20070173 Ver 2 - FINAL_Bright_Sky_USACE_EA_Report_REV_22Dec2015Draft - 12/23/2015

NOTE: Section refers to SAW EA template
CESAW-RG
Application SAW-
201502127
-

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD

SUBJECT:
Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Finding for
Above-Numbered Permit Application

This document constitutes the Environmental Assessment, 404(b)(1) Guidelines Evaluation, Public
Interest Review, and Statement of Findings.

1. Application as described in the public notice.

APPLICANT:
Novo Nordisk Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
Attention: Mr. Gary Lohr

North Carolina Department of Transportation
Attention: Mr. Timothy Little

WATERWAY & LOCATION:
The proposed project is located on a
269-acre project area located approximately 0.5 mile east of
the intersection of US 70 Business and Powhatan Road in
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina. The Site drains to
the headwaters of Little Poplar Creek to the east, Neuse
River to the north, and Reedy Branch to the south, all of
which are tributaries to the Neuse River (USGS HUC 03020201).
No perennial or intermitten stream channels occur on the
proposed Site, but the proposed project will impact
jurisdiction and isolated (non-jurisdictional) wetlands
within the Site. A North Carolina/Norfolk Southern railroad
corridor crosses the southern portion of the property with a
majority of the property and proposed development occurring

north of the railroad.

See Section 1.a. Include nearest city, county. For linear projects, indicate where the project
starts and ends. Give any geographic clues (e.g. headwaters of a specific river, edge of
swamp etc.). If possible, include nearest road and site boundaries.

LATITUDE & LONGITUDE: Latitude North:
35.616392
Longitude West:
78.402377

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW-2015-02127)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

Figure 1. Project Location

PROJECT PURPOSE See Section 2.

Basic:
The purpose of the proprosed project is to construct an
industrial-scale Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API)

production facility and associated infrastructure.

The basic project purpose is the fundamental or essential purpose of the proposed project
and is used to determine whether the project is water dependent.The Corps has the final

word on the definition of project purpose, even if it differs from the applicant’s definition.
The applicant’s needs, however, must be considered in the context of the desired geographic
area of the development, and the type of project being proposed.

Overall:
Novo Nordisk’s purpose is to construct an API
production facility in Johnston County, North Carolina. The
project is necessary to expand the company’s ability to
Page 2

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW-2015-02127)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

produce ingredients for current and future diabetes fighting
products. Expanding API production in the U.S. would
supplement Novo Nordisk’s current API footprint in Denmark
where production capacity is limited and current supply is
unable to meet the growing global demand.

The overall project purpose may further define the proposed project specific enough to
address the applicant’s needs, but not as narrow and restrictive as to preclude a proper
evaluation of alternatives. In stating overall project purpose, avoid reference to a specific
number of houses, a particular design, actual acreage, integrated facilities, misleading
names such as “waterfront”, etc.

Water Dependency Determination:
The proposed project is not water
See Section 2, Note 2. If the project does not require siting in
dependent in nature.
a special aquatic site to perform its basic purpose (that is, the project is not "water
dependent"), then an alternate site that does not impact the aquatic resource is presumed to
be available. The definition of a special aquatic site includes sanctuaries, refuges,
wetlands, mud flats, vegetated shallows, coral reefs, and riffle and pool complexes. This
presumption is rebuttable, but it is the applicant’s burden to rebut it. Water dependency is
not a test for Section 10 projects or the Section 10 portions of combined Section 10/404
projects.

PROPOSED WORK:
The proposed project would construct an
approximately 900,000 square foot Active Pharmaceutical
Ingredients (APIs) production facility. The facility would
employee approximately 700 people when it begins operations
scheduled for 2020. The construction-related facilities would
consist of the following: warehouses for raw material,
finished product, and consumable/cold storage; fermentation
buildings for raw product growth; recovery buildings for
separation of yeast and byproducts from API; purification
buildings for product refinement; waste water tank, fire
water tank, and cooling towers; office space, gowning, and
laboratory building; central utility building housing boilers
for clean steam, processed air and water; electrical
substation; gate houses at facility entrances; waste water
pre-treatment facility; parking facilities; and stormwater
management basins. In addition to access off of Powhatan
Road, a southern access is proposed off of Gordon Road which

would include a bridge over the Norfolk Southern railroad.

The discussion below outlines the preferred alternatives for
the proposed Novo Nordisk API production facility and the
Page 3

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW-2015-02127)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

Gordon Road Access:

The initial 208-acre site, located adjacent to Novo Nordisk’s
existing pharmaceutical manufacturing facility, has been
under Novo Nordisk ownership since 1993. This site is more
than sufficient to meet the minimal size requirements of the
manufacturing facility. This original site, combined with the
developable area of the North Tech Business Park/Gordon Site
transferred to Novo Nordisk from Johnston County, makes the
combined preferred alternative site approximately 296 acres
in size.

The majority of the project site is managed for agriculture
with the balance of the site forested headwater and hardwood
flat wetlands. The proposed project is compatible with the
current land uses including the existing Novo Nordisk
manufacturing facility located across Powhatan Road, as well
as several additional pharmaceutical facilities located in
close proximity of the site. The proposed site is zoned
Industrial 1 (I-1) by Johnston County and no rezoning of the
property will be required.

Jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional wetlands as well as a
stream are located within the project area. Although impacts
to some of these areas are unavoidable, the location of the
majority of the jurisdictional wetlands along the eastern
boundary of the site, allowed for siting the project elements
and facilities in areas where impacts could be minimized or
avoided entirely. Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands have
been avoided and minimized to the greatest extent
practicable. Jurisdictional impacts are all a result of the
construction of the manufacturing facility assemblage, the
Gordon Road Access (required to accommodate peak construction
traffic), as well as minor road crossing of a jurisdictional
stream for construction access and staging.

The preferred alternative has an ideal location for the
sharing of support staff and materials associated with the
existing Novo Nordisk manufacturing facility. The Preferred
Alternative also has an ideal location with respect to road
access. The site has frontage along Powhatan Road, which
connects to Highway 70 Business approximately 3,500 feet from
the proposed plant entrance. An additional proposed access
from Gordon Road would provide additional connection to
Highway 70 Business south of the Site, from Highway 70
Business the project Site is approximately 10.5 miles from
Interstate 40. The preferred alternative is a relatively flat
Page 4

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW-2015-02127)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

site, with elevations ranging from 280 to 310 feet MSL,
minimizing the required earthwork and thus providing a more
“shovel ready” site.

Another significant consideration in the selection of this
site as the preferred alternative is its proximity to the
Johnston County Workforce Development Center. This center is
a 30,000 square foot state-of-the-art education and technical
skills training center with a focus on life sciences
programming, business training, and workforce development in
biotechnology and other sciences. The center provides
training in a number of biotechnology fields that will assist
in the training and development of the roughly 700 employees
workforce required to support the proposed manufacturing
facility including:



Associate in Applied Science in Bioprocess Technology


Associate in Science in Biology & Biology Education


Associate in Applied Science in Pharmacy Technology

Novo Nordisk has a longstanding partnership with the
Workforce Development Center and currently has a
representative that serves on the Center’s Board of
Directors. Access and utilization of this unique training
facility is a tremendous benefit for the recruitment and
training of existing and future skilled Novo Nordisk staff.
The educational opportunities provided by the Development
Center, coupled with the housing, transportation, and
cultural and entertainment venues offered by the Town of
Clayton will assist Novo Nordisk in their recruiting efforts
for the roughly 700 employees that will be hired for the new
manufacturing facility when it begins operations scheduled
for 2020.

In addition to the incentives offered by the NC Department of
Commerce for locating the manufacturing facility within the
State, Johnston County also offered an additional $2.2
million incentive for purchasing and transferring the
approximately 98-acre Gordon Site (located adjacent to the
preferred alternative) to Novo Nordisk while the Town of
Clayton also agreed to provide water and sewer service to the
site. The secured incentives, along with Novo Nordisk’s
excellent working relationship/history with Johnston County
and the Town of Clayton via their existing manufacturing
facility, helped solidify their selection of the Preferred
Alternative site.
Page 5

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW-2015-02127)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

The preferred Gordon Road Access alternative was developed to
minimize noise and lighting intrusion in the neighborhood and
to allow for a “T” intersection at Gordon Road. This
alternative would also allow for access into both upland
fields proposed for construction personnel vehicle parking
and construction staging and eliminate the need for a
temporary construction access road between the fields. This
alternative was determined to be the Preferred Alternative
due to its distance/proximity from the existing neighborhood
and more efficient traffic flow with the “T” intersection. In
addition, this alternative also has the least amount of
impact to jurisdictional features by its alignment through an
upland area between two jurisdictional wetlands.

The preferred alternative (including the API production
facility and Gordon Road Access) will result in 5.32 acres of
permanent impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, 2.18 acres of
permanent impacts to non-jurisdictional isolated basin
wetlands, 188 linear feet of jurisdictional perennial stream
channel, and 11,570 square feet of impact to Zone 1 of the
riparian buffer and 7,756 square feet to Zone 2 buffer. No

temporary impacts to jurisdictional features are proposed.

See Section 1.c.Describe the project as initially proposed. Note if the project was
originally reviewed under another process (e.g. NWP), and was elevated to an IP.

Avoidance and Minimization Information:
In order for the manufacturing
facility to be operationally efficient, the structural
components need to be in close proximity for product
production sequencing as well as truck deliveries and pickup.
As a result, the on-site alternatives must be designed to
accommodate the physical layout of the facility in a manner
that would make it operationally efficient and functional.
Impacts to wetlands would be avoided by designing the site
layout to be as far west on the site as feasible to minimize
impacts to wetlands. Further, the preferred alternative for
the Gordon Road access would be located in a manner that
avoids and minimizes impacts to jurisdictional
See Sections 6.a, b and c. Describe any initial efforts
streams/wetlands on Site.
to avoid and minimize and those submitted with application; include brief summary of any
alternative analysis submitted with permit application.

Compensatory Mitigation:
The quality and function of the headwater forest
wetlands and the perennial stream system on the Site are high;
therefore, a mitigation ratio of 2:1 would be applied to offset
Page 6

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW-2015-02127)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

unavoidable impacts to these jurisdictional feature types. The
quality and function of the isolated basin wetlands is low, so a
mitigation ratio of 1:1 would be applied to offset unavoidable
impacts to these NCDWR regulated features. Since the isolated
wetlands do not connect to any offsite waters, non-riparian
wetland credits will be utilized for mitigation of impacts to the
isolated wetlands. In accordance with the Neuse River Riparian
Buffer Rules, NCDWR-required ratios of 3:1 for unavoidable impacts
to Zone 1 and 1.5:1 for impacts to Zone 2 of the protected
riparian buffer of stream SA. The total mitigation proposed for
the project is 376 linear feet of stream mitigation credits,
50,221 square feet of riparian buffer credits, 10.64 acres of
riparian wetland mitigation credits, and 2.18 acres of non-
riparian wetland mitigation credits.

Novo Nordisk, working under an agreement with NCDOT, will be
responsible for mitigation associated with impacts resulting from
construction of the Novo Nordisk facility only. NCDOT will be
responsible for the mitigation associated with impacts limited to
the Gordon Road Access only. NCDOT will secure mitigation through
active NCDOT-specific mitigation banks or by payment into the
NCDMS ILF program, based on available credits at the time NCDOT
initiates construction on the access road. It is anticipated that
NCDOT will secure mitigation for 376 linear feet of stream
mitigation credits, 50,221 square feet of riparian buffer credits,
and 6.07 acres of riparian wetland mitigation credits.

Novo Nordisk proposes to mitigate for permanent impacts to
jurisdictional and isolated wetlands associated with the
construction of the Novo Nordisk facility by purchasing 4.57 acres
of riparian wetland mitigation credits and 2.18 acres of non-
riparian wetland mitigation credits from Resource Environmental
Solutions, LLC (RES) banks that are active in the Neuse River
Basin (HUC 03020201). Due to the credit need for this project, and
the expected timeline for permit review, RES has provided
documentation that based on anticipated credit release schedules
on the active banks in the watershed, they expect to be able to
provide the required mitigation credits. If the proposed credit
release schedule changes and the required credits are not
available at the time of project construction, Novo Nordisk will
secure mitigation for the proposed impacts by payment into the
NCDMS ILF program. NCDMS has accepted Novo Nordisk’s request for
in-lieu fee payment for up to 10 acres of wetland mitigation

credits.

