20211576 Ver 1_USACE More Info Requested_20230421

Baker, Caroline D
From:Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent:Friday, April 21, 2023 4:38 PM
To:Hartshorn, Jason; [e-mail]; Teague, Jeff L
Cc:Mellor, Colin; Homewood, Sue; Bowers, Todd; Jason Steele
Subject:\[External\] Request for Additional Information: Vinfast electric vehicle (EV)
manufacturing complex and associated infrastructure (Project Blue, NCDOT HE-0006,
City of Sanford Utilities); SAW-2014-00610
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Report suspicious emails with the Report Message
button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab.

All,

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. Please also reference the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Wilmington District (Corps) public notice for this project dated November 21, 2022, and letter containing
agency and public comments and requesting additional information dated January 27, 2023. Following receipt of your
response letter dated March 10, 2023, and subsequent review, additional items are required to be resolved prior to
continuing to process your permit request:

1) Overall:
a. Note that, on April 18, 2023, the Corps responded via letter to those requesting a public hearing stating
that one would not be held for this application.
b. Please provide all proposed stream impacts on all relevant tables in acres as well as linear feet.
c. As previously noted, 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 may be required for these species upon their
listing.

2) Project Blue:
a. Previously we requested an updated delineation reflecting the changes made during the verification site
visits for the Project Blue phase 3 site. In your response you stated “The attached Figure 3 is revised to
include the updated delineation changes based on the USACE verification site visits conducted in
December 2022.” However, Figure 3 could not be located in your response package.
i. Please provide this updated Corps verified delineation, ensuring also that those changes are
reflected on overlapping sections of the NCDOT HE-0006 and Utilities delineation.
ii. Please also provide GIS shapefiles of the Corps verified delineation within the Project Blue
project area, including the correct delineation for the overlapping sections of the NCDOT HE-
0006 delineation.
b. Please provide an updated overall site plan for Alternative 4, ensuring to clearly label all proposed
stream/wetland crossing locations. Please also incorporate the rework you referenced for the Phase 3
layout based on the Corps-verified delineation of potential waters of the US.
1

c. For Phase 3, please provide a zoomed-in plan view showing all proposed impacts, profile view along the
proposed culvert, and cross-section of any rip rap pad(s) for the proposed crossing of Stream S123
mentioned in your response.
d. “Rip Rap Basin” is a label shown at each road crossing culvert outlet. Please further explain what is
meant by this term, as we are concerned about the implications of “basins” versus maintaining the
existing grade/contour of the stream channel.
e. Impact Site 1:
i. The three-box design appears to overwiden the wetted low-flow stream channel, potentially
spreading low (typically summer) flows too thin to provide adequate aquatic life passage
through the structure. Please redesign this structure to maintain the low flow width of the
existing stream channel through the minimum number of boxes as possible, with any additional
necessary boxes designed to only receive bank-full flows. As typified in the Nationwide Permit
Regional terms and conditions:
Culverts shall be designed and installed in such a manner that the original stream profiles are not
altered and allow for aquatic life movement during low flows. The dimension, pattern, and
profile of the stream above and below a pipe or culvert shall not be modified by widening the
stream channel or by reducing the depth of the stream in connection with the construction
activity. The width, height, and gradient of a proposed culvert shall be such as to pass the
average historical low flow and spring flow without adversely altering flow velocity. If the width
of the culvert is wider than the stream channel, the culvert shall include multiple boxes/pipes,
baffles, benches and/or sills to maintain the natural width of the stream channel. If multiple
culverts/pipes/barrels are used, low flows shall be accommodated in one culvert/pipe and
additional culverts/pipes shall be installed such that they receive only flows above bankfull.
ii. Please provide a profile view along the proposed culvert showing the elevations of the culvert
boxes relative to the stream bed (thalweg) elevation;
iii. Please provide a cross-section view of the proposed rip rap pad. It is our understanding that,
given the length of the rip rap pad proposed and slight alteration of the channel alignment in its
footprint, that compensatory mitigation is being proposed for stream impacts due to this rip rap
pad;
f. Impact Site 2:
i. The plan view appears to show a re-alignment of the existing stream channel in the footprint of
the proposed rip rap pad. The Corps understands the reasons for such a design/alignment, but
such a re-alignment would be considered a loss of waters/function and therefore warrant
compensatory mitigation in the stream footprint currently labeled “Permanent No Net Loss
Stream Impacts.”
ii. Please ensure that Plan Sheet Number C-131 shows the full extent of Stream S13 on the
upstream side of the proposed culvert, consistent with the PJD.
iii. Please provide a profile view along the proposed culvert showing the elevations of the culvert
box relative to the stream bed (thalweg) elevation.
iv. Please provide a cross-section view of the proposed rip rap pad.
g. Impact Site 3:
i. Please provide a profile view along the proposed culvert showing the elevations of the culvert
box relative to the stream bed (thalweg) elevation. Note that, based on the contiguous stream
channel and low slope, 1’ culvert burial is appropriate In this instance.
ii. Please provide cross-section views of both proposed rip rap pads.
h. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA): You noted in your response that
“Archaeological surveys by a Professional Archaeologist are currently underway within the Project Blue
proposed limits of disturbance in accordance with the archaeological survey plan reviewed and approved
by NCSHPO Office of State Archeology (OSA). Survey transects are close to complete, and the survey
team will be immediately moving to conduct additional surveys around areas of potential artifacts as
required by the survey plan. Once surveys are complete, any potential artifacts will be lab evaluated and
the findings will be summarized in a report consistent with OSA requirements.” The Corps awaits the
2

results of these surveys, as this information is necessary to undertake remaining consultation on this
project component with SHPO per Section 106.

