will be $281
million higher, and state and local public revenues will be boosted by $93 million during each
The 10.5% rate is based on an analysis of multi -year data for North Carolina from the U.S. Census Bureau and the
U.S. Department of Commerce.
8 It should be noted that state and local public revenues are not in addition to GDP, but instead are an allocation of
part of GDP.
9

Table 3. Estimated Annual Economic Impacts of an Auto Assembly Plant in North
Carolina for Three Phases of Operation (all dollar values are quoted in 2017 purchasing -
power dollars).a
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
GDP (value-added)
direct
$420 million
$840 million
$1260 million
other
$462 million
$924 million
$1386 million
total
$882 million
$1764 million
$2646 million
Employment
direct
1330
2660
4000
other
3325
6650
9975
total
4655
9310
13975
Labor Compensation
direct
$117 million
$234 million
$351 million
other
$164 million
$328 million
$492 million
total
$281 million
$562 million
$843 million
State and local public revenues
$93 million
$186 million
$279 million
a leakage rate for direct effect and multipliers for other effects and total effects are from IMPLANfor North
Carolina, LLC, Huntersville, North Carolina
year of the phase. During Phase 2 statewide GDP will be $1,764 million higher, employment
will be higher by 9,310 permanent positions, labor compensation will be up $562 million, and
state and local public revenues will be augmented by $186 million during each year of the phase.
In Phase 3 statewide GDP will be $2,646 million higher, employment will be higher by 13,975
permanent positions, labor compensation will be $843 million higher, and state and local public
revenues will gain $279 million during each year of the phase. All of the comparisons are to the
economic situation without the assembly plant being built and operated.
CONCLUSIONS
10

Based on an analysis of previous economic impact studies in other states and an
application of North Carolina's existing economic structure, the location of an auto assembly
plant in the state would have major positive economic results. Assuming the facility ultimately
employs 4,000 direct workers, the annual impacts on the state economy are estimated to be a
$2.6 billion jump to GDP, an addition of almost 14,000 pennanent jobs, an increase in labor
compensation of $843 million, and an addition of $279 million to state and local public revenues.
There would also be positive impacts while the assembly plant is constructed.
11

MICHAEL L. WALDEN
Dr. Michael L. Walden is a William Neal Reynolds Distinguished Professor and
Extension Economist at North Carolina State University and a member of the Graduate
Economics faculty with The Poole College of Management. His Ph.D. degree is from Cornell
University and he has been at N.C. State since 1978. He has also been a Visiting Professor at
Duke University.
Dr. Walden has teaching, research, and extension responsibilities at NCSU in the areas of
consumer economics, economic outlook, and public policy. He has published ten books and over
300 articles and reports, including the book North Carolina in the Connected Age, published by
the UNC Press. He has served on several local and state level commissions. With his wife, he is
the co-author of three "economic thrillers", Macro Mayhem, Micro Mischief and Fiscal Fiasco,
designed to teach economics in an entertaining way.
Dr. Walden can be frequently seen, heard, and read in the media. He has daily radio
programs aired on stations around North Carolina for which he has won two national awards. He
is often interviewed on local TV and radio news broadcasts, has appeared on NBC, CBS, The Fox
Report, and the Newshour With Jim Lehrer, and is frequently quoted in such newspapers as USA
Today, The News and Observer, The Charlotte Observer, The Boston Globe, The Wall Street
Journal, and The Washington Post. His biweekly column, You Decide, is carried by over forty
newspapers in the state. He has made over 2500 personal presentations.
Dr. Walden directs the semiannual economic forecast, The North Carolina Economic
Outlook. He has won numerous academic and public awards, including two Champion -Tuck
Awards for Excellence in Broadcasting, the UNC Board of Governor's Award for Excellence in
Public Service in 2010, the Order of the Long Leaf Pine in 2013, and the Holladay Medal for
Excellence from North Carolina State University in 2014.
His newest book, North Carolina Beyond the Connected Age: The Tar Heel State in
2050, was published in late 2017.

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
Appendix F
Greensboro -Randolph
County Megasite Traffic
Assessment
(provided as a separate electronic file)
4825-1232-0875.v 1

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
Appendix G
Conceptual Stormwater
Management Plan

C:\pwworking\east0l\d0308710\01C-BG09-01.dwg, SW-01, 6/21/2018 1:57:54 PM, RZAHRRO
Iil
/N :POND B� 1
-------*Vr-- 10-1Y0
F)1
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116
/!\��\)/1\��ll(
�- III
�j vl(�/i/ '�� �///�/ J �%,✓/ jam/ j� �� �1 \ t, �.._ `1YrZ.." /�',';.
c<<<( (�� ll4y
421• 1
AD
...:,> Sri Or ///(f \�1\\ iii�
✓/t 1\
A
l
n RQ
�_�___� _
is---\))):: \\\-\-// '-).--) /
:) 2 : 1 Jr)
: ,-_---/
11/
:)))
11 zI (rr /(\I1�= ���� j-l��� �`- <'�
')l\ '�! J \ 1111� I/</�\\\� ch��\/� �l/�/\l
/l 1, J 11((Le \\\\\�--�i�/i�i))\ _, /l(
'0 / �! � \1\��� �,/(.� ) z�// 1���T Al
- /' - -- ' �-���- I(� (gi n �'- )) mil )
r JIB,\ �� �,�,� .`� ,�iu((�� `\�� � `//
1 \\\ � I \\\%��% i 1 sr\\ I
/ -# 60 4
/ l) � � l r � ik ) % =:11 ice %'�% ////� i
///1/j1(1\� I(���7 i�//////iii/1",
\\._,--c-_----
1((� -� \\ �ij/:::::::\>_
,,
lhl kr\,;--
h))).-,,\. 7117
,
\1(( J>1\\I\
= RI -A• %A III RO/fl9=1NWL7L1NAW IWA
ranna
PROJECT GRMS
STORM❑ ATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
NCDE❑ ❑ ET PONDS
DATE
SHEET
06/21 /2018
S W-01

Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report
Appendix H
Agency Coordination
Following Public Notice
4825-1232-0875.v1

hdrinc.com
August 12, 2020
Andrew Williams
Regulatory Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Re: Greensboro Randolph Megasite — USACE Action ID No. SAW-2015-01268
Dear Mr. Williams,
Thank you for the comments provided on May 9, 2019 regarding the Public Notice for the
Greensboro Randolph Megasite Section 404 Individual Permit Application as well as the follow-up
meetings related to the comments received. I am providing the following responses to the list of
additional information requested on behalf of the Greensboro Randolph Megasite Foundation, Inc.
This letter addresses the topics and comments in the same order they were provided in the letter
and responses will be italicized for ease of review. Additional items accompanying this letter will be
referenced in the responses below.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
Thirteen (13) commenters expressed concerns about flooding issues and/or runoff
associated with the proposed project.
Information related to flooding and runoff can be found in sections 5.5.1.3 and 5.5.2.3.2 of the
permit application. The Conceptual Stormwater Management Plan is located in Appendix G of the
permit application.
Ten (10) expressed concerns over surface water quality impacts.
The land -disturbing activities associated with the development of the site are subject to the North
Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973. As such, development of the site would
comply with the standards outlined in Subchapter 048 Sedimentation Control of the North Carolina
Administrative Code (15A NCAC 048). The developer would submit erosion and sediment control
plans to the Winston-Salem Regional Office of the NCDEQ for review, approval, and coordination
with their staff. Furthermore, the developer would obtain concurrent coverage under the State's
NPDES Stormwater Permit for Construction Activities NCG010000 effective August 1, 2016.
Further information can be found in sections 5.5.2.3.1, 5.5.2.3.2, and 5.5.2.3.3.
Ten (10) commenters expressed concerns over the potential impacts to downstream areas,
such as the Town to Ramseur.
Please refer to the "Flooding and Runoff" comment response for information applicable to
downstream areas/Town of Ramseur.
555 Fayetteville Street Suite 900 Raleigh, NC 27601-3034
[phone]

Ten (10) commenters discussed potential impacts of the proposed project to their wells, well
water and/or the groundwater/water table.
Groundwater and soil testing was preformed onsite in 2017 by ECS Southeast, LLP (ECS). For
more details about this topic, please refer to sections 5.2.1.3 and 5.2.2 of the supporting information
within the permit application.
Ten (10) commenters were concerned about the potential effects of blasting on their
homes/community and/or water resources.
At this time the final grading elevation has not be set and therefore the need or amount for blasting
is currently undetermined. Should blasting be used, measures to avoid impacts to surrounding
areas would be employed such as restricting times for blasting, notification of blasting to nearby
residences/business, and control of any fly rock. A blasting plan would be developed by the
contractor prior to using the method.
Five (5) commenters were concerned about potential air quality impacts/dust associated
with the project.
Details related to air quality can be found in section 5.3 of the permit application. Federal and State
regulations and standards will be met during construction and operation.
Six (6) commenters expressed concerns about the potential impacts to wildlife and/or
wildlife habitat associated with the project.
Potential wildlife and wildlife habitat impacts are addressed in sections 5.6.2.1, 5.6.2.2, and 5.6.2.3.
Three (3) commenters mentioned potential impacts associated with the interbasin transfer of
water (water taken from sources within the Deep River watershed but then transferred to the
Haw River watershed via the proposed sanitary sewer).
There is not an interbasin transfer for the project.
In addition, the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission requested a survey for
numerous state listed species.
Surveys for federally protected species were completed for the site and associated infrastructure to
meet the requirements of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The applicant understands WRC's
desire for surveys for state listed species; however, those are not required.
PUBLIC INTERST CONCERNS
Five (5) commenters expressed concerns involving the use of eminent domain to acquire
property for the project site or components of the project (transportation, utilities, etc.).
Eminent domain was not used to acquire parcels for this site. Furthermore it is not anticipated to be
used for any project components.
Three (3) commenters stated concerns that there would be no public benefit to the
community or public associated with your proposed project.
A transformational manufacturing facility is anticipated to provide employment and economic
benefits for the Randolph County -City of Greensboro area (Project Region). More details can be
found in sections 1, 3.2, and Appendix E of the permit application.
2

Nine (9) commenters raised concerns involving additional traffic associated with the project.
Topics considered traffic and transportation related are covered in section 5.12 of the permit
application. A traffic impact analysis (TIA), sealed on July 18, 2016, was completed for the
Proposed Project and is located in Appendix F. In addition, a TIA update memo dated October 20,
2017 (Appendix F) was completed to document updated information and assumptions.
Eight (8) commenters expressed concerns about the potential for increased noise levels.
Noise emissions related to the site would be subject to all applicable federal, state, and local
regulations. Further information about potential impacts related to noise can be found in section 5.4
of the permit application.
Five (5) commenters were concerned about their, and/or adjacent property devaluation.
Land value predictions are speculative and depend on market trends.
Six (6) commenters were concerned about the source of funding for the project
The project will be funded by the end user.
One (1) commenter was concerned about the use of incentives to attract an end user for the
site.
State incentive packages for prospective clients/end users are confidential and not shared with the
applicant and therefore this concern cannot be addressed by the applicant.
Seven (7) commenters mentioned potential issues involving rezoning and/or inconsistent
land use.
Rezoning of the GRMS Site was completed though the county's public process which provided the
opportunity for comments and hearings. Randolph County's Growth Management Plan dated 2009
illustrates the GRMS site as a Primary Growth Area and illustrated the growth at the Megasite as
Industrial and Commercial Development.
Three (3) commenters expressed concerns about an insufficient work force for the proposed
project, the existing low unemployment rate and/or the inability to train the required
workforce
When assessing the workforce of a region, a typical measure used evaluates the available labor
force within a 45-minute drive of a location. Per the North Carolina Department of Commerce's
Local Area Unemployment Statistics, the labor force within a 45-minute drive of the GRMS site
consisted of approximately 790,079 individuals as of June 2020. Within this labor force, more than
65,000 people were unemployed and thus, by definition, actively seeking jobs. If an automotive
manufacturer were to locate at GRMS and seek to hire for 4,000 positions, the local labor market
will easily be able to meet this need.
There are fifty-eight community colleges in the State of North Carolina, with six of the largest
schools located in Randolph and surrounding counties. Randolph Community College (RCC)
would serve a user of GRMS, with support pledged from all surrounding colleges, in order to meet
any and all training needs. RCC is located in nearby Asheboro and has offered multiple
manufacturing, automotive and engineering -related programs for decades.
One (1) commenter stated the project discriminated against elderly individuals.
The Proposed Project does not have discriminatory impacts against the elderly. The percentage of
the population over 64 in the project area and one mile buffer is 17% according to the EPAs
3

Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool (Version 2018). This puts it similar to state and
national averages. Elderly discrimination was not previously addressed independently in the
application; however, environmental justice was addressed in section 5.11.
SITE SELECTION / ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS / AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
Seven (7) commenters indicated that other sites were available and/or additional avoidance
and minimization could be accomplished at the existing site.
Details about alternatives studied during the site selection process can be found in sections 4.2 and
4.3.1 of the permit application.
Avoidance and minimization efforts were detailed in the application. Additional avoidance and
minimization efforts will be addressed during final design of the project. Please see section 4.3.1 of
the permit application for more details.
The North Carolina Division of Water Resources raised concerns regarding the Division of
Mitigation Services ability to provide the necessary amount of compensatory mitigation for
this project within the watershed.
It is not up to the applicant to question NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services' (DMS) ability to
provide mitigation. The applicant's agents have discussed with DMS if they would provide
mitigation for the project and they have accepted that request and provided a letter which was
included in the permit application.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) recommended that all
compensatory mitigation sites should be located within the Deep River Watershed.
Information regarding compensatory mitigation can be found in section 5.5.2.1.
SPECULATIVE NATURE OF PROJECT
Ten (10) commenters expressed concerns regarding the speculative nature of this project,
that there is no specific identified end user and/or the purpose and need for the project.
Projects such as the GRMS remain confidential until a user has publically stated the location they
have selected. At this time, a site tenant has not been named. The purpose and need of the
project was detailed in the permit application in section 3.
1) The current design is based on a Toyota/Mazda plant that is now being built in Alabama,
and that the eventual end user would need to determine their specific needs
Please refer to the comment response below (2).
2) Most manufacturers don't require a 1,000 acre construction pad
The 1,000 acre pad size is based on transformational automotive manufacturing facilities in the
southeast United States. Below is a list of automobile producing facilities in the southeast:
• BMW Plant Spartanburg (Spartanburg, SC) — 1,150 ac., 7 million sq. ft. facility
• Volvo Cars USA LLC (Ridgeville, SC) — 1,600 ac. (currently 675 ac.), 2.3 million sq. ft.
facility
• Mazda Toyota Manufacturing, U.S.A. Inc (Huntsville, AL) — 2,400 ac., 3.1 million sq. ft.
facility
• Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc. (Vance, AL) — 966 ac., 6+ million sq. ft. facility
4

• Volkswagen Chattanooga Assembly Plant (Chattanooga, TN) - 1,400 ac., 3.4 million
sq. ft.
• Kia Motors Manufacturing Georgia (West Point, GA) - 2,200 ac. (-850 ac. pad), 2.2
million sq. ft. facility
• Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama (Huntsville, AL) - 1,700 ac., 3.2 million sq. ft.
facility
• Nissan North America, Inc. Smyrna (Smyrna, TN) - 884 ac., 6 million sq. ft. facility
• Nissan North America, Inc. Canton (Canton, MS) - 1,038 ac., 4.7 million sq. ft. facility
• Honda Manufacturing of Alabama, LLC (Lincoln, AL) - Site size - 1,350 ac./Associates
- 4,500+ ac., 4.2 million sq. ft. facility
• Toyota Motor Manufacturing Mississippi (Blue Springs, MS) - 1,700 ac., 2 million sq. ft.
facility
• GM Spring Hill Manufacturing (Spring Hill, TN) - 2,000 ac., 7.9 million sq. ft. facility
3) Toyota declined to locate at this site last year, due to the lack of a supply chain
The lack of supply chain was mentioned in the media regarding the Toyota facility; however, NC
has automotive manufacturers in the state and supply chain components. The applicant in unclear
on how or why a lack of supply chain became a focus of the media.
4) The North Carolina Division of Water Resources stated the conceptual nature of the
submitted plans may prevent a complete determination of avoidance and minimization of the
aquatic resources
Avoidance and minimization efforts were discussed in the supplemental information provided in
section 4 of the permit application.
5) Without an identified end user, the identified alternatives have no basis and a meaningful
404(b)(1) analysis cannot be conducted
The alternatives were detailed in the information provided in the permit application. Alternatives
were detailed in typical fashion as other projects which are conducted throughout the state.
6) The USEPA recommends that the applicant secure a site tenant or user prior to the
approval of a Department of the Army Permit
Please refer "No Identified End User" comment response. The applicant will identify an end user
prior to filling waters of the US.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
1-Please clarify if there will be any co -applicants for this project.
There are no additional co applicants for this application.
2-Additional site specific information regarding the alternatives analysis is required to
ensure compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Section
404(b)(1) guidelines. This includes the following items:
a. Discussion/clarification on siting criteria. Specifically, please define centrally
located. This would include a discussion of whether the preferred site is centrally
located and whether additional sites, such as the Chatham-Siler City site is also
considered to be centrally located. If so, please provide the rational as to why this
site would not satisfy your siting criteria.
5

The site is centrally located within the Project Region as defined in the permit application.
The Randolph County -City of Greensboro area is how the Project Region is described. 98%
of Chatham-Siler City site is located in Chatham County, which is not part of the project
region. The Chatham-Siler Site is 25 miles from Greensboro, nearly twice at far as the
GRMS (14 miles).
b. Please provide additional information regarding the criteria currently required by
transformational manufacturing, production, and assembly facilities, which are
defined in your application as facilities that are expected to: provide roughly 2,000-
4,000 skilled and semi -skilled manufacturing jobs; increase the local tax base and
provide new payroll to circulate within Randolph County and the City of Greensboro.
Please provide a detailed discussion regarding the need for a regularly -shaped
contiguous area of at least 1,000 acres for a construction pad and the correlation of
the pad size and 2,000 auto manufacturing employees. Currently, within the United
States, there are existing automobile manufacturing facilities that have over 2,000
employees and occupy less than 1,000 acres
Automotive manufacturing sites will have different acreage needs based on what they are
producing and their storage capacity needs. This is also true compared to other
transformational manufacturing facilities even when employing the same size workforce.
Staging areas that hold vehicles awaiting transport can occupy large areas and vary in size
from facility to facility based on the logistics arranged. Non -automotive facilities may not
require such areas based on the size of one unit of their product.
c. For the transportation component of the proposed plan, please provide an updated
analysis to match the proposed number of employees (2-4 thousand) and/or
explanation regarding the assumption of 6,000 automotive workers from Guilford
County, 3,000 from Alamance/Randolph County and 1,000 from Chatham County
(page 4-2 of Appendix F). Also, please revise and/or provide further explanation
regarding the traffic analysis assumption of a 2,000 acre development and a 6M
(square foot) build -out, when all the existing automotive manufacturers used in the
analysis are 1,000-1,744 acres and a maximum of 5M (square foot) build -out.
The traffic analysis has been updated a couple of times and those updates are included
within Appendix F with the most recent update being in Feb. 2018. The number of
automotive workers noted on page 4-2 for each location is based on the talent pool in those
locations not the number of employees coming from each location. Please note that the
build -out has remained at 6M sq ft. This number was determined to ensure that the traffic
design would accommodate the future growth of the site. Please note that the BMW facility
in Greer SC is currently operating with 11,000 employees under 7M sq ft.
d. Please provide additional documentation regarding the 10 mile or less distance to
the Interstate Highway System criteria.
Organizations responsible for development site certification maintain a list of criteria, such
as this one, that a potential site must satisfy before being certified.
e. Please provide additional documentation regarding the 30 mile or less distance to an
international airport criteria.
Organizations responsible for siting and site certification maintain a list of criteria, such as
this one, that a potential site must satisfy before being certified.
6

f. Please provide additional documentation regarding the workforce of 200,000 within
40 miles of the site criteria.
g•
Organizations responsible for siting and site certification maintain a list of criteria, such as
this one, that a potential site must satisfy before being certified.
Please provide additional detailed data/results from the 12-county Piedmont Triad
Area search of alternative sites conducted by the Timmons Group.
The study by Timmons was completed in 2011 and initially evaluated 11 alternative sites
from the 12-county search. During review of the 11 sites, five sites were deemed the best of
the alternative sites and carried forward. These five sites were addressed in the permit
application in sections 4.2.2 and 4.3.1 and utilized current data to compare the sites. The
six sites that were noted in the study but were not carried forward were located in
Davidson, Rockingham, Caswell, Moore, and Surry Counties. These counties do not meet
a number of the criteria including not being centrally located within the City of Greensboro
and Randolph County area.
h. Please provide additional discussion/analysis regarding the elimination of
alternatives based on a lack of direct access. Specifically, the preferred site would
require upgrades to obtain direct access, so what factors made site access a non -
issue with this alternative.
The project is adjacent to US 421 and currently has direct access. The criteria is simply
proximity to a 4 lane highway.
i. Please provide the full alternatives analysis report of the 14 Alternatives for the Duke
Power line.
Please see the attached files.
3-Additional discussion/analysis for the Conceptual Overall Site Plan (Sheet 01X-01).
Specifically, please provide details regarding the purpose of each feature labelled
"Building" (i.e., what the use of that building would be, reason for the size, etc.). Also,
please provide additional details regarding the purpose of each feature labelled "Surface
Lot" (i.e., what the use of each of these lots would be, reasons for the size, etc.).
a. Please provide additional information and a detailed discussion regarding the
methods used to determine the layout of the Conceptual Overall Site Plan (Sheet
01X-01). Please indicate if other current or former automotive manufacturing
facilities were used to determine the number, size, use of each building and surface
lot and methods used to arrive at the current proposed configuration. Please explain
how this was determined to be a requirement of all automobile manufacturing
facilities.
All site plans are different and site specific. They are generally based on the location of
infrastructure such as highway access and rail access which then dictates the locations of
the buildings.
b. Please provide additional discussion regarding the Conceptual Overall Site Plan
(Sheet 01X-01). As this plan appears to be a "typical" automotive manufacturing site
plan, please provide additional details/discussion regarding the mechanism and
methods the applicant would take to ensure that any potential end user would not
request to re -design the proposed campus to their own specifications and would
ultimately build the proposed design as indicated. We believe it is important to
reiterate that in the event a permit is issued for this project, it must be built exactly
7

as depicted in the plans you have submitted and for the purpose and need
expressed in your application, unless a modification to the proposed project is
authorized by the District Engineer.
The applicant is aware that a modification would be necessary if the plans are altered from
what is shown.
c. During recent discussions with your consultants and others familiar with your
project, we became aware of a potential end user who requested the use of
approximately 400 acres of this site for the first phase of their automobile
manufacturing project. As such, please provide an alternative that would allow for
the development of this proposed project in phases.
The overall site pad development is 1,000 acres. The potential to utilize a 400-acre pad
was only the first phase for grading a pad but the ultimate need for that particular user was
1,000 acres. The request for the 400 acres was a short term solution to try to accelerate
construction while permitting was finalized for the entire 1,000 acre site plan.
4-Your offsite alternatives analysis should also include the transportation and utility
components when assessing the environmental impacts in order to compare it to the
preferred alternative.
This is a task that is nearly impossible due to the varied designs and approach each individual site
developer and or manufacturer applies to creating their individual site layout. The infrastructure
development and transportation coordination would be different for each location of the alternatives
analysis. An equivalent comparison would not be possible with the information available.
5-Please provide a cumulative impacts analysis for this project. The analysis should
consider the potential impacts associated with ancillary industries/facilities/businesses,
such as restaurants, service stations, supply chain manufacturers, etc., that may result
from the construction of an automotive manufacturing facility.
Section 5.15 of the permit application addressed cumulative impacts.
Thank you for your time in reviewing. Please call me at 919-232-6637 or email at
vickie.miller©hdrinc.com if you need additional information or clarification on any of the information
provided.
Sincerely,
HDR Engineering Inc. of the Carolinas
\160,k(c1.(or
Vickie Miller, AICP, PWS
Senior Environmental Planner
8

hdrinc.com
October 9, 2020
Andrew Williams
Regulatory Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Re: Greensboro Randolph Megasite — USACE Action ID No. SAW-2015-01268
Dear Mr. Williams,
Thank you for the telephone discussion on September 22, 2020 among Wilmington District and
Greensboro Randolph Megasite (GRMS) project representatives regarding the permit application
and the response to comment letter dated August 12, 2020 for the Greensboro Randolph Megasite
Section 404 Individual Permit Application. I am providing on behalf of the Greensboro Randolph
Megasite Foundation, Inc. the following responses to address the USACE comments we noted and
additional information the USACE requested.
This letter addresses the topics and comments in the order noted during the call. Responses are
italicized for ease of review. Additional items accompanying this letter are referenced in the
responses below.
The Foundation understands the USACE is assessing whether it has sufficient information to
determine the LEDPA and whether additional information (as discussed below) is required for
processing of the Foundation's permit application to move forward.
Siting Criteria — detailed criteria requirements for the project we are proposing
The supplemental information provided with the Foundation's permit application provided the
specific list of siting criteria we have from automotive manufacturers that have reviewed the GRMS
and from experts on and knowledge of the siting, design, and marketing of megasites. The
information already provided by the Foundation is at least as detailed as the information that the
USACE has used to issue 404 permits to other megasite projects.
More Detailed Site Plan - label the buildings — provide detail on what each building/parking
area is for and size of each
The Foundation provided a site plan that includes areas of parking and buildings. The site plan is
based on factors such as location of the rail and roadways. Those features drive the location of
555 Fayetteville Street Suite 900 Raleigh, NC 27601-3034
[phone]

certain components of the site plan. Please see the attached example of a site plan for a megasite
projecs permitted by other USACE districts where buildings and parking lot uses or sizes are also
not disclosed. Attachment 1.
LEDPA—many existing facilities on less acreage/less impacts.
Required size and other required features of a megasite project, including the site plan, are
determined by the current market, not by past market conditions that determined the characteristics
of existing facilities. The Foundation has advisers who are experts at understanding and responding
to the current market for megasites, including the market's requirements for site plans. The GRMS
project, including its site plan, is designed based on current market conditions.
The Foundation has the list provided by the USACE in July of other automotive manufacturing
facilities that are smaller than the proposed site plan. The Foundation also shared a list of
automotive manufacturers in the southeast with similar site requirements as the GRMS project.
Attached is a table which presents information from both lists. Attachment 2. The list provided by
the Foundation focuses on facilities in the southeast and is therefore regionally similar. Next, the
size of each site in the southeast is comparable to the GRMS site. Last, the year each facility was
built has been included. In general, this list illustrates that newer facilities have required larger sites
with the average site size in the southeast examples being over 1500 acres with years built ranging
from 1983 to 2018.
The list of facilities provided by the USACE includes facilities that are not in the same region as the
GRMS project. Construction dates were not included in the USACE's list of facilities. As indicated
on Attachment 2, the Foundation has determined that the list provided by the USACE includes
facilities constructed as early as 1924. In contrast, as indicated above, the GRMS design is based
on current market conditions.
Purpose and need stated building a pad to "attract" an automotive manufacturer
The Foundation acknowledges that the purpose and need set forth in the permit application is to
"Establish a construction pad and utilities (electricity, water, sewer, roads, and rail) at a location that
will attract the establishment of a transformational automotive manufacturing, production, and
assembly facility that will generate employment and economic benefits for the Project Region." If
the USACE has further comment, the Foundation will respond.
No Build Alternatives
The USACE discussed the possibility of addressing a no build alternative. The telephone call was
the first time this issue has been shared with the Foundation. The no build or no action alternative
does not meet the purpose and need. Section 3.2 of the supplemental information explains the no
build or no action alternative doesn't satisfy the purpose and need. The GRMS project is one
element of regional efforts to regain manufacturing jobs in the region. As noted, the Piedmont Triad
Area lost 32,500 jobs between 1990 and 2018. An automotive manufacturer at the GRMS would
2