Describe the mitigation proposal (if any) submitted with the permit application.

Page 7

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW-2015-02127)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

EXISTING CONDITIONS:

The Site is currently zoned as Industrial 1 (I-1) by Johnston
County. The southwestern portion of the Site (south of the
railroad tracks) is located within the Town of Clayton ETJ
and is also zoned Industrial 1. The North Carolina/Norfolk
Southern railroad bisects the property with the API
production facility proposed to be constructed north of the
railroad and the Gordon Road Access proposed as an access
road that would connect the API production facility to Gordon
Road south of the railroad.

The Site is composed of primarily active agricultural land
interspersed with large natural stands of mixed hardwood
forests. The soils and vegetation in the farm fields have
been routinely manipulated for decades for crop production.
Zea
Vegetation in these areas consist predominantly of corn (
mays
)in the active fields Early successional herbaceous plant
Ipomoea
species such as morningglory ( spp.), painted leaf
Euphorbia cyathophoraRumex crispus
(), curly dock (),
Senna obtusifoliaEupatorium
sicklepod (), dog-fennel (
capillifolium
) dominate along field edges and in the recently
fallow fields. Soils in the agricultural fields consist
mostly of well drained mineral soils (Goldsboro sandy loam,
Marlboro sandy loam, Norfolk loamy sand, and Varina loamy
sand).

The mixed hardwood forests on-site have canopies dominated by
Pinus taedaNyssa biflora
loblolly pine (), swamp tupelo (),
Quercus phellosLiriodendron
willow oak (), tulip-poplar (
tulipiferaLiquidambar styraciflua
), sweetgum (), and red
maple (Acer rubrum). The understory includes small trees and
Magnolia virginiana
shrubs such as sweetbay (), sweetleaf
Symplocos tinctoriaClethra alnifolia
(), sweet pepperbush (),
Aronia arbutifoliaCyrilla
red chokeberry (), ti-ti (
racemifloraLigustrum sinense
), and Chinese privet ().
Herbaceous species and woody vines include giant cane
Arundinaria giganteaChasmanthium
(), slender woodoats (
laxumMicrostegium vimineum
), Japanese stilt-grass (), netted
Woodwardia areolata
chain fern (), Virginia chain fern
Woodwardia virginicaOsmundastrum
(), cinnamon fern (
cinnamomeumBoehmeria cylindrica
), false nettle (), greenbriar
SmilaxMuscadinia rotundifolia
( sp.), muscadine (). Soils in
the mixed hardwood forests are mostly undisturbed and poorly
drained mineral soils (Rains sandy loam and Toisnot loam).

A majority of the forested areas on Site are wetlands.
Page 8

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW-2015-02127)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

According to the Dichotomous Key to General North Carolina
Wetland Types that accompanies the North Carolina Wetland
Assessment Methodology (NCWAM) User Manual, Version 4.1 there
are two wetland types found on Site and they are headwater
forest wetlands (76.57 acres) and basin wetlands (2.45
acres). The basin wetlands and a small portion (0.5 acre) of
the headwater forest are isolated. The USACE has jurisdiction
over the non-isolated headwater forests (76.09 acres)on Site,
but does not have jurisdiction over the isolated wetlands on
Site. The NCDWR regulates the isolated basin wetlands, but
neither agency regulates the isolated section of headwater
forest. The wetlands are discussed in further detail below:



Wetland WA is a 15.13-acre headwater forest wetland
located in the southeast portion of the Site, north of
the Norfolk-Southern railroad tracks. Wetland WA is
connected to wetland WB by a culvert under the farmroad
that bisects the two wetland areas. The wetland was dry
at the time of observation. However, it appears that
many of the depressional areas found within the wetland
are inundated after large storm events. Hummocks around
trees and root wads indicate water ponds to a depth of
3”-6" through the interior of the wetland. Wetland WA is
a jurisdictional wetland.


Wetland WB is a 25.21-acre headwater forest wetland
located north of wetland WA, in the northeastern portion
of the Site. Wetland WB and WA are hydrologically
connected via a culvert associated with a farm road that
bisects the two wetland areas. Wetland WB drains east
off of the Site towards Little Poplar Creek. The wetland
was mostly dry at the time of observation except for the
interior portions of the wetland close to the eastern
Site boundary. The soil was saturated in low-lying
depressional areas and evidence (e.g. water marks, moss
trim lines) was observed indicating ponding to depths of
1’-2’. Numerous buttressed trees were observed within
the wetland, with a dense concentration of buttressed
trees in the depressional areas near the eastern
boundary of the Site. Wetland WB is a jurisdictional
wetland.


Wetland WD is an 31.63-acre headwater forest wetland
located in the southwest portion of the Site south of
the railroad tracks. Wetland WD drains south off of the
Site towards Reedy Branch. The wetland was dry at the
time of observation; but hydric soil indicators, water
stained leaves, and hummocks around trees and root wads
Page 9

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW-2015-02127)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

indicate water ponds to a depth of 3-6" throughout the
interior of the wetland. The sparse understory indicates
that the inundation is long term, likely lasting through
the dormant season. Wetland WD is a jurisdictional
wetland.


Wetland WE is a 2.74-acre headwater forest wetland
located in the central portion of the Site just north of
the railroad tracks. Wetland WE drains south off of the
Site towards Reedy Branch which eventually discharges
into the Neuse River. WE appears to have historically
been contiguous with wetland WD, but the railroad tracks
now separate the two wetlands. A large culvert under the
railroad connects the two wetlands hydrologically.
However, water appears to pond deeper in wetland WE than
in wetland WD. Similar to the other wetlands, WE was dry
at the time of observation. It appears that much of the
depressional areas within the wetland are inundated for
much of the year. Hummocks, heavily buttressed trees,
and moss trim lines around trees and root wads indicate
water ponds to a depth of 2’ through the wetland.
Wetland WE is a jurisdictional wetland.


Wetland WF is a 0.48-acre isolated headwater forest
wetland located in the northeast portion of the Site,
north of wetland WB and south of Powhatan Road. Wetland
WF is an isolated wetland that is wholly surrounded by
uplands. No indication of downstream connection between
wetland WF and any jurisdictional waters or wetlands was
observed in the field. Wetland WF lacked surface
hydrology at the time of observation, but water stained
leaves and drift deposits indicate WF is likely
inundated throughout the dormant season. Sediment
deposits and hummocks through the wetland indicate
inundation in WF to depths of 6”. Wetland WF is not a
jurisdictional wetland with regards to the USACE, but it
is regulated by the NCDWR.


Wetland WG is a 2.18-acre isolated basin wetland located
in the western most portion of the Site on the north
side of the railroad tracks. Wetland WG is isolated and
surrounded on all sides by upland agricultural fields.
The wetland was likely historically part of a larger
wetland system continuing north to the Neuse River, but
drainage and connectivity has been altered by
development. The wetland is depressional in nature and
appears to be inundated outside of the growing season
and following large storm events. Hummocks around trees
and root wads indicate water ponds to a depth of 3-6"
Page 10

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW-2015-02127)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

through the interior of the wetland. Wetland WG is not
regulated by either the USACE or the NCDWR.


Wetland WH is a 0.27-acre isolated basin wetland that
behaves as a stormwater/groundwater impoundment and is
located in the southeast portion of the Site, south of
and adjacent to the railroad tracks. Wetland WH
generally drains north towards the railroad tracks, but
water becomes impounded at a spoil pile berm that was
likely created during the excavation of the existing
ditch next to the railroad tracks. The wetland was dry
at the time of observation; but soil cracking was
observed throughout the wetland indicating infrequent or
short duration inundation. Minimal buttressing and few
to absent hummocks and root wads indicate WH is likely
inundated following large storm events only. Wetland WH
is not regulated by either the USACE or the NCDWR.


Wetland WJ is a 1.38-acre headwater forest wetland
located along the southernmost portion of the Site near
Gordon Road and stream SA. Wetland WJ drains south off
of the Site via stream SA towards Reedy Branch. Hydric
soil indicators, water stained leaves, and hummocks
around trees and root wads indicate water regularly
reaches depths of 3-6" throughout the interior of the
wetland, likely in association with flooding in stream
SA. The sparse understory indicates that the inundation
is long term, likely lasting through the dormant season.
Stream SA flows along the western boundary of WJ before
turning and flowing through the interior of the wetland.
Wetland WJ is a jurisdictional wetland.

The Site is located in the Neuse River Basin (USGS 8-digit
HUC: 03020201), and one perennial stream, an unnamed
tributary to Reedy Branch, occurs within the proposed project
area. The headwater forest wetlands north of the Norfolk
Southern Railroad (WA and WB) are part of a larger wetland
system that abuts Little Poplar Creek which is a perennial
stream east of the Site. The headwater forest wetlands WD,
WE, and WJ are part of a larger wetland system that abuts the
unnamed tributary to Reedy Branch that begins within the Site
boundary. Land use in the vicinity of the Site consists of
agricultural farmlands, low to medium density residential
housing, industrial facilities, and patches of undeveloped

forested lands.

See Section 1.b. Include a description of the environment – types of wetlands, open water
Page 11

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW-2015-02127)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

areas, streams or rivers; establish jurisdiction; describe basis of determination and
connection to a navigable water; describe soils, vegetation, hydrology. A general statement
of function, values, and perceived quality of the aquatic resources should also be included
here. Include a description of any previous impacts, man-made or otherwise. You may also
want to include a brief discussion of developmental conditions in the area. Based on your
knowledge of the area and the information you receive during the evaluation process,
outline the resources that may be at risk due to the proposed activity, especially endangered
species and historic properties (Note: not all of the resources/issues flagged here may end
up being subject to Corps jurisdiction. The purpose of identifying resources here is to
“flag” them for additional attention during the review and decision-making processes).
These potentially affected resources should be referenced and discussed in more depth in
appropriate sections of the document.

2.Authority.
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. §403).
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §1344).
Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972
(33 U.S.C. 1413).

3.Scope of Analysis. See Section 3.

a.NEPA.

(1)Factors.

(i)Whether or not the regulated activity comprises "merely a link" in a corridor type
project.
Consider the degree to which the regulated activity is essential for the
development of the project as a whole.

(ii)Whether there are aspects of the upland facility in the immediate vicinity of the
regulated activity which affect the location and configuration of the regulated
activity.
Describe whether, and the extent to which, the authorized activity
determines the locations of upland portions of the project, and vice versa.

(iii)The extent to which the entire project will be within the Corps jurisdiction.

(iv)The extent of cumulative Federal control and responsibility.
Consider the amount, if any, of direct Federal financial aid given to the
project; Consider whether the overall Federal involvement with the project was
sufficient to turn an essentially private action into a Federal action;

(2)Determined scope.
Only within the footprint of the regulated activity within the delineated water.
Over entire property.

Page 12

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW-2015-02127)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

If you have determined that, after looking at the above factors, the scope of analysis
is limited to waters/wetlands, you may choose to insert the following statement: My
analysis in this document is limited to wetlands, streams, and other waters of the
United States within the boundaries or the immediate vicinity of the proposed
project, the uplands immediately adjacent to those waters and/or wetlands, and the
primary, secondary, and cumulative impacts that the activities authorized by this
permit would have on those waters and associated uplands.

b.NHPA "Permit Area".

(1)Tests. Activities outside the waters of the United States are/are not included
because all of the following tests are/are not satisfied:

Such activity would/would not occur but for the authorization of the work or
structures within the waters of the United States;

Such activity is/is not integrally related to the work or structures to be authorized
within waters of the United States (or, conversely, the work or structures to be authorized
must be essential to the completeness of the overall project or program); and

Such activity is/is not directly associated (first order impact) with the work or
structures to be authorized.