3) NCDOT HE-0006:
a. Please provide the highest level of design available for the preferred alternative of HE-0006 Phase 1.
Such plans should include plan and profile views of all proposed impacts (referencing the aquatic
resource labels from the Corps-verified delineation) to allow evaluation of direct and indirect impacts at
each potential WOUS and aquatic life passage concerns, and facilitate justification of avoidance and
minimization of impacts to the maximum extent practicable.
b. Please also provide the highest level of design available for the preferred alternative of HE-0006 Phase
2, although the Corps understands that that this level of design is not as advanced as Phase 1; by way of
comparison, the Corps anticipates that this level of design to be equivalent to information typically
available at Concurrence Point 4A for NCDOT projects in the Merger Process.
c. Section 106 NHPA: This review is still 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. As previously noted. 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. An Effects Meeting with NCDOT and the SHPO is still pending to make an effects
determination for these resources.

4) City of Sanford Utilities:
a. It is our understanding that additional sections of the proposed Utility routes are being modified. Please
provide the updated proposed route locations, updated delineations to facilitate Corps review and
verification of the location and extent of WOUS for this project component, updated proposed impacts
to WOUS. 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 or updated list submitted with your
most recent response.
b. Where utility corridors overlap Corps verified delineations for the Project Blue or HE-0006 project
components, use those delineations on the relevant mapping and as the basis for impact calculations.
The relevant plan sheets include Phase I Sewer line Pages 1-10 and Phase I Water line Pages 10-20
c. The access road designed to access the Project Blue phase 3 area from the west does not appear to
represent avoidance and minimization to the maximum extent practicable, as other options appear to
exist. For example, accessing this area from the east side of Project Blue, construction of a temporary
access road with specific timeframes for removal and restoration, crossing the UT to Shaddocks Creek
via bridge instead of a culvert, using the proposed NCDOT infrastructure for permanent access, etc.,
could all minimize impacts to potential WOUS. Please re-design or provide justification that such
measures are not practicable. Further clarify whether this road is intended to be permanent, and note
that compensatory mitigation would be required for all such impacts at 2:1 in the event that the above
noted issues can be resolved.
d. Item 4)c. above notwithstanding, the following concerns are noted regarding the permanent access road
at Impacts W-03/04 and S-02:
i. NCDOT proposes to cross this stream with a bridge rather than a culvert. Please explain this
discrepancy or modify the design accordingly. Note that NCDOT’s avoidance and minimization
measure in this location (namely crossing this stream with a bridge) is counteracted by
proposing a culverted crossing in essentially the same location for the proposed access road.
ii. See item 2)e. above: the same issue exists at Impact S-02;
e. Several areas of waterline impacts are shown as permanent. It appears that many of the proposed
impacts involve only installation of the utility and could therefore be installed as temporary impacts.
3

f. Please clearly denote on the plans (via different shading/hatching) temporary-only wetland impacts
versus temporary impacts involving a permanent conversion of forested/shrub-scrub wetlands to
herbaceous wetlands.
g. As noted during a previous phone all, neither NCDOT nor the Corps would be amenable to any of the
utilities being installed via “wet” crossings (i.e. without dewatering stream channels first). The Shaddox
Creek crossing at proposed impact S-71 is one example. Please ensure that project plans and
installation methods are updated to account for the required dewatering.
h. Please note that the Corps is continuing to review the utility plans provided in your submittal, and will
include those comments under separate cover.
5) Dominion Energy Natural Gas Line: the Permit Application stated that this corridor "will be delineated by
Dominion Energy when design is more fully determined. Since the Dominion Energy alignment crosses features
also delineated by Kimley-Horn within the Project Blue Project Area, the previously determined jurisdictional
resources were extended based on field reconnaissance to approximate anticipated impacts resulting from the
natural gas line installation.” Please provide an update on the requisite potential waters of the US delineations
for this corridor, as well as information necessary to facilitate Section 7 ESA and Section 106 NHPA compliance.
6) Duke Energy Transmission Line: Please provide an update on this infrastructure relocation required due to, and
therefore considered part of, the overall Vinfast single and complete project. Important considerations include
any proposed clearing and permanent conversion of wetland areas, temporary or permanent stream or wetland
crossings proposed to facilitate construction or long term maintenance, and any potential Section 7 or Section
106 scope within these areas if tied to the Corps’ action on this project. Note that all such issues must be
resolved prior to finalization of the Corps’ permitting decision.
7) 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 [phone] or [e-mail].

Sincerely,

Dave Bailey

---
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
Mobile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

We would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated Customer Service Survey is
located at: https://regulatory.ops.usace.army.mil/customer-service-survey/
Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and complete the survey.

4