20221576 Ver 1_USACE More Info Requested_20230127

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
January 27, 2023
Regulatory Division
Action ID: SAW-2014-00610
Ms. Thi Van Anh Nguyen
VinFast Manufacturing US, LLC
160 Mine Lake Court, Suite 200
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
Mr. Jeffrey L. Teague
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways, Division 8
121 DOT Drive
Carthage, North Carolina 28327
Dear Ms. Nguyen and Mr. Teague:
Please reference your Individual Permit application for Department of the Army
(DA) authorization to permanently discharge dredged or fill material into a total of 3,688
linear feet of stream channel, 22.789 acres of wetlands, and 1.0 acre of open water
impoundments, and to temporarily discharge dredged or fill material into a total of 4,095
linear feet of stream channel and 14.292 acres of wetlands, associated with developing
an electric vehicle (EV) manufacturing complex and associated infrastructure in
Chatham County, North Carolina.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (Corps) advertised your
proposal by public notice dated November 21, 2022. Based on initial feedback from the
public, the comment period was extended from 30 days to 45 days. Comments in
response to the notice were received from agencies including the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC), the Cherokee Nation, two non -governmental organizations, and
95 members of the public. The comments received are enclosed for your information
and to provide you with the opportunity to address any stated concerns.
The USEPA, in an email dated December 8, 2022, stated that they currently have
no site -specific comments or concerns with the project as presented in the Public
Notice. Further, in an email dated December 14, 2022, the Cherokee Nation stated that
Chatham County is outside their Area of Interest, and that they defer to other federally
recognized Tribes. Seventy-one (71) commenters requested an extension of time.
Three (3) commenters requested a public hearing which the Corps has not determined

at this time whether a public hearing will be conducted. Thirteen (13) commenters
requested that the Corps deny the permit request. A total of thirteen (13) commenters
expressed concerns about the loss of wetlands and streams. Eight (8) commenters
were concerned about the project's effects on water quality, specifically pertaining to
turbidity, sediment and erosion control, and pollution in general. Seven (7) commenters
cited concerns about the loss of wildlife habitat. Six (6) commenters requested
additional alternatives be evaluated to avoid losses of wetlands and streams. Four (4)
commenters each stated concerns about environmental justice as well as the
compensatory mitigation plan. Two (2) commenters each expressed concerns about a
lack of specificity on impact details, hydraulic fracturing and transport of natural gas,
inadvertent returns from horizontal directional drilling, air quality, requested functional
quality assessments on all aquatic resources, and expressed general dislike of the
project. Finally, one (1) commenter stated concerns about stream dredging, restoration
of temporary impacts, secondary and cumulative impacts, loss of property, loss of rural
character in the area, effects on threatened and endangered species, historic
properties, general unresolved items noted in the Public Notice, and considering
"active" transportation methods in the project design.
Please provide written responses to comments from the NCWRC, specifically
regarding potentially adverse ecological impacts resulting from project construction and
forest fragmentation, as well as items 1, 2, and 4 through 9. Further, comments
provided by the Haw River Assembly, BikeWalkNC, Ms. Jeannie Ambrose, Mr. William
Bell, and Ms. T. Sharon Garbutt summarize the pertinent environmental, public interest,
site selection, alternatives analysis, avoidance and minimization, and compensatory
mitigation concerns stated in the responses to the Public Notice. Please provide a
comprehensive, detailed response to address each of these concerns.
Further, on February 6, 1990, the DA and the EPA signed a memorandum of
agreement (MOA) establishing procedures to determine the type and level of mitigation
necessary to comply with Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. This
MOA provides for first, avoiding impacts to waters and wetlands through the selection of
the least environmentally damaging, practical alternative; second, taking appropriate
and practical steps to reduce impacts on waters and wetlands; and finally,
compensation for remaining unavoidable impacts to the extent appropriate and
practical. To enable us to process your application, in compliance with the MOA, we
request that you provide the following additional information:
A. Permits for work within wetlands or other special aquatic sites are available only
if the proposed work is the least environmentally damaging, practicable
alternative. Please furnish information regarding any other alternatives, including
upland alternatives, to the work for which you have applied and provide
-2-

justification that your selected plan is the least damaging to water or wetland
areas.
i. Please provide more specific site information regarding the off -site
alternatives for Project Blue referenced in Section 7.1. This information is
necessary in order to fully evaluate off -site alternatives as required by CWA
Section 404(b)(1).
ii. Please provide measurable criteria and associated justification for the
following selection/siting criteria to support elimination of Project Blue off -site
alternatives 1, 3, and 5 as not practicable (i.e., available and capable of being
done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in
light of overall project purposes):
a) Workforce;
b) Site preparation timeframe;
c) Proximity to rail and port facilities.
iii. Given that Project Blue off -site Alternative 2 is reported as more
environmentally damaging than the preferred alternative, and to ensure an
appropriate comparison, please provide additional information on the source
and reliability of the wetland acreage and associated impact estimates for this
alternative (e.g., GIS estimate, unverified on -site delineation, Jurisdictional
Determination, etc.).
iv. The NCDOT HE-0006 on -site alternatives impacts (i.e., environmental
damage) comparison of Concepts 1-5 is based on the "NCDOT Wetland
Prediction model" and USGS streams within 300-foot corridors. The
information provided does not clearly justify that the preferred alternative is
the least environmentally damaging given the discrepancy between predicted
and delineated proposed impacts and differences in the 300-foot corridors
versus likely roadway designs.
a) Please refine the comparison of impacts to potential waters of the US
(WOUS) for Concepts 1-5 per preliminary design (typically slope stakes
-3-

plus 40 feet) based on line, grade, typical section, and appropriate
bridging assumptions, overlaid on the field -verified delineation of WOUS
within the NCDOT HE-0006 Study Area;
b) Note that updated plans sufficient for determining actual impact
calculations would be required for the least environmentally damaging
practicable alternative once determined.
v. Please describe any on -site alternatives evaluated for the Utilities component
of the project.
B. It is necessary for you to have taken all appropriate and practicable steps to
minimize losses of Waters of the U.S., including wetlands. Please indicate all that
you have done, especially regarding development and modification of plans and
proposed construction techniques, to minimize adverse impacts.
i. The permit application states that "water and sewer lines will be directionally
drilled beneath streams and wetlands where practicable." Please provide
updated documentation including project plans specifying which crossings
would be accomplished through trenchless methodologies including
horizontal directional drill (HDD), jack and bore, or similar.
ii. For areas where HDD is proposed, please provide a comprehensive plan to
identify, contain, and clean up inadvertent releases of drilling material.
C. The MOA requires that appropriate and practicable mitigation will be required for
all unavoidable adverse impacts remaining after the applicant has employed all
appropriate and practicable minimization. Please indicate your plan to mitigate
for the projected, unavoidable loss of waters or wetlands or provide information
as to the absence of any such appropriate and practicable measures.
i. Please provide any updates to your proposed compensatory mitigation plan
based on necessary updates to proposed project impacts as required and
applicable public comments.
Additionally, the following items must be resolved prior to continuing to process
your permit request:
1) Please note and address the following items pertaining to the delineation of
WOUS for all project components:
-4-

a. Provide an updated delineation reflecting the changes made during the
verification site visits for the Project Blue phase 3 site and ensure that those
changes are reflected on overlapping sections of the NCDOT HE-0006
delineation as well;
b. A discrepancy exists in the delineation for the northeast corner of the Project
Blue site and southern portion of the NCDOT HE-0006 East interchange
study area overlap;
c. It is our understanding that portions of the proposed Utility routes are being
modified. Please provide updated delineations to facilitate Corps review and
verification of the location and extent of WOUS for this project component.
Further provide a list of all adjacent property owners along new proposed
utility routes that were not notified in the public notice dated November 21,
2022.
2) Update all proposed impacts to WOUS and all applicable plan sheets based on
these revised delineations. Note that these revisions will likely affect impact
estimates for Project Blue on -site alternatives 1, 3, and 4, the five NCDOT HE-
0006 on -site alternative concepts, and the Utilities component.
3) Higher resolution and detailed plan sheets are required for all project
components to enable full evaluation of proposed impacts to WOUS. Specifically:
a. Ensure all project plan views include unique impact labels and labels for each
WOUS (consistent with issued PJDs or Corps -verified delineation maps) to
facilitate impact -specific reviews and comments;
b. Itemize all proposed impacts to WOUS by impact type such as:
i. permanent loss (e.g. culvert/road/pad fill),
ii. permanent impact without a loss (e.g. rip rap dissipater pads embedded
into the stream bed),
iii. temporary impacts to be restored (e.g. construction access), and
iv. temporary impacts involving a permanent loss of aquatic function (e.g.
utility corridors requiring permanent conversion from forested/shrub-
scrub wetlands to emergent wetlands);
-5-

c. Provide zoomed -in plan sheets for all WOUS impact areas, at a scale that
shows details such as the type and size of culverts and other structures, fill
slopes, limits of disturbance, and itemized impact limits and types;
d. Provide profile and cross section views for all culvert pipes, rip rap pads, and
utility crossings within WOUS;
e. Provide concise restoration plans for all temporary impacts.
4) Proposed grading, fill slopes and re-routing of surface drainage appears likely to
result in indirect impacts to WOUS, due to loss of loss of drainage area/hydrology
sources and/or very small remnant features, on both the Project Blue and
NCDOT HE-0006 project components.
a. Please provide justification that hydrologic input will be maintained to all
wetlands and streams downslope of these activities. Common designs
include routing approximately equivalent surface water/runoff area to these
locations, altering locations of stormwaters outlets, usage of underdrains and
French drains where appropriate, etc.
b. For those areas where it is not practicable to maintain hydrologic input,
quantify potential indirect impacts to streams and wetlands. Also, provide the
method by which you quantified these impacts. Note that compensatory
mitigation will be required for such impacts resulting in a loss of hydrology
and therefore aquatic function, typically at a 2:1 ratio unless otherwise
justified based on partial retention of aquatic function and/or resource quality
(NCWAM/NCSAM).
5) Please provide an itemized accounting of all public outreach efforts and their
results for all project components, as this information will be considered when
determining if a Public Hearing is required pursuant to 33 CFR Part 327.
6) Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act:
a. Project Blue: The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) provided a
letter on August 16, 2022, stating that they "determined that the project as
proposed will not have an effect on any historic structures", but also
recommending that a comprehensive archaeological survey of the site be
conducted by an experienced archaeologist. The permit application states
that a Professional Archaeologist has been contracted to conduct
archaeological surveys within proposed limits of disturbance for each Phase
-6-

of Project Blue. Please provide an update on the status of the archeological
surveys.
b. NCDOT HE-0006: This review is proceeding according to the "Programmatic
Agreement among the Federal Highway Administration, United States Army
Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, North Carolina Department of
Transportation, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and North Carolina
State Historic Preservation Officer for the Transportation Program in North
Carolina", dated December 2020. Per an Effects Meeting held on December
8, 2022, a No Adverse Effect determination was made for historic
properties/architecture.
The SHPO provided a letter to NCDOT on October 27, 2022, stating that
three archeological sites within the project area were recommended eligible
for the National Register of Historic Places. Note that an Effects Meeting with
NCDOT and the SHPO is pending to make an effects determination for these
resources.
c. Utilities: The SHPO provided a letter on December 31, 2022, stating that they
"have conducted a review of the "Utilities" component of this project and have
determined that there is a low probability for intact, significant archaeological
resources to be adversely impacted within Utility corridors. No archaeological
survey recommended at this time. We have determined that the project as
proposed will not have an effect on any historic structures" However, please
note that any changes to the corridor presented to the SHPO for their review
would necessitate additional coordination/consultation to resolve Section 106
for this project component.
7) Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act:
a. Project Blue: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) provided an email
dated September 20, 2022, concurring with a determination of May Affect Not
Likely to Adversely Affect the Cape Fear shiner. A No Effect determination is
appropriate for the red -cockaded woodpecker and harperella.
b. NCDOT HE-0006: A No Effect determination is appropriate for the red -
cockaded woodpecker and harperella for this project component. USFWS
concurrence on a May Affect Not Likely to Adversely Affect determination for
the Cape Fear shiner is pending.
c. Utilities: No Effect determinations appear appropriate for all listed species for
this project component as currently proposed, with the potential exception of
-7-