employ up to 4,000 individuals and provide potential for additional job opportunities in other
industries.
Potential Litigation
The Foundation is aware that comments were provided on public notice by the Southern
Environmental Law Center (SELC), as it has on similar projects (e.g., Bryan County OEM Site in
Georgia) where 404 permits have been issued. The Foundation understands litigation is a
possibility with any project.
To date, USACE has no guidance regarding speculative projects.
The Foundation understands that the GRMS project should not be considered speculative.
Significant relevant guidance was provided in the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)
Memorandum to the Chief of Engineers dated December 13, 2018. In addition, substantial
important USACE guidance for permitting of the GRMS project is provided by the USACE's actual
issuance of permits for similarly situated projects, including for example the Bryan County OEM Site
(a megasite in Georgia) and the Person County Mega Park.
Auto manufacturers — no existing facilities needed a permit prior to site selection.
The Foundation notes that this comment is irrelevant to the GRMS project's purpose and need and
is misleading. The Foundation now knows that the USACE issues 404 permits for megasite
projects prior to selection of the sites by end users. This fact demonstrates that the USACE
recognizes the importance of permitting megasites prior to an end user selecting the megasite. An
article, https://siteselection.com/ssinsider/bbdeal/Some-Heavy-Liftinq-Required.htm, discusses a
megasite project with a permit that was issued without an end user. The article indicates that having
an existing 404 permit was important to site selection by the entity that became the end user (a
manufacturer of gas turbine combustors for the power generation industry). The following excerpt
was pulled from the article but illustrates that having an already-issued-404-permit was an important
part of the site's competitiveness and its ultimate selection by an end user.
All along, explains Heidi Green, the site kept up its 404 wetlands permit (often a long slog),
as well as other important environmental, geological and archaeological permits. "So they
really are going to be able to begin construction immediately," she says. "That is of
significant value, not only because of time, but uncertainty. The unknown adds risk. The
megasite doesn't have that kind of risk."
Recommendations to Move Forward
The USACE discussed a few possibilities, not actually recommendations, for the path forward for
the GRMS as noted below.
3

Withdraw --Finalize JD, work on potential mitigation, update T&E, Section 106
The Foundation does not intend to withdraw the permit application. The JD request was provided
multiple times over the past 3 years to the USACE before and during the permit submittal. The
USACE has yet to issue the requested JD. The Foundation intends to review the JD request with
the USACE and reevaluate a couple of locations where the determination of jurisdiction likely
should be changed. A mitigation plan has been shared throughout the permit process and letters
from the NCDENR-DMS have been provided as they have accepted the responsibility of providing
mitigation for the project. The Threatened and Endangered species surveys are current and have
been updated per USFWS standard protocol. The Section 106 documentation is in the permit
application. Please note, the due diligence activities have been completed for the permitting
process and have remained valid as the Foundation is aware of the need to keep those current.
Continue with application; request confirmation that "speculative" concerns are resolved
The Foundation intends to continue with the application to seek an Individual Permit. As noted
above, the Foundation now knows that it is USACE practice to issue 404 permits for megasite
projects before an end user identified.
The Foundation requests prompt confirmation that the USACE has now resolved any concern the
USACE might have had about the GRMS project being too "speculative" for the USACE to issue a
404 permit.
Robust alternatives analysis — incumbent upon the applicant to demonstrate the proposed
project is the LEDPA.
The Foundation has provided a robust alternatives analysis that addresses not only the GRMS site
configurations but other megasites throughout North Carolina as well as other large land tracts that
could potentially meet the siting criteria set forth in the permit application. The analysis for the
GRMS project didn't focus simply on the site layout. It included alternative analyses for the
transportation components, water and sewer infrastructure, and power (the Duke siting study was
provided).
Discussion of the Bryan County OEM Site and Permit (SAS-2015-00235)
The USACE asked the Foundation to provide to the USACE a USACE 404 permit issued for a
project similar to the GRMS project. The USACE's Bryan County OEM Site 404 permit (SAS-2015-
00235) appears to be similar. Accordingly, the Foundation asked the USACE to add discussion of
the OEM Site permit to the USACE's agenda for the September 22, 2020 telephone conference.
The Foundation brought the topic up during the conference call. The Foundation identified and
described the OEM Site, its 404 permit, and similarities to the GRMS project and the 404 permit
being requested for the GRMS. The parties discussed the OEM Site permit and agreed to gather
and share more information about that permit. The Foundation believes that the similarities include,
among others, the following:
4

• Bryan County Site is defined as an automotive OEM.
o The GRMS has been defined as an automotive OEM.
• The Bryan County Site was being reviewed by Volvo in 2015; however, Volvo chose
Berkeley County, South Carolina as their location in May 2015 and broke ground on that
site September 25, 2015.
o The GRMS had the same situation happen during the Toyota Mazda site selection
in 2018.
• The Bryan County Site is 1,944 acres being developed in two phases (Phase 1 is 1,350
acres and Phase 2 is 594 acres).
o The GRMS Site is 1,825 acres with a 1000 ac pad being developed. Please note
the actual footprint is larger than 1000 acres due to accounting for stormwater and
other necessary items to develop the site.
• Permitted impacts at the Bryan County Site are about 64 acres of WOTUS (62.83 acres of
wetland, 833 linear feet of stream and 0.62 acre of ditch). All impacts were in Phase 1.
o Impact total (GRMS) is about 36 acres of WOTUS (9.25 acres of jurisdictional
wetland, 23.1 acres of pond, and 42,437 linear feet of stream).
• The Bryan County Site had an adverse effect on a Historic Resource (Section 106
mitigation required).
o The GRMS does not have adverse impacts to historic/cultural resources and
concurrence information was provided.
• The Bryan County Site included eastern indigo snake and gopher tortoise habitat presence
and requirements for future surveys in the proffered permit. Both of those species are
listed as federally threatened.
o The GRMS does not have adverse impacts to any federally listed species and
concurrence information was provided.
• The Bryan County site plan in the permit assumes a site plan, but does not fully detail or
illustrate the use of each building or parking lot on the plans.
o The GRMS has a similar level of detail on the site plan.
• A conditional permit was sought and obtained for the Bryan County Site — Special
Conditions include: "The Project Area shall only be developed by an automobile
manufacturing company. Prior to initiating any authorized work within Phase 1 of the Permit
Area, the Permittee shall notify the Corps in writing that a contract has been signed with an
automotive manufacturing company, which will develop the Project Area in accordance with
the terms, conditions, and development plans of this permit."
o The Foundation has asked for a conditional permit on the GRMS with very similar
conditions being discussed.
• No tenant or end user of the Bryan County Site was named in the application. Type of end
user was provided (Automotive OEM). The USACE specifically considered the issue of
whether the project was too "speculative" to complete a 404(b)(1) Guidelines analysis and
decided it was not. The 404 permit was issued.
o The GRMS application does not name an end user; and, it also states the type of
user to be an automotive OEM. The GRMS project permit application is not too
speculative for issuance of a 404 permit.
• Due diligence activities were completed in order to secure the 404/401 permits.
o The GRMS site has had a number of studies completed and those studies remain
valid as they are updated per agency requirements.
• Comments were received from SELC during the public notice comment period on the Bryan
County OEM.
o The GRMS public notice has similar comments from SELC.
5

Additional Information — not discussed during the 9/22/2020 meeting
Person County Mega Park — 1,350 acre site. In addition to the Bryan County OEM (automotive
OEM) Site permitted last year, the Foundation learned after the September 22, 2020 conference
call with the USACE Wilmington District that on September 15, 2020r, the USACE Wilmington
District issued a permit for the Person County Economic Development Site for a semiconductor
manufacturing facility. The Foundation understands the site does not have an end user or tenant
and was permitted using a conceptual design. This appears to the Foundation to be an example of
the USACE Wilmington District following the established USACE practice of issuing 404 permits
without an end user being named prior to obtaining a permit. The Foundation requests the USACE
use the same established USACE practice in processing the GRMS project 404 permit application.
The Foundation looks forward to working with the USACE on completing the 404 permit application
process and the issuance of a 404 permit for the GRMS project to allow the Foundation to pursue
the creation of good manufacturing jobs for people who need them and will appreciate them. The
Foundation requests the USACE confirm on or before October 26, 2020 that (1) the GRMS project
is not too "speculative" to receive a 404 permit and (2) that processing of the GRMS application will
continue. Please call me at 919-232-6637 or email at vickie.miller©hdrinc.com if you need
additional information or clarification on any of the information provided.
Sincerely,
HDR Engineering Inc. of the Carolinas
\i'40J dtllcir
Vickie Miller, AICP, PWS
Senior Environmental Planner
cc: Jim Melvin, Greensboro Randolph Megasite Foundation
William G. Ross, Brooks Pierce
V. Randall Tinsley, Brooks Pierce
6

Attachment 1

Attachment 2

Name
Location
Acres
Number of
Automobiles
Number of
Workers
Year Built
2020 Updated Stets
(GRMS Developed)
GRMS added Sources
Facilities from USACE
GM Fairfax Assembly Plant
3201 Fairfax Trafficway, Kansas City, KA
572
3900
1985
2385 employees
https://plants.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/company info/facilities/assembly/fairfax.html
GM Flint Assembly Plant
3100 Van Slyke Road, Flint, MI
582
3300
1947
159 ac / 5241 employees - the area
does not include all other items
assoicated. Mearsures over 400 ac.
https://plants.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/company info/facilities/assembly/flint.html
GM Fort Wayne Facility
12200 Lafayette Center Road, Roanoke,
Indiana
716
3900
1986
716 ac /4433 employees
https://plants.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/company info/facilities/assembly/ftw.html
GM Lansing Delta Township
8175 Millett Hwy, Lansing, Michigan
426
2781
2004-2006
320 ac / 2711 employees - the
parking area is not included. That is
another 115 acres.
https://plants.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/company info/facilities/assembly/Idt.html
GM Wentzville Assembly
1500 E. Rte A, Wentzville, MO
569
4250
1983
540 ac / 4211 employees
https://plants.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/company info/facilities/assembly/wentzville.html
Ford Flat Rock Assembly Plant
1 International Drive, Flat Rock, MI
400
3400
1972 /1987
2420 employees
https://corporate.ford.com/operations/locations/global-plants/flat-rock-assembly-plant.html
Ford Chicago Assembly Plant
12600 S. Torrence Avenue, Chicago IL
113
4020
1924
5810 employees
https://corporate.ford.com/operations/locations/global-plants/chicago-assembly-plant.html
Ford Kentucky Truck Plant
3001 Chamberlain LN, Louisville, KY
500
7990
1969
8920 employees
https://corporate.ford.com/operations/locations/global-plants/kentucky-truck-plant.html
Ford Louisville Assembly Plant
2000 Fern Valley Road, Louisville, KY
180
4610
1955
4100 employees
https://corporate.ford.com/operations/locations/global-plants/Louisville-assembly-plant.html
Fiat Chrysler Belvidere Assembly
Plant
3000 West Chrysler Drive, Belvidere, IL
280
4093
1965
3792 employees
https://media.fcanorthamerica.com/newsrelease.do?id=323&mid=
Fiat Chrysler Jefferson North
Assembly Plant
2101 Connor Street, Detriot, Michigan
283
5096
1991
4894 employees
https://media.fcanorthamerica.com/newsrelease.do?id=327&mid=
Fiat Chrysler Sterling Heights
Assembly Plant
38111 Van Dyke Sterling Heights,
Michigan
286
7841
1953
7240 employees
https://media.fcanorthamerica.com/newsrelease.do?id=335&mid=
Fiat Chrysler Toledo Assembly
Complex
4400 Chrysler Drive, Toledo, Ohio
312
5696
1942
6069 employees; parts of site since
1910 (Willys)
https://media.fcanorthamerica.com/newsrelease.do?id=339
Fiat Chrysler Warren Truck Assembly
Plant
21500 Mound Road, Warren, Michigan
633
3328
1938
87 ac / 2424 employees - note there
are a number of facilites at the
Warren site that push this above the
87 acres noted
https://media.fcanorthamerica.com/newsrelease.do?id=343&mid=
Tesla Factory
45500 Fremont Boulevard Fremont, CA
450
10000+
1962
This was an old GM plant; site is 370
ac
https://www.tesla.com/factory
Mazda/Toyota
Huntsville, AL
4000
New - under
construction
2400 ac / 4000 employees
https://pressroom.toyota.com/toyota-motor-manufacturing-mississippi-inc-tmmms-fact-sheet/
Nissan North America, Inc
Smyrna, TN
884
640,000
8000
1983
7250 employees
https://nissan-tennessee.com/en/about-nissan-smyrna
Kia Motors Manufacturing Georgia
West Point, GA
618
plants and
suppliers
2006
acres are wrong. It is 2200 ac rather
than 618 according to Kia page
https://www.kmmgusa.com/about-kmmg/the-plant/
Mercedes-Benz, US International, Inc
Vance, AL
966
3800
1996
employees 4200
https://mbusi.com/about/mbusi-corporate-info/facts-figures
Average provided by Corps
487