Portions of the project are located entirely within upland areas outside of Corps
jurisdiction. However, the applicant states that the project is not viable without impacts to
wetlands.

(2)Determined scope.
My analysis in this document is limited to
wetlands, streams, and other waters of the United States
within the boundaries or the immediate vicinity of the
proposed project, the uplands immediately adjacent to
those waters and/or wetlands, and the primary,
secondary, and cumulative impacts that the activities
authorized by this permit would have on those waters and
associated uplands. The State Historic Preservation
Office HPOWeb GIS database was reviewed on December 15,
2015 to determine if any historic resources occurred in
the vicinity of the study area. There were no
historically significant sites or structures within 1.0

mile of the proposed site.

c.ESA "Action Area".

(1)Action area means all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action
Page 13

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW-2015-02127)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

and not merely the immediate area involved in the action.

Determined scope.
(2)My analysis in this document is limited to
wetlands, streams, and other waters of the United States
within the boundaries or the immediate vicinity of the
proposed project, the uplands immediately adjacent to
those waters and/or wetlands, and the primary,
secondary, and cumulative impacts that the activities
authorized by this permit would have on those waters and
associated uplands.

As of December 27, 2012, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service lists four federally endangered species
protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) known
to occur in Johnston County, including red-cockaded
woodpecker (Picoides borealis), dwarf wedgemussel
(Alasmidonta heterodon), Tar River spinymussel (Elliptio
steinstansana), and Michaux’s sumac (Rhus michauxii).
Bald eagle is also known to occur in Johnston County and
is protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
(BGPA). A review of the North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program (NCNHP) database records (updated October 2015)
indicates no known occurrences of any of the
aforementioned species are present within a one-mile
radius of the Site.

As part of the initial agency scoping process for this
project, the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC)
and the USFWS were contacted regarding potential impacts
to protected species as a result of the proposed project
(Appendix F). NCWRC expressed concern (Scoping Letter
Comments dated November 19, 2015) that while the
northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) is not
listed by the USFWS as known to occur in Johnston
County, the forested community within the Site could
potentially support northern long-eared bat populations.
Since the USFWS did not specifically comment on northern
long-eared bat (Scoping Letter Comments dated November
13, 2015), and since no known roost trees or occurrences
of northern long-eared bat are recorded for Johnston
County or within one mile of the project area, it is
unlikely that the proposed will have any effect on
northern long-eared bat.

Habitat evaluations were conducted within the forested
portions of the property for red-cockaded woodpecker
Page 14

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW-2015-02127)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

nesting and foraging habitat in September and November
2015. The dense canopy and understory found within
these forested headwater wetland communities and the
large number of hardwoods precludes these areas from
providing suitable nesting or foraging habitat for the
red-cockaded woodpecker. In addition, the NCNHP
database (updated October 2015) has no records,
historical or current, of red-cockaded woodpecker
individuals or cavity trees within one mile of the
proposed project. Based upon this information, it has
been determined that the proposed project will have “no
effect” on the red-cockaded woodpecker.

The single perennial stream feature identified within
the Site is a small, low velocity coastal plain stream
system that has been historically modified and
straightened to flow along the perimeter of an
agricultural field. A large portion of the headwater
wetland system that supports the stream has been
historically managed for silviculture, and the system
was clear-cut most recently in 2014. The stream flows
south towards Gordon Road, where it crosses beneath the
road via a 24” concrete culvert. It is unlikely that the
stream would support dwarf wedgemussel or Tar River
spinymussel based on the hydrologic conditions and
riparian disturbance observed within the Site.

Additionally, a review of NCNHP records, updated October
2015, indicates no known current dwarf wedgemussel
occurrences within approximately 6.0 river miles of the
study area. The nearest known current population is in
Swift Creek. The stream is an Unnamed Tributary to Reedy
Branch, and Reedy Branch is impounded to create a
manmade pond between the Site and Swift Creek. NCNHP
records, updated October 2015, indicate the no known
current Tar River spinymussel occurrences within 95
river miles. Due to the lack of known occurrences in or
near the project boundary and the hydrologic conditions
and riparian disturbance found within the stream system
in the Site, it has been determined that the proposed
project will have “no effect” on the dwarf wedgemussel
or Tar River spinymussel.

Suitable habitat for Michaux’s sumac was identified on
the project Site along the forested edges adjacent to
the agricultural fields. Kimley-Horn biologists
conducted field surveys of the suitable habitat on
Page 15

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW-2015-02127)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

September 30, 2015. No individuals of Michaux’s sumac
were observed. In addition, the NCNHP database has no
records, historical or current, of Michaux’s sumac
within one mile of the proposed project. The property
parcels located south of the railroad tract along the
access road corridor from Gordon Road were not included
as part of the project study area at the time of the
survey and were added to the study area following the
USFWS survey window. It is unlikely that these areas
support Michaux’s sumac populations based on the
findings of the pedestrian surveys on the balance of the
property. Based upon this information, it has been
determined that the proposed project will have “no

effect” on Michaux’s sumac.

d.Public notice comments. NA See Section 10.

(1)The public also provided comments at public hearing, public meeting, and/or
Explain .

(2)Commentors and issued raised. Section 10.a.

Name Issue

(3)Site was/was not visited by the Corps to obtain information in addition to
delineating jurisdiction. Include dates and synopsis of information gathered if site was
visited.

(4)Issues identified by the Corps. Describe .

(5)Issues/comments forwarded to the applicant. NA/Yes. See Section 10.b.

(6)Applicant replied/provided views. NA/Yes. See Section 10.b. Summarize
applicant response

(7)The following comments are not discussed further in this document as they are
outside the Corps purview. NA/ Yes Explain.

4.Alternatives Analysis. See Section 6.
Page 16

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW-2015-02127)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

a.Basic and Overall Project Purpose (as stated by applicant and independent definition by
Corps).
Same as Project Purpose in Paragraph 1.
Revised: Insert revised project purpose here and explain why it was revised

b. Water Dependency Determination:
Same as in Paragraph 1.
Revised: Insert revised water dependency determination here if it has changed due to
changing project purpose or new information

c.Applicant preferred alternative site and site configuration.
Same as Project Description in Paragraph 1.
Revised: Explain any difference from Paragraph 1

Criteria. The following table should include the project’s identified constraints (minimum
needs, geography, etc.), Corps-identified limitations (ESA, SHPO, WoUS, etc.). These
issues/constraints will be used – as a comparison - in the on and off-site alternatives
analysis in d. and f. below.

Issue Measurement and/or constraint
Impacts to Waters of The proposed project would
US including wetlands impact 5.32 acres of USACE
jurisdictional wetlands and 188
linear feet of perennial
stream.

Total land requirementSite has at least 80 buildable

acres available.
Skilled labor Locally available labor pool

availabilitywith sufficient
training/education due to the
proposed projects proximity to
the Johnston County Workforce
Development Center. This center
is a 30,000 square foot state-
of-the-art education and
technical skills training
center with a focus on life
sciences programming, business
Page 17

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW-2015-02127)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

training, and workforce
development in biotechnology
and other sciences. The center
provides training in a number
of biotechnology fields that
will assist in the training and
development of the roughly 700
employees workforce required to
support the proposed
manufacturing facility
including an Associate in
Applied Science in Bioprocess
Technology, an Associate in
Science in Biology & Biology
Education, and an Associate in
Applied Science in Pharmacy

Technology.

Road AccessHas immediate road acces to
Powhatan Road and an additional
road access is proposed (Gordon
Road Access) to provide the
site with enhanced capability
to handle substantial truck and

vehicle traffic

ZoningThe proposed site is zoned
Industrial 1 (I-1) by Johnston
County and no rezoning of the

property will be required.

d.Off-site locations and configuration(s) for each.

Alternatives analysis is tied to the overall project purpose; the analysis of each alternative
may end with a statement on whether or not it is the least damaging practicable alternative
to the aquatic environment or other affected environment; the narrative must reflect your
own conclusions, not the applicant’s conclusions. If you have decided to adopt or agree
with the applicant’s analysis, you need to explain why. If you disagreed with the
applicant’s alternatives analysis, document what your concerns were, and how those
concerns were eventually addressed. If any agencies or individuals offered substantive
comments regarding one or more alternatives make sure that your analysis reflects a
consideration of those comments. See RGL 93-2 for additional guidance.

HQ Example: “Alternatives located on property not currently owned by the applicant are
not practicable under the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines as this project is the construction or
expansion of a single family home and attendant features, such as a driveway, garage,
storage shed, or septic field; or the construction or expansion of a barn or other farm
Page 18

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW-2015-02127)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

building; or the expansion of a small business facility; and involves discharges of dredged
or fill material less than two acres into jurisdictional wetlands.”

Off-site locations and configurations
Description Comparison to criteria
Alternative 1: This site is an approximately 95-acre
South Coast Life parcel is located in Fall River
Science & adjacent to the Taunton River and the
Technology Park North Watuppa Pond. Access to the site
at Fall River in is off of Highway 24 via Innovation
Bristol County, Way, which bisects the Site. Innovation

MassachusettsWay divides the 95-acre property into
two separate parcels (one 54 acres and
the other 41 acres). Due to the
pharmaceutical manufacturing facility
size and configuration requirements,
constructing the facility on two
separate parcels, divided by a road,
would render the facility too
inefficient to be viable. The site
requires a minimal of 80 contiguous
buildable acres to be operationally
feasible and justify the long-term
financial investment. In addition,
approximately 50% of the 54 acre parcel
contained jurisdictional wetland areas
that would be disturbed by the

development.
Alternative 2: This site was determined to not be a
Garner-Greenfield practical alternative for numerous
Park South in financial and environmental reasons. A
Wake County, high tension power line traverses the

North Carolinasouth/central portion of the site which
would require significant expense for
Novo Nordisk to relocate the line. In
addition, numerous intermittent and
perennial stream features subject to
the Neuse River riparian buffer rules
traverse the site. The grading and
filling of the Zone 1 and 2 streams
buffers that would be required to
construct the manufacturing facility on
this site is prohibited under the
buffer rules and would likely require
an Individual Section 404/401 permit
for the associated stream impacts. This
Page 19

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW-2015-02127)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

site also had the highest land cost of
any of the NC sites presented by the

Economic Development Council.
Alternative 3: This site was determined not to be a
North Tech practical alternative due to the
Business significant amount and location of
Park/Gordon Site wetlands on the site, including a
in Johnston perennial stream feature subject to the
County, North Neuse River riparian buffer rules. Due

Carolinato the location of the wetlands
throughout the entire property,
development of a pharmaceutical
manufacturing facility would result in
substantial wetland and buffer impacts
requiring an Individual Section 404/401
permit. Although the wetlands/stream
restrict the development of the
property for the manufacturing
facility, the upland areas of this Site
would provide benefit to the Preferred
Alternative site by providing
construction parking and staging areas
for both Phase I and Phase II
construction. Following the off-site
alternatives evaluation process and
selection of the Preferred Alternative
by Novo Nordisk, Johnston County
acquired this alternative site
property, and as part of the County’s
incentives package, will be
transferring the ownership of this site
to Novo Nordisk. This property
transaction should be finalized in
early 2016. This site has been
incorporated into the overall site plan
for the Preferred Alternative and the
upland areas of the site will be
utilized for construction parking and
staging to support the development of
the manufacturing site and help
alleviate construction traffic on

Powhatan Road.

Page 20

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW-2015-02127)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

e.( NA) OR Site selected for further analysis and why.

f.On-site configurations.