the Cape Fear shiner; the effect determination and need for subsequent
USFWS concurrence will be based on avoidance of potential impacts to
specific perennial tributaries of the Haw, Deep, and Cape Fear Rivers via
HDD or similar trenchless methods. Further, note that any changes to
proposed Action Areas resulting from alterations of proposed routes/corridors
or construction methodologies may require reinitiating Section 7 consultation.
Note also that the Action Area for all project components includes species
proposed for listing and candidate species, specifically the tricolored bat
(Perimyotis subflavus) and monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus),
respectively; consultation on these species would likely be required for these
species upon their listing.
8) Provide any available information on a recently proposed expansion of the
Sanford Water Filtration Facility (Corps Action ID: SAW-2023-00134) and its
potential association with the overall Vinfast single and complete project.
9) Please note that responses to the questions above may prompt additional
information requests to allow full evaluation of the proposed project.
The above requested information is essential to the expeditious processing of your
application; please forward this information to us within 30 days of your receipt of this
letter. If you have any questions regarding these matters, please contact me at (919)
817-2436 or [e-mail].
Chief, Regulatory Division
Enclosures
Copies Furnished electronically:
Mr. Jason Hartshorn, Kimley-Horn, [e-mail]
Mr. Todd Bowers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, [e-mail]
Ms. Sue Homewood, North Carolina Division of Water Resources,
[e-mail]
-8-

Aim
NORTH CAROLINA WILDLIFE RESOURCES COMMISSION
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Cameron Ingram, Executive Director
David Bailey
Regulatory Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
Gabriela Garrison
Eastern Piedmont Coordinator
Habitat Conservation
DATE: January 18, 2023
SUBJECT: Public Notice for Vinfast Manufacturing US, LLC, SAW-2014-00610, Chatham County,
North Carolina.
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the subject
document. Comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667e), North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S.
113A-1 through 113A-10; 1 NCAC 25) and North Carolina General Statutes (G.S. 113-131 et seq.).
Vinfast Manufacturing US, LLC proposes the creation of an automotive manufacturing facility to produce
finished electric vehicles. Manufacturing facilities proposed for the 1300-acre site (Project Blue) include
a Press Shop, Body Shop, General Assembly, Paint Shop, Final Car Lot, Gigafactory, supplier park, and
associated parking, along with the necessary supporting infrastructure such as roadways, rail spur,
utilities, and stormwater management facilities. The NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT) would
design, construct, and complete mitigation requirements for the State Transportation Improvement
Project. Lastly, Vinfast would be entering into developer agreements with the City of Sanford (Sanford),
Dominion Energy, and Duke Energy to design, construct, and mitigate for the necessary offsite utilities.
Sanford has designated two phases: Phase 1 consists of approximately 19,216 feet of water line, an 8.75
million gallon per day capacity sewer lift station, 12,630 feet of gravity sewer, and 4,430 feet of force
main to provide additional water supply facilities from Chatham County and wastewater service to the
existing Sanford -Chatham County wastewater system located along Corinth Road. Phase 2 consists of
approximately 38,117 feet of water line, modifications to three sewer lift stations, 1,900 feet of gravity
sewer, and 67,545 feet of force main to provide new water transmission facilities from the Sanford Water
Treatment Plant and wastewater system to parallel the existing Sanford -Chatham County system.
Dominion Energy is designing the natural gas transmission line improvements to provide service to the
manufacturing facility. Approximately 2.24 miles of new natural gas pipeline are necessary and would
connect to the existing natural gas line at Old US 1 north of the Project Blue site. The new natural gas line
would connect to the site along Moncure Flatwood Road. Currently, the transmission line realignment is
being evaluated by Duke Energy; exact timing and realignment needs or locations have not been
Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation Division • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

Page 2
January 18, 2023
Vinfast, SAW-2014-00610
determined. It is anticipated that any realignment would be co -located with existing transmission line
corridors and no additional impacts would result from the transmission line realignment.
Stream and wetland impacts from Project Blue include the following: impact site 1 — 215 linear feet of
permanent stream impact; impact site 2 — 91 linear feet and 0.009 acre of permanent stream and wetland
impacts, respectively; and impact site 3— 159 linear feet of permanent stream impact.
Stream and wetland impacts from NCDOT include the following: east (phase 1)— 1,634 linear feet and
6.52 acres of permanent impact to stream and wetlands, respectively and west (phase 2) — 1,589 linear
feet and 16.26 acres of permanent impact to stream and wetlands, respectively.
Impacts resulting from water and sewer utilities include the following: 8.82 acres of impact requiring
permanent wetland conversion; 5.47 acres of temporary wetland impact; and 4,055 linear feet of
temporary stream impact. Impacts resulting from the natural gas transmission line include 40 linear feet
of temporary stream impact and 0.002 acre of temporary wetland impact.
There are no records for imperiled terrestrial or aquatic resources in the immediate project vicinity.
However, lack of records is not an indication of species absence, rather lack of surveys throughout the
area. As such, we recommend mussel surveys where streamside and suitable habitat exists within the
project vicinity and directly downstream. There are records for the following rare, aquatic species,
downstream of the site in the Cape Fear River: the federal and state -endangered, Cape Fear shiner
(Notropis mekistocholas); the state -endangered, yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa); the state -
threatened, eastern lampmussel (Lampsilis radiata) and Carolina redhorse (Moxostoma sp.);the state -
special concern, Roanoke slabshell (Elliptio roanokensis) and pod lance (Elliptio folliculata); and the
state -significantly rare, eastern creekshell (Villosa delumbis).
The NCWRC is very concerned with potentially adverse ecological impacts resulting from project
construction. Placing fill in aquatic systems can alter hydrology, result in significant negative impacts to
downstream areas, and eliminate aquatic and terrestrial wildlife habitat. Additional impervious surface in
developing areas results in increased stormwater runoff that can impact stream morphology. This will
cause further degradation of aquatic habitat through accelerated stream bank erosion, channel and bedload
changes, altered substrates, and scouring of the stream channel. In addition, pollutants (e.g., sediment,
heavy metals, pesticides, and fertilizers) washed from developed landscapes can adversely affect and
extirpate species downstream.
Forest fragmentation is a serious concern as large areas of Chatham County remain predominantly rural.
Reduction of habitat due to fragmentation has severe impacts on already fragile wildlife populations,
including deleterious effects on reproduction and migration. Small patches of forest often become
degraded and provide little or no value to remaining wildlife. In addition, as healthy ecosystems are
disturbed and minimized, invasive plant species become established and create monocultures in areas that
previously hosted diverse and intricate natural communities. The NCWRC offers the following guidance
and recommendations to minimize impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources:
1. Due to the presence of a federally listed species in the Cape Fear River downstream of the site, the
NCWRC recommends maintaining 200-foot, native, forested buffers on all perennial streams and
100-foot, forested buffers on all intermittent steams. If wooded buffers do not exist, these areas
should be revegetated or allowed to naturally revegetate to increase functionality. Periodic checks
should be established to ensure invasive species are not growing in areas that have been disturbed
during construction. Wooded buffers include a combination of native trees, shrubs, perennials, and
warm season grasses. There are local nurseries that specifically grow native vegetation suitable for
riparian areas. Non-native grassed buffers, particularly fescue, do not provide the necessary and

Page 3
January 18, 2023
Vinfast, SAW-2014-00610
highly valuable functions that forested buffers provide, including refugia and travel corridors for
terrestrial wildlife species. In addition, they protect water quality by stabilizing stream banks and
filtering stormwater, including sediment, nutrients, pesticides, and other material found in runoff.
2. Sewer lines, water lines, and other utility infrastructure should be kept out of riparian buffer areas.
All utility crossings should be kept to a minimum, which includes careful routing design and the
combination of utility crossings into the same right-of-way (provided there is not a safety issue). The
directional bore stream crossing method should be used for utility crossings wherever practicable, and
the open cut stream crossing method should only be used when water level is low and stream flow is
minimal. Manholes or similar access structures should not be allowed within buffer areas. Stream
crossings should be near perpendicular to stream flow.
3. Small, isolated wetlands are not protected by state and federal regulations but provide critical
breeding habitat for many amphibians. These areas are important for the protection of biodiversity,
groundwater recharge, and reducing sedimentation and pollution into streams and rivers. These
wetlands are considered an imperiled habitat by the 2015 North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan
(http://www.ncwildlife.org/plan). As such, the NCWRC continues to encourage maintaining a 150-
foot forested buffer around all small, isolated wetlands.
4. Due to the magnitude of construction and development in a predominantly rural area, as well as the
presence of rare and imperiled aquatic species downstream, the NCWRC requests that waterways in
the project footprint be treated like those in a sensitive watershed. As such, construction areas should
be limited to a maximum total area of 20 acres within the project boundary. Additionally, to
minimize disturbance to downstream aquatic communities, stream crossings should not be completed
simultaneously.
5. The NCWRC recommends the use of Low Impact Development (LID) technology and effective
stormwater management strategies. Possible suggestions include engineered stormwater wetlands,
bioswales, and permeable pavement. Information on other LID techniques can be found in 'Low
Impact Development, A Guidebook for North Carolina':
https://digital.ncdcr.gov/digital/collection/p 16062co119/id/232781.
6. Use bridges for all permanent roadway crossings of streams and associated wetlands to eliminate the
need to fill and culvert, where practicable. If culverts must be used, the culvert should be designed to
allow aquatic life passage. Fords may be appropriate and preferred for intermittent stream crossings
or where crossings will be used only once or twice a year. For fords, crossings in riffles are preferred
with the banks lowered upstream and downstream of the crossing. Stabilize the stream bottom with
geo-textile fabric and rock; concrete should not be used for bed stabilization.
7. Avoid the removal of large trees at the edges of construction corridors. Disturbed areas where
stabilization is needed should be re -seeded with seed mixtures that are beneficial to wildlife - see
attached Table. The NCWRC strongly recommends against the use of fescue -based mixtures and
Sericea lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata) as stabilizing groundcover. Sericea lespedeza in particular is
an egregious and invasive, non-native species that is very hard to eradicate. Native, annual small
grains appropriate for the season are preferred and recommended. Pollinator mixes are commercially
available and provide forage and shelter for numerous species of beneficial insects and birds. Using
native species instead of ornamentals should reduce the need for water, fertilizers, and pesticides, as
well as preserve the natural integrity of the ecosystem. The following website has a wide assoitinent
of native vegetation specific to North Carolina:
https://ncbg.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/963/2019/08/NativePlantsWoody.pdf. Free technical
guidance from staff biologists is also available upon request.
8. Please confirm that all contractors and landscapers have been educated on proper herbicide use and
protocol. In areas where native vegetation will be installed, please post signage to ensure that
contractors will not spray on or in the vicinity of the vegetation. Staff biologists from NCWRC

Page 4
January 18, 2023
Vinfast, SAW-2014-00610
monitor numerous sites across the State where contractors and landscapers have unknowingly sprayed
native vegetation because it was not clearly marked. Insecticides and herbicides should not be used
within 100 feet of perennial streams and 50 feet of intermittent streams, or within floodplains and
wetlands associated with these streams.
9. In addition to standard erosion and sediment control measure, the use of biodegradable and wildlife -
friendly sediment and erosion control devices is strongly recommended. Silt fencing, fiber rolls
and/or other products should have loose -weave netting that is made of natural fiber materials with
movable joints between the vertical and horizontal twines. Silt fencing and similar materials that
have been reinforced with plastic or metal mesh should be avoided as they impede the movement of
terrestrial wildlife species. Existing DWR 401 certifications state that `erosion control matting that
incorporates plastic mesh and/or plastic twine shall not be used along streambanks or within
wetlands. Exceptions to this condition require application to and written approval from DWR'.
Please consider using plastic -free mesh or twine in all erosion control matting within the project
boundary.
The NCWRC encourages the applicant to consider additional measures to protect aquatic and terrestrial
wildlife species in developing landscapes. The NCWRC's Guidance Memorandum to Address and
Mitigate Secondary and Cumulative Impacts to Aquatic and Terrestrial Wildlife Resources and Water
Quality (August 2002; http://www.ncwildlife.org/Portals/0/Conserving/documents/2002
GuidanceMemorandumforSecondaryandCumulativelmpacts.pdf) details measures to minimize secondary
and cumulative impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If I can be of further assistance,
please contact me at [phone] or gabriela.garrisonAncwildlife.org.