Facilities by GRMS Team
BMW Plant Spartanburg
Spartanburg, SC
1,150
1,500/day
11000
1994
https://www.bmwgroup-werke.com/spartanburg/en/our-plant/amenities.html
Volvo Cars USA LLC
Ridgeville, SC
1600
1500
2018
675 now, 1600 later - started
construction 2015 - adding new
battery facility this year
https://www.volvocars.com/us/about-volvo/our-story/south-carolina-factory
Mazda Toyota Manufacturing, U.S.A.
Inc
Huntsville, AL
2400
300K/year
4000
In progress -
2020
1400 ac first phase
https://www.waaytv.com/content/news/The-size-of-the-new-Toyota-Mazda-plant-is-hard-to-comprehend-
468879593.html and https://alabamanewscenter.com/2020/01/13/mazda-toyota-manufacturing-set-to-launch-
Mercedes-Benz U.S. International,
Inc.
Vance, AL
966
300k/year
4200
1997
https://mbusi.com/about/mbusi-corporate-info/facts-figures
Volkswagen Chattanooga Assembly
Plant
Chattanooga, TN
1400
150k/year
3800+
2011
expansion 2020 added more jobs
https://www.volkswagengroupofamerica.com/chattanooga-facts
Kia Motors Manufacturing Georgia
West Point, GA
2200
340K/year
3000
2010
https://www.kmmgusa.com/about-kmmg/the-plant/
Hyundai Motor Manufacturing
Alabama
Huntsville, AL
1744
399,500/year
3000
2005
https://www.hmmausa.com/our-company/about-hmma/#about
Nissan North America, Inc. Smyrna
Smyrna, TN
884
640k/year
7250
1983
https://nissan-tennessee.com/en/about-nissan-smyrna
Nissan North America, Inc. Canton
Canton, MS
1038
450k/year
5250
2003
https://nissan-canton.com/en/about-nissan-canton
Honda Manufacturing of Alabama,
LLC
Lincoln, AL
1350
340k/year
4500
2001
https://www.hondaalabama.com/our-company
Toyota Motor Manufacturing
Mississippi
Blue Springs, MS
1700
170k/year
2000
2011
https://pressroom.toyota.com/toyota-motor-manufacturing-mississippi-inc-tmmms-fact-sheet/
GM Spring Hill Manufacturing
Spring Hill, TN
2100
3808
1990
800 ac of site dedicated to farming
and wildlife habitat; 5k work there
with suppliers
https://plants.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/company info/facilities/assembly/springhill.html?id=1600985375909
AVERAGE SITE SIZE
1544
Newly added to list - Others added that are relatively recent but may not be in the Southeast
Nissan North America, Inc. Decherd
Decherd, TN
968
456k/year
1700
1997
Engine Facility
https://nissan-tennessee.com/en/about-nissan-smyrna
Tesla Gigafactory
Austin, TX
2000
5000
In progress -
2020
Ford Dearborn Truck Plant
Dearborn, MI
1100
4400
2004
https://corporate.ford.com/operations/locations/global-plants/dearborn-truck-plant.html

hdrinc.com
November 12, 2020
Mr. Andrew Williams
Regulatory Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Re: Greensboro Randolph Megasite — USACE Action ID No. SAW-2015-01268
Dear Mr. Williams,
Thanks to you and your colleagues for the conference call on November 3, 2020, to discuss the
final items needed to process the Section 404 Individual Permit Application for the Greensboro
Randolph Megasite (GRMS) and for your follow up call to Wendee Smith. On behalf of the
Greensboro Randolph Megasite Foundation, Inc., I am providing the following information to
address the USACE points raised and questions asked during those conversations, and to supply
the final items needed to process the GRMS application.
In our conversations, you requested additional information regarding the 1,000 acre project size.
As you know, the Foundation and its co-sponsors propose to facilitate the construction and
development of an automotive manufacturing facility at a location that will provide good automotive
manufacturing jobs and related economic benefits for Greensboro and Randolph County. Their
market research identifies the megasite approach (rather than incentives packages and other
approaches) as essential for project success.
The GRMS Project minimum size for successful siting and construction of an automotive
manufacturing facility is also based on market research by the Foundation and its project co-
sponsors. Identifying the minimum size that is adequate for project success was an important
element of project planning for the Foundation and its co-sponsors. Land is costly. Ongoing
market research by the Foundation and its co-sponsors confirms that the 1,000-acre size is
adequate and necessary and that a smaller project size would not be adequate.
In our discussions with you and your colleagues, we've taken a look at a list you provided of
automotive manufacturing facilities built in the past. The Foundation has not used this information
regarding site size because it does not provide the relevant and necessary information to design a
successful project in light of the applicant's market research. In addition, as alluded to in our
conversations, we flagged some other concerns about the list, but don't believe it's useful to go into
those now.
The site size, design, and facility layout are based on project co-sponsors' own market research
that identifies automobile OEM site requirements, including management, commercial,
manufacturing, distribution, employee, and storage elements. The following list illustrates the
facilities typically required for an automotive OEM and accommodated within the GRMS Site Plan:
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900 Raleigh, NC 27601-3034
[phone]

• Corporate / Management Offices
• Visitor Center
• Orientation / Training Center
• Medical / Emergency Service Center
• Cafeteria
• Press / Fabrication
• Body/Weld Shop
• Final Assembly Building
• Paint Shop
• Powertrain
• Modules
• Battery
• Tire
• Stamping
• Plastics
• Interior Components (Dash, Seats, Glass)
• Steering, Brakes & Suspension
• Numerous conveyors throughout the site
• Test Track / Station
• Quality Assurance
• Parking (Employee and Finished Product)
• Shipping and Receiving
• Distribution (Truck and Train)
• Storage
• Waste Management
• Security
We hope this additional information is sufficient to allow the proffer of a permit to the Foundation
with the site size as applied for. As you know, the Foundation has requested a conditional permit
for the GRMS with conditions similar to those used by the USACE to permit other sites. Under that
approach, the Foundation will notify the USACE in writing, prior to initiating any authorized work
within the Permit Area, that a contract has been signed with an automotive manufacturing company
to develop the GRMS Site in accordance with the development plans and the terms and conditions
of the permit.
The Foundation looks forward to working with the USACE on completing the 404 permit application
process and to the issuance of a 404 permit for the GRMS project. Please call me at 919-232-6637
or email at [e-mail] if you need additional information or clarification on any of the
information provided.
Sincerely,
HDR Engineering Inc. of the Carolinas
\r\40,Acito_r
Vickie Miller, AICP, PWS
Senior Environmental Planner
cc: Jim Melvin, Greensboro Randolph Megasite Foundation
Wendee Smith, Scenic Consulting Group
William G. Ross, Brooks Pierce
V. Randall Tinsley, Brooks Pierce

Attachment D to this letter is
CONFIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL INFORMATION
- PROTECT THE INFORMATION FROM RELEASE
- FOLLOW THE REQUIREMENTS OF 32 CFR § 286.10
January 8, 2021
Andrew Williams
Regulatory Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Re: Greensboro Randolph Megasite — USACE Action ID No. SAW-2015-01268
Dear Mr. Williams,
Thank you for taking the time to meet with the Greensboro Randolph Megasite (GRMS) project
representatives regarding the Section 404 Individual Permit Application on December 11, 2020.
I am providing on behalf of the Applicant, Greensboro Randolph Megasite Foundation, Inc., the
following responses to address the USACE comments and additional information the USACE
requested.
This letter addresses the topics and comments in the order noted during the discussion as well
as the table presented to the GRMS representatives following the meeting. The USACE
comments are in bold font. The Applicant's responses are italicized for ease of review. Items
that were illustrated in green in the table provided by the USACE were not included as it is
assumed those have been addressed adequately.
Additional details regarding 14 Duke alternatives - Attached to August 12, 2020 response
- would like to have a table showing how they were eliminated -env impacts
Data tables are located on the pages that illustrate both the raw data and the weighted scores
for several environmental factors including water quality which focuses on wetlands and
streams, cultural resources, natural resources, land use, etc. (NOTE: The pages of the
document and the tables in the document are unnumbered. The relevant pages are on pages
bearing pdf page numbers 45-53.)
Traffic analysis for interchanges - November 8, 2019 response? Located in Appendix B -
has been updated and refined
Appendix F of the Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report includes the traffic
analysis and subsequent updates.
Additional discussion/Analysis of Conceptual Overall site plan
A revised site plan is provided (Attachment A) that adds labels that set forth expected uses
extrapolated from GRMS sponsors' market research that indicates that a 1,000 acre
construction pad located within a regularly -shaped contiguous tract of land is required to satisfy
target manufacturers (manufacturers that can satisfy the overall project purpose).
hdrinc.com
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900 Raleigh, NC 27601-3034
[phone]

Offsite analysis should provide transportation and utility component
The alternatives analysis has been revised based on discussion with the USACE on December
11, 2020 (Attachment B). The attached version is more concise and has been updated to
account for changes that have occurred since the initial analysis was completed. A note has
been included related to the transportation and utility components specifically that states "Other
alternatives discussed in this analysis will have similar environmental impacts due to necessary
transportation and utility components."
Thirteen Environmental Concerns (PN comments) - 1. Need to address post development
well water/ground water. - Their section addresses soil remediation; 2. Blast plan deals
with safety; but doesn't address well impacts.
Randolph County completed testing of existing wells owned by nearby residents to set a
baseline prior to any ground disturbance at the GRMS site. It is unknown at this time if blasting
would be required at the site and therefore hard to quantify any potential changes to wells or
groundwater. A contingency plan has been developed should there be impacts to existing wells
adjacent to the GRMS site and caused by development of the GRMS site. This plan includes
first an attempt to repair the damage. If that isn't possible, then replacement of the well would
be the next step. Should that also not be possible, then a recommendation for a public water
connection based off of a public health necessity would allow the City of Greensboro to allow a
water connection onto the public water main.
Public Interest Concerns - c. Additional traffic - Offsite alternative - not fully addressed
A traffic analysis was completed and provided in Appendix F of the Supporting Documentation
and Environmental Report. In the current plan, local traffic patterns have been maintained to
ensure minimal impacts to the surrounding area. The transportation plans were also shared
with the public and those who provide local emergency services in order to avoid impacts to
their existing operations.
a. Site selection - Address site selection -what is project region, what is centrally located;
sites not in the region should not be discussed, etc. No information on 29 other tracts
(HDR); Timmons Study information (11 to 5-no information)
The Applicant shared the following in the August 12, 2020 response to comments. "The site is
centrally located within the Project Region as defined in the permit application. The Randolph
County -City of Greensboro area is how the Project Region is described." By centrally, the
Applicant means near the middle or center of the Project Region. The alternatives analysis has
been revised based on discussion with the USACE on December 11, 2020. The attached
version is more concise than the initial analysis and has been updated.
b. Alt. Anal./Avoidance Minimization - Only shifted their site plan - did not look at other
site layouts, etc. (other)
See attached site plan (Attachment A) with additional detail.
c. Other site available - Offsite alternative - not fully addressed
The alternatives analysis has been revised based on discussion with the USACE on December
11, 2020. The attached version is more concise than the initial analysis and has been updated.
e. DWR - mitigation - need to get final mitigation plan/DMS acceptance letter/ clarify
mitigation ratios/types.
The Applicant has discussed the project with DMS which has agreed to provide mitigation for
the project. Please find attached the most recent ILF Mitigation Acceptance Letter (Attachment
C).
2

f. EPA - mitigation location - 8 digit HUC of mitigation
Comment noted. The DMS Acceptance Letter states they will provide mitigation and propose it
to be in the two 8-digit HUCs where the GRMS and infrastructure impacts are located.
Speculative Nature - a. Design based on Toyota/Mazda - If based on T/M facility doesn't
match site plans (buildings and parking) in AL. why? Also, existing facilities (see
examples sent) are on smaller footprints/layouts, b and d is covered here too.
The Applicant has shared with the USACE that a Site Plan was not provided by the Site
Selection Team for the Mazda Toyota project. The Applicant has been able to secure and has
attached the Site and Environmental Requirements from the Site Selection Team which states
they required a site between 1,500 and 2,000 acres for a 1,000 ac Development Pad
(Attachment D). ATTACHMENT D IS CONFIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL INFORMATION.
PROTECT THE INFORMATION FROM RELEASE. FOLLOW THE REQUIREMENTS OF 32
CFR § 286.10. This example of one target manufacturer's site requirements confirms the
reliability of the GRMS sponsors' market research indicating that a 1,000 acre construction pad
located within a regularly -shaped contiguous tract of land is required to satisfy target
manufacturers.
Speculative Nature - b. Most manufacturer's don't require 1,000 construction pad
If comment b. refers to target manufacturers, the GRMS sponsors' market research indicates
that the comment is incorrect. The GRMS sponsors' market research indicates that a 1,000 acre
construction pad is required to satisfy target manufacturers. Please see the preceding
responses.
Speculative Nature - d. Avoidance/minimization DWR
Avoidance and minimization efforts were discussed throughout the Supporting Documentation
and Environmental Report. The current site plan avoids and minimizes to the maximum extent
practicable based on site criteria. Once a tenant provides a site plan, additional avoidance and
minimization efforts will be analyzed. The Applicant understands that this would likely be a
condition of the permit.
Speculative Nature - e. 404(b)(1) has no basis and meaningful analysis without identified
end user
The Applicant has previously provided responses to this comment.
Corps requested information - a. Discussion/clarification of siting criteria. Define
centrally located - Not well defined
The Applicant shared the following in the August 12, 2020 response to comments. "The site is
centrally located within the Project Region as defined in the permit application. The Randolph
County -City of Greensboro area is how the Project Region is described." By centrally, the
Applicant means near the middle or center of the Project Region.
Corps requested information - b. Provide additional information regarding the criteria
currently required by transformational manufacturing, production, and assembly
facilities, which are defined in your application as facilities that are expected to: provide
roughly 2,000-4,000 skilled and semi -skilled manufacturing jobs; increase the local tax
base and provide new payroll to circulate within Randolph County and the City of
Greensboro. - This is about the industrial standards
The GRMS sponsors' market research indicates that a 1,000 acre construction pad is required
to satisfy target manufacturers (manufacturers that can satisfy the overall project purpose). An
example of one target manufacturer's site requirements confirms that the market research is
reliable; the Applicant has attached the Site and Environmental Requirements from the Mazda
3