Avoidance and Minimization: Reference the criteria and compare-contrast the plans. Issues
and criteria identified above should re-appear here in some fashion when appropriate. At
the selected site the narrative this may include: (1) describe the site plan/configuration; (2)
a method to estimate the environmental consequences of each plan; and, (3) a narrative that
shows the quantity of fill is the minimum amount practicable. In some cases, minimization
includes a description of how (1) the project could not be reduced below the "critical mass"
for the market (for example, cannot shrink a K-Mart beyond a certain figure) or (2) the
distribution of the base infrastructure costs over the remaining developable area raises the
unit cost above the market target. Also, note that minimization must be shown for each of
the off-site alternates and alternative configurations in the analysis in previous subsection
(d).
On-site API Production Facility Alternatives:
Description Comparison to criteria

Alternative 1This alternative layout maximizes the
square footage API production to
1,103,810 square feet and maximizes
parking by allowing one contiguous
parking pad on the southern portion of
the facility. The construction cost of
the Gordon Road Access is minimized by
reducing the length of the road into
the Site. The access road has a “T”
intersection leading into the Phase I
production facilities as well as the
waste water treatment facility. The
guard house is located at this roadway
intersection within an adjacent wetland
area. Jurisdictional impacts associated
with Alternative 1 include 5.95 acres
of jurisdictional wetland and 2.18
acres of isolated, non-jurisdictional
wetland. An additional 0.47 acres of
wetland impact will result from the
Gordon Road Access corridor north of
the railroad on this alternative. This
alternative is practical from a
manufacturing logistics standpoint;
however, further wetland avoidance
measures were employed for the
Preferred Alternative reducing the
jurisdictional wetland impacts by 3.0

acres.
Page 21

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW-2015-02127)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

Alternative 2This alternative minimizes wetland
impacts by reducing the square footage
API production to 1,076,690 square feet
(primary reduction in the Phase 2
Warehouse building) allowing the Sample
Storage warehouse to shift outside of
the wetland footprint. This alternative
also minimizes wetland impacts by
breaking the parking lot on the
southern portion of the facility into
two separate parking pads on either
side of the wetland area. This
alternative extends the Gordon Road
Access further into site allowing the
Guard House to be shifted outside of
the wetland. By extending the road
further into the site, it also allows
the road into the waste water treatment
facility to utilize an existing farm
road crossing further minimizing
wetland impacts. In addition, this
alternative optimizes traffic flow into
the site by allowing traffic entering
the site from the Gordon Road Access to
go straight at the guard house and not
have to make a left then right hand
turn to access the facility. However,
allowing this optimized traffic flow
increases the wetland impacts
associated with the roadway.
Jurisdictional impacts associated with
Alternative 2 include 4.16 acres of
jurisdictional wetland and 2.18 acres
of isolated, non-jurisdictional
wetland. An additional 0.37 acres of
wetland impact will result from the
Gordon Road Access corridor north of
the railroad on this alternative. This
alternative is practical from a
manufacturing logistics standpoint;
however, further wetland avoidance
measures were employed for the
Preferred Alternative reducing the
jurisdictional wetland impacts by 1.87

acres.

Alternative 3This alternative is the same as
Page 22

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW-2015-02127)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

Alternative 2 within the manufacturing
facility itself, but reduces the costs
associated with the Gordon Road Access
by utilizing earthen fill slopes along
the road corridor north of the railroad
crossing instead of the headwalls used
in Alternative 2. Square footage of API
production remains at 1,076,670 square
feet and still allows the Sample
Storage warehouse to shift outside of
the wetland footprint. This alternative
again minimizes wetland impacts by
breaking the parking lot on the
southern portion of the facility into
two separate parking pads on either
side of the wetland area.
Jurisdictional impacts associated with
Alternative 3 include 4.16 acres of
jurisdictional wetland and 2.18 acres
of isolated, non-jurisdictional
wetland. An additional 5.07 acres of
wetland impact will result from the
Gordon Road Access corridor north of
the railroad on this alternative. This
alternative is practical from a
manufacturing logistics standpoint;
however, further wetland avoidance
measures were employed for the
Preferred Alternative reducing the
jurisdictional wetland impacts by 1.87

acres.

Alternative 4 This alternative layout substantially
minimizes the square footage of the API
production facility to 797,285 square
feet, primarily associated with the
Phase 2 warehouse and all the Phase 2
production facilities. This reduction
results in minimizing wetland impacts
by shifting the site layout to the
north and west. The interior site road
along the south side of the site curves
to minimize the wetland encroachment
while also minimizing wetland impacts
by breaking the parking lot on the
southern portion of the facility into
two separate parking pads on either
Page 23

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW-2015-02127)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

side of the wetland area. This
alternative extends the Gordon Road
Access further into site allowing the
Guard House to be shifted outside of
the wetland and also further minimizes
wetland encroachments by utilizing
retaining walls along the road. By
extending the road further into the
site, it also allows the road into the
waste water treatment facility to
utilize an existing farm road crossing
further minimizing wetland impacts. The
access road is again in a “T”
intersection requiring turns into the
Phase I facility. Jurisdictional
impacts associated with Alternative 4
include 1.07 acres of jurisdictional
wetland and 2.18 acres of isolated,
non-jurisdictional wetland. Although
this Alternative has 1.88 acres less
wetland impact than the Preferred
Alternative, the compression of the
site renders Phase 2 production
facilities too small to be
operationally efficient and
economically viable. In addition, the
site compression compromising internal
road network routing making
truck/people traffic flow inefficient.
Therefore, Alternative 4 is not a
practical alternative and does not meet

the purpose and need of the project.

Alternative 5 This alternative layout also minimizes
the square footage API production
footprint to 979,266 square feet,
primarily from reducing the Phase 2
production facilities to the southwest
of the site. The wetland impacts are
minimized by breaking the parking lot
on the southern portion of the facility
into two separate parking pads on
either side of the wetland area. This
alternative extends the Gordon Road
Access further into site allowing the
Guard House to be shifted outside of
the wetland and further minimizes
Page 24

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW-2015-02127)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

wetland encroachments by utilizing
retaining walls along the road. By
extending the road further into the
site, it also allows the road into the
wastewater treatment facility to
utilize an existing farm road crossing
further minimizing wetland impacts.
Impacts to the isolated, non-
jurisdictional wetland area on the
western portion of the site are
significantly reduced by the square
footage reduction in the Phase 2
production areas. Jurisdictional
impacts associated with Alternative 5
include 1.20 acres of jurisdictional
wetland and 0.28 acre of isolated, non-
jurisdictional wetland. An additional
0.37 acres of wetland impact will
result from the Gordon Road Access
corridor north of the railroad.
Although this Alternative has 1.09
acres less jurisdictional wetland
impact and 1.9 acre less isolated, non-
jurisdictional impact than the
Preferred Alternative, the compression
of the site renders Phase 2 production
facilities too small to be
operationally efficient and
economically viable. In addition, the
site compression compromising internal
road network routing making
truck/people traffic flow inefficient.
Therefore, Alternative 5 is not a
practical alternative and does not meet

the purpose and need of the project.

Alternative 6 This alternative layout minimizes the
square footage of API production to
809,560 square feet by eliminating all
the Phase 2 production facilities and
the Phase 2 office /gowning/and
laboratory facility from the southwest
portion of the site plan. This
elimination avoids all impacts to the
non-jurisdictional, isolated wetland in
this area. Wetland impacts are further
minimized by compressing and shifting
Page 25

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW-2015-02127)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

the balance of the site layout to the
north and west. The interior site road
along the south side of the site curves
to minimize the wetland encroachment
while minimizing wetland impacts by
breaking the parking lot on the
southern portion of the facility into
two separate parking pads on either
side of the wetland area. This
alternative extends the Gordon Road
Access further into site allowing the
Guard House to be shifted outside of
the wetland and further minimizes
wetland encroachments by utilizing
retaining walls along the access road.
By extending the road further into the
site, it also allows the road into the
wastewater treatment facility to
utilize an existing farm road crossing
further minimizing wetland impacts.
Jurisdictional impacts associated with
Alternative 6 include 0.72 acre of
jurisdictional wetland, and 0.37 acres
of wetland impact resulting from the
Gordon Road Access corridor north of
the railroad. This Alternative has the
least amount of wetland impact (1.57
acres less jurisdictional wetland
impact and 2.18 acre less isolated,
non-jurisdictional wetland impact)
compared to the Preferred Alternative.
However, the elimination of the Phase 2
production facilities and
office/gowning/laboratory facility
renders Phase 2 production facilities
too small to be operationally efficient
and economically viable. This
Alternative does not allow for any
required Phase 2 production office or
laboratory space. The compression of
the site to the north does not allow
adequate parking required for the Phase
2 production. In addition, the site
compression compromises the internal
road network routing making
truck/people traffic flow inefficient.
Page 26

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW-2015-02127)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

Therefore, Alternative 6 is not a
practical alternative and does not meet

the purpose and need of the project.

Gordon Road Access Alternatives:
Description Comparison to criteria
Alternative 1: In order to accommodate the proposed
Widen Powhatan traffic increase, consideration was

Roadgiven to the widening of Powhatan Road
from an existing 2-lane facility to a
4-lane facility from the
existing/proposed Novo Nordisk driveway
entrances onto Powhatan Road down to
the Highway 70 intersection. Widening
of the road would also require an at-
grade widening of the existing
NCRR/Norfolk Southern Railroad crossing
on Powhatan Road. NCRR indicated to
NCDOT that they would not allow an
improved at-grade rail crossing and
would only allow a bridged rail
crossing for any road improvements.
Because of the required elevation of a
bridged rail crossing (approximately
30-feet), the bridge would extend past
the proposed and existing Novo Nordisk
plant entrance making it not practical.
NCDOT requires that the proposed plant
entrance align with the existing
driveway entrance onto Powhatan Road.
In addition, the widening of Powhatan
Road from Best Wood Drive to US 70
would impact numerous residences and
business with frontage along Powhatan
Road. Even without the logistical
constraints of the railroad crossing
and residential/business impacts, if
Powhatan Road were widened to a 4-lane
facility, the volume of the proposed
operational and construction traffic
would result in significant traffic
congestion at the Powhatan Road/US 70
intersection. Therefore, the widening
of Powhatan Road is not considered a

practical alternative.
Page 27

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW-2015-02127)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

Alternative 3 This conceptual alternative was

Accessdeveloped by NCDOT in the early project
development. This alternative would re-
align Gordon Road providing direct
access into the Novo Nordisk facility
requiring the general public to make a
right/left turn to continue on Gordon
Road. After more detailed evaluation of
the alternative, it was determined that
this type of traffic pattern could be
confusing to local drivers and the
construction access road could be
mistaken as the primary road requiring
drivers to travel all the way into the
Novo Nordisk facility to be redirected
at the guard house. NCDOT’s final
determination was a “T” intersection
off of Gordon Road would be more
efficient from a traffic routing
standpoint and would be less confusing
for local travelers. In addition, other
practical alternatives were evaluated

that had less jurisdictional impacts.
Alternative 3A This alternative allowed for the “T”

Accessintersection at Gordon Road and also
minimized wetland impacts (a 0.57-acre
reduction compared to Alternative 3).
However, after further review of this
alternative including discussions with
the Town of Clayton, concerns were
raised that vehicular and truck traffic
on this road would create noise and
headlight intrusion into the
neighborhood since deliveries would be
occurring during late night hours. This
alternative was preferable over
Alternatives 4 and 5 in that the
intersection onto Gordon Road was not
in alignment with the entrances into
the neighborhood; however this
alternative was not considered
practical because of the potential

neighborhood disturbance.
Alternative 4 This conceptual alternative was

Access developed by NCDOT in the early project
development. This alternative would
Page 28

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW-2015-02127)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

minimize new driveway access onto
Gordon Road by aligning with the
existing neighborhood driveway. While
this alternative was practical from a
traffic flow pattern, it was determined
not to be a practical alternative due
to traffic, noise, and lighting
intrusion associated with the
neighborhood. In addition, this
alternative had the greatest amount of
impacts to jurisdictional features
(1.07 acres more wetland impact than

the Preferred Alternative).
Alternative 5Mod This alternative was evaluated to

Access determine if it would minimize
jurisdictional impacts by utilizing the
existing farm road that is also used as
a driveway for New Bethel Church and
cemetery. Novo Nordisk does not have
ownership of the property to the east
of the farm road, therefore the road
would have to be re-aligned immediately
to the west of the existing farm road.
The alternative was also aligned to
avoid direct impacts and minimize
indirect impacts to the church and
cemetery. Because of the length and
height of the required bridge crossing
of the railroad, it was determined that
this alternative would have indirect
visual impacts to the church as well as
noise concerns. In addition, this
alternative had 0.21 acres more wetland
impact than the Preferred Alternative;
therefore this alternative was

determined not to be practical.

g.Other alternatives not requiring a permit, including No Action.
The No Action alternative is the no permit alternative (not necessarily the no project
alternative) and should always be specifically discussed. The avoidance alternative
normally focuses on sites other than the proposed project site. The question to answer here
is “Are there other off-site parcels available that would fulfill the overall project purpose?”
Page 29

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW-2015-02127)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

The question then is how large a geographic area to search and what criteria to use to
select other potential project sites. It is the Corps’ responsibility to define the project
purpose, which, in turn, defines the geographic area to search. It is the applicant’s
responsibility to (1) define a set of criteria for site evaluation; (2) locate potential sites; (3)
rate each site according to the applicant’s criteria and an evaluation of impacts to
waters/wetlands and other applicable environmental criteria; and, (4) prepare a report
describing the search for the sites, identification of their location and rating, and a
narrative that shows which site, if any, is the preferred alternative. We generally do not ask
for this level of detail on single-family residential proposals or other projects with minor
impacts.