Page 5
January 18, 2023
Vinfast, SAW-2014-00610
Table: Wildlife -friendly stabilizing groundcover.
lhlac cos/lb
Proso or Brown Top Millet 30 0.88 $26.40
Austrian Winter Pea or Iron Clay* 10 1.1 $11.00
Buckwheat 40 0.88 $35.20
Durana Clover 5 8.33 $41.65
Black-eyed Susan 1 22 $22.00
Purpletop 5 22 $110.00
Beaked Panicgrass 4 19.8 $79.20
Wild Rye* 5 6.6 $33.00
Carthage Switch Grass 4 6.6 $26.40
Partridge Pea 3 6.6 $19.80
Ragweed 1 13.33 $13.33
Sum $417.98
Prices from Adams Briscoe or Ernst
Ernst Mix NC Steep Slope Mix $993.60 plus cover crop
Other mixes run 700 to $800 without cover.
* During cool season use Austrian Winter Peas and increase Wild Rye to 20 lbs.

Phone: [phone]
Defending the River since 1982
David E. Bailey
[e-mail]
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
[phone]
404 Permit for VinFast Manufacturing US, LLC
404 Permit ID # SAW-2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
www.hawriver.org
The Haw River Assembly submits the following comments on the 441 certification for
the VinFast Manufacturing US, LLC and Department of Transportation joint permit application
to permanently discharge dredged or fill material into a total of 3,688 linear feet of stream
channel, 22.789 acres of wetlands, and 1.0 acre of open water impoundments, and temporarily
discharge dredged or fill material into a total of 4,095 linear feet of stream channel and 14.292
acres of wetlands, associated with developing an electric vehicle (EV) manufacturing complex
and associated infrastructure in Chatham County, North Carolina. This proposed development
would also use Horizontal Directional Drilling to transport fracked gas beneath the Haw, the
Deep, and the Cape Fear River.
These comments are submitted on behalf of Haw River Assembly, our board, and the
over 1,000 members of our organization in the Haw River watershed. The Haw River Assembly
and our Haw Riverkeeper have worked since 1982 to protect the Haw River watershed, and
Jordan Lake in North Carolina and we believe that approval of this permit will have numerous
direct, indirect and cumulative negative impacts on these waters.
This permit application has several inconsistencies with total number of linear feet of
streams and wetlands impacted, copied paragraphs where minimal information was provided
about critical habitat for sensitive species of flora and fauna, and a total lack of information
about dredge and fill materials. The proposed alternatives for the project provides no details
about what evaluations were conducted other than alternative locations in other states.
Regardless of where this project will be developed, alternatives should include detailed
descriptions of how permanent impacts to streams and wetlands can be avoided, why those
alternatives are deemed not feasible, and alternative uses for dredged material to avoid filling
streams. The application states clearly that wetland assessments and stream assessments were not

conducted because the impacts to streams and wetlands have been deemed "minimal." These
sensitive streams and wetlands provide critical habitat and ecosystem services in an area that is
inundated with industrial pollution. The permanent loss of these streams and wetlands should
result in a full assessment of each waterbody.
The application also states that aquatic and terrestrial animals will be lost during
construction, along with their habitat. No analysis has provided an alternative to this loss. With
ever increasing fragmentation ongoing and increased fragmentation proposed in the coming
years with the development of Chatham Park, the cumulative impacts on flora and fauna in this
geographic region should be properly assessed.
No alternatives have been provided for the horizontal directional drilling for utilities
through the Haw, the Deep, and the Cape Fear rivers. The permit does not provide adequate
details such as location, depth, or impacts of this process. Horizontal directional drilling poses
high risks for "frac outs" which could contaminate these waterways with toxic drilling fluids.
The release of drilling fluid is either from loss of control, different elevations in drilling location,
rock fractures, or other complications. The toxins in the drilling fluids are often considered
"proprietary ingredients and suspending agents" which prevents the public and impacted
communities downstream from testing for these suspected contaminants in surface and drinking
water sources. The Haw and Deep Rivers flow into the Cape Fear, which is a direct drinking
water supply for hundreds of thousands of community members downstream. Alternatives
should be proposed and analyzed to prioritize environmental and public health.
The permit states that no impaired waterways are within the project area, however, these
water bodies have not been evaluated for water quality standards. Further in the application, the
permit states that these same water bodies have impairments due to erosion and sedimentation.
Much documentation over the past five years has been accumulated to show the increasing levels
of impairments on Shaddox and Gulf Creek. This geographic area has several large-scale
developments, forestry operations, and industrial pollution sources. These streams should be
thoroughly assessed to determine if water quality parameters are currently being met.
Cumulative impacts stated in the permit include only impacts to the environment over the
long term from this particular facility and utilities, making no mention of the existing industrial
facilities in the concentrated geographical area. Environmental Justice communities have not
been adequately included or evaluated. Informal meetings were held to discuss environmental
surveys, which is an unacceptable way to include communities of low income, non-English
speaking, and communities of color. The permit states that the project area includes "elderly"
populations, but makes no mention of health concerns that would be exacerbated by air
emissions in this concentrated area. Air emissions have previously been documented by
impacted communities in this small geographic region. These results should be included in the

cumulative impact analysis. The outreach plan listed in this permit application was not
successful. Neighbors were notified in late November 2022 of this project, however, this permit
states that outreach efforts began in June of 2022.
The application submitted provides little information about the actual dredging and filling
of the streams and wetlands, only claiming that permanent and unavoidable impacts will be
"minimal" during stream crossings for roadways and utilities. 85 different wetlands totalling 105
acres would be destroyed in this process. In this region of the Haw River watershed, industrial
manufacturing facilities are concentrated. Cumulative impacts of the surrounding facilities result
in poor air quality, concentration of pollutants in stormwater runoff, and habitat loss. The
wetlands provide essential ecosystem services to sequester pollutants, filter sediment, and
provide critical habitat. In addition, 47 individual streams totalling 3,688 linear feet of streams
would be permanently impacted, though detailed descriptions of this process is not provided in
this permit application. The process of dredging streams permanently destroys critical habitat for
sensitive macroinvertebrates, who provide the basis of a healthy ecosystem for aquatic and
terrestrial species. Filling streams and wetlands with dredged material will result in unacceptable
and unnecessary destruction of these water bodies. Chatham County and the surrounding areas
are developing rapidly, and fill dirt is regularly being purchased and brought in to sites. To grade
this 1,300 acre property by dredging and filling the topography will result in further
channelization and increased erodibility of this project area. Alternatives should be proposed to
avoid this grading and destruction.
Stormwater and sediment and erosion controls are under different jurisdictions, which
provide little incentives for the permittee to have longer term designs to promote higher quality
stormwater control measures. The sediment and erosion control plan is under the state
authorization of DEMLR, while the Stormwater control plan is under the jurisdiction of Chatham
County. Due to the scale of the project and the scope of proposed destruction of streams and
wetlands, and vicinity to the Haw and Deep rivers, this project should prioritize green
stormwater infrastructure, which needs to be planned as a part of the sediment and erosion
control design.
Chatham County requires 85% of total suspended solids to be removed by control
measures before being discharged into streams. The ongoing construction of Phase IA of this
project has resulted in significant sedimentation into Shaddox Creek. This project proposes to
minimize degradation to streams and wetlands where feasible through sediment and stormwater
control measures, but so far we have seen little follow through on this. This project should
prioritize green stormwater infrastructure, natural habitat protection and topography, and green
space for the surrounding communities and the 7,500 employees for this facility.

This region of the Haw River watershed is rapidly expanding. This permit application
provides an opportunity to improve the proposal submitted by VinFast and protect our streams,
rivers, air quality, and ecosystems that depend on these ecosystem services. We request a further
review of this proposed permit to provide more information on alternatives analysis that would
minimize loss of streams, wetlands, and habitats. We request an extension of the comment period
to provide increased opportunities for impacted communities to engage in this process, and a
public hearing in the region that would be convenient for impacted communities.
Thank you,
Emily Sutton
Haw Riverkeeper
emilyna hawriver. org
Haw River Assembly
P.O. Box 187
Bynum, NC 27228
919-542-5790

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 8:32 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] NCDOT STIP# HE-0006/State Transportation
Improvement Project (STIP) HE-0006 "Chatham Triangle Innovation Point Road Improvements" in
Chatham County, North Carolina.
Dave,
Please see the message below.
Thanks,
Jho
From: BikeWalkNC <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2023 3:21 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] NCDOT STIP# HE-0006/State Transportation Improvement Project
(STIP) HE-0006 "Chatham Triangle Innovation Point Road Improvements" in Chatham County, North Carolina.
David E. Bailey
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office,
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
[phone]
RE: NCDOT STIP# HE-0006/State Transportation
Improvement Project (STIP) HE-0006 "Chatham Triangle Innovation Point Road Improvements" in Chatham County,
North Carolina.
Dear Mr. Bailey and USACE,
Due to the nature of this project and its impact on access for those not owning or traveling in an automobile, this project
draws concerns. Some of which are listed below.
At this time we ask that you conditionally issue this permit only if it includes, or deny the proposed work if it does not
include:
• Buffers that include greenways that function as a trap for pollutants and nutrients suspended in stormwater
runoff to ensure runoff from motor vehicle pollution is managed and to allow the continuity of natural processes
to occur throughout the continuous linear facilities outlined in this project.
• Designs that include active transportation option within the roadway right of way or the project right of way.
• Active transportation design in the project and roadway right of way that will have a cumulative impact
reduction on vehicle trips that will accompany new growth around this land use and will be a practical condition
to ensure project sustainability and green house gas reduction.
• Active transportation design for this project in the improved and unimproved road corridors and utility
easements shall include active transportation facilities within the roadway and project right of way.
i