Toyota Site Selection Team (AttachmentD). ATTACHMENT D IS CONFIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL INFORMATION. PROTECT THE INFORMATION FROM RELEASE. FOLLOW
THE REQUIREMENTS OF 32 CFR § 286.10.
Corps requested information - c. Please provide a detailed discussion regarding the need
for a regularly shaped contiguous area of at least 1,000 acres for a construction pad and
the correlation of the pad size and 2,000 auto manufacturing employees. Currently, within
the United States, there are existing automobile manufacturing facilities that have over
2,000 employees and occupy less than 1,000 acres - Other existing facilities are less
acreage resulting in less impacts.
The GRMS sponsors' market research indicates that a 1,000 acre construction pad located
within a regularly -shaped contiguous tract of land is required to satisfy target manufacturers
(manufacturers that can satisfy the overall project purpose). The appropriate tool for identifying
the requirements of target manufacturers is current market research, not backward -looking
correlations between acreage and employee numbers. We note that there are automotive
manufacturing sites over 1,000 acres with 2,000 to 4,000 employees, including, for example, the
most recent automotive manufacturing facility in the southeast, Mazda Toyota near Huntsville,
AL. This facility is currently under construction and consistent with the site criteria the Applicant
has identified through its own market research.
Corps requested information - d. For transportation component of the proposed plan,
please provide an updated analysis to match the proposed number of employees (2-4
thousand) and/or explanation regarding the assumption of 6,000 automotive workers
from Guilford County, 3,000 from Alamance/Randolph County and 1,000 from Chatham
County (page 4-2 of Appendix F). Also, please revise and or/provide further explanation
regarding the traffic analysis assumption of a 2,000 acre development and a 6M (sq.ft)
build -out, when all the existing automotive manufacturers used in the analysis are 1,000-
1,744 acres and a maximum of 5M (sq.ft.) build -out. Insufficient discussion
The traffic analysis addresses the assumed full site buildout. The intent was to be conservative
and make certain that the transportation plan could address future needs at the site as well as to
account for all the environmental impacts of the associated infrastructure at this time. The 2,000
acres noted in the report is a round number as the GRMS site alone is 1,835 acres.
Corps requested information - e. Updated transportation analysis to match the proposed
number of employees - assumes 2000-acre development - Insufficient
Please see above response. The traffic analysis and updates to the traffic analysis are located
in Appendix F of the Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report.
Corps requested information - f. Site criteria documentation - 10 miles from interstate, 30
miles from airport, 200,000 workers within 40 miles, Timmons study alternative,
elimination of alts based on direct access, 14 alternatives for Duke - Provide specific
organization and those criteria. Provide Timmons Report and additional
explanation/environmental information for Duke 14 sites.
The Applicant has provided the Duke Siting Report. The Timmons Report that is being
requested is not available as previously discussed, would be outdated if it were available, and
focused on a twelve -county region that was defined by the NC economic regions. The
economic region is not the same as the Applicant's Project Region as defined in the Supporting
Documentation and Environmental Report attached to the permit application and above.
Secondary materials that discuss the Timmons Report are available and indicate that only three
sites are in the Project Region (GRMS, Sophia, and Guilford Alamance). These sites are
discussed in the revised alternative analysis.
4

Site Plan info - a. Details - what is each building for, reason for size - vague/insufficient
Please see attached revised site plan.
Site Plan info - b. Details - purpose for each labeled Lot (use, reason for size). -
vague/insufficient
Please see attached revised site plan.
Site Plan info - Methods used to determine the layout (were other facilities used to
determine size, number of each building, lots) - explain how this was determined to be
required of all auto manufacturing facilities - vague/insufficient
The GRMS sponsors' market research and other facility site plans were used to determine the
site layout. There are aspects of each facility that are typical and listed in the previous response
dated November 12, 2020. The site plan is based on that information and the site's existing
infrastructure.
Site Plan info - Potential user-400 acres - why can't this be phased? - need to fully
address why a phased permit would not be adequate.
The GRMS sponsors' market research indicates that a 1,000 acre construction pad located
within a regularly -shaped contiguous tract of land is required to satisfy target manufacturers.
Consistent with its market research, the Applicant has not had any target manufacturer review
the site that indicated any interest in making the investment of locating its manufacturing
facilities at a site with a construction pad that is initially smaller than 1,000 acres.
Offsite analysis - should include transportation and utility components. - Applicant states
this can't be done. Need to do this to adequately compare offsite to onsite.
This was discussed during the most recent conversation with the USACE on December 11,
2020. Everyone agreed to add a statement in the alternatives analysis that explains that other
sites are expected to have similar impacts. The following sentence has been added to the
attached alternatives analysis: "Other alternatives discussed in this analysis will have similar
environmental impacts due to necessary transportation and utility components."
Cumulative impact analysis -consider impacts associated with ancillary
industries/businesses - Do not consider impacts associated with ancillary
industries/businesses
Cumulative Impacts were discussed in Chapter 5.15 (pages 68-75) of the Supporting
Documentation and Environmental Report. On December 11, 2020, USACE staff stated a page
of additional information addressing potential ancillary industries/business should suffice.
Please find this information in Attachment E.
The Applicant looks forward to working with the USACE on completing the 404 permit
application process and the issuance of a 404 permit for the GRMS project. Please call me at
919-232-6637 or email at vickie.miller©hdrinc.com if you need additional information or
clarification on any of the information provided.
Sincerely,
HDR Engineering Inc. of the Carolinas
`(rkOJk,llav
Vickie Miller, AICP, PWS
Senior Environmental Planner
5

Attachments:
Attachment A — Site Plan
Attachment B — Revised Alternatives Analysis
Attachment C — DMS Acceptance Letter
Attachment D — Site Criteria
Attachment E — Cumulative Impacts Analysis
cc: Jim Melvin, Greensboro Randolph Megasite Foundation
William G. Ross, Brooks Pierce
V. Randall Tinsley, Brooks Pierce
Wendee Smith, Scenic Consulting Group
6

Attachment A
Site Plan

1 2 3 4 5 1 6 1 7 8
MANUFACTURI
FACILITIES
JULIAN AIRPORT
RD REROUTE
US HWY 421
INTERCHANGE
SANITARY SEWER
FORCE MAIN
HDR Engineering Inc.
of the Carolinas
440 S. Church Street, Suite 1000
Charlotte, NC 28202
704.338.6700
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116
WATER MAIN
OLD 421 RD
ISSUE DATE DESCRIPTION
500 kV TRANSMISSION
MAIN REROUTE
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
r RAIL YARD
RAIL YARD /
PRODUCTION VEHICLE
PARKING
SITE ENTRANCE
1,000 ACRE SITE
PAD BOUNDARY
US HWY 421
INTERCHANGE
MANUFACTURING
FACILITY
PARKING
MANUFACTURING FACILITY
PARKING
SITE ENTRANCE
PROJECT MANAGER VICKIE M. MILLER, AICP, PWS
PROJECT PRINCIPAL
PROJECT ENGINEER
DESIGN ENGINEER
DRAWN BY
CHECKED BY
PROJECT NUMBER
PAUL MEEHAN, PE
DAVID BAKER, PE
10068163
PARKING
PARKING
PARKING
- MANUFACTURING
FACILITY L
TESTIN
FACILIT
RAIL YARD
RAIL
LOGISTICS
GREENSBORO RANDOLPH
MEGASITE PROPERTY BOUNDARY
MATCHLINE - SEE INSET THIS SHEET
GRAPHIC SCALE
( IN FEET )
1 INCH = 700 FT.
*SITE PLAN REPRESENTS 6,000,000 SF OF BUILDING SPACE.
CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY -
SUBJECT TO NON -DISCLOSURE AGREEMENTS
GREENSBORO RANDOLPH MEGASITE
RANDOLPH COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
MATCHLINE - SEE OVERALL SITE PLAN THIS SHEET
INSET
CONCEPTUAL
OVERALL SITE PLAN
FILENAME
SCALE
01X-01.dwg
1"= 700'
SHEET
01 X-01

Attachment B
Revised Alternatives Analysis

Attachment B
1 Alternatives
Alternatives Development
This section identifies and evaluates a broad range of alternatives in light of the overall purpose
of the Proposed Project as part of the process of identifying the least environmentally damaging
practicable alternative (LEDPA). An alternative is practicable if it is "available and capable of
being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of
overall project purposes." 40 CFR 230.3(1). In identifying and developing this list of alternatives,
the Applicant has considered and included alternatives falling within the following categories:
• The proposed alternative (the Proposed Project);
• Alternatives that would involve no discharges of dredged or fill material into the waters of
the United States (the "no action" alternative);
• Alternative offsite locations, including those that might involve less adverse impact to
waters of the United States;
• Onsite alternatives that would involve less adverse impact to waters of the United States
(which would include modifications to the alignments, site layouts, or design options in
the physical layout and operation of the Proposed Project to reduce the amount of
impacts to the waters of the United States); and
• Alternatives that would involve greater adverse impact to waters of the United States,
but would avoid or minimize other significant adverse environmental consequences
including offsite and onsite options.
The range of potential alternatives considered included alternative sites and alternative project
configurations.
The practicability analysis of the project alternatives was conducted in three levels:
• Level 1 Analysis includes the identification of an extensive list of North Carolina sites
and screening of the list to exclude sites that clearly cannot satisfy the Proposed
Project's overall purpose (including failure to be located within the Project Region), and
are therefore clearly not practicable.
• Level 2 Analysis reviews each alternative advanced from the Level 1 Analysis, if any, to
determine if it is "available and capable of being done after taking into consideration
cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes" and therefore
practicable.
The goal of Level 2 Analysis is to identify practicable alternative locations, if any, for use
in identifying the LEDPA.
• Level 3 Analysis reviews different site designs at the proposed site location and at
practicable alternative locations, if any.
1

Attachment B
• Taking into consideration all of the above, the final step of the alternatives analysis is to
identify the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA),
considering alternative locations (if any) and alternative site designs.
1.2 Level 1 - Identification of Alternatives
1.2.1 Criteria for Alternatives
In order for an alternative site to satisfy the overall purpose of the Proposed Project or the
applicant's purpose and need, the site must, at a minimum, meet the Location Requirements
identified in Section 3.1:
1) The site is centrally located within the Project Region so that employment and economic
benefits are delivered to the target area; and
2) The site meets the following criteria currently required by transformational automotive
manufacturing, production, and assembly facilities:
• Regularly -shaped contiguous area of at least 1,000 acres for a construction pad
• Rail service to the site
• Four -lane controlled access highway adjacent to the site
• Distance of less than 10 miles to the Interstate Highway System
• Distance of less than 30 miles to an international airport
• Sufficient electrical service
• Sufficient municipal water and sewer service
• Skilled and semi -skilled workforce of over 200 thousand within 40 miles of the site.
1.2.2 Range of Alternatives
The State of North Carolina is home to seven strategically located megasites; however, only
one (GRMS) is centrally located within the Project Region (Randolph County -City of Greensboro
area). Another megasite, Chatham-Siler City, is near the Project Region. These megasites and
additional alternative locations (see Figure 1) are discussed below.
• Proposed Location - Greensboro -Randolph Megasite — This megasite comprises
approximately 1,835 acres centrally located within the Project Region on the northern
edge of Randolph County. It is adjacent to and bounded on the southwest side by US
421, and is approximately 9 miles south of 1-85. The GRMS currently has three at -grade
intersections along US 421. No current interchange exists along US 421, which serves
to control access. The site is approximately 21 miles from the Piedmont Triad
International Airport. The site has current rail access served by Norfolk Southern
Railway (NS).
2

Attachment B
• Chatham-Siler City Advanced Manufacturing Site - This megasite comprises
approximately 1,606 acres (1,073-acre megasite and 533-acre feeder park) located in
Chatham County north of US 64, in Siler City. The site has current rail access served by
NS. The nearest interstate to the Chatham-Siler City Advanced Manufacturing Site is I-
73/74, approximately 16 miles east of the site. This site is not centrally located within the
Project Region. The site also exceeds the 10-mile threshold for access to an interstate.
The nearest international airport (Piedmont Triad International Airport) is approximately
32 miles from the site. The site also exceeds the 30-mile threshold for access to an
international airport. This site fails to meet three of the required criteria.
• Piedmont Triad Partnership Alternative Locations - In 2011, the Piedmont Triad
Partnership commissioned the Timmons Group to conduct a 12-county Piedmont Triad
Area search for and assessment of large tracts of land that might be suitable for
development of an advanced manufacturing Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM)
such as an automotive or aviation complex capable of employing large numbers of
workers to replace a significant number of jobs lost in the manufacturing sector. Data
collected and assessed included those related to environmental considerations,
infrastructure, land records, risk assessment, and demographic data. Within that report
there were only three locations within the Project Region (not necessarily centrally
located within the Project Region). The locations are in Randolph County — Liberty,
Randolph County — Sophia, and Guilford/Alamance — Prison Farm. These locations are
detailed below in Section 1.3.
• Other Large Land Tracts within the Project Region- A site search was conducted by
HDR Engineering Inc. to identify potentially available (i.e. for sale) large land tracts
comprising 1,000 acres or more located within the Project Region (not necessarily
centrally located). No sites were found.
• No Action Alternative - The Proposed Project would not be constructed. The No Action
Alternative does not satisfy the overall purpose or the applicant's purpose and need for
the Proposed Project.
3