While the avoidance alternatives most often deal with geographic alternatives, don’t lose
sight of alternate means to achieve the project purpose; e.g., if the project purpose is to
supply water, you may need to look at mandatory conservation, wells, etc., as well as
reservoirs; if the project purpose is economic development, you may need to look at
industrial parks, or public transportation as well as roads. Keep in mind that only
reasonable alternatives need to be discussed (public transportation in a very rural county is
not generally a reasonable alternative).

Description Comparison to criteria
No Action
The No-Action Alternative means that
the Applicant’s proposed Project would
not be implemented, and the resulting
environmental effects from taking no
action would serve as a baseline from
which to compare the effects of
permitting the proposed Project or an
alternative to proceed.

Novo Nordisk has considered the no
action (i.e. no permit required)
alternative which would not result in
temporary or permanent impacts to
jurisdictional waters and wetlands.
While this would be the least damaging
alternative, it is not practicable, and
does not support the project purpose
and need. Therefore, a no-action
alternative is not a viable option for
the Applicant.

With regard to upland-only alternatives
on other sites, the large land
requirements for the design and layout
of a pharmaceutical manufacturing
facility along with the temporary and
Page 30

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW-2015-02127)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

permanent roadway network required to
supports construction and operational
traffic, would likely conflict with
environmental constraints. The piedmont
and coastal plain physiographic regions
of North Carolina are primarily
underlain with large areas of hydric
soils, interspersed with low-moderate
energy streams, modified natural stream
channels with expansive natural and
altered non-riparian and riparian
wetland systems. As a result of these
geographic locations, it is unlikely
that most sites, including the
alternatives identified during the site
selection process, would support a
large manufacturing development without
any impacts to jurisdictional areas.

On the proposed (Preferred) site, the
no-action (no permit) alternative would
require the extensive use of retaining
walls to limit the extent of fill and
the construction of bridges to access
several portions of the site. This
alternative would also require
significantly reducing the size of the
production warehouses and/or breaking
the manufacturing operations into
several separate buildings and
spreading them across the site. While
it may be technically possible to
construct the development without
direct impacts to the jurisdictional
areas, to do so would compromise the
API manufacturing configuration and
operational efficiency and render the
facility too inefficient to be a viable
operation and long-term financial
investment, and fail to meet the stated

purpose of the project.

Page 31

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW-2015-02127)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

h.Alternatives not practicable or reasonable.
Describe/Explain
Address which alternative(s) is/are considered the least damaging to the aquatic ecosystem,
and which alternatives are practicable. If an alternative is selected that is not the least
damaging to the aquatic environment because the least damaging alternative has other
significant environmental effects, explain the scope and magnitude of those other effects and
how those effects outweigh the overall impacts to the aquatic environment.

i.Least environmentally damaging practicable alternative.
The Applicants
have provided information regarding the site selection
process, and have reviewed several sites in the project
search area. This analysis demonstrates that there are
no off-site alternatives that would meet the project
purpose and need and result in reduced impacts to waters
of the U.S. The Applicants have also addressed on-site
alternatives for the facility and for the Gordon Road
Access, including a discussion of the limitations to the
site design process, such as grading, topography,
traffic flow, etc. The evaluation has also addressed
alternative site configurations and efforts make by the
Applicants to minimize impacts to streams and wetlands,
and to attempt to locate unavoidable impacts in areas
that support the least aquatic functions. After
reviewing the alternatives and the efforts made to avoid
and minimize impacts to the aquatic environment, the
proposed plan represents the least damaging practicable

alternative.

5.Evaluation of the 404(b)(1) Guidelines. (NA) See Section 7.

a.Factual determinations.

Physical Substrate.
See Existing Conditions, paragraph 1. See Section 7.a.1.

The Site is composed of primarily agricultural land
interspersed with stands of mixed hardwood forests. The
majority of the forested areas of the Site are
jurisdictional or isolated wetland features that have
been largely undisturbed by past activities on the
property. Approximately 188 linear feet of perennial
stream channel would be placed into a culvert for the
construction of the access road into the Site from
Gordon Road. In this area, the existing substrate within
the channel would be replaced by the culvert bottom. The
culvert would be placed below the streambed if possible
to allow upstream sediment to form a more natural
Page 32

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW-2015-02127)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

channel bed over time. The culvert will be sized
appropriately to convey the 100-year storm without any
adverse effects to upstream properties and ensuring the
passage of aquatic life. Fillslopes associated with the
roadway corridor at the culvert inlet and outlet would
be revegetated and stabilized with riprap along the base
of the fill to prevent erosion.

Additionally, 5.32 acres of wetland would be filled to
construct the Site and the Gordon Road Access, primarily
for the construction of roadway corridors and building
footprints and aprons. In these areas, unsuitable
substrates would be excavated prior to the placement of
clean fill capable of providing suitable compaction for
the building foundations and road beds. In all areas
where fill would be placed, the existing elevation would
be increased. Sedimentation and erosion control measures
would be utilized will limit the displacement of

sediment downstream.
Determine the nature and degree of effect that the proposed
discharge will have, individually and cumulatively, on the characteristics of the substrate at the
proposed disposal site. Consideration shall be given to the similarity in particle size, shape, and
degree of compaction of the material proposed for discharge and the material constituting the
substrate at the disposal site, and any potential changes in substrate elevation and bottom contours,
including changes outside of the disposal site which may occur as a result of erosion, slumpage, or
other movement of the discharged material. The duration and physical extent of substrate changes
shall also be considered. The possible loss of environmental values (40 CFR Sec. 230.20) and
actions to minimize impact (40 CFR Secs. 230.70 through 230.77) shall also be considered in
making these determinations. Potential changes in substrate elevation and bottom contours shall be
predicted on the basis of the proposed method, volume, location, and rate of discharge, as well as
on the individual and combined effects of current patterns, water circulation, wind and wave action,

and other physical factors that may affect the movement of the discharged material.
Water circulation, fluctuation, and salinity. See Section 7.a.2.
Addressed in the Water Quality Certification.

The proposed project should have no appreciable
effect on current, circulation, or drainage patterns.
The drainage pattern of the stream on the Site has been
historically altered through
channelization/straightening associated with
agricultural activities, and the reach of stream that
would be culverted is already effectively straight.
Construction of the access roadway across the stream
would use a culvert system sized appropriately to convey
normal baseflow and stormflows without impeding or
impounding flow through the stream. The roadway crossing
through wetland WD would utilize multiple equalizer
pipes to ensure hydrologic connectivity between the
wetland areas divided by the crossing and protecting
natural water circulation and fluctuations in the
Page 33

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW-2015-02127)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

wetland system. Impacts to the wetlands within the Site
north of the railroad crossing will be limited to the
margins and outer edges of the wetlands and would to
allow natural circulation and fluctuation within the
majority of the wetland system on the Site to continue
unimpeded.

The Site is situated within the approximate topographic
high point within the vicinity, and is the headwaters of
three different watersheds. The Site drains east towards
Little Poplar Creek, south towards Reedy Branch, and
north towards Cooper Branch, so potential off-site
flooding upstream of the filled areas should not be a
concern. The wetland impact is not substantial given the
size of the wetland systems present within the Site. The
loss of floodwater retention capacity of the wetlands
would be offset by the installation of stormwater
detention basins, such that that the project would not
result in a measurable decrease in overall floodwater
retention. In general, the discharge of stormwater from
the site would be regulated to prevent large spikes in
volume following most rainfall events. Large storms that
produce in excess of one inch of rain may exceed the
storage capacity of the basins and result in increased
flows downstream of the site. Water chemistry may also
be changed somewhat from existing levels. Additionally,
the increase in impermeable surfaces may result in

increased temperatures in stormwater runoff.
Determine the
nature and degree of effect that the proposed discharge will have individually and cumulatively on
water, current patterns, circulation including downstream flows, and normal water fluctuation.
Consideration shall be given to water chemistry, salinity, clarity, color, odor, taste, dissolved gas
levels, temperature, nutrients, and eutrophication plus other appropriate characteristics.
Consideration shall also be given to the potential diversion or obstruction of flow, alterations of
bottom contours, or other significant changes in the hydrologic regime. Additional consideration of
the possible loss of environmental values (40 CFR Secs. 230.23 through 230.25) and actions to
minimize impacts (40 CFR Secs. 230.70 through 230.77), shall be used in making these
determinations. Potential significant effects on the current patterns, water circulation, normal water
fluctuation and salinity shall be evaluated on the basis of the proposed method, volume, location,

and rate of discharge.
Suspended particulate/turbidity. See Section 7.a.3.
Turbidity controls in Water Quality Certification.

The existing agricultural fields have led to the
transport of excessive sediment into the wetland areas
and the stream channel on the Site. The project-specific
sedimentation and erosion control measures that will be
utilized during construction will minimize downstream
sedimentation. The majority of turbidity increases would
likely result from the clearing and construction of
Page 34

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW-2015-02127)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

upland areas. Sediment loss would be minimized by the
implementation of sediment and erosion control measures.
Once construction of the site is complete, the soils
would be stabilized, revegetated, and stormwater runoff
would be directed to detention and treatment basins.
Accordingly, the effects of turbidity resulting from the
proposed undertaking are expected to be temporary and

minor.
Determine the nature and degree of effect that the proposed discharge will have,
individually and cumulatively, in terms of potential changes in the kinds and concentrations of
suspended particulate/turbidity in the vicinity of the disposal site. Consideration shall be given to
the grain size of the material proposed for discharge, the shape and size of the plume of suspended
particulates, the duration of the discharge and resulting plume and whether or not the potential
changes will cause violations of applicable water quality standards. Consideration should also be
given to the possible loss of environmental values (40 CFR Sec. 230.21) and to actions for
minimizing impacts (40 CFR Secs. 230.70 through 230.77). Consideration shall include the
proposed method, volume, location, and rate of discharge, as well as the individual and combined
effects of current patterns, water circulation and fluctuations, wind and wave action, and other
physical factors on the movement of suspended particulates.
Contaminant availability. See Section 7.a.4.
General Condition requires clean fill.

Proposed uses for the site would result in the
potential discharge of some pollutants, including road
treatment for winter weather, oil products from
automobile engines, and some fertilizers for
landscaping. In general, the level of potential
contaminant introduction to the aquatic systems is low.
Contaminants would leave the site in the initial inch of
rainfall, where they would wash to the stormwater
detention basins. Additionally, only suitable earthen
material originating on-site, which should be free of
toxic pollutants or contaminants, would be used for

construction of the permitted fills.
Determine the degree to which the
material proposed for discharge will introduce, relocate, or increase contaminants. This
determination shall consider the material to be discharged, the aquatic environment at the proposed

disposal site, and the availability of contaminants.
Aquatic ecosystem and organism. See Section 7.a.5.
Wetland/wildlife evaluations, paragraphs 5, 6, 7 & 8.