Furthermore if these requests are not included in the conditional issuance of the permit, we ask that you deny the
proposed permit for the following reasons:
• This project is built only to serve registered motor vehicle traffic and limits active and other transportatoin
options. It is insufficient in its design to protect for the risks to stream, water runoff and other environmental
impacts associated with the requirements of the clean water act and air quality mitigation at the state and
federal level.
• This project only allows vegetative buffers that are insufficient to support this project as fulfilling the
requirements of the clean water act and other state policies. We request the inclusion of active transportation
options as part of the project right of way, roadway right of way, vegetative, utility and runoff buffer which
achieves multiple goals by protecting the environment, increasing the tax base, and providing a variety of
transportation opportunities for the community to eliminate motor vehicle pollution.
These comments are respectfully submitted on January 4, 2023 for your review and consideration.
Terry Lansdell
Director
BikeWalkNC
980-213-6446 (phone/text)
Follow us on YouTube, Twitter and Facebook!
Join BikeWalkNC today, North Carolina's advocate for safe cycling and walking!
0
* Nor• Conmk
.. uln.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Sao:... Jar,'nMIII Onta
can.,a.. s.w.aou.rcaln
or. W..V.,p,.I1Y1'kart! rsrt.nMan.
w.,r»,..0u US SSC o.n.e..A0..
M•0t•awax•.pV.
�rr•Fr wanlyaay.¢o• O n.m a wd•1N
oc$11 adorn roam
.1.1 .+obo*. ear wrrrr , ortParao or ...SAW w..O.FIR&
rMarts a..tltlle wn bagYp
IESI
... r.-'pt...N alnoirt Naar."
F-•M.w� Gd`1. Nnn u�rrvi
3n.'>•c?..rn ba+..aa..W...n4..' s.l+.nM1..... m>w. d•I00
Srt. 11rt VW. %Satr.d.l Mort A Mrrt w+1.+4M nrIM.YAI.gb�
04.0 w.l91Y a4
11,01mn AM kw,
Imo do. Si. avo
13.333. Y.N cm..27110
INAJar., 11.pn 12f1WII Y11l..KP1.1.11
Pr....0
21 poi font
CartnartIAnn Que.. 21.22
AOEYI .1. c.*I.,. n• 0yiw0.,
y.1.—r. Lw.N
frdl.17.011
MYwry
->^l••.vnw+rc. x.nr Mr.Y�a—Nxl..dM Iltw.v*Ywy
lr+si Wl N nm NV. .e rdl u f c .Jlrl
n..i.. In4..4 Iw..
SAW-2014-00610-PN
PDF Document • 780 KB
2

Army Corps of Engineer [ACE] 404 Permit for Vinfast Manufacturing US, LLC
Corps Action ID Number: SAW-2014-00610
Public Comments
January 5, 2023
Acknowledged as the largest economic project in the history of North Carolina, VinFast's first manufacturing facility in
the United States is on a fast track. Considering the enormity of the Vinfast manufacturing complex [1300 acres] and
associated utility extensions of water/wastewater [City of Sanford and Chatham County in partnership] and
power/energy utilities [Duke Energy and Dominion Energy], and roadway network infrastructure systems [Strategic
Transportation Improvement Program Project No. HE-0006], it is critical that the 404 permit [and all other necessary
permits] be thoroughly reviewed. A long-term regional trend for additional deforestation and loss of wildlife habitat is
anticipated. More commercial and residential developments will be created to provide ancillary services to the VinFast
electric vehicle facility as well as to house its workforce: 7,500 employees in Phase 1 and an additional 12,000 employees
in Phase 2.
Extreme weather events are becoming more frequent in North Carolina. The critical role of intact wetlands and streams
in helping to mitigate the increasingly harmful storm effects of climate change is underappreciated and undervalued.
Likely some of these areas may be degraded/impaired already from the cumulative impacts from polluting air emissions
and discharges into water bodies released from nearby past and current industrial operations located in the light and
heavy industry zones. More than ever, there is greater public demand for clean natural resources so any loss of forested
wetlands and streams in Chatham County and in the surrounding areas is, therefore, concerning.
We must protect our remaining wetlands and streams by minimizing further loss of existing waterbodies. With more
than 70% of NC's protected species dependent on wetlands to survive, it is unacceptable to destroy these sensitive
habitats. Full stream and wetland assessments should be conducted. More detailed information is needed on
construction areas planned for utilities installation and transportation corridors. Careful consideration should be given to
design alternatives that avoid filling with dredged materials and ditching whenever possible. A better evaluation of the
complexity of wetland systems would determine its true functionality range since wetlands differ by type
[soil/hydrology], location and deliverable ecoservices. This is especially needed when compensatory mitigation is
required after it is determined that there are no alternatives to permanent environmental impacts.
Mitigation credits can never replace the destruction of an existing wildlife habitat and ecosystem. Even with the 2:1
ratio, there is no guarantee that mitigation efforts will be equitable or efficacious. Assessments studying the success of
ACE mitigation in "replacing the functions and values of wetlands lost to development activities" has resulted in poor
ratings. Recommendations for better outcomes include the following: mitigation efforts must be improved and enforced,
data tracking mechanisms improved, and funding for Corps regulatory programs must be substantially increased.
To better protect drinking water quality downstream, Green Stormwater Infrastructure [GSI] should be used as part of
the sediment and erosion control plan. GSI implementation would help reduce the amount of polluted stormwater
runoff that will enter water bodies flowing into the Cape Fear River Basin.
Since the ACE 404 public comment period was scheduled during the busy holiday season, holding a public hearing in
2023 could provide an opportunity for additional public input. More emphasis should be given to environmental justice
issues such as the health risks and well-being of the local community from long-term exposure to industrial operations
concentrated in this area. Potential cumulative impacts should be modelled as commercial and residential sites and
transportation routes continue to expand.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit public comments and for extending the submission deadline for fifteen days.
Jeannie Ambrose
Long-time Chatham County resident

Attn:
Mr. David E. Bailey, PWS
Regulatory Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
CE-SAW-RG-R
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
[e-mail]
PUBLIC COMMENT
Corps Action ID Number: SAW-2014-00610
Pursuant to an application received on November 8, 2022, from VinFast Manufacturing US, LLC seeking
Department of the Army authorization to permanently discharge dredged or fill material associated with
developing an electric vehicle (EV) manufacturing complex and associated infrastructure in Chatham
County, North Carolina, William N. Bell submits the following comments on or before 05 January 2023 to
the above referenced email address.
Comment One — Permanent Stream / Wetlands Impacts - Method of Mitigation
Background: Due to the long construction timeline, the applicants propose to mitigate impacts on a per -
phase basis through purchase of mitigation credits from NCDMS. It is reported that available mitigation
banks in the watershed do not have sufficient credits in the vicinity to currently provide mitigation.
Comment: Given the very heavy commercial development expected on adjacent properties within the
vicinity of this project by incoming developers hoping to benefit from the EV manufacturing plant and road
improvements and as reported by applicants it is very unlikely that sufficient new mitigation credits will
become available locally during the period of development. It is my concern that the local environmental
conditions within Project Blue will likely be unreasonably impacted/deteriorated. My literature review
indicates that formation of a new mitigation credit bank accounts generally takes 18 to 24 months for
approval. Given the applicant's published schedule for first vehicle off the line in 2024 it is unlikely there
will be new credits locally available prior to completion of Phase 1. Obtaining credits outside the
immediate vicinity will lead to significant environmental harm to local residents that is very long lasting
and provides no mitigation for local residents.. The only option likely is mitigation exclusively through
NCDMS, This commenter was unable to review NCDMS agreement/proposals included within Appendix
J as this appendix was removed from the Supplemental material provided for public review. Once
construction begins in Phases 1 and 2, it will be impossible to reverse the local impacts.
In addition, as with many new businesses endeavors success is never guaranteed in the automotive EV
industry with many established motor vehicle companies joining the ranks of EV manufacturing (Le.,
recent announcement of new Georgia facility by both Rivian and Hyundai. What are the contingency
plans if VinFast should file for bankruptcy? Who will undertake the expense of remediation if
sufficient funds are no longer available?
Comment Two — Historical and Cultural Resources
Background: Kimley-Horn submitted an Environmental Review Request to the NC SHPO to request
concurrence that the proposed Project Blue Site would have no impact on historic or archaeological
resources. NC SHPO replied stating that they expect the project area may contain intact, significant
archaeological sites. As a result, archaeological surveys of the Project Blue Site within areas of

potential disturbance are under contract by NCSHPO Office of State Archaeology (OSA) to be
undertaken Q4- 2022. VinFast argues the historic and on -going silvicultural operations and maintenance
corridors have likely disturbed and compacted soils to more than 3-feet deep within the majority of the site
and therefore "likely have destroyed any remnant artifacts" that might have been present.
Comment: Applicant states that Kimley-Horn only conducted a desktop-GIS assessment of the Project
Blue Site on July 20, 2022, using the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (NCSHPO)
HPOWEB IS Service database. They report no known historic or cultural resources were identified within
the Project Blue Site. Commenter would suggest this is finding is not unexpected given historically the
very sparse population of Chatham County in the past and present while virtually no comprehensive
investigations have been undertaken to document native American inhabitants to date.
As of the drafting of this comment it is reported that VinFast has already completed 35% to 40% of the
land preparation for Phase 1. Was the OSA able to complete their evaluation of the land excavated for
Phase 1? As NCSHPO's response in Appendix F was removed from the Supplemental Information
documents, this commenter was unable to verify and interpret NCSHPO's response. The argument
provided by applicant that there may have been culturally sensitive sites/artifacts but surely now
destroyed, and therefore they should be permitted unfettered permission to proceed with development of
the site is so unreasonable as to be ridiculous. It is well known that Native American peoples did inhabit
Chatham County long before Europeans came to the New World. More specifically Chatham Country was
NOT frequented by European settlers until very late into their expansion into the New World. The fact
there is no written record of these native peoples is to be expected given that Native Americans likely
inhabited this land as it had not yet seen the influx of Europeans until late in the expansion. To allow
applicant to continue to disturb the possible archeological locations prior to the proper evaluation of the
river basin and surrounding lands is unconscionable.

