20171559 Ver 3_More Info Received - HDR Responses to Comments_20220108

hdrinc.com
January 8, 2022
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 emailing, on December 8, 2021, your letter regarding the Greensboro -Randolph
Megasite Foundation's ("GRMF") permit application. Your letter presents: three information requests
from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ("USACE"); and copies of public comments the USACE
received from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS"), six individuals, and one law firm (on
behalf of three groups) in response to the second USACE public notice (review period November 19,
2021 to December 6, 2021) for the Greensboro Randolph Megasite ("GRMS") Section 404 Individual
Permit Application.' Responses to the public comments are below, and include references to the
applicant's August 12, 2020 letter that responded to USACE information requests and to public
comments received during the first public notice for the application ("First Responses") and to the
Greensboro -Randolph Megasite Section 404 Individual Permit Application Supporting Documentation
and Environmental Report ("Environmental Report"). The responses to the three information requests
from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will be provided in a separate letter marked as confidential.
Responses to USFWS comments:
The USFWS, in a letter dated December 6, 2021, appears to state its determination that the only
federally -listed threatened or endangered species that the project may affect is the northern long-eared
bat and that incidental take of the species, if any, is not prohibited. To the extent there is any ambiguity
in the USFWS letter, the applicant's view is that the information and materials submitted demonstrate
there will be no adverse effects to any federally protected species.
As recommended by USFWS, the applicant has coordinated closely with the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission ("WRC") and conducted additional field work and reporting as requested by
WRC related to non -federally -listed species for which there are no legally mandated protections related
to the project. Surveys for bald eagle nests have been conducted onsite as recently as September 27th
and 28th, 2021, and no nests have been found.
USFWS requested that innovative stormwater designs, best management practices ("BMPs"), and
expanded riparian buffers be used that exceed legal requirements. However, the stormwater controls
and BMPs included in the project will protect the resources. BMPs for construction will be designed to
1 We note that one commenter requested copies of USACE-published information, and the USACE
responded. To the extent that any commenter requested an extension of the public notice period, the
applicant contends the second public notice was unnecessary (and any extension would be
unnecessary) in light of, for example, the limited amount of additional or different information included
in the second notice as compared to the first notice and the fact that changes in the application
(primarily identification of the end user) respond favorably to public comments received by the USACE
during the first public notice review period.
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900 Raleigh, NC 27601-3034
[phone]

handle the 25-year storm. The potential for additional stream buffer protections is being evaluated as
a means of on -site mitigation, which the applicant would like to discuss with the Corps.
Responses to public comments:
Identification of contractor
One commenter expressed interest in identifying a contractor that will do the work at the GRMS. The
North Carolina Department of Transportation has selected the contractor(s) to conduct the site grading,
and Toyota will select the contractor(s) to conduct facility construction.
Wells/groundwater protection
Two commenters expressed concerns about the need to protect groundwater and water supply wells.
These concerns are addressed at First Responses at page 2. In addition, we note that additional
relevant information has been provided to the USACE (and the North Carolina Division of Water
Resources) (e.g., Residential Well Sampling and Complaint Resolution Plan).
Emergency surface water supply
One commenter expressed concern that Dodson's Lake would be adversely impacted as an
emergency water source (water from the lake is pumped to Siler City during water shortage). The
applicant's preferred alternative does not impact Dodson's Lake, as it does not include placement of
fill material into the lake (see Environmental Report Section 4.3.3.1) or a reduction of storage volume.
Water quality in the lake is protected by stormwater management infrastructure and BMPs. See First
Responses at page 1.
Surface water quality
One commenter expressed concern about surface water quality impacts. This concern is addressed
at First Responses at page 1. The applicant and DEQ will address surface water quality protections
as part of the state water quality certification.
Air quality
One commenter expressed concern about air pollution. This concern is addressed at First Responses
at page 2.
Light pollution
One commenter expressed concern about light pollution. Lighting at the site will comply with local
zoning requirements.
Vehicular traffic
Two commenters expressed concern about road, highway, and/or rail traffic. This concern is
addressed at First Responses at page 3 and at the Environmental Report section 4.3.5.4 (discussing
rail usage). At buildout, about fifteen rail cars per day are expected to arrive/depart.
Adequacy of work force
One commenter expressed concern regarding adequacy of the available work force. This concern is
addressed at First Responses at page 3.
Lack of identification of end user
One commenter objected to the permit process proceeding without an end user being identified. Since
the time of this comment, it has been announced that the GRMS end user is Toyota. One commenter
attached to its comments prior comments that objected to the sufficiency of the first public notice
because there is no end user. The end user is now specified.