The direct effects due to the placement of fill
associated with the project would be a total loss to the
impacted aquatic ecosystem and its functions in the
footprint of the fill placement. The isolated basin
wetland located within the Site would be filled and
would no longer be able to provide nutrient filtration,
sediment removal, or stormwater storage. Any aquatic
habitat present within the wetland area would be lost.
The secondary short-term effects expected downstream
would primarily be limited to temporary discharges of
sediment during construction. Even with proper
Page 35

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW-2015-02127)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

construction and maintenance, sediment control measures
do not eliminate all turbidity in receiving waters,
though these effects should be limited to the duration
of site construction and maintenance of required

sediment and erosion control measures.
Determine the nature and
degree of effect that the proposed discharge will have, both individually and cumulatively, on the
structure and function of the aquatic ecosystem and organisms. Consideration shall be given to the
effect at the proposed disposal site of potential changes in substrate characteristics and elevation,
water or substrate chemistry, nutrients, currents, circulation, fluctuation, and salinity, on the
recolonization and existence of indigenous aquatic organisms or communities. Possible loss of
environmental values (40 CFR Sec. 230.31), and actions to minimize impacts (40 CFR Secs. 230.70
through 230.77) shall be examined. Tests as described in 40 CFR Sec. 230.61 (Evaluation and
Testing), may be required to provide information on the effect of the discharge material on

communities or populations of organisms expected to be exposed to it.
Proposed disposal site. See Section 7.a.6.
Public interest, paragraph 7.

No disposal sites are required by the proposed plans.
a) Each disposal site shall be specified through the application of these Guidelines. The mixing zone
shall be confined to the smallest practicable zone within each specified disposal site that is
consistent with the type of dispersion determined to be appropriate by the application of these
Guidelines. In a few special cases under unique environmental conditions, where there is adequate
justification to show that widespread dispersion by natural means will result in no significantly
adverse environmental effects, the discharged material may be intended to be spread naturally in a
very thin layer over a large area of the substrate rather than be contained within the disposal site.
b) Consider the following factors in determining the acceptability of a proposed mixing zone: (i)
Depth of water at the disposal site; (ii) Current velocity, direction, and variability at the disposal
site; (iii) Degree of turbulence; (iv) Stratification attributable to causes such as obstructions,
salinity or density profiles at the disposal site; (v) Discharge vessel speed and direction, if
appropriate; (vi) Rate of discharge; (vii) Ambient concentration of constituents of interest; (viii)
Dredged material characteristics, particularly concentrations of constituents, amount of material,
type of material (sand, silt, clay, etc.) and settling velocities; (ix) Number of discharge actions per
unit of time; (x) Other factors of the disposal site that affect the rates and patterns of mixing.

Cumulative effects on the aquatic ecosystem. See Section 7.a.7.
See Paragraph 7.e.

For the purposes of assessing cumulative effects that
the proposed action may have to the aquatic environment,
it is reasonable to evaluate the effects within the
project boundaries and downstream of the project as it
could affect the watershed. The direct impact of the
proposed construction includes the loss of 188 linear
feet of perennial stream channel, 19,326 square feet of
riparian buffer, 5.32 acres of riparian wetland, and
2.18 acres of isolated NCDWR regulated wetlands. The
impacts to these resources would result in a complete
loss of function, including water quality functions
(nutrient sequestration, sediment filtration, etc.),
habitat for aquatic and terrestrial species, and
hydrology (flood water attenuation, groundwater
recharge, etc.).
Page 36

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW-2015-02127)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

The Site is located in an area that is relatively rural,
with a mix of industrial development, low-density
residential areas, and agricultural land uses. The Site
is located in the headwaters of the three drainage ways:
Cooper Branch, Little Poplar Creek, and Reedy Branch.
Current stresses on these three systems come from high
sediment loads and nutrient inputs that come from
agricultural land use (resulting from the constant
tilling of soils, and the addition of pesticides and
fertilizers), as well as development for commercial
industrial and residential uses. The potential
cumulative effects on the aquatic environment generated
by the project would be both temporary and permanent.
The temporary effects would primarily be limited to the
increased sediment load that result from site
disturbance. High sediment loads can cause changes to
the channels capacity, potential destabilization of the
stream banks, and loss of aquatic habitat. The potential
for sediment discharges would last for the duration of
site construction, though the effects of the sediment
may be long lasting. This effect can be moderated by the
proper installation and maintenance of erosion control
measures.

The long-term cumulative effects would include the
incremental loss of aquatic function provided by the
stream and wetlands on the site, including in-stream and
riparian habitat, sediment and nutrient filtration,
stormwater retention, baseflow maintenance, groundwater
recharge, sediment transport, etc. The long-term effects
would also include increases in stormwater flowing off
the site. Increased stormwater can have a substantial
effect on a stream system’s stability and functional
integrity for miles downstream of a discharge. This
effect can also manifest itself over many years, and is
often caused by numerous small changes within a
watershed. The proposed development plan includes the
construction of four stormwater detention basins,
designed to capture the first inch of every rainfall
event within the contributing basin. These measures can
substantially reduce the effect of stormwater on
downstream tributaries. As the watershed is still
largely rural, the cumulative effect of the proposed
project and other similar projects is still minimal.
Proper implementation of sediment and erosion control
measures and stormwater management practices, as
Page 37

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW-2015-02127)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

proposed by the current plans, is the best way to
minimize the cumulative impact of this type of
development.

Overall, the anticipated effects of the proposed project
would be minimal relative to similar types of projects
in the region, and taken alone, do not present a
significant or imminent threat to the stability and
integrity of the aquatic ecosystem within the watershed.
The type of wetland and stream system that would be
impacted is not a particularly unique or high quality
resource. By implementing proposed best management
practices, such as the retention of stormwater and the
implementation of sediment and erosion control measures,
the effects of the project could be somewhat reduced.
The loss of stream and wetland function would also be

replaced by the proposed mitigation.
a) Cumulative impacts are the
changes in an aquatic ecosystem that are attributable to the collective effect of a number of
individual discharges of dredged or fill material. Although the impact of a particular discharge may
constitute a minor change in itself, the cumulative effect of numerous such piecemeal changes can
result in a major impairment of the water resources and interfere with the productivity and water
quality of existing aquatic ecosystems.
b) Cumulative effects attributable to the discharge of dredged or fill material in waters of the United
States should be predicted to the extent reasonable and practical. The permitting authority shall
collect information and solicit information from other sources about the cumulative impacts on the
aquatic ecosystem. This information shall be documented and considered during the decision-
making process concerning the evaluation of individual permit applications, the issuance of a
General permit, and monitoring and enforcement of existing permits.
Secondary effects on the aquatic ecosystem. See Section 7.a.8.
See Paragraph 7.e.

The proposed project is designed to serve an existing
and expanding need for diabetes medication in the United
States and the rest of the world. The project is
expected to provide an economic boost to the local
community and state of North Carolina, primarily as a
result of tax revenues and job creation. Based on the
type and number of jobs created, the economic benefit is
expected to go toward meeting current job demand as well
as contributing to a moderate regional population
growth.

Construction of the proposed project will require the
extension of utilities as the current Site has been
historically used for agriculture and is not serviced by
utilities, however, the Site is surrounded by existing
residential and industrial development, so these
utilities are present within a short distance of Site.
The Town of Clayton has committed to extending water and
Page 38

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW-2015-02127)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

sewer services into the Site, and Duke Energy will bring
electrical service to the Site. When considering these
factors, it is evident that the proposed undertaking is
best defined as the secondary impact associated with the
prior construction of industrial development and
infrastructure in this area of Johnston County, rather
than the impetus for future development. It is likely
that adjacent land parcels that are currently farmed or
wooded may become available for development as a result
of increased land values, and because of the increased
demand for commercial support sites and services that
traditionally follows the development of a large
industrial facility. It is also possible that additional
impacts to the aquatic environment may be requested for
future developments in the area, most likely as a result
of the extension of utilities (i.e., water and sewer
services). These effects may not be realized in the near
future, but because the proposed Site has several high
ground parcels currently used for agriculture nearby, in
the longer term additional impacts to streams and
wetlands may result from future development.

If this project were not constructed, the reduction in
rate of regional development would only be short-term.
The project is located within an industrial corridor
along US 70 Business and adjacent to existing industrial
facilities, making it prime real estate for further
commercial or industrial development. The demand for new
commercial space is increasing in the vicinity of the
project site in response to encroaching suburban sprawl
from Wake County into Johnston County and the Clayton
area to the northwest. The proposed project site is
located close to the US 70 Bypass, providing quick
access to I-40, and the I-95 corridor is located less
than 10 miles to the southeast, so continued industrial
and commercial development is focused in this area of
Johnston County. The Town of Clayton has also zoned
these areas specifically to encourage commercial to
light industrial development. If the current undertaking
were abandoned, future development proposals would soon
follow.

Based on the factors discussed above, the cumulative
effect of the proposed undertaking does not pose a
significant threat the integrity of the aquatic
environment. Additionally, the secondary impacts
resulting from the proposed plans are primarily limited
Page 39

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW-2015-02127)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

to increased development pressure on neighboring,
undeveloped tracts of land. Based on this estimate, the
overall secondary effects on aquatic resources

associated with this project are not more than minimal.
a) Secondary effects are effects on an aquatic ecosystem that are associated with a discharge of
dredged or fill materials, but do not result from the actual placement of the dredged or fill material.
Information about secondary effects on aquatic ecosystems shall be considered prior to the time
final section 404 action is taken by permitting authorities.
b) Some examples of secondary effects on an aquatic ecosystem are fluctuating water levels in an
impoundment and downstream associated with the operation of a dam, septic tank leaching and
surface runoff from residential or commercial developments on fill, and leachate and runoff from a
sanitary landfill located in WoUS. Activities to be conducted on fast land created by the discharge
of dredged or fill material in WoUS may have secondary impacts within those waters which should
be considered in evaluating the impact of creating those fast lands.
Secondary effects are effects directly resulting from the authorized work, not necessarily
from the project as a whole. Keep in mind, secondary effects do not HAVE to be a negative…e.g.
construction of a WWTP w/ a regional sewer system can have a positive effect by eliminating failing

septic systems or smaller “package” plants.

b.Restrictions on discharges (230.10). See Section 7.b.If your project is complex,

controversial, or not simply explained use additional text to fully and accurately
explain the details relating to the information that would be otherwise conveyed by
the check list below. Utilize the headings provided and insert additional text where
necessary. This is especially important if one or more of the questions below is
NOT answered as a typical reviewer would expect (e.g. the alternative that is least
damaging to the aquatic environment is not the selected alternative). This section
does not apply to Section 10-only projects. For those projects, insert a sentence to
that effect.

(1)It has/has not been demonstrated in paragraph 5 that there are no
practicable or less damaging alternatives which could satisfy the project's basic
purpose. The activity is/is not located in a special aquatic site (wetlands,
sanctuaries, and refuges, mudflats, vegetated shallows, coral reefs, riffle & pool
complexes). The activity does/does not need to be located in a special
aquatic site to fulfill its basic purpose. See Section 7.b.1 (a, b, c, and

d).

(2)The proposed activity does/does not violate applicable State water quality
standards or Section 307 prohibitions or effluent standards (based on
information from the certifying agency that the Corps could proceed with a
provisional determination). The proposed activity does/does not
jeopardize the continued existence of federally listed threatened or endangered
species or affects their critical habitat. The proposed activity does/does
not violate the requirements of a federally designate marine sanctuary.

See Section 7.b.2. (a, b, and c).

(3)The activity will/will not cause or contribute to significant degradation of
waters of the United States, including adverse effects on human health; life
Page 40

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW-2015-02127)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

stages of aquatic organisms' ecosystem diversity, productivity and stability; and
recreation, esthetic, and economic values.See Section 7.b.3.

(4)Appropriate and practicable steps have/have not been taken to minimize
potential adverse impacts of the discharge on the aquatic ecosystem (see
Paragraph 8 for description of mitigative actions). See Section 7.b.4.