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 7:47 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: Request for a Public Hearing re: VinFast application for authorization to discharge dredged/fill
material into streams, wetlands and open water impoundments
From: Sharon Garbutt <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 12:48 AM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Request for a Public Hearing re: VinFast application for authorization to discharge
dredged/fill material into streams, wetlands and open water impoundments
Mr. Bailey,
I am writing to request a Public Hearing on VinFast's request for authorization to discharge dredged
or fill material into streams, wetlands and open water impoundments in association with its
development of an electric vehicles (EV) manufacturing plant in Chatham County, NC.
Below are some of the reasons I am requesting a Public Hearing on this application:
• This is a long, complicated application that is difficult for concerned citizens to evaluate. The
opportunity to receive clarification from experts would be very helpful.
• Inadequate information is given regarding proposed drilling under waterways, such as the
location of the drilling, the depth of the drilling and possible alternatives that were considered.
• When dredged or fill material is used on a temporary basis, it is not clear how the stream/river
or wetland will be restored to full function once the work is completed.
• The USACE Public Notice indicates that endangered species will be affected, but it does not
clarify which endangered species or what steps will be taken to protect these species. The
Cape Fear Shiner is an endangered species of known concern in the Haw River, but the Public
Notice indicates that "based on information provided by the Applicant" the Corps has
determined that with regards to the Cape Fear Shiner, this project "May Effect Not Likely to
Adversely Affect." What does this mean? Furthermore, what information did the applicant
provide and did the Corps verify this information?
• What steps will be taken to protect from further degradation the targeted waterways that
already suffer from sedimentation and erosion problems?
• Given the important role wetlands have in providing habitat for plants and animals and for the
eco-services they provide such as helping to control flooding and purifying air and water, it is
essential that disruption and destruction of wetlands be minimized and that alternatives to
preserve wetlands be given top priority. It is unclear what steps will be taken to minimize
wetland disturbance and what amount of effort will be made to find alternatives that avoid
disruption and destruction of wetlands.
• It is unclear what steps have been taken to inform EJ communities about the proposed plan
and what efforts have been made to get their input.
i

• Citizens were given very little time to review this complex application. The Public Notice was
issued on November 21, just as many citizens became heavily involved in holiday activities
and travel. The holiday season ended just 4 days before the final date for submission of
comments. This tight timetable definitely did not give concerned citizens adequate time to
review the proposal.
I hope that USACE will not grant the authorization requested by VinFast until all concerns about this
project are addressed. A Public Hearing on this VinFast application would be very helpful to address
the concerns myself and other citizens have about this proposal.
Thank you for your consideration,
T. Sharon Garbutt
Chatham County, North Carolina
The Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District will receive written comments pertinent to the proposed
work, as outlined above, until 5pm, January 5, 2023. Comments should be submitted to David E.
Bailey, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office,
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105 , Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587, at [phone].
Comments may also be submitted to [e-mail]
2

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: Bowers, Todd <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2022 2:43 PM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] EPA response to Public Notice SAW-2014-00610
Dave,
The EPA Region 4 Ocean, Wetlands and Streams Protection Branch has reviewed the subject Individual
Permit Public Notice under DA Action ID SAW-2014-00610 dated November 21, 2022. It is our understanding
that the applicants VinFast Manufacturing US, LLC and the North Carolina Department of Transportation are
seeking Department of the Army authorization to permanently discharge dredged or fill material into a total
of 3,688 linear feet of stream channel, 22.789 acres of wetlands, and 1.0 acre of open water
impoundments, and temporarily discharge dredged or fill material into a total of 4,095 linear feet of
stream channel and 14.292 acres of wetlands, associated with developing an electric vehicle (EV)
manufacturing complex and associated infrastructure in Chatham County, North Carolina.
According to the Public Notice, Applicant's Stated Purpose, and Project Description, the proposed Project
purpose is to create an automotive manufacturing facility capable of taking raw materials and producing
finished electric vehicles for sale in the US. VinFast would be responsible for the design, construction, and
mitigation requirements for the Project Blue portion of the Project. The North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) would be responsible for the design, construction, and mitigation requirements for the
State Transportation Improvement Project (STIP) # HE-0006) road improvements portion of the Project.
Additionally, VinFast would be entering into developer agreements with the City of Sanford, Dominion Energy,
and Duke Energy Progress to design, construct, and mitigate for the necessary offsite utilities connecting to the
Project Blue site.
VinFast would be responsible for mitigation associated with the construction of the Project Blue site. VinFast
proposes to mitigate for permanent impacts to wetlands by purchasing riparian wetland mitigation credits and
warm water stream
credits from the NC Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). NCDOT would use NCDMS for compensatory
mitigation for HE-0006 permanent stream and wetland impacts at a 2:1 ratio. The majority of the impacts
associated with the water, sewer, and natural gas utility improvements would be temporary in nature.
Temporary impacts to streams and wetlands would be re -graded and revegetated to preconstruction
conditions, however establishment of permanent utility maintenance easements is anticipated to result in
permanent loss of function to forested wetlands along the utility corridors. Mitigation for the loss of function for
conversion of forested wetlands to herbaceous wetlands is proposed at a 1:1 ratio, and mitigation credits would
be secured by available 3rd party mitigation bank credits and/or NCDMS.
Total compensatory mitigation proposed for the impacts outlined above will be credits equivalent to 54.40
acres of wetland and 7,022 If of streams.
At this time, EPA Region 4 has no site -specific comments or concerns with the project as presented in the
Public Notice.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on DA Action ID SAW-2014-00610 to discharge fill and
dredged material, associated with developing an electric vehicle (EV) manufacturing complex and associated
infrastructure in Chatham County, North Carolina.
Best Regards,
Todd Bowers
i

Todd Allen Bowers
US EPA Region 4 Oceans, Wetlands and Streams Protection Branch
61 Forsyth St. SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
919.523.2637 cell/telework
404.562.9225 office
[e-mail]
"Do unto those downstream as you would have those upstream do unto you."
— Wendell Berry
if LI I
1.4.4=
#troa�

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: Kinsey Shade <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2022 11:05 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] RE: US Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice
Good Morning, David Bailey:
Many thanks for the review request, SAW-20I4-006I0. Chatham County, North Carolina is outside the Cherokee Nation's Area of
Interest. Thus, this Office respectfully defers to federally recognized Tribes that have an interest in this land base at this time. There is
no need to contact our Office for reviews in Chatham County, North Carolina.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment upon this proposed undertaking. Please contact me if there are any questions or concerns.
Wado,
Kinsey Shade
Tribal Historic Preservation Office, Technician
Cherokee Nation Tribal Historic Preservation Office
P.O. Box 948
Tahlequah, OK 74465
(9I 8)207-3947
From: CESAW-PublicNoticeList <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2022 11:18 AM
Subject: <EXTERNAL> FW: US Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice
Importance: High
Good afternoon,
Please see the correction date for this PN:
SAW-2014-00610 (Vinfast / Moncure Megasite / Moncure Holdings LLC / Moncure Certified Site / Chatham and Lee
County)
Issue date: November 21, 2022
Expiration date : 5:00 p.m. December 21, 2022
From: CESAW-PublicNoticeList
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2022 2:16 PM
Subject: US Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice
Importance: High
As you requested, you are hereby notified that the Wilmington District, United States Corps of Engineers, has issued a
Public Notice. The text of this document can be found on the Public Notices portion of the Regulatory Division Home
Page. Each Public Notice is available in ADOBE ACROBAT (.pdf) format for viewing, printing or download at:
1

https://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory-Permit-Program/Public-Notices/
The current notice involves: SAW-2014-00610 (Vinfast / Moncure Megasite / Moncure Holdings LLC / Moncure Certified
Site / Chatham and Lee County)
Issue Date: 22 November 2022
Expiration Date: 5:00 p.m. December 22, 2022
Point of Contact: David Bailey
Email: [e-mail]
Project Description:
VinFast would be responsible for the design, construction, and mitigation requirements for the Protect Blue portion of
the Project. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) would be responsible for the design,
construction, and mitigation requirements for the State Transportation Improvement Project (STIP) # HE-0006) road
improvements portion of the Project. Additionally, VinFast would be entering into developer agreements with the City
of Sanford, Dominion Energy, and Duke Energy Progress to design, construct, and mitigate for the necessary offsite
utilities connecting to the Project Blue site.
Subscribe/Unsubscribe: This email was sent out as a result of subscribing to the Wilmington District regulatory program public notices. Please reply
to this email with the subject or message "unsubscribe" to remove your address from future mailings.
2

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 9:13 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: Jeffrey Lane <[e-mail]>
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2022 11:45 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
Jeffrey Lane
[e-mail]
518 Rosser Rd
Bear Creek, North Carolina 27207
i

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 9:13 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: Ben Clarke <[e-mail]>
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2022 10:34 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
Ben Clarke
[e-mail]
551 Hills of the Haw Rd
Pittsboro, North Carolina 27312
2

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 9:13 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: Jim Clarke <[e-mail]>
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2022 10:24 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
Best Regards, Jim Clarke
Jim Clarke
[e-mail]
4125 Mountainbrook Road
Apex, North Carolina 27539
3

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 9:13 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: Janelle Wolves <[e-mail]>
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2022 4:16 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
Janelle Wolves
Janelle Wolves
nomad247365(aprotonmail.com
6190 Cane Creek Ct
SNOW CAMP, North Carolina 27349
4

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 9:13 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: Philip Garriss <[e-mail]>
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2022 2:18 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
Philip Garriss
[e-mail]
1110 River Point Rd
Moncure, North Carolina 27559
5

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 9:12 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: Sinead Corrigan <[e-mail]>
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2022 1:43 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
Sinead Corrigan
[e-mail]
217 e Lenoir st
Raleigh , North Carolina 27601
6

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 9:12 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: Karen Parsons <[e-mail]>
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2022 1:07 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
Karen Parsons
[e-mail]
1160 The Preserve Trl
Chapel Hill , North Carolina 27517

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 9:12 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: Chris Houston <[e-mail]>
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2022 12:44 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
Chris Houston
[e-mail]
374 The Preserve Trail
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27517
8

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 9:12 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: Ina Fauser <[e-mail]>
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2022 10:39 AM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
Ina Fauser
[e-mail]
316 Dunwoody Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
9

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 9:12 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: Joy Hewett <[e-mail]>
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2022 10:26 AM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
Because our waters are so critical to life and the well being of our region, I am formally
requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough evaluation of
this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental organizations.
Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over 300 pages of
data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major federal and state
holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am requesting an extension
of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an approximate five week
extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive proposed environmental
impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
Joy Hewett
[e-mail]
3069 Silk Hope Gum Springs Rd.
Pittsboro, North Carolina 27312
10

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 9:12 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: Debra Baumeister <[e-mail]>
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2022 9:50 AM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
Debra Baumeister
[e-mail]
25 Creekside Circle#36
Pittsboro, North Carolina 27312
11

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 9:11 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: James Corrigan <[e-mail]>
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2022 7:12 AM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
James Corrigan
[e-mail]
106 Locust Court
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516
12

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 9:11 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: Chloe Corrigan <[e-mail]>
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2022 4:51 AM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
Chloe Corrigan
[e-mail]
7586 Moncure Pittsboro Rd
Moncure, North Carolina 27559
13

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 9:11 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: Thelma Sharon Garbutt <[e-mail]>
Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2022 8:51 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
Thelma Sharon Garbutt
[e-mail]
595 Pokeberry Lane
Pittsboro, North Carolina 27312
14

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 9:11 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: Patricia Smith <[e-mail]>
Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2022 8:49 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
Please allow this extension -hopefully
All can be resolved!
Patricia Smith
p.leemckee(a�gmail.com
453 Wildflower Ln
Siler City, North Carolina 27344
15

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 9:11 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: Jennifer Pauli <[e-mail]>
Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2022 6:31 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
Jennifer Pauli
[e-mail]
101 Wilder Rdg
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27517
16

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 9:10 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: Diana Emerson <[e-mail]>
Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2022 5:41 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
Diana Emerson
[e-mail]
100 Grady Apt #101
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27517
17

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 9:10 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: Martine Hemery <[e-mail]>
Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2022 4:16 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
Martine Hemery
[e-mail]
12 Randolph Court
Pittsboro , North Carolina 27312
18

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 9:10 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: Bob Brueckner <[e-mail]>
Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2022 2:53 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, environmental and
recreational organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and
comment on over 300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period
includes two major federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to
Christmas 2022. I am requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023.
This would be an approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very
extensive proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most
reasonable.
Bob Brueckner
[e-mail]
32 Sandstone Ridge Drive
Durham, North Carolina 27713
19

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 9:10 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2022 1:36 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
I and some others reviewed a similar dense proposal regarding far less significant impacts to
streams for a proposed new NC DOT road, and it was detailed, somewhat technical and time-
consuming. As it is, an extension til Feb 1 2023 is in practical terms going to mean a 30-day
review.
[e-mail]
390 Rocky Hills Rd
Pittsboro, North Carolina 27312
20

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 9:10 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: Mark Shalda <[e-mail]>
Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2022 10:41 AM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
Mark Shalda
[e-mail]
119 Edgefield St
Pittsboro, North Carolina 27312
21