Adequacy of the basis for the site criteria in Section 4.2.1 of the Environmental Report without
an end user
One commenter attached to its comments prior comments that objected to site criteria based on the
end user not being identified. Given the applicant's purpose and need, the site criteria have a solid
basis founded on market research to identify site criteria and direct knowledge of site criteria based on
active participation in the market without identifying the end user. In addition, Toyota, the end user,
has been identified and has verified that the site criteria identified by the GRMF and set forth in the
Environmental Report are among the criteria used by Toyota to select the GRMS. See First Responses
at pages 5-8.
Buffers or riparian buffers
One commenter indicated some of the project acreage should be used for buffers, and another
commenter requested 100-foot and 200-foot riparian buffers. Riparian buffers will be provided as
required by applicable regulations. The potential for additional stream buffer protections is being
evaluated as a means of on -site mitigation, which the applicant would like to discuss with the Corps.
Schweinitz's sunflower
One commenter expressed concern about Schweinitz's sunflower. Surveys in the relevant area
failed to locate any of the plant species. See the USFWS Self Certification Letter dated 9/30/2021.
Stability of soil for construction
One commenter expressed concern about stability of site soil for construction. Geotechnical studies
have been completed for the site, and there have been no issues noted regarding stability of the
soils for construction.
EIS
One commenter argued that the USACE was required to prepare an environmental impact
statement. The USACE correctly determined that the GRMS project will not have impacts on the
environment that warrant preparation of an environmental impact statement.
Section 7 consultation
One commenter argued that the USACE Section 7 consultation with USFWS was not complete. During
the second public notice review period, USFWS provided a letter, dated December 6, 2021, that
documents Section 7 consultation. The USFWS December 6 letters appears to state that USFWS
has determined that the only federally -listed threatened or endangered species that the project may
affect is the northern long-eared bat and that incidental take of the species, if any, is not prohibited.
To the extent there is any ambiguity in the USFWS letter, the applicant's view is that the information
and materials submitted demonstrate there will be no adverse effects to any federally protected
species.
North Carolina avoidance and minimization requirements
One commenter argued the project would violate North Carolina's avoidance and minimization
requirements. The water quality certification will ensure that the project will comply with the North
Carolina avoidance and minimization requirement. Federal requirements will also be met.
Discharges
One commenter was concerned about discharges. Wastewater discharges will be directed to the
Greensboro sewer system, and surface water runoff will be managed by on -site BMPs. See
Environmental Report at section 5.5.2.3 and First Responses at pages 1 and 2.

Impervious surface
One commenter expressed concern about impervious surface. This concern is addressed at
Environmental Report at section 5.5.2.3.2. Please also note the applicant is working with DEQ to
finalize the Stormwater Management Plan which takes into account the impervious surfaces on the
site.
Species not listed pursuant to the Endangered Species Act
One commenter expressed concern about species not protected by the Endangered Species Act
(bald eagles and certain mussels). The applicant has coordinated with the WRC and has conducted
studies not required by law to satisfy WRC's concerns. Surveys for bald eagle nests have been
conducted onsite as recently as September 27th and 28th, 2021, and no nests have been found.
Secondary and cumulative impacts
One commenter expressed concern about secondary and cumulative impacts. This concern is
addressed at First Responses at page 8.
Cape Fear shiner
One commenter expressed concern about the Cape Fear shiner. On December 6, 2021, USFWS
concurred with the results of surveys that found no Cape Fear shiner or its habitat in areas relevant
to the assessment of potential project impacts on the species or its habitat. To the extent there is
any ambiguity in the USFWS letter, the applicant's view is that the information and materials
submitted demonstrate there will be no adverse effects to federally protected species, including the
Cape Fear shiner.
Atlantic pigtoe
One commenter expressed concern about the Atlantic pigtoe, a mussel species listed as threatened
on November 15, 2021. On December 6, 2021, USFWS concurred with the results of surveys that
found no Atlantic pigtoe or its habitat in areas relevant to the assessment of potential project impacts
on the species or its habitat. To the extent there is any ambiguity in the USFWS letter, the
applicant's view is that the information and materials submitted demonstrate there will be no adverse
effects to federally protected species, including the Atlantic pigtoe.
The Applicant looks forward to working with the USACE on completing the permitting process and
issuance of the 404 Individual 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
Vi40
Vickie Miller, AICP, PWS
Senior Environmental Planner
cc: Jim Melvin, Greensboro Randolph Megasite Foundation
Sue Homewood, DWR
Wendee Smith, S2 Consulting