The February 6, 1990, Corps/Environmental Protection Agency Memorandum
of Agreement (MOA) established procedures to determine the type and level of
mitigation necessary to comply with the Clean Water Act section 404(b)(1)
Guidelines. This MOA provides for first, avoiding impacts to waters and
wetlands through the selection of the least damaging, practical alternative;
second, taking appropriate and practical steps to minimize impacts on waters
and wetlands; and finally, compensating for any remaining unavoidable impacts
to the extent appropriate and practical. To determine "appropriate and
practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, measures should be
selected which are appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts, and
practicable in terms of cost, logistics, and technology in light of the overall
project purpose.

Include: (1) a valuation of the damage to the wetland caused by the fill;

(2) a discussion of why compensatory mitigation is or is not required; (3) a
description and valuation of the proposed works to protect, preserve, enhance,
and/or construct wetland area or areas; and, (4) a narrative that describes the
feasibility of the work and the basis for the assurance of success. Note that the
valuation method used here should be consistent with the rating method in the
analysis of avoidance and should be consistent with the estimates of
consequences in the minimization analysis.

6.Public Interest Review: All public interest factors have been reviewed as summarized here.
Both cumulative and secondary impacts on the public interest were considered. Public
interest factors that have had additional information relevant to the decision are discussed in
number 7. See Section 8. Address the scope and permanence of the impact in 7. below.

+ Beneficial effect
0 Negligible effect
- Adverse effect
M Neutral as result of mitigative action
+ 0 - M
Conservation.

Areas not to be developed; Deeded to local group or government
Economics.

33CFR320.4(q); Beneficiary; Value (generally estimated); Economic
viability; Contribute to improvements in local economic base (employment, tax
revenues, community services, property values); National Economic Development
(increase in net value of national output of goods and services). For a project
submitted by a private enterprise, we generally assume that appropriate economic
Page 41

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW-2015-02127)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

evaluations have been completed, the proposal is economically viable, and is needed
in the market place. Remember that if you make statements about economic growth,
.
then you should also look at the consequences of growth-induced impacts
Aesthetics.

Does alteration generally fit the current state of the area?If project is
a "first", it could cause disharmony from aerial or adjacent property view;

Landscaping.
General environmental concerns.
33CFR320.4(p); make global statement
either here or else make no statement here and address in detail under following
sections for wetlands, historic & cultural, and fish & wildlife; Beneficial effects;

Environmental detriments; Environmental Justice issues.
Wetlands.

33CFR320.4(b); Acres affected; Nature of wetlands; Function
performed (category from 4(b)(2)); Relative order of productivity in performing
function as habitat or for water quality maintenance; Part of a complete and

interrelated wetland area?
Historic properties.
33CFR320.4(e); Permit area (defined as WoUS physically
affected plus structures and uplands directly affected); SHPO comments; Any known

or suspected sites? Survey required? Special conditions.
Fish and wildlife values.
33CFR320.4(c). FWS/NMFS/FFWCC comments;
Anticipated/known impacts.
Flood hazards.

Location has a degree of risk from hurricanes and is subject to
damage from winds and storm surges.\[*for large coastal developments*\] Hurricane

evacuation (coordinated with Planning Division).
Floodplain values.

33CFR320.4(l); Mention EO 11988; Flood stages &
frequencies; Potential hazard to project; Floodplain function (from 4(l)(1)(i));
Cumulative impact on function; Cumulative potential harm to up/downstream

activities; Is project located within the 100-year floodplain?
Land use.

Compliance with local zoning; Appropriate for the area?;Alternative

location Alternative design.
Navigation.

33CFR320.4(o); Width of waterway; Distance to ICW; Channel part
or in close proximity to Federal project? Project causes a hazard or undue
interference? Ingress or egress issues; Maintaining marine traffic; Issues over

competing uses; Risk analysis by Coast Guard; Results of X/Y’s
Shore erosion and accretion.

33CFR320.4(g)(2); Has there been
erosion/accretion? How will project stabilize shore? Storm, wave, erosion buffers?

Impact on adjacent properties or on the public interest
Recreation.

Will the project increase waterborne (or other) recreation? Turbidity
during construction in close proximity to a recreation area using clear water?

Competing uses
Water supply and conservation.

33CFR320.4(m);Water availability and affect
by use (e.g.: drawdown); Steps taken to minimize water demand; Will affect
availability for alternate uses? Potable water; Increase in impervious area in

groundwater recharge areas
Water quality.

33CFR320.4(d); WQ Certification; Adverse/beneficial impacts

(Dissolved oxygen, turbidity, nutrient removal, other pollutants); EPA Comments.
Energy needs.

33CFR320.4(n); Power generation/transmission generally positive

effect; large consumer sometimes negative.
Safety.

Private/applicant; Public.
Food and fiber production.
Enhance/Decrease acreage?
Mineral needs.

Enhance/decrease potential mining?
Considerations of property ownership.

Public rights to navigation; Public
interests in environmental protection; Riparian rights; Owner has inherent right to
Page 42

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW-2015-02127)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

reasonable private use; Public lands; For transportation projects dislocation and

eminent domain
Needs and welfare of the people.

7.Effects, policies and other laws.

a.NA

Public Interest Factors. (add factors that are relevant to specific project that you checked in
number 6 above and add a discussion of that factor)

Factor Discussion

Economics The proposed project will expand Novo
Nordisk’s ability to produce
ingredients for current and future
diabetes fighting products. Expanding
the company’s Active Pharmaceutical
Ingredients (API) production in the
U.S. will supplement Novo Nordisk’s
current API footprint in Denmark where
production capacity is limited and
current supply is unable to meet the
growing global demand. The expansions
will help Novo Nordisk meet the
increasing worldwide demand for its
diabetes medicines.

Novo Nordisk’s existing fill/finish
facility, located adjacent to the
proposed expansion Site, is the
company’s only U.S. facility that
produces insulin and only the second
insulin manufacturing facility in North
Carolina. The FDA approved facility
operates 24/7 with 740 full-time
employees.

In addition to helping supply the
growing global demand for insulin, the
proposed project also provides an
economic benefit to the citizens of
North Carolina and particularly
Johnston County. Novo Nordisk will
invest $1.85 billion dollars
constructing the new facility and plans
on hiring 700 new employees over the
next five years with an average annual
Page 43

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW-2015-02127)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

salary of almost $70,000 in
manufacturing and engineering. It is
anticipated that more than 2,000
workers will be employed during the
construction phase of the project.
The proposed expansion project, in
combination with Novo Nordisk’s
existing manufacturing facility, will
help solidify the Town and Clayton and
Johnston County as a leader in the bio-

manufacturing industry.

Aesthetics The project will be located within the
Town of Clayton ETJ and site plan
approval will be contingent upon proper
landscaping and lighting plans being
included as part of the overall site
layout. Additionally, Novo Nordisk
places a strong emphasis on campus-
style design of their facilities, and
the proposed Site layout would include
walking paths, landscaping, natural
areas, recreational amenities, and
community-friendly design elements.
Overall, the Site will not appear to be
an industrial manufacturing facility
from the public roads around the
property, similar to the overall design
aesthetic of the existing Novo Nordisk
facility northwest of the Site. As a
result, industrial development by Novo
Nordisk on this Site would not cause
disharmony in the aesthetics of the
community or planned future growth of

the region.

Wetlands There are a total of 76.01 acres of
jurisdictional wetlands on the Site.
Three isolated wetlands were identified
within the property, totaling 2.45
acres of isolated basin wetlands
(regulated by NCDWR), and 0.48 acres of
isolated headwater forest (not
regulated by NCDWR).

The project would result in the loss of
5.32 acres of headwater forest wetland
and 2.18 acres of isolated basin
Page 44

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW-2015-02127)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

wetlands that currently provide
nutrient filtration, sediment removal,
and aquatic habitat. The Applicant
would mitigate for unavoidable impacts
to the USACE jurisdictional headwater
forest wetlands and the NCDWR regulated
isolated basin wetlands associated with
the Novo Nordisk facility by purchasing
third party mitigation bank credits
from RES. RES anticipates having the
available credits to meet the
mitigation need for this project,
however should the credit releases not
meet the mitigation need for the Site,
mitigation will be secured by payment
into the NCDMS ILF program. Unavoidable
impacts to jurisdictional wetlands
associated with the Gordon Road Access
will be mitigated by NCDOT through the
use of active NCDOT-specific mitigation
banks or by payment into the NCDMS ILF
program.

Some of the lost wetlands functions,
such as the nutrient and sediment
filtering capabilities, would also be
replaced by construction of the on-site

treatment facilities.
Considerations of Adjacent landowners may be affected as
property a result of the proximity of their

ownership property to the project. It is possible
that adjacent landowners may experience
increased commercial interest in their
property, leading to higher value and
resulting tax rate. However, the use of
the land would be consistent with the
designated zoning, and the owner's
right to reasonable, private use of

their land.

b.Endangered Species Act. NA See Section 8.e.

The proposed project:
Page 45

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW-2015-02127)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

(1)Will not affect these threatened or endangered species:
Any/ .
As of December 27, 2012, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service lists four federally endangered species protected under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) known to occur in Johnston County,
Picoides borealis
including red-cockaded woodpecker (), dwarf
Alasmidonta heterodonElliptio
wedgemussel (), Tar River spinymussel (
steinstansanaRhus michauxii
), and Michaux’s sumac (). Bald eagle
is also known to occur in Johnston County and is protected by the
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGPA). A review of the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database records (updated
October 2015) indicates no known occurrences of any of the
aforementioned species are present within a one-mile radius of the
Site.

As part of the initial agency scoping process for this project, the
NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) and the USFWS were contacted
regarding potential impacts to protected species as a result of the
proposed project. NCWRC expressed concern (Appendix F - Scoping
Letter Comments dated November 19, 2015) that while the northern
Myotis septentrionalis
long-eared bat () is not listed by the USFWS
as known to occur in Johnston County, the forested community within
the Site could potentially support northern long-eared bat
populations. Since the USFWS did not specifically comment on northern
long-eared bat (Scoping Letter Comments dated November 13, 2015),
and since no known roost trees or occurrences of northern long-eared
bat are recorded for Johnston County or within one mile of the
project area, it is unlikely that the proposed will have any effect
on northern long-eared bat.

Habitat evaluations were conducted within the forested portions of
the property for red-cockaded woodpecker nesting and foraging
habitat in September and November 2015. The dense canopy and
understory found within these forested headwater wetland communities
and the large number of hardwoods precludes these areas from
providing suitable nesting or foraging habitat for the red-cockaded
woodpecker. In addition, the NCNHP database (updated October 2015)
has no records, historical or current, of red-cockaded woodpecker
individuals or cavity trees within one mile of the proposed project.
Based upon this information, it has been determined that the proposed
project will have “no effect” on the red-cockaded woodpecker.

The single perennial stream feature identified within the Site is
a small, low velocity coastal plain stream system that has been
historically straightened to flow along the perimeter of an
agricultural field. A large portion of the headwater wetland
Page 46

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW-2015-02127)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

system that supports the stream has been historically managed for
silviculture, and the system was clear-cut most recently in 2014.
The stream flows south towards Gordon Road, where it crosses
beneath the road via a 24” concrete culvert. It is unlikely that
the stream would support dwarf wedgemussel or Tar River
spinymussel based on the hydrologic conditions and riparian
disturbances observed within the Site.

Additionally, a review of NCNHP records, updated October 2015,
indicates no known current dwarf wedgemussel occurrences within
approximately 6.0 river miles of the study area. The nearest known
current population is in Swift Creek. The stream is an Unnamed
Tributary to Reedy Branch, and Reedy Branch is impounded to create
a manmade pond between the Site and Swift Creek. NCNHP records,
updated October 2015, indicate the no known current Tar River
spinymussel occurrences within 95 river miles. Due to the lack of
known occurrences in or near the project boundary and the
hydrologic conditions and riparian disturbances found within the
stream system in the Site, it has been determined that the
proposed project will have “no effect” on the dwarf wedgemussel or
Tar River spinymussel.