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 9:10 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: Bronwyn Watson <[e-mail]>
Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2022 7:34 AM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
Bronwyn Watson
[e-mail]
72 Millbrook Dr
Pittsboro, North Carolina 27312
22

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 9:09 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: Judy Betterton <[e-mail]>
Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2022 7:15 AM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
Judy Betterton
[e-mail]
615 Millbrook Dr
Pittsboro, North Carolina 27312
23

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 9:09 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: Kim D'Amico <[e-mail]>
Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2022 6:57 AM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
Kim D'Amico
[e-mail]
180 Old Homestead Road
Pittsboro, North Carolina 27312
24

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 9:09 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: Rachel Sutton <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, December 9, 2022 10:02 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
Rachel Sutton
[e-mail]
535 Poplar Forest Lane
Pittsboro, North Carolina 27312
25

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 9:09 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: shawn conklin <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, December 9, 2022 8:33 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
shawn conklin
[e-mail]
322 Danbury court
Pittsboro , North Carolina 27312
26

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 9:07 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: Misty Finley <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, December 9, 2022 7:46 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
Misty Finley
[e-mail]
115 Oakwood Drive
Pittsboro , North Carolina 27312
27

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 9:07 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: Kevin Taylor <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, December 9, 2022 7:42 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
Kevin Taylor
[e-mail]
115 OAKWOOD DR
PITTSBORO, North Carolina 27312
28

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 9:07 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: Ronnie Duda <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, December 9, 2022 7:13 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
Ronnie Duda
[e-mail]
107 Freeman Drive
Pittsboro, North Carolina 27312
29

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 9:06 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: Sara Hoffman <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, December 9, 2022 7:10 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
Sara Hoffman
[e-mail]
2942 Knollcrest Hill Lane
High Point, North Carolina 27265
30

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 9:06 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: Kay Allen <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, December 9, 2022 6:28 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
Plus my family traveled quite a bit in Nov.
Thanks for considering this extension request.
Kay Allen
zkayc.biz(c�gmail.com
849 Pickett Lane
Pittsboro, North Carolina 27312
31

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 9:06 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Categories: Red Category
From: Owen Dodge <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, December 9, 2022 5:39 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
Owen Dodge
[e-mail]
1576 Great Ridge Parkway
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516
32

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 9:06 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: Rebekkah Cote <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, December 9, 2022 4:56 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
Rebekkah Cote
[e-mail]
PO Box 292
Bynum, North Carolina 27228
33

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 9:05 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: Catherine Nakayama <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, December 9, 2022 4:41 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
Thanks so much, Catherine Nakayama, nurse practitioner
Catherine Nakayama
cathyknakayama(c�gmail.com
59 N Wickham Dr.
Pittsboro, North Carolina 27312
34

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 9:05 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: RAYMOND WILLIAMS <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, December 9, 2022 4:35 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
Most people are very busy during this holiday season (both with work and social events), and
suffer from sensory overload, so even getting people to be aware of the issues involved is
difficult. For them to find the time to read and understand the application data in such a short
time is also difficult. Providing an extension would led to more thoughtful analysis and
comments on the proposal.
RAYMOND WILLIAMS
[e-mail]
245 Tanyard Road, #4
ROCKY MOUNT, Virginia 24151
35

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 9:05 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, December 9, 2022 4:30 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
[e-mail]
3000 Galloway Ridge E209
Pittsboro, North Carolina 27312
36

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 9:05 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, December 9, 2022 4:24 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations.
Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over 300 pages of
data in this application, and the comment period includesThanksgiving and days leading up to
Christmas 2022.
I am requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is reasonable.
[e-mail]
3469 Amick Road
Elon, North Carolina 27244
37

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 9:05 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: Zachariah Schiada <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, December 9, 2022 4:21 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
Zachariah Schiada
[e-mail]
133 Ironcreek pl
Apex, North Carolina 27539
38

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 9:04 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Unknown][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW -
2014-00610
From: Betty Garrison <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, December 9, 2022 4:17 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Unknown][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
Betty Garrison
[e-mail]
140 Tarleton Ave
Burlington, North Carolina 27215
39

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 9:04 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: Noah Foreman <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, December 9, 2022 4:11 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
Noah Foreman
[e-mail]
440 Powell Place Lane
Pittsboro, North Carolina 27312
40

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 9:04 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: Barbara Wallace <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, December 9, 2022 4:02 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
Barbara Wallace
[e-mail]
1935 Great Ridge Parkway
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516
41

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 9:04 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Dave,
Please see the message below.
Thanks,
Jho
From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, December 9, 2022 4:00 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
[e-mail]
1809 Lakepark Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27612
42

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 9:03 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Dave,
Please see the message below.
Thanks,
Jho
From: Donald Fleming <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, December 9, 2022 3:39 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
Donald Fleming
[e-mail]
74 N Wickham Dr,
Pittsboro, North Carolina 27312
43

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 9:02 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Dave,
Please see the message below.
Thanks,
Jho
From: Elaine Chiosso <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 8:20 AM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
Elaine Chiosso
[e-mail]
1076 Rock Rest Rd
Pittsboro, North Carolina 27312
44

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 3:16 PM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: Joseph Smith <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 3:14 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
Joseph Smith
[e-mail]
402 s maple st
Graham, North Carolina 27253
1

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 3:11 PM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: Matthew Tann <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 3:02 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
Matthew Tann
tann [e-mail]
1944 New Elam Church Rd
New Hill, North Carolina 27562
2

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 10:53 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: Keely Puricz <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 10:32 AM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
Keely Puricz
[e-mail]
363 Angel Road
Sanford, North Carolina 27330
3

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 3:05 PM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: Martha Girolami <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 3:02 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
Martha Girolami
[e-mail]
473 Mt. Pisgah Church Rd.
Apex, North Carolina 27523
i

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 1:34 PM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: Susan Stines <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 12:22 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
Susan Stines
[e-mail]
104 Bedbrook Ct
Cary, North Carolina 27519
2

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 1:34 PM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: John Chiaro <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 1:20 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
John Chiaro
[e-mail]
33 cottage way
Pittsboro, North Carolina 27312
3

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 11:15 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Dave,
Please see the email below.
Thanks,
Jho
From: John Runkle <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 11:11 AM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
Please extend the comment period on the VVinFast 404 Permit to February 1, 2023, to allow
a more thorough evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and
environmental organizations. A month is inadequate to carefully review and comment on the
application and in particular, the comment period is inadequate as it included numerous
holidays. This is a major project with potentially significant impacts that needs a fair review by
your agency.
John Runkle
[e-mail]
2121 Damascus Church Rd
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516
4

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 10:00 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: Chris Tommerdahl <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 9:55 AM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
Chris Tommerdahl
[e-mail]
107 Folks Trail
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516
5

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 9:25 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: Therese Vick <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 9:03 AM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and the days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five -week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
Therese Vick
Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League
Therese Vick
[e-mail]
623 East Horne Street
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
6

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 9:03 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: Ron Crammer <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 8:56 AM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
It seems like the voice of progress is crushing the voice of nature and our watershed areas.
There is a complete disregard for nature the estuaries being destroyed in the name of
progress. Add to that, the elephant in the room.... the production of batteries is unsustainable
and destroying the earth through mineral strip mining and add to that, child labor in other
countries. Battery production is horrible for the environment.
Ron Crammer
[e-mail]
48 Sky Lane
Pittsboro, North Carolina 27312

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 8:47 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: Heather Piskorik <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 8:32 AM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
Heather Piskorik
[e-mail]
475 Millbrook Drive
Pittsboro , North Carolina 27312
8

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 7:51 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: Allison Weakley <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 10:15 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
As a water resources professional and Chatham resident, I am formally requesting that the
period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough evaluation of this application by
the general public, affected landowners, and environmental organizations. Three to four
weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over 300 pages of data in this
application. In addition, the comment period includes two major federal and state holidays;
Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am requesting an extension of the
comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an approximate five week extension,
which given the time of year and the very extensive proposed environmental impact on North
Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable. Thank you for your consideration.
Allison Weakley
[e-mail]
230 Dogwood Lane
Pittsboro, North Carolina 27312
9

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 7:33 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: Mary Ann Perkins <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 4:13 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
Mary Ann Perkins
[e-mail]
3045 Corinth Rd
Moncure, North Carolina 27559
10

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 7:32 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: Don Corley <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 4:51 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
Don Corley
[e-mail]
20 caswell
Pittsboro, North Carolina 27312
11

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 7:04 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: Annie Tann <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 3:29 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
Annie Tann
[e-mail]
1944 New Elam Church Rd
New Hill, North Carolina 27562
12

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 7:04 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: John Wagner <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 10:08 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the comment period for SAW - 2014-00610 be extended until
February 1st, 2023. The current time deadline is far too short to allow careful review and
consideration of the more than 300 pages of the application. It is totally unreasonable that the
comment period was set between two major holidays.
This project has the potential for major significant impacts on streams and wetlands. Please
allow this additional time for the public to review and comment on the project.
Thank you,
John Wagner
John Wagner
john [e-mail]
210 Jessamine Ln
Pittsboro, North Carolina 27312
13

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2022 11:07 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Cc: Gibby, Jean B CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [Non-DoD Source] Objection to project
Dave,
Please see the message below.
Thanks,
Jho
Original Message
From: David Yarborough <[e-mail]>
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2022 9:08 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Objection to project
We received two postcards of Public Notice" for SAW-2014-00610. Both stated "Specific plans and location information
are described below and shown on the attached plans". We received no attachments. I did look at the website. It said
much of what I expected. No matter the findings, the project will have little to no impact and it will benefit the
economy. When people are forced from their homes and forced to give up their land it is a very bad thing, big impact,
no benefit. This area already has industry, but it also has a rural area that others envy. Expanding the industrial part will
ruin a beautiful area of NC where tax paying citizens enjoy life without the awfulness of busy city life. If you continue to
industrialize, no one will have truly undisturbed land in which to live, hike, hunt, explore, bask in fresh air. By the way, a
man made park is a poor excuse for "getting back to nature". I know the state and Vinfast will do whatever they chose. I
do not support any of the project. I do not think that anyone should be forced to sell their property. Let those who want
this give up their home and land that has been in their family for over 100 years. If residents and property owners do not
lose their property now they most likely will when it comes time to dispose of the EV batteries. If I actually had a vote
on this entire mega project mess it would be NO.
Mrs. T. Yarborough
1

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Thursday, December 1, 2022 9:47 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [Non-DoD Source] Corps Action ID Number: SAW-2014-00610 - PUBLIC NOTICE / REQUEST FOR
COMMENT / EXTENSION OF REVIEW PERIOD
Importance: High
Dave,
Please see the message below.
Thanks,
Jho
From: Bill Bell <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2022 7:55 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Corps Action ID Number: SAW-2014-00610 - PUBLIC NOTICE / REQUEST FOR COMMENT /
EXTENSION OF REVIEW PERIOD
Attn:
Mr. David E. Bailey
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office:
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Dear Mr. David E. Bailey:
I received via the US Postal Service mail on November 28th a written notification of Request for Comment on SAW -
2014-00610 dated November 21, 2022 and otherwise known as project:
1) NCDOT STIP #HE-0006,
2) PROJECT BLUE, and
3) Corps Action ID Number: SAW-2014-00610
BACKGROUND: The communication notifies me of an application filed on November 8, 2022, from VinFast
Manufacturing US, LLC seeking Department of the Army authorization to permanently discharge dredged or fill material
into a total of 3,688 linear feet of stream channel, 22.789 acres of wetlands, and 1.0 acre of open water impoundments,
and temporarily discharge dredged or fill material into a total of 4,095 linear feet of stream channel and 14.292 acres of
wetlands, associated with developing an electric vehicle (EV) manufacturing complex and associated infrastructure in
Chatham County, North Carolina.
The notification states that The Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District will receive written comments pertinent to the
proposed work, as outlined above, until 5pm, December 22, 2022. I have begun review of the submitted application
totaling approximately 300 pages of:
1) engineering schema including topo maps, watershed maps, legal descriptions of the specific waterways of the US
navigable waterway system,
2) North Carolina and Chatham County maps of streams and wetlands, and
1