Attachment B
Legend
LIWRyICRM$I
Garen/ ,ccamance
■ NC Warr RlryMs
Itfirter5teles
$epma NC Reileoad track
® CnamamSller CryAWaecad Llaaufacwneg SI.
•I
MEGASITE AND ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS WITHIN THE PRCJECT REGION
Figure 1. Megasite and Alternative Locations within the Project Region
1.3 Alternatives Practicability Analysis
1.3.1 Level 1 Analysis
A Level 1 Analysis was performed to identify alternative sites that clearly cannot satisfy the
overall project purpose. Alternatives that clearly could not meet the overall project purpose
were not analyzed further.
• Chatham-Siler City Advanced Manufacturing Site - This site did not meet three of the
required criteria for this Project (central location, interstate proximity, and airport
proximity). This site was eliminated from further consideration.
• Piedmont Triad Partnership Alternative Locations - Data collected and assessed
included those related to environmental considerations, infrastructure, land records, risk
assessment, and demographic data. An assessment program of potential suitable
property was developed that compared the sites using the following selection criteria:
o Acreage — minimum of 1,000 acres (i.e., 1,000 acres of contiguous land capable
of being developed; none of the properties assessed contained 1,000 acres
within a single tract of land at the time of the study and property owners were not
contacted during this study to gauge their interest in selling)
o Wetlands and streams on site
4

Attachment B
o Watershed location
o Air quality concerns
o Distance to rail — main line preferred
o Distance to Interstate or four -lane highway
o Distance to major airport
o Power availability
o Water service availability
o Wastewater service availability
o Topography
o Access
o Visibility
o Natural gas service availability
o Fiber optic cable availability
o Geology
o Residential nearby
o Rock quarries nearby
o Political concerns
Eleven locations were identified by the Piedmont Triad Partnership study for detailed
assessment; however, only three locations are within the Project Region (Randolph County —
Liberty, Randolph County — Sophia, and Guilford/Alamance — Prison Farm). The Timmons
Group produced the following ranking of the locations within the Project Region and HDR
Engineering Inc. provided the analysis of the distances and lengths (USGS hydrography
datasets and National Wetland Inventory Mapping were utilized to make comparisons of each
site):
1) Randolph County — Liberty (i.e., GRMS — the Proposed Project)
• Direct rail service at the site
• Direct access to a four -lane controlled access highway
• 9 miles to the Interstate Highway System
• 21 miles to an international airport
• Close proximity to utilities
• 36,761 linear feet of stream
5

Attachment B
• 87 parcels to create over 1,000 contiguous acres (currently under ownership of
the Greensboro Randolph Megasite Foundation, North Carolina Railroad, and
Randolph County).
2) Randolph County — Sophia
• Direct rail service at the site
• No four -lane controlled access highway adjacent to the site
• 1 mile to the Interstate Highway System
• 18 miles to an international airport
• Close proximity to utilities
• 39,112 linear feet of stream
• 185 parcels to create over 1,000 contiguous acres
3) Guilford / Alamance — Prison Farm
• No direct rail service to the site (-2 miles)
• Direct access to a four -lane controlled access highway
• 3.5 miles to the Interstate Highway System
• 21 miles to an international airport
• Close proximity to utilities
• 70,622 linear feet of stream
• 107 parcels to create over 1,000 contiguous acres
The results of the study were considered by a committee of Piedmont Triad Partnership and the
economic development directors. All agreed that the potential development opportunities at the
Randolph County — Liberty (GRMS) site were superior to the others.
The Sophia site was removed for the following reasons:
• Not centrally located within the Project Region
• No four -lane controlled access highway adjacent to the site
• 185 parcels to form a 1,000+ acre contiguous area was the most of any site studied
by PTP (103 and 78 more than the Liberty (GRMS) and Guilford-Alamance sites,
respectively)
• 2,351 linear feet more stream than the GRMS
The Guilford / Alamance — Prison Farm site was removed for the following reasons:
6

Attachment B
• Not centrally located within the Project Region
• No rail service to the site
• 107 parcels to form a 1,000+ acre contiguous area was the most of any site studied
by PTP (20 more than the Liberty - GRMS)
• 33,861 linear feet more stream than the GRMS
Only the GRMS meets all the criteria:
1) The site is centrally located within the Project Region so that employment and economic
benefits are delivered to the target area; and
2) The site meets the following criteria currently required by transformational automotive
manufacturing, production, and assembly facilities:
• Regularly -shaped contiguous area of at least 1,000 acres for a construction pad
(GRMS satisfies this requirement)
• Rail service to the site (provided by Norfolk Southern)
• Four -lane controlled access highway is adjacent to the site (US 421)
• Distance of less than 10 miles to the Interstate Highway System (1-40 is 9 miles north
of the site)
• Distance of Tess than 30 miles to an international airport (Piedmont Triad
International Airport is 21 miles from the GRMS)
• Sufficient electrical service (will be provided by Duke Energy)
• Sufficient municipal water and sewer service (provided by City of Greensboro)
• Skilled and semi -skilled workforce of over 200 thousand within 40 miles of the site
(there is a skilled and semi -skilled workforce of over 200 thousand within 40 miles of
the GRMS)
The GRMS site was the only alternative to meet the applicant's purpose and need, and was the
only alternative to satisfy the overall project purpose; therefore, this alternative has been
advanced to Level 2 analysis.
1.3.2 Level 2 Analysis
A Level 2 Analysis would be performed to review in greater detail alternatives that advanced
following the Level 1 Analysis. The goal of the Level 2 Analysis is to identify the proposed site
location. A detailed Level 2 Analysis was not necessary in this application, as the only site that
advanced following the Level 1 Analysis was the GRMS. The GRMS is currently available, has
been through numerous due diligence studies such as completion of the jurisdictional resources
mapping, has concurrence from the North Carolina Historic Preservation Office, has U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) clearance, and has plans for infrastructure in place.
7

Attachment B
1.3.3 Level 3 Analysis
A Level 3 Analysis was performed to focus on alternative layouts for the Proposed Project in
terms of accessibility, efficiency, and environmental impacts. Each design utilized an identical
site area (1,000-acre construction pad), but with different layouts designed to potentially
minimize wetland and stream impacts while still meeting the Proposed Project overall project
purpose. The facility must have an efficient layout to support efficient manufacturing processes,
deliveries, shipping, and access from a logistical perspective. Layout options 1 through 4,
detailed below, represent a variety of Proposed Project configurations that potentially reduce
environmental impacts.
1.3.3.1 Layout Onsite Option 1 (Proposed Option)
Option 1 focuses development of the transformational automotive manufacturing, production,
and assembly facility along the middle and upper portions of the site, but angles the southern
boundary of the pad to avoid impacts to Dodsons Lake and minimize stream and wetland
impacts just north of Dodsons Lake (Figure 2). This option provides access to rail and
transportation upgrades and provides the largest buffer along the eastern and southern
perimeter of the pad where the highest density of residential properties abut the site.
Option 1 provides suitable configuration and access to the necessary facilities while minimizing
impacts to certain jurisdictional features and avoiding impacts to Dodsons Lake. The proposed
site layout as shown would impact approximately 8.8 acres of wetlands, 17.5 acres of open
water, and 36,774 linear feet of stream.
8

Attachment B
Legend
Transportation Improvements
- Streams
VA Wetlands
Ponds
Option 1
Megasite Boundary
0 Peet 2,500 i
OPTION 1 IMPACTS MAP
)Z
Figure 2. Alternative Impacts Map — Proposed Layout Onsite Option 1
1.3.3.2 Layout Onsite Option 2
Option 2 focuses development of the transformational automotive manufacturing, production,
and assembly facility in the middle portion of the site but retains a portion of the drainage to the
west (Figure 3). This option provides access to the rail and transportation upgrades; however,
the layout provides no buffer in the northeast and southwestern corners.
Although Option 2 provides access to the necessary facilities and somewhat reduces stream
impacts compared to Option 1, the layout impacts a portion of Dodsons Lake, has the most
wetland impacts, and restricts buffer in the northeastern and southwestern corners. The site
layout as shown would impact approximately 12.6 acres of wetlands, 20.8 acres of open water,
and 36,829 linear feet of stream.
9

Attachment B
Legend
Transportation Improvements
Streams
Wetlands
Ponds
Option 2
nMegasite Boundary
o Fees ssoo
I-)Z
Figure 3. Alternative Impacts Map — Layout Onsite Option 2
1.3.3.3 Layout Onsite Option 3
Option 3 shifts development of the transformational automotive manufacturing, production, and
assembly facility slightly east and increases avoidance of stream drainages to the west of the
site; however, this configuration impacts the upper portion of Dodsons Lake (Figure 4). This
option provides no buffer on the southern boundary and restricts available space on the
northern boundary for rail upgrades. Option 3 would also require transportation upgrades to
extend further east to tie in to the pad. Option 3 provides space for future development to the
west.
OPTION 2 IMPACTS MAP
Although Option 3 reduces stream impacts compared to Option 1, the layout impacts a portion
of Dodsons Lake, restricts buffer on the northern boundary, and leaves no buffer on the
southern boundary. The site layout as shown would impact approximately 10.3 acres of
wetlands, 33.2 acres of open water, and 34,074 linear feet of stream.
10

Attachment B
Legend
Transportation Improvements
- Streams
Wetlands
Ponds
Option 3
nMegasite Boundary
o Fees zsoo
OPTION 7 IMPACTS MAP
F)Z
Figure 4. Alternative Impacts Map — Layout Onsite Option 3
1.3.3.4 Layout Onsite Option 4
Option 4 focuses development of the transformational automotive manufacturing, production,
and assembly facility along the upper portion of the site. This option gives access to the rail
corridor and provides the potential for future development to the south (Figure 5). Although
Option 4 provides a desirable site layout near the ridge and avoids impacts to Dodsons Lake,
the layout would impact every stream drainage on the site resulting in the highest stream
impacts of all the options. The site layout would impact approximately 9.5 acres of wetlands,
21.7 acres of open water, and 38,224 linear feet of stream.
11

Attachment B
Legend
Transportation Improvements
- Streams
Wetlands
Ponds
Option 4
nMegasite Boundary
o Fees zsoo A.
F)1
OPTION 4 IMPACTS MAP
Figure 5. Alternative Impacts Map — Layout Onsite Option 4
Identification of the Onsite L
GRMF evaluated a number of layout options as described in Sections 4.3.3.1 through 4.3.3.4.
The GRMF proposes Option 1 of the Level 3 Analysis on the GRMS as the Onsite LEDPA. See
below for the impact matrix for the four onsite options analyzed.
Table 1. Summary of Level 3 Layout Options
Resource
Option 1 (Preferred)
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Streams
36,774
36,829
34,074
38,224
Wetlands
8.8
12.6
10.3
9.5
Open Water
17.5
20.8
33.2
21.7
Dodsons Lake
No
Yes
Yes
No
12

Attachment B
Option 1 was preferred for the following reasons:
• Does not impact Dodsons Lake
• Has less wetland impact
• Has less open water impact
• Has the 2nd lowest amount of stream impact
• Includes jurisdictional impacts of the rail spur - impacts of the rail spur for the other
options (2, 3, and 4) are not included
• Avoids impacts to the majority of the westernmost drainage on the site
• Provides a greater buffer for residences to the west, east, and south of the site.
1.3.5 Utility and Transportation Facility L DPA Determinations
Please refer to the Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report for Utility and
Transportation Alternatives Analysis. Other alternatives discussed in this analysis will have
similar environmental impacts due to necessary transportation and utility components.
Overall LEDPA Determination
The overall LEDPA is based on alternative analyses for the transformational automotive
manufacturing, production, and assembly facility, as well as the associated infrastructure
improvements including water, sewer, electric, and transportation facilities. Details of each
alternative analysis are discussed above and in Section 4.3.5 of the Supporting Documentation
and Environmental Report. The overall LEDPA consists of the GRMS location, Layout Onsite
Option 1, City of Greensboro Water/Sewer Alternative 1, Duke Energy Transmission Line Route
D, and NCDOT Interchange Option B1/D1.
13