Suitable habitat for Michaux’s sumac was identified on the project
Site along the forested community edges adjacent to the
agricultural fields. Kimley-Horn biologists conducted field
surveys of the suitable habitat on September 30, 2015. No
individuals of Michaux’s sumac were observed. In addition, the
NCNHP database has no records, historical or current, of Michaux’s
sumac within one mile of the proposed project. The property
parcels located south of the railroad tract along the access road
corridor from Gordon Road were not included as part of the project
study area at the time of the survey and were added to the study
area following the USFWS survey window, however it is unlikely
that these areas support Michaux’s sumac populations based on the
findings of the pedestrian surveys on the balance of the property.
Based upon this information, it has been determined that the

proposed project will have “no effect” on Michaux’s sumac.

(2)May affect, but is not likely to adversely affect:
Species: .List Species. Explain. Normal Section 7 consultation is

initiated; describe how you came to this conclusion by analyzing the requirements of
50 CFR Part 402.14(c) “Initiation of formal consultation”. The following
information is required:
(a) A description of the action to be considered;
(b) A description of the specific area that may be affected by the action;
(c) A description of any listed species or critical habitat that may be affected by
Page 47

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW-2015-02127)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

the action;
(d) A description of the manner in which the action may affect any listed
species or critical habitat and an analysis of any cumulative effects;
(e) Relevant reports, including any environmental impact statement,
environmental assessment, or biological assessment prepared; and
(f) Any other relevant available information on the action, the affected listed
species or critical habitat.

(3)Will/Will not adversely modify designated critical habitat for the .
List species. Explain.

(4)Is/Is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the . List
species. Explain.

The Services concurred/provided a Biological Opinion(s). . Summary of
Formal Consultation or Informal Consultation (if applicable). Include our
conclusions on the Biological opinion (if appropriate).

c.Essential Fish Habitat. Adverse impacts to Essential Fish Habitat will/will not
result from the proposed project.
No adverse impacts to Essential Fish Habitat will result
from the proposed project. The NOAA Essential Fish
Habitat Mapper was reviewed in November 9, 2015. No
essential fish habitat was found within the project area
Explain. See Section 8.h;
or within the vicinity of the project.
Include comments from NMFS or the local Fisheries Management Council, follow-
up letters and how we resolved their concerns, if we did. The following is the Corps
policy on how to address in our decision documents: “All EFH coordination
between the Corps and NMFS (comments, recommendations, correspondence, final
decisions, etc.) will be documented in the decision document for each permit action.
If no adverse impacts to EFH were identified (e.g., no objection letters were received
from the NMFS), the following statement will be placed in the decision document:
"Essential Fish Habitat - No adverse impacts to Essential Fish Habitat will result
from the proposed project."” If applicable, attach EFH assessment.

d.Historic Properties. The proposed project will/will not have any affect on any
sites listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places, or
otherwise of national, state, or local significance based on letter from SHPO/\[
\].
There are no known or suspected historic or cultural
resources located within the permit area. The State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was contacted and
they verified that no registered properties or
properties listed as being eligible for inclusion
therein are located within the project area. See
Explain. Include comments
attached correspondence from the SHPO.
from the SHPO, follow up letters, resolution. If applicable, attach or describe any
Page 48

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW-2015-02127)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

SHPO requirements, survey results, etc.

e.Cumulative & Secondary Impacts. The geographic area for this assessment is the
watershed. Watershed
Neuse River (USGS 8-digit HUC: 03020201)
typically based on the 8 digit HUC; however, some projects may warrant an
assessment over multiple watersheds (e.g. linear projects) or larger or smaller
watershed sizes. Just explain. See Section 8.g.; Items to consider: other projects in
the area, results of resources at risk analysis, other impacts you believe would occur
as a result of adding this additional project (permitted work, not necessarily the
whole project) to the area; past, present and reasonably foreseeable future impacts;
long and short-term outlook, potential secondary issues, whether the recovery from
impacts is temporary and whether maintenance impacts are anticipated. When
issues are relatively complex, reference the 11 steps contained in the 1997 Council
on Environmental Quality (CEQ) publication entitled “Considering Cumulative
Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act”, available at
http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/ccenepa/ccenepa.htm.

(1)Baseline. Approximately % of the watershed area is wetland. There are
also approximately stream miles contained within the watershed
comprised of % perennial, % intermittent, and %
ephemeral tributaries. Corps permits for the (time) period has
authorized the fill of acres and linear feet of stream. The
projection is that authorizations will continue:
at the current rate
increase
decrease
because . Natural resource issues of particular concern \[from Corps &
non-Corps activities\] are .

(2)Context. The proposed project is typical of /a precedent /very large
compared to / other activities in the watershed. Development similar
to the proposal have occurred since . Future conditions are expected
to . Besides Corps authorized projects, other activities include .
Resulting natural resource changes and stresses include . These
resources are also being affected by . A key issue(s) of concern in this
watershed is/are the resulting from wetland loss.

(3)Mitigation and Monitoring. The project affects the following key issue(s):
. The magnitute of the proposed effect is within the watershed.
Avoidance and minimization methods include that will result in .
Compensatory mitigation, namely and monitoring described in herein
will result in .

f.Corps Wetland Policy. Based on the public interest review herein, the beneficial
effects of the project outweigh the detrimental impacts of the project. See
Section 8.f.The Corps wetland policy requires that the beneficial effects of the

Page 49

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW-2015-02127)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

project outweigh the detrimental impacts of the project. Use this section to sum up
public interest factors that relate to waters/wetlands, and set up your cumulative
impacts analysis.

g.(NA) Water Quality Certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
has/has not yet been issued by /State/Commonwealth. See Section 4.a
(Identify date of issuance; if it was denied, waived, or not required; if special
conditions were/were not issued, and attach copy of these conditions)

h.Coastal Zone Management (CZM) consistency/permit: Issuance of a State permit
certifies that the project is consistent with the CZM plan. There is no evidence or
indication from the (North Carolina Division of Coastal Management) that the
project is inconsistent with their CZM plan. See Section 4.b. (Identify date of
issuance; if it was denied, waived, or not required; if special conditions were/were
not issued, and attach copy of these conditions)

i.Other authorizations. See Section 4.c.Includes local permits, previous

Corps permits (please provide a summary, if applicable, of what was permitted).
Special conditions were/were not issued, and attach copy of these conditions)

j.(NA) Significant Issues of Overriding National Importance. explain, if any

8.Compensation and other mitigation actions. See Section 7.b.4 and Paragraph 5.b.4 above.

a.Compensatory Mitigation

(1)Is compensatory mitigation required? yes no \[If “no,” do not complete
the rest of this section\]

(2)Is the impact in the service area of an approved mitigation bank? yes no

(i)Does the mitigation bank have appropriate number and resource type of
credits available? yes no

(3)Is the impact in the service area of an approved in-lieu fee program?
yes no

(i)Does the in-lieu fee program have appropriate number and resource type of
credits available? yes no

(4)Check the selected compensatory mitigation option(s):
mitigation bank credits
in-lieu fee program credits
permittee-responsible mitigation under a watershed approach
permittee-responsible mitigation, on-site and in-kind
permittee-responsible mitigation, off-site and out-of-kind

Page 50

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW-2015-02127)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

(5)If a selected compensatory mitigation option deviates from the order of the
options presented in §332.3(b)(2)-(6), explain why the selected compensatory
mitigation option is environmentally preferable. Address the criteria provided in
§332.3(a)(1) (i.e., the likelihood for ecological success and sustainability, the
location of the compensation site relative to the impact site and their
significance within the watershed, and the costs of the compensatory mitigation
project): if the mitigation does not deviate, make that statement. Do not leave
this section blank.

(6)Other Mitigative Actions.

9.General evaluation criteria under the public interest review. We considered the following
within this document:

a.The relative extent of the public and private need for the proposed structure or work.
(e.g. Public benefits include employment opportunities and a potential increase in the
local tax base. Private benefits include land use and economic return on the property;
for transportation projects benefits include safety, capacity and congestion issues.) See
Section 8.b.
The primary beneficiary of the project will be Novo
Nordisk who will experience the greatest financial gain.
Further, the proposed project would provide a need for

approximately 700 jobs at full build out.

b.There are no unresolved conflicts as to resource use. ( There are unresolved
conflicts as to resource use. One or more of the alternative locations and methods
described above are reasonable or practicable to accomplish the objectives of the
proposed structure or work but are not being accepted by the applicant.) ( There are
unresolved conflicts as to resource use however there are no practicable reasonable
alternative locations and methods to accomplish the objective of the purposed work.)
See Section 8.c.Describe the practicability of using reasonable alternative locations and

methods to accomplish the objective of the purposed work where there are unresolved
conflicts as to resource use. Describe here the unresolved conflicts and the types of
avoidance or minimization available. You may just want to refer to the alternative
analysis.

c.The extent and permanence of the beneficial and/or detrimental effects, which the
proposed work is likely to have on the public, and private uses to which the area is
suited. Detrimental impacts are expected to be minimal although they would be
permanent in the construction area. The beneficial effects associated with utilization of
the property would be permanent. . Explain. See Section 8.d.

10.Determinations.

a.Public Hearing Request: NA See Sections 9 and 11.a.Information here may include

the results of a public hearing if held, how the Corps responded to the concerns raised by
those who requested the hearing and if no hearing was held, if there were any other
Page 51

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW-2015-02127)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

public meetings held where there were opportunities to comment. If a public hearing
was requested, and one was not held, please explain why.

I have reviewed and evaluated the requests for a public hearing. There is sufficient
information available to evaluate the proposed project; therefore, the requests for a
public hearing are denied. (Refer to DE’s letter of decision, and quote/paraphrase

as appropriate)

b.Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act General Conformity Rule Review: The proposed
permit action has been analyzed for conformity applicability pursuant to regulations
implementing Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act. It has been determined that the
activities proposed under this permit will not exceed de minimis levels of direct or
indirect emissions of a criteria pollutant or its precursors and are exempted by 40 CFR
Part 93.153. Any later indirect emissions are generally not within the Corps' continuing
program responsibility and generally cannot be practicably controlled by the Corps. For
these reasons a conformity determination is not required for this permit action. See
Section 11.c.

c.Relevant Presidential Executive Orders.

(1)EO 13175, Consultation with Indian Tribes, Alaska Natives, and Native
Hawaiians. This action has no substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes. explain, if appropriate.

(2)EO 11988, Floodplain Management. Not in a floodplain. (Alternatives to
location within the floodplain, minimization, and compensation of the effects
were considered above.)

(3)EO 12898, Environmental Justice. In accordance with Title III of the Civil
Right Act of 1964 and Executive Order 12898, it has been determined that the
project would not directly or through contractual or other arrangements, use
criteria, methods, or practices that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or
national origin nor would it have a disproportionate effect on minority or low-
income communities. See Section 11.b.Make sure before you make this

statement that you have looked at the project’s effect on minority and low-
income communities, and document in the file.

(4)EO 13112, Invasive Species.
There were no invasive species issues involved.
The evaluation above included invasive species concerns in the analysis of
impacts at the project site and associated compensatory mitigation projects.
Through special conditions, the permittee will be required to control the
introduction and spread of exotic species.

(5)EO 13212 and 13302, Energy Supply and Availability. The project was not
one that will increase the production, transmission, or conservation of energy,
Page 52

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW-2015-02127)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

or strengthen pipeline safety. (The review was expedited and/or other
actions were taken to the extent permitted by law and regulation to accelerate
completion of this energy-related (including pipeline safety) project while
maintaining safety, public health, and environmental protections.)

b.Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). Having reviewed the information provided
by the applicant and all interested parties and an assessment of the environmental
impacts, I find that this permit action will not have a significant impact on the quality of
the human environment. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be
required. See Section 11.d.

c.Compliance with 404(b)(1) guidelines. NA See Section 11.e.

Having completed the evaluation in paragraph 5, I have determined that the proposed
discharge complies/does not comply with the 404(b)(1) guidelines.

d.Public Interest Determination: I find that issuance of a Department of the Army permit
is not/is contrary to the public interest. See Section 11.f.

PREPARED BY:

________________________ Date:
Project Manager

REVIEWED BY:

________________________ Date

Chief, Regulatory XX District (insert appropriate level reviewer)

APPROVED BY:

________________________ Date
Colonel, Corps of Engineers, Commanding (insert appropriate level approver)
Page 53