3) Detailed engineering descriptions of NCDOT and VINFAST (applicants) plans to discharge soils and potential
construction waste materials into the waters on NC.
INITIAL COMMENT: Initial comment is there internal inconsistency in the maps and description of the assets affected.
REQUEST: I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough evaluation of
this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental organizations. Three to four weeks is
inadequate to carefully review and comment on over 300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment
period includes two major federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an approximate five week
extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive proposed environmental impact on North Carolina
streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
Thank you for considering my request.
Sincerely,
William N Bell
3004 Brennan Drive
Raleigh, NC 27613
919-208-1034
This e-mail and any file transmitted with it may contain PRIVILEGED or CONFIDENTIAL information and is intended solely
for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. This communication may contain material protected by
the attorney -client privilege. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail to
the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination,
distribution, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,
please purge it and immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail or contact us at [phone].
2

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2022 9:35 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: Lewis Caraganis <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2022 9:32 AM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
Lewis Caraganis
[e-mail]
285 River Bend Road
Siler City , North Carolina 27344
i

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2022 7:28 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: Michael Lobb <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2022 7:23 AM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
Michael Lobb
[e-mail]
124 Heatherwood Drive
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516
2

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2022 7:09 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] SAW-2014-00610: Deny VinFast Permit
From: Erica Ragan <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2022 6:13 AM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] SAW-2014-00610: Deny VinFast Permit
Mr. David Bailey,
Mr. David Bailey,
Due to the permanent destruction of our vital streams and wetlands, I request for Army Corps
to deny the 404 permit based on the following concerns:
This project —if approved —would have a large and lasting negative impact on the
environment. VinFast is proposing to discharge materials into thousands of feet of streams
and also block many acres of wetlands (which are vital to not only wildlife, but also buffering
flooding). As climate events become more and more extreme, we need to make sure we are
protecting streams and wetlands; otherwise, we might experience greater flooding, tainted
water, and other negative effects.
Thank you for considering my request.
Sincerely,
Erica Ragan
Erica Ragan
[e-mail]
112 Terasina Ct
Apex, North Carolina 27502
i

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2022 7:09 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] SAW-2014-00610: Deny VinFast Permit
From: David Thomas <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 10:13 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] SAW-2014-00610: Deny VinFast Permit
Mr. David Bailey,
Mr. David Bailey,
Due to the permanent destruction of our vital streams and wetlands, I request for Army Corps
to deny the 404 permit based on the following concerns:
[Please personalize this section of your comments!]
David Thomas
[e-mail]
2479 Briar Chapel Parkway
Chapel Hill , North Carolina 27516
2

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2022 7:10 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] SAW-2014-00610: Deny VinFast Permit
From: Kara LaBella <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 5:44 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] SAW-2014-00610: Deny VinFast Permit
Mr. David Bailey,
Mr. David Bailey,
Due to the permanent destruction of our vital streams and wetlands, I request for Army Corps
to deny the 404 permit based on the following concerns:
Please do better to protect our environment.
Kara LaBella
[e-mail]
52 Cottage Way
Pittsboro, North Carolina 27312
3

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2022 7:44 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] SAW-2014-00610: Deny VinFast Permit
From: Ember Penney <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2022 7:30 AM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] SAW-2014-00610: Deny VinFast Permit
Mr. David Bailey,
Dear Mr. David Bailey,
I request for Army Corps to deny the 404 permit based on its horrific consequences to the
Haw River and its surrounding wetlands. I grew up on the Haw River and have lived here for
the past 19 years. Anyone who's been in Chatham or surrounding counties knows how
important our waterways are to the ecosystem. This could be detrimental to the Haw's fish
and the birds that need them for food such as the Bald Eagle.
VinFast should not be able to destroy these lands for their convenience. Any responsible
contractor needs to come up with responsible and effective plans to dispose of their waste
instead of dumping it in our wetlands. Please preserve the environmental integrity of Pittsboro
and protect our wildlife by denying the 404 permit for VinFast.
Thank you,
Ember
Ember Penney
[e-mail]
1133 River Rd.
Pittsboro, North Carolina 27312
4

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2022 8:16 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] SAW-2014-00610: Deny VinFast Permit
From: Scott Crews <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2022 8:07 AM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] SAW-2014-00610: Deny VinFast Permit
Mr. David Bailey,
Mr. David Bailey,
Due to the permanent destruction of our vital streams and wetlands, I request for Army Corps
to deny the 404 permit based on the following concerns:
We need clean water and less damage to our water systems.
Scott Crews
[e-mail]
1953 Haw Village Dr.
Graham, North Carolina 27253
5

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2022 2:12 PM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] SAW-2014-00610: Deny VinFast Permit
From: Z Moore <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2022 2:09 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] SAW-2014-00610: Deny VinFast Permit
Mr. David Bailey,
Mr. David Bailey,
Due to the permanent destruction of our vital streams and wetlands, I request for Army Corps
to deny the 404 permit based on the following concerns:
Bringing an environmentally friendly company negates itself when they will be destroying the
environment. Please deny.thus permit amd force them.to reconsider their proposed plans to
be more conscious of our beautiful area.
Z Moore
[e-mail]
Harden st
Graham, North Carolina 27253
1

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2022 7:13 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] SAW-2014-00610: Deny VinFast Permit
From: Charlie Smith <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2022 6:36 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] SAW-2014-00610: Deny VinFast Permit
Mr. David Bailey,
Mr. David Bailey,
Due to the permanent destruction of our vital streams and wetlands, I request for Army Corps
to deny the 404 permit based on the following concerns:
The streams and wetlands along the Haw and Cape Fear rivers are extremely important to
me, and my understanding is that this permit would allow VinFast to damage them. There is
already a shortage of wetlands available for wildlife and recreation along the Cape Fear, and
I'm against any plan that would shrink those areas. Growing up in the Cape Fear river basin
some of my fondest memories are swimming, catching fish, and duck hunting in these waters.
I'm all for jobs, but at the end of the day it's the residents of NC who will have to live with
these consequences, not the owners of VinFast.
Charlie Smith
smithcf9l @gmail.com
219 Auburn Lane
Pittsboro , North Carolina 27312
2

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2022 7:12 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] SAW-2014-00610: Deny VinFast Permit
From: Judith Brooks <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2022 4:39 AM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] SAW-2014-00610: Deny VinFast Permit
Mr. David Bailey,
Mr. David Bailey,
Due to the permanent destruction of our vital streams and wetlands, I request for Army Corps
to deny the 404 permit based on the following concerns:
Please look closely the placement of VinFast as once these important wetlands are gone they
can not be replaced. The health of our water systems effects the health of our children and
future generations.
Judith Brooks
Judith Brooks
[e-mail]
PO Box 263
Saxapahaw, North Carolina 27340
3

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2022 10:15 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: Charlie Greene <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2022 9:33 AM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
Charlie Greene
[e-mail]
54 Golden Heather
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27527
i

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2022 8:12 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: Griselda Barrera <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2022 8:03 AM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
Griselda Barrera
qrisnoe [e-mail]
1105 Highway 54 Byp
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516
2

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2022 8:11 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: Sarah Goddin <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2022 8:00 AM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
Sarah Goddin
[e-mail]
190 Ilex
Pittsboro, North Carolina 27312
3

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2022 7:37 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: Peter Theye <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2022 7:31 AM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
Peter Theye
[e-mail]
1065 Boothe Hill Road
Chapel Hill , North Carolina 27517
4

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2022 7:13 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: Donna Horvath <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2022 5:25 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
Donna Horvath
[e-mail]
321 RECTORY ST, APT 415, APT 415
Pittsboro, North Carolina 27312
5

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2022 9:18 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: Gerald Pottern <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2022 7:43 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
Gerald Pottern
[e-mail]
104 East Chestnut Ave
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
i

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2022 10:51 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: Susan Alexander <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2022 10:40 AM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
Susan Alexander
[e-mail]
784 Gilliam Rd
Sanford, North Carolina 27330
2

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2022 7:33 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: John Hirko <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2022 11:59 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
John Hirko
[e-mail]
194 Gregory Fork Road
Richlands , North Carolina 28574
i

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2022 7:33 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
From: Mary Thomas <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2022 8:31 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for Comment Extension on SAW - 2014-00610
Mr. David Bailey,
I am formally requesting that the period for Comment be extended to allow a more thorough
evaluation of this application by the general public, affected landowners, and environmental
organizations. Three to four weeks is inadequate to carefully review and comment on over
300 pages of data in this application. In addition, the comment period includes two major
federal and state holidays; Thanksgiving and days leading up to Christmas 2022. I am
requesting an extension of the comment period to February 1st, 2023. This would be an
approximate five week extension, which given the time of year and the very extensive
proposed environmental impact on North Carolina streams and rivers, is most reasonable.
Mary Thomas
[e-mail]
3000 Briarcliffe Road
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27106
2

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2022 10:54 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] SAW-2014-00610: Deny VinFast Permit
From: Cara Brackins <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2022 8:11 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] SAW-2014-00610: Deny VinFast Permit
Mr. David Bailey,
Mr. David Bailey,
Due to the permanent destruction of our vital streams and wetlands, I request for Army Corps
to deny the 404 permit.
Cara Beth Brackins
Cara Brackins
[e-mail]
94 Justice Ridge Rd
Candler, North Carolina 28715
i

1527 Clearwater Dr.
Sanford, N.C. 27330
December 12, 2022
Mr. David E. Bailey
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, N.0 27587
Dear Sir:
I am writing to express my opposition to VinFast's request to
allow them to discharge manufacturing waste into wet lands. If
this request is approved, it will open another Pandora's Box! It
will be just a matter of time before rains will cause over flow
onto other properties which will lower the land value. It will be
just a matter of time before wells will be contaminated. It will
be just a matter of time before the pollution will reach the Cape
Fear River which supplies drinking water to several towns.
Humans will not be the only ones affected if the proposal is
approved. Wildlife will suffer because natural habitats will be
polluted or destroyed.