Attachment C
DMS Acceptance

ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
TIM BAUMGARTNER
Director
Jim Melvin
Greensboro Randolph Megasite Foundation
324 W. Wendover Ave., Suite 207
Greensboro, NC 27408
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
December 31, 2020
Expiration of Acceptance: 6/30/2021
Project: Greensboro Randolph Megasite County: Randolph
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) is willing to
accept payment for compensatory mitigation for impacts associated with the above referenced project as
indicated in the table below. Please note that this decision does not assure that participation in the DMS in -
lieu fee mitigation program will be approved by the permit issuing agencies as mitigation for project impacts.
It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact permitting agencies to determine if payment to the DMS will
be approved. You must also comply with all other state, federal or local government permits, regulations or
authorizations associated with the proposed activity including G.S. § 143-214.11.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter and is not transferable. If we have not
received a copy of the issued 404 Permit/401 Certification within this time frame, this acceptance will
expire. It is the applicant's responsibility to send copies of the permits to DMS. Once DMS receives a copy
of the permit(s) an invoice will be issued based on the required mitigation in that permit and payment must
be made prior to conducting the authorized work. The amount of the in -lieu fee to be paid by an applicant is
calculated based upon the Fee Schedule and policies listed on the DMS website.
Based on the information supplied by you in your request to use the DMS, the impacts for which you are
requesting compensatory mitigation credit are summarized in the following table. The amount of mitigation
required and assigned to DMS for this impact is determined by permitting agencies and may exceed the
impact amounts shown below.
River Basin
Impact Location
(8-digit HUC)
Impact Type
Impact Quantity
Cape Fear
03030003*
Warm Stream
37,999
Cape Fear
03030003*
Riparian Wetland
9.25
*DMS proposes to provide the required mitigation credits for the above -referenced impacts in the Cape Fear
03030002 and 03030003 HUCs. Upon receipt of payment, DMS will take responsibility for providing the
compensatory mitigation. The mitigation will be performed in accordance with the In -Lieu Fee Program
instrument dated July 28, 2010 and 15A NCAC 02B .0295 as applicable. Thank you for your interest in the
DMS in -lieu fee mitigation program. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact
[e-mail].
cc: Vickie Miller, agent
Sincerely,
Atuleititutzn4_10
FOR James. B Stanfill
Asset Management Supervisor
NORTH CAROLINA l�
Department al Environmental quality
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Mitigation Services
217 W. Jones Street 11652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
919.707.8976

Attachment D
Site Criteria

CONFIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL INFORMATION
- PROTECT THE INFORMATION FROM RELEASE
- FOLLOW THE REQUIREMENTS OF 32 CFR § 286.10
A. SITE CRITERIA AND OPERATIONAL DESCRIPTION
Definition of Project New World: We are seeking a geographic area with greater than a 330,000
person workforce within a 6o-mile radius to employ more than 4,000 people located on a minimum
of 1,50o to z,000 acres, including a 1,00o acre Development Pad (as defined below as a 5,880' x 7,400'
rectangular shape), served by a minimum of one Class I railroad in close proximity to a major
interstate. Project timing is being finalized but production capability could be required within 18-36
months. Anticipated investment is approximately $1.6B and production capacity could exceed
approximately 300,00o automobiles per year. Successful bidder will need to meet the schedule of
turning over the Development Pad by October 1, 2018 with no encumbrances. On July 1, 2o18,
Project New World will begin to start the transition to mobilize their team on the Development Pad.
Road and rail improvements shall be completed by July 1, 202o.
Additional search criteria could include consideration of the following:
1. Speed to Market — At this time, we will only consider industrial sites under single ownership
(or written -executed options for single ownership) with appropriate zoning for heavy
manufacturing, on -site rail (or written easements and funding for on -site rail), planned road
infrastructure improvements, attainment zone for any pollutant, comprehensive due
diligence reports, etc. or any complication/issues (environmental, wetlands, archeological,
etc.) which can be resolved before closing or dates outlined herein.
2. Big Fish in Medium Pond — Project New World will target a labor force density (not
population) of 330,00o workers within a 6o mile radius with greater than io% of the total
manufacturing work force employed in metal fabrication.
3. Transportation -- Project New World will require one Class I rail line (preferably two Class I rail
lines), on -site to be located within 5o miles of a terminal, switch or intermodal yard. The
project will seek to locate less than 5 miles from an interstate or 4-lane highway.
Transportation or railroad infrastructure costs access to the site and on site rail loading and storage
yard will require the following:
a. If the rail line is not immediately adjacent to a border of the site, requiring an access
track to be built from the rail line to the site, the access track must be provided as part
of the incentive package and not funded by Class I Railroad
b. The project will seek to locate less than 5 miles from an interstate or 4-land highway:
Site access should provide separate access for team members and truck traffic
c. Production Engineering has requested 2 separate access points to the site (one forteam
members and one for truck access)

CONFIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL INFORMATION, PROTECT THE INFORMATION FROM
RELEASE, FOLLOW THE REQUIREMENTS OF 32 CFR § 286.10
i. Intersection into the property should have the proper deceleration turn lanes
into the property
ii. The appropriate traffic signals at the intersections into the property
4. Limited Competition and Wage Pressure -- Project New World will seek to avoid adjacency
or close proximity to any competitive manufacturing employer (steel, auto, truck, rail,
aerospace, etc.) with greater than 5oojobs.
5. Site and Environmental Requirements — For the construction of two, 2 million square foot
buildings with approximately 4,00o employees, Project New World will require:
a. Site will have two separate and distinct access points (roads) - one for team member
traffic and one for truck traffic. Each with a minimum of two lanes in and two lanes
out
b. All utilities shall be brought to the Development Pad by January 1, 2020
c. Secondary power supply shall be available and constructed by July 1, 2021
d. Renewable Energy Net Metering without a subscriber limit, indefinite monthly roll
over, and owner compensation at the retail rate
e. Development Pad of 1,00o acres (5,88o'x7,400') shall be constructed per the attached
Earthwork Specifications with the following parameters:
i. Development Pad shall be constructed of granular material compacted to 98%
of Modified Proctor
ii. Development Pad shall be within o.25% slope of being level, in all directions
iii. Surveying and soils monitoring shall be subject to third party monitoring during
construction
iv. Stockpiled soils shall be segregated as to type and protected from erosion
v. Complete wetlands mitigation and archeological clearance
vi. Development Pad turnover date of October 1, 2018
f. Traffic Impact Study including opening day (2021) and 20-year traffic addressing
perimeter road network (4 million square feet, 400o people)
g. Development agreement and rezoning confirmation
i. Motion submitted
ii. No residential zoning within one mile of site boundary (prefer 2.5 miles)
h. Progress schedule update
i. Confirmation of construction schedule
j. Phase 1 and Phase 2 completed for all parcels
k. Complete ALTA for all parcels (including easements)
I. Land trading investigation results (including multiple rounds of water level readings)
m. Updated road and utility improvement plan sets, including schedule for issuance of
i00% plan sets if not complete, with improvements to be completed by July 1, 2020
n. Reference attached Earthwork Specifications to be state DOT or Project New World
specifications, whichever is more stringent

CONFIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL INFORMATION, PROTECT THE INFORMATION FROM
RELEASE, FOLLOW THE REQUIREMENTS OF 32 CFR § 286.10
V.
y UFIU eiiyinee[iny SpeLIE IcanUnSLnat will oe utnizea aunng
review —provide confirmation of all reviewing offices on state, county and local level
p. Water quality — if not previously submitted, provide water quality data for evaluation
q. Wastewater quality and quantity (see attached recornmend wastewater permit levels)
r. Final signed options on all necessary parcels for up to s,5oo to z,000 acres
s. Confirmation of motion submitted for appropriate rezoning (if applicable)
t. Provide recommended shovel test results for archeological study (if applicable)
u. Confirmation that appropriate quantity of inspection personnel available throughout
project duration
v. Provide all documents available via public records
w. Provide specific construction items to be aware of (i.e.: dust control, noise ordinance,
etc.)

Attachment E
Cumulative Impacts Analysis

Attachment E
The Applicant is providing the following information to respond to comments provided December 11,
2020: "Cumulative impact analysis -consider impacts associated with ancillary industries/businesses - Do
not consider impacts associated with ancillary industries/businesses."
This Cumulative Impact Analysis assesses the potential impacts associated with ancillary
industries/facilities/businesses, such as restaurants, service stations, supply chain manufacturers, etc.,
that may result from the construction of an automotive manufacturing facility at the Greensboro -Randolph
Megasite (GRMS) located in Randolph County, North Carolina.
Data was collected using historic aerials from Google Earth, National Land Cover Database, and
Microsoft Building Layer near other automotive manufacturers in the southeast to determine the types of
growth that may occur due to development of the GRMS. In review of that data, it appears that the most
likely development would come from support/supply chain manufacturing and logistics/trucking facilities.
There could be a gas station and potential for one or two restaurants; however, many facilities which have
been constructed for numerous years do not have nearby restaurants. Currently, the nearest gas station
is located over 1 mile from the GRMS site on Old Liberty Road and nearest restaurants are in Liberty
which is approximately 3 miles.
Growth in the vicinity of the GRMS would be impacted by factors such as local zoning, existing utilities,
and permitting requirements. As noted in the Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report, the
Board of Commissioners for Randolph County and Guilford County have a 1.5-mile zoning buffer around
the site. The GRMS site is zoned as a "Heavy Industrial Conditional District," which allows industrial parks
including automotive, truck, and heavy equipment manufacturing and assembly. The 1.5-mile zoning
"buffer" permits rural industrial/commercial facilities that would support a major manufacturer, low -density
residential development, and agriculture. High -density residential development is not allowed.
In addition to the 1.5-mile zoning "buffer", the area around the GRMS does not currently have water or
sewer service. The City of Greensboro plans to provide service to the GRMS but has no plans for sewer
or water connections at this time or on the near future. The City's policies do not allow connections as
most of the project waterline extension is outside of the defined water and sewer service area. The
GRMS is allowed because it fits the City's economic development criteria and is covered in the City's
2014 Policy for Water and Sewer Services Outside the Corporate Limits. The City could provide service
to ancillary industries/businesses if they fall within the policy and undergo the appropriate steps for
obtaining service.
There are several federal, state, and local regulations and programs that will assist with mitigation of
cumulative impacts within the vicinity of the GRMS. These include the Endangered Species Act; Clean
Water Act; National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP); stormwater regulations; historic/archaeological
protection through various laws and programs; Sedimentation and Pollution Control Act; and local zoning,
planning ordinances, and growth management plans. In-depth descriptions of the federal/state
regulations are not included in this document as the most recent versions of these regulations are
available online and were discussed in the Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report in Table
24.
Table 23 of the Supporting Documentation and Environmental Report addressed the assumed cumulative
impacts from development of the GRMS and listed the Local Programs, Plans, or Ordinances that would
provide mitigation for those impacts. Two tables have been included below to specifically address the
section of the local ordinances that address mitigation by county.

Summary of Local Ordinances to Address Individual and Cumulativelmpacts in Randolph County
Resource
Action
Effect
Local Ordinance
Topography
Soils
Land Use
Jurisdictional
Waters
Prime Agricultural
Lands
Archaeological /
Historical Sites
Air Quality
Noise
Water Resources
Forests
Aquatic Habitat
Wildlife /
Vegetation
Protected
Species
Toxic
Substances
Clearing, grading, fill in
floodplain
Direct impact from land
disturbing activity
Conversion / Rezoning
Direct impact from
development, road & utility
crossings; Increased
stormwater flow
Conversion to residential
Direct impacts from
development in removal of
structures or fill / grading of
archaeological sites
Increased vehicles, some
increase in emissions
Increased traffic, receptors
Increased impervious area,
runoff, erosion
Clearing / land conversion
Decreased water quality,
stream stability; Increased
erosion
Clearing/land conversion
See wildlife/vegetation
Increased chance of release,
pollutants in stormwater
Decreased flood storage,
habitat; increased flow &
erosion
Decreased flood storage,
habitat; increased flow &
erosion
Decreased agriculture &
forest land
Direct fill; Change in
hydrology; Fragmentation;
Decreased aquatic function,
habitat, biodiversity
Loss of agriculture;
Increased noise/traffic
Removal of structures or
disturbance of
archaeological sites
Decreased air quality;
Increased particulate matter
Minimal effect on wildlife
behavior & quality of life
Decreased water quality,
stream stability; Increased
sedimentation
Decreased air & water
quality
Decreased diversity &
habitat
Decreased diversity,
abundance, habitat;
Increased fragmentation
Limited - lack of habitat
Decreased water quality,
aquatic habitat
Flood Damage
Prevention
Subdivisions, Soil
Erosion and
Sedimentation Control
Zoning
Zoning, Subdivision,
Watershed Protection,
Flood Damage
Prevention
Zoning
Historic Landmark
Preservation Commission
review
N/A
N/A
Zoning, Watershed
Protection
Zoning, Subdivision,
Watershed Protection
Watershed
Protection
Watershed Protection
See Wildlife /
Vegetation
Watershed Protection,
Zoning

Summary of Local Ordinances to Address Individual and Cumulativelmpacts in Guilford County
Resource
Action
Effect
Local Ordinance
Topography
Soils
Land Use
Jurisdictional
Waters
Prime Agricultural
Lands
Archaeological /
Historical Sites
Air Quality
Noise
Water Resources
Forests
Aquatic Habitat
Wildlife /
Vegetation
Protected
Species
Clearing, grading, fill in
floodplain
Direct impact from land
disturbing activity
Conversion / rezoning
Direct impact from
development, road & utility
crossings; Increased
stormwater flow
Conversion to residential
Direct impacts from
development in removal of
structures or fill / grading of
archaeological sites
Increased vehicles, some
increase in emissions
Increased traffic, receptors
Increased impervious area,
runoff, erosion
Clearing / land conversion
Decreased water quality,
stream stability; Increased
erosion
Clearing/land conversion
See wildlife/vegetation
Decreased flood storage,
habitat; increased flow &
erosion
Decreased flood storage,
habitat; increased flow &
erosion
Decreased agriculture &
forest land
Direct fill; Change in
hydrology; Fragmentation;
Decreased aquatic function,
habitat, biodiversity
Loss of agriculture;
Increased noise/traffic
Removal of structures or
disturbance of archaeological
sites
Decreased air quality;
Increased particulate matter
Minimal effect on wildlife
behavior & quality of life
Decreased water quality,
stream stability; Increased
sedimentation
Decreased air & water
quality
Decreased diversity & habitat
Decreased diversity,
abundance, habitat;
Increased fragmentation
Limited - lack of habitat
Flood Damage
Prevention
Subdivisions, Soil
Erosion and
Sedimentation Control
Zoning
Zoning, Subdivision,
Stormwater
Management/ Watershed
Protection, Flood
Damage Prevention
Zoning
Historic Preservation
Commission review
N/A
N/A
Zoning, Stormwater
Management/
Watershed Protection,
Soil Erosion and
Sedimentation Control
Zoning, Subdivision,
Stormwater
Management/ Watershed
Protection
Stormwater
Management/
Watershed
Protection
Stormwater
Management/ Watershed
Protection
See Wildlife /
Vegetation

Summary of Local Ordinances to Address Individual and Cumulative Impacts in Guilford County (continued)
Resource Action Effect Local Ordinance
Toxic Increased chance of release, Decreased water quality, Stormwater Management/
Substances pollutants in stormwater aquatic habitat Watershed Protection,
Zoning

hdrinc.com
February 2, 2021
Andrew Williams
Regulatory Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Re: Greensboro Randolph Megasite — USACE Action ID No. SAW-2015-01268
Dear Mr. Williams,
Thank you for taking the time to talk with me last week about the upcoming field visit for the
Greensboro Randolph Megasite (GRMS). During the discussion you mentioned that you thought
the Applicant had not responded regarding a list of facilities that the USACE provided on December
4, 2020 that includes existing manufacturing facilities with smaller footprints.
The Applicant understood it had responded in full by identifying site criteria based on current market
requirements that make clear that none of the USACE's listed sites would satisfy the purpose and
need. The Applicant cannot commit to using historic layouts that do not satisfy current market
requirements. Such a commitment would cause the GRMS project to fail.
There have been very substantial investments by State and local government and by a non-profit
foundation to bring good jobs to the Greensboro -Randolph County target area. The Applicant
cannot agree to make commitments that will cause project failure.
Additional information regarding all of the sites on the USACE's December 4, 2020 list is attached.
USACE comments are in bold black font. Response information is provided in red italic font. The
USACE December 4, 2020 list incorporates numerous errors that consistently understate acreages.
A summary table is also presented for December 4, 2020 sites that are in the southeast and are not
engine -only facilities. Data were obtained from manufacturers' online information and Google Earth.
The average site size is 1,078 acres with a range from 885 acres to 1,470 acres. The smallest site
at this time, Volvo, does not include rail components. Also included is information about the newest
facility in the southeast, Mazda Toyota, which was omitted from the USACE's December 4, 2020
list.
The Applicant looks forward to working with the USACE on completing the 404 permit application
process and the issuance of a 404 permit for the GRMS project. Please call me at 919-232-6637 or
email at [e-mail] if you need additional information or clarification on any of the
information provided.
Sincerely,
HDR Engineering Inc. of the Carolinas
alfD1 ktr"-
Vickie Miller, AICP, PWS
Senior Environmental Planner
555 Fayetteville Street Suite 900 Raleigh, NC 27601-3034
[phone]

Attachment: Review of Other Automotive Manufacturer Sites
cc: Jim Melvin, Greensboro Randolph Megasite Foundation
William G. Ross, Brooks Pierce
V. Randall Tinsley, Brooks Pierce
Wendee Smith, Scenic Consulting Group

INFORMATION REGARDING USACE DECEMBER 4, 2020 LIST, INCLUDING IDENTIFICATION OF
SUBSTANTIVE FACTUAL ERRORS INCORPORATED IN THE USACE DECEMBER 4, 2020 LIST
13 Other Auto Manufacturing Facilities
Assembly Plants/Engine Plants
Built between 1983 and Present
Less than 1000 acres (as measured by USACE)
Mercedes-Benz
Vance, Alabama
Built 1997
4,200 employees, 2 large Body Shops, 1 paint shop, and 2 Assembly Shops and a Logistics Center
808.63 ac
Facility is 23 years old
• Website states site is 966 acres
• The USACE measurement didn't include a portion of the stormwater area to the east that is part of the site and the rail siding to
the south.
• Site impacted area is measured at 925 acres
M-re-des
US International ;Inc
Rte 11
e1V RI
Google Earth - Edit Polygon
Name: I Mercedes Vance Al! 1
Description Styie, Color Wm Altitude Measurarnents
pervaetrx: asu
Area: 925 Acres
OK Cane:
Google

Hyundai Motor Manufacturing (Assembly and Manufacturing Plant)
Montgomery, Alabama —Built 2005, approximately 3,000 employees, stamping facility, weld shop, paint shop, vehicle assembly
shop, a two-mile test track and three engine shops.
798.62 ac
• Facility is 15 years old
• Website states site is 1,744 acres
• Please note measurements provided by the USACE were missing stormwater features and the Hyundai Training Facility to the
west. Please see below measurement and aerial during construction of the area of impact totaling approximately 1,159 acres.
In the older aerial (2006) it appears there could also have been additional grading on the western side of the site.
GoogIe Earth - EtI Polygon
L cyolko I SO* Color Now As&rd9 I rA....m.n
EY_:.bn &AS _
Ar... 1459 Apa
image.e. 2020 r.laxar receinoiogies

Toyota Motor Manufacturing
Blue Spring, Mississippi —Built 2011
2000 Employees, Vehicle production (stamping, body weld, paint and assembly)
715.25
• Facility is 9 years old
• According to the website and the County GIS the site is 1,700 acres Toyota Tours (tourtoyota.com)
• The area graded for the site is illustrated in the first photo (2018) and the second photo is prior to earth moving (2007) — Note
the disturbed area is 1,196 acres. Stormwater and other areas were missing from USACE provided measurement.
Google Earth - Edit Polygon
Toyota Motor Manu fa turing'MS
Toyota Motor Manufacturing MS opResourceMF)@ Toyota TMMMS

Kia Motors Manufacturing
West Point, GA —Built 2010, 14,000 employees (plant and suppliers)
675.86 ac
• Facility is 10 years old
• Site is 2,200 acres according to website - see figure below of entire parcel
• Employees are 2,700 team members according to website
• Note an additional 50 +/- acres has been added on the south side of the facility on Bing Maps for what looks like staging. The
visitor center/training center was also missing from the calculations which is approximately 23 acres.
• Site calculation of impacted area is 980 acres.
Google Earth - Edit Polygon
Desuiptioe Kyle. Cador
PerinoCer:
Area:
sserrili
Image U.S.•
i}gicai
V... AAt: de
7.22 hf=_=
980 Acre=
Google E

Volvo -Ridgeville, South Carolina
Built 2018
1,500 employees
Body Shop, Paint Shop, Final Assembly, Vehicle Processing Center and Office Building
672.54
• Facility is 2 years old
• Only 1,500 employees
• Website shows site as 1,600 acres
• No rail service — to be added potentially
• Acreage of disturbed area is 733 acres at this time and the training center is 125 acres of clearing for a total of 858 acres.
Parcel: 1760001001
ID_T7,15 1760001001
Panel❑ 176-00-01-001
OrinerWame BERKELEY COUNTY
Stre Adtlress1 1001 Volvo Car OR
SeeetAddress2
City Ridgeville
St. Province SC
Zip 29472-2372
5617Price 10.00
RI. CABS-214A
Oeed000k 11562
QeedPage 306
TotalAcres 159346
Zoom to
00033

Volvo Training facility above illustrating clearing for site.
Honda Manufacturing of Alabama, LLC
Lincoln, Alabama —Built 2001,
560.15
• Facility is 19 years old
• Several items were missing from USACE calculation such as training center, rail yard, etc. Total disturbed area is 930 acres at this
time.
• The overall site owned by Honda is much larger at 1,350 acres.

GM Fort Wayne Facility
Roanoke, Indiana —Built 1986, approximately 4291 employees
716.14 ac
• Facility is 34 years old
• This facility is not located in the southeastern US
• Website states site is 716 acres
• No mapping provided since manufacturers data confirms USACE provided information
GM Fairfax Assembly Plant
Kansas City, Kansas
Built 1985, 2,229 employees
571.99
• Facility is 35 years old
• This facility is not located in the southeastern US
• Website states Site is 572 acres
• No mapping provided since manufacturers data confirms USACE provided information
GM Wentzville Assembly
Wentzville, Missouri —Built 1983, 3721 employees
569.19
Facility is 37 years old
• This facility is not located in the southeastern US
• Website states Site is 569 acres
• No mapping provided since manufacturers data confirms USACE provided information
GM Lansing Delta Township
Lansing, Michigan —Built 2006, approximately 2558 employees
General Motors Lansing Delta Township Assembly is GM's newest plant in the United States, Stamping Plant/Body Shop/Paint
Shop/General Assembly
319.92
• Facility is 14 years old
• This facility is not located in the southeastern US
• Measurements during construction show 565 acres were graded
• GM owns a significant amount of additional land (over 1,000 acres) adjacent to this facility for expansion
Measurement
I! Acres
Measurement Result
1,054.8 Acres

GM Lansing Della Assembly
',ea. re the a or area of a geometrk,f.apeona,9rourd
Ford Dearborn Truck Plant
Dearborn, Michigan
4,400 employees, Built 2004?
911.6 ac
• Facility is 16 years old
• This facility is not located in the southeastern US
• An area to the north was missing from the site size calculation provided as well as staging area to the west — When reviewing
that site calculation appears to be 1,070 acres.
• Website states the site size as 1,100 acres so there may be additional area that is not being included from utilizing Google Earth.

The following are Engine Facilities:
Nissan North America, Inc.
Engine Facility
Decherd, TN —Built 1997
1700 Employees?
219.68
• Facility is 23 years old
• Engine manufacturing only
• No rail service
• Website states site is 968 acres
• Data included information from: FACT SHEET: Nissan Manufacturing in Tennessee (nissannews.com)
Toyota Motor Manufacturing
1 Cottonvalley Drive
Huntsville, AL - Built 2003
Employee 1,100, Assemble 4-cylinder, V6 and V8 engines
152.06
• Facility is 16 years old
• Engine manufacturing only
• No rail service
• Website states site is 200 acre
• Data included information from: Toyota Motor Manufacturing Alabama (TMMAL) Fact Sheet - Toyota USA Newsroom)
Mazda Toyota Huntsville, AL - Under construction
Approximately 4000 employees
Mazda Toyota - newest plant in the United States, Stamping Plant/Body Shop/Paint Shop/General Assembly
This facility is located in the southeastern US
Has rail components
Measurements during construction show 1,470 acres disturbed and calculation were developed by following the silt fence visible from
Google Earth — The Website below state states 1,400 acres in Phase 1
Data included information from: The size of the new Toyota -Mazda plant is hard to
comprehend (waaytv.com)
Total site size is 2,400 acres

Facility Name
(located in southeast)
Site Size (Ac)
from web
sources
Site Impacted
Area (Ac) from
measurements
Mercedes Benz, Vance, AL
966
925
Hyundai, Montgomery, AL
1,744
1,159
Toyota, Blue Springs, MS
1,700
1,196
Kia, West Point, GA
2,200
980
Volvo, Ridgeville, SC
1,600
885
Honda, Lincoln, AL
1,350
930
Mazda Toyota, Huntsville, AL
2,400
1,470
Total
11,960
7,545
Average
1,709
1,078

From: Miller, Vickie M. (Raleigh)
To: Williams, Andrew E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Wendee Smith
Cc: Gibby, Jean B CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); McLendon, C S CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Smith. Ronnie D CIV
USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: RE: Additional GRMS on site alternatives questions
Date: Tuesday, April 13, 2021 3:57:00 PM
Hi Andy,
Thank you for your emails of March 26 and April 8, 2021, and the comments and questions
contained in them. Those messages identified some outdated conceptual site plans and job
projection numbers that are not suitable or appropriate for current decision -making by the GRMS
sponsors or the USACE. We assume (but have not confirmed) the record includes additional
examples.
Early on in the GRMS process, GRMS sponsors were advised that the original GRMS acreage was
adequate; however, actual requests from automotive manufacturers proved (and continuing
requests and research confirmed) that additional acreage was needed to meet the requirements of
automotive manufacturers. The GRMS sponsors were able to purchase the necessary rights to
additional property (acreage that is not included in early site plans) to meet the site criteria of
automotive manufacturers (previously provided). Likewise, as the GRMS sponsors have accumulated
more information about automotive manufacturing facilities, they have refined their projections of
the number of jobs that will be created by an automotive manufacturer at the GRMS. The outdated
site plan information and outdated job projections are not used in the permit application. The site
plan and job projections incorporated in the permit application reflect current information
appropriate for decision -making.
Please let me know if you have additional questions or need information.
Thank you,
Vickie
From: Williams, Andrew E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, April 8, 2021 9:47 AM
To: Miller, Vickie M. (Raleigh) <[e-mail]>; Wendee Smith <[e-mail]>
Cc: Williams, Andrew E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Gibby,
Jean B CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; McLendon, C S CIV USARMY
CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Smith, Ronnie D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Subject: Additional GRMS on site alternatives questions
CAUTION: [EXTERNAL] This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or
open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Wendee/Vickie:

I am currently working on the Statement of Findings/Environmental Assessment (SOFEA) for the
GRMS. The attached conceptual plans and impact matrix were provided to us by GRMS consultants
in preparation for a pre -application meeting on May 5, 2017. Both of these conceptual plans have
less impacts than what the applicant has proposed (also attached—SitePlanOnly). Meeting notes
indicate that a client had not been identified at the time and the goal was site certification. Could
you all please take a look at these and address them as a potential on site alternatives? Please note
that additional land was later purchased by the GRMF, to extend this area SE of the identified project
area and should also be included in the analysis.
Also, feel free to give me a call if you need/want to discuss.
Andrew Williams
Regulatory Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
919-554-4884 ext. 26
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help
us ensure we continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at our
website at http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0
to complete the survey online.