Wet lands have been protected for a reason. Remember the
problems caused by coal ash disposal. Remember the problems
caused by the pollution at Camp Lejeune. Don't let that happen
again. Do not approve the VinFast request. There has to be a
better solution. Maybe they could store their manufacturing
waste in tanks on property that they already own.
Please do not approve VinFast's request to discharge
manufacturing waste into wet lands.
Save Chatham County's natural resources.
Yours truly,
1/4.-/&,,x,aec )4, ,-2)
Nancy G. Walden

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2023 7:55 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: Vinfast permit
From: Joy Hewett <[e-mail]>
Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2022 11:37 AM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Vinfast permit
Dec. 31, 2022
Dear US Corps of Engineers:
Regarding VinFast Stream and Wetland 404 Permit in Chatham County, please consider the priority of a clean
and healthy environment over a car manufacturing facility. All residents of the region will be impacted by the
quality of water and air affected both now and in the future. Alternatives to their permit plans should be found
to ensure preservation of natural areas, wetlands and streams needed for our quality of life to be maintained.
Chatham County requires removal of most sedimentation materials before being discharged and the ongoing
construction will continue to affect streams in the area unless alternatives are found. From what I understand 47
streams will be permanently affected by the construction of this plant unless better alternatives to environmental
damage are implemented. Dredged materials need to be considered carefully in plans with alternatives that
won't harm streams.
As a long time resident of North Carolina, I have enjoyed recreational activities on the Deep, Haw, and Cape
Fear Rivers. Drilling or construction activities for Vinfast may impact these beautiful rivers; the water quality
for drinking sources the rivers provide is more important to the populations of NC than a manufacturing plant
that may or may not succeed. Alternatives to carrying fracked gas across these should be found, although
fracked gas is a harmful source for energy and implementation of green of energy sources should be an
innovative priority instead.
Alternatives to the plans Vinfast has put forth should prioritize habitat for our wildlife and the ecosystems that
have sustained them; maintaining environmentally sensitive topography and ecosystems prevents flooding and
runoff as well as preserves valuable natural areas for benefits to human and animal life. Alternatives to
destroying 85 wetlands should be a priority for the US Corps of Engineers and NCDEQ. The role of cleansing
our waters through wetlands is well known; protection from industrial pollutants benefits us all.
Over and over we have to fight to protect forests, aquatic and land animals impacted by natural area losses,
impaired streams, rivers; and have to fight to protect natural areas we all need for human health. With climate
change and pollution threatening the quality of life for all people, preservation of natural areas, wetlands,
streams and rivers is critical. Protecting our landscape and waterscapes should be a top priority with finding
green alternatives and infrastructure that sustain life rather than harm it as Vinfast builds its plant.
You can require alternatives that protect rather than harm the environment for people in our region and beyond.
Sincerely,
1

Joy Hewett
3069 Silk Hope Gum Springs Rd.
Pittsboro, NC 27312
vers. Drilling or construction activities for Vinfast may impact these beautiful rivers; the water quality for
drinking sources the rivers provide is more important to the populations of NC than a manufacturing plant that
may or may not succeed. Alternatives to carrying fracked gas across these should be found, although fracked
gas is a harmful source for energy and implementation of green of energy sources should be an innovative
priority instead.
Alternatives to the plans Vinfast has put forth should prioritize habitat for our wildlife and the ecosystems that
have sustained them; maintaining environmentally sensitive topography and ecosystems prevents flooding and
runoff as well as preserves valuable natural areas for benefits to human and animal life. Alternatives to
destroying 85 wetlands should be a priority for the US Corps of Engineers and NCDEQ. The role of cleansing
our waters through wetlands is well known; protection from industrial pollutants benefits us all.
Over and over we have to fight to protect forests, aquatic and land animals impacted by natural area losses,
impaired streams, rivers; and have to fight to protect natural areas we all need for human health. With climate
change and pollution threatening the quality of life for all people, preservation of natural areas, wetlands,
streams and rivers is critical. Protecting our landscape and waterscapes should be a top priority with finding
green alternatives and infrastructure that sustain life rather than harm it as Vinfast builds its plant.
You can require alternatives that protect rather than harm the environment for people in our region and beyond.
Sincerely,
2

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2023 7:55 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [Non-DoD Source] VinFast - Comments regarding impacts to streams and wetlands
Dave,
Please see the message below.
Thanks,
Jho
From: Susan Kelemen <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, January 2, 2023 3:16 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] VinFast - Comments regarding impacts to streams and wetlands
To Whom It May Concern:
As a resident of Chatham County, I have a number of concerns about VinFast's application to the Core of Engineers.
The permit application has inconsistencies regarding streams and wetlands impacted.
85 different wetlands totaling 105 acres would be destroyed. 47 individual streams would be impacted.
More detailed analysis on the impacts to water systems needs to be conducted.
VinFast also must address the remediation they would do to accommodate these impacts on the water systems.
Yours truly,
Susan Kelemen
90 Quartz Hill Road
Pittsboro, NC 27312
1

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 7:50 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [Non-DoD Source] DENY the 404 permit for VinFast!
From: Shannon Bueker <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2023 1:00 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] DENY the 404 permit for VinFast!
Dear Army Corps of Engineers,
I am a very concerned Chatham county resident and long-time Haw River Streamwatch keeper. Please protect our
streams, wetlands and river! Having been a streamwatch participant for many years, I learned about the
macroinvertebrate life in our creeks and streams. I saw Brooks Creek muddy and turn red during construction upstream.
I saw the numbers of vital small creature life go down, smothered by that mud.
I have read through the Haw River Assembly's report on the VinFast proposal and seen photos of the development site
in relation to Shaddox Creek (close by!). On a rainy day like this, it's all too clear how connected the waterways are in
this county and how all the overflowing creeks and waterways run to the river.
The VinFast corporation seeks your permission to 'Permanently discharge dredged or fill material into 3,688 linear feet
of stream channel, 22.789 acres of wetlands and 1.0 acre of open water and also temporarily discharge dredge material
into 4,095 linear feet of stream channel and 14.292 acres of wetlands..'
AND the proposed development would also use Horizontal Directional Drilling to transport fracked gas beneath the Haw,
the Deep, and the Cape Fear River!! This is troubling and potentially devastating if mishandled.
So many ecosystems are connected here by water and so many human and non- human beings depend on the river and
creeks for water!
Please demand more information, complete impact reports and more input from VinFast on this proposal. Please Deny
the 404 permit.
Thank you for your time,
Shannon Bueker
167 Eddie Perry Road, Pittsboro
1

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 7:48 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [Non-DoD Source] Vinfast construction impact on the Haw River and other waterways
Original Message
From: Billie Hinton <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2023 8:37 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Vinfast construction impact on the Haw River and other waterways
I live in Moncure on a small horse farm and have for 18 years. We have lived through the dumping of coal ash, the air
particle quality deteriorated by the plywood factories, and now we are looking at another huge construction and
industrial plant that is without question going to negatively impact our environment.
It appears the Haw River is already being negatively impacted.
This project needs to be held to the highest accountability for its impact on our environment, our waterways, wildlife, air
quality, and groundwater contamination. I have written to every elected official I have to write to asking where is the
impact study on what this kind of industry does to the communities around it, with not a single response.
Everyone is ranting about how amazing this is with jobs and the economy in Chatham County. This means nothing if
along with it comes the next environmental disaster.
I remain completely disgusted with the lack of care that is given to our land and waterways. North Carolina is one of the
most beautiful states in the country and we need to treasure and protect its beauty, for beauty's sake, but more
importantly for the health and wellbeing of our insects, birds, small mammals, and ourselves. We live in an ecosystem
and we need to do our part to actively NOT destroy it.
Please hold Vinfast and every single contractor on this site to the most stringent of standards. Those of us who live here
rely on that.
Best,
Billie Hinton
November Hill Farm
196 Meadow View Drive
Moncure, NC 27559
Sent from my iPad
1

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 7:47 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [Non-DoD Source] Vinfast permit
From: Francisco Plaza <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2023 9:28 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Vinfast permit
To the US Army Corp of Engineers
Regarding the permit request for the construction of the Vinfast EV manufacturing facility, I'm writing today to add my
comments to the public record.
First and foremost, our natural waterways and their health are integral to the health of the environment that sustains us
and all living beings. Their destruction must always be a last resort and only after exhaustive attempts to find
alternatives. It is my firm belief that this project should make every effort to prioritize the health of the natural
waterways it impacts as well as the surrounding plant, animal and human communities.
After reviewing the permit application I find little evidence that Vinfast has made a sufficient analysis of the impacts on
the natural environment. In fact, to suggest that impacts to streams and wetlands is "minimal", when 105 acres of
wetlands would be destroyed in the construction process is disingenuous at best. This, in addition to the fact that Phase
1A of the project has resulted in considerable sedimentation of Shaddox creek, suggests that little effort has been made
of to minimize degradation to streams and wetlands.
I am not of the mind that this project shouldn't happen at all. I do, however, believe that the permitting process should
be rigorous and allow more time for public comment and the review of social and environmental justice organizations. I
appreciate the opportunity to add my comments today and hope that they will be seriously considered.
Sincerely,
Francisco Plaza
806 Spring St, Hillsborough, NC 27278
1

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 8:54 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [Non-DoD Source] VINFAST comment
From: Erin Gallagher<[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 8:35 AM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] VINFAST comment
As the daughter of an Army Ranger and the sister of an Army National Guard reservist, I am writing today to urge you to
take the advice of the local population and cancel your plans for this development until you can find a more sustainable
way to accomplish the goal. This project will destroy creeks and wetlands which are crucial for our health and the health
of our ecosystem. Use that Army Corps of Engineers ingenuity and find a way to balance the development with the
needs of the community and ecosystem. Heard, understood, acknowledged?
Erin Gallagher
9802147474
1

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Friday, January 6, 2023 8:25 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] SAW-2014-00610: Deny VinFast Permit
From: Julia Hartsell <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 6:51 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] SAW-2014-00610: Deny VinFast Permit
Mr. David Bailey,
Mr. David Bailey,
Due to the permanent destruction of our vital streams and wetlands, I request for Army Corps
to deny the 404 permit.
This could harm the Haw River, its inhabitants and humans in this watershed. Please protect
our water and lives throughout the Piedmont.
Julia Hartsell
[e-mail]
2196 Tom Stevens Rd
Siler City, North Carolina 27344
1

Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: RaleighNCREG
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 7:47 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: FW: VinFast Stream and Wetland 404 Permit
From: Susan McMichaels <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 6:56 AM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Cc: Susan McMichaels <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] VinFast Stream and Wetland 404 Permit
VinFast's application to The Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers on November 8, 2022 seeks
authorization, "to permanently discharge dredged or fill material into a total of 3,688 linear feet of stream
channel, 22.789 acres of wetlands, and 1.0 acre of open water impoundments, and temporarily discharge
dredged or fill material into a total of 4,095 linear feet of stream channel and 14.292 acres of wetlands,
associated with developing an electric vehicle (EV) manufacturing complex and associated infrastructure in
Chatham County, North Carolina."
I live on Wilkinson Creek in Chatham County and am concerned about fast tracking VinFast's Stream and
Woodland 404 Permit.
My first concern with the application is a lack of specificity about what fill material will be discharged, some
temporarily and some permanently, into the streams, wetlands and open water impoundments.
My second concern is about mitigating the permanent damage caused by such extensive dredging and filling.
VinFast, and the entities providing support infrastructure, plan to mitigate permanent damage by purchasing
credits from the NC Division of Mitigation Services. Chatham County and the impacted creeks and wetlands
will not benefit from these mitigation efforts because at this time no private mitigation banks with available
assets are available. The mitigation credits will be used elsewhere in the state.
There is another mitigation option worth considering. Permittee-responsible mitigation could be implemented
in closer proximity to the already heavily -industrialized location of VinFast's Project Blue as well as the creeks
and wetlands impacted by supporting infrastructure.
i

My third concern about the application is that it's incomplete. Some information about the impact of the project
on streams and wetlands is still under review. Designating impacts as temporary or permanent without adequate
information is problematic.
Also, VinFast's application to the NC Division of Water Resources was not completed and has not been
reviewed as part of the permitting process.
In addition, there are pending/ongoing assessments of cultural resources, including historic properties and
possible historic and prehistoric sites.
The Stream and Woodland 404 Permit application needs a complete and specific assessment of impacts and a
better mitigation plan prior to approval.
Thank you for your consideration.
Susan McMichaels
2