20240238 Ver 1_More Info Received_20240501

F"hb�&Alb
� ��
\\�VA �' A
26 April 2024
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Charlotte Regulatory Field Office
Attn: Emily Greer
8430 University Executive Park Drive, Suite 615
Charlotte, North Carolina 28262
NC Division of Water Resources
401 and Buffer Permitting Unit
Attn: Stephanie Goss and Sue Homewood
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Re: TKC Land Development II, LLC +/- 178.24 Acres
South Point Commerce Center
346 Griclar Street
Thomasville, North Carolina 27262
Individual Permit Application
SAW-2023-02308
DWR-20240238
Dear Emily, Sue, and Stephanie:
Atlas Environmental, Inc., on behalf of TKC Land Development II, LLC (Applicant), is
submitting the following response to comments received on the Individual Permit
application and Public Notice (issued February 21, 2024) for unavoidable impacts to
wetlands and waters of the United States associated from the proposed South Point
Commerce Center industrial development. [Please note, Robert Combs is the new
applicant contact for TKC Land Development II, LLC.] Comments and responses have
been numbered and provided below as they were presented.
NCDWR RFAI COMMENT 1: The Division requests that the USACE consider whether the
"Near Similar Development" should be considered in the alternatives analysis. Multiple
offsite alternatives would rate more favorably without this criterion.
NCDWR RFAI RESPONSE 1: There are several reasons the "Near Similar Development"
is both a practicable and reasonable factor for consideration in the alternatives analysis
pursuant to the 404(b)(1) Guidelines (Guidelines), the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), and the public's interest. In short, "Near Similar Development" establishes
ATLAS Environmental, Inc.
338 S. Sharon Amity Road #411 Charlotte, North Carolina 28211 1 704-512-1206 (o) / 828-712-9205 (m)
www.atlasenvi.com / Offices in Asheville and Charlotte

- I/%
�a`F a
practicability of the proposed action based on current conditions of a proposed project area
or the capability of conducting a proposed action after taking into consideration costs to
make the necessary changes associated combining activities with dissimilar development
(e.g., additional or modified infrastructure, modified roadways, traffic patterns) and the
logistics of implementing two or more potentially competing objectives with adjoining
dissimilar developments (e.g., safety, noise, traffic). There also are reasonable aspects for
considering this factor with regard to technology (e.g., utilities and infrastructure are
designed for compatibility and use with similar development), economics (e.g., co -siting
similar developments requires less mitigation of competing or dissimilar adverse impacts
such as noise or lighting), and common sense (e.g., situational expectations and safety are
inherent in the use of similar space and development).
NCDWR RFAI COMMENT 2: The applicant has identified additional zoning and access to
utilities as criteria for the offsite alternative however these criteria are often overcome for
the purpose of similar projects. If these criteria are based on financial factors, then
financial information should be provided. The Division requests that the USACE consider
the weight these criteria have in eliminating multiple alternatives.
NCDWR RFAI RESPONSE 2: Similar to the factor discussed above, the consideration of
factors such as zoning and access to utilities are important in the context of determining
whether an alternative site is both practicable and reasonable. Practicable is defined as
meaning the alternative is available, and capable of being done after taking into
consideration cost, existing technology, and/or logistics with regards to the overall project
purpose(s). Reasonable is based on consideration of the project purpose as well as
technology, economics, and common sense. Alternatives are considered across several
factors with relative comparison to all other alternatives. No one factor carries greater
weight than another even if that factor is important to fulfilling the purpose and need of the
project. Rather alternatives are evaluated against one another across all factors using a
"stop light" ranking method with a numerical value assigned to each color value (green = 3
point, yellow = 2 points, red =1 point).
We find that the "stop light" method of screening of alternatives satisfies the Guidelines,
NEPA, and public interest review objectively and completely while also providing equal
information on all alternatives. Furthermore, the "stop light" method of screening
alternatives ensures that the factors considered and criteria used are not so restrictive that
they eliminate practicable, which includes reasonable, alternatives. Even though the
ranking is relative, the lowest ranking alternatives can be dismissed for the Least
Environmental Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) analysis because they have
been evaluated based on a consideration of multiple factors such as cost, existing
technology, and/or logistics (practicable), and technology, economics, and common sense
(reasonable) relative to all other alternatives. Thus, the alternative(s) with the highest
ranking in the alternative matrix is considered the most practicable and reasonable.
ATLAS Environmental, Inc.
338 S. Sharon Amity Road #411 Charlotte, North Carolina 28211 1 704-512-1206 (o) / 828-712-9205 (m)
www.atlasenvi.com / Offices in Asheville and Charlotte

NCDWR RFAI COMMENT 3: It appears that the conceptual layout of the Clinard Farms
Alternative could be revised to provide further avoidance and minimization to more
appropriately compare with the preferred alternative.
NCDWR RFAI RESPONSE 3: We agree that changes in the conceptual layout of the
Clinard Farms Alternative could be revised to provide additional minimization of impacts to
aquatic resources. However, this is not the purpose of the conceptual plan for the LEDPA
alternatives, nor is it the purpose of the LEDPA analysis. For the Clinard Farms
Alternative, the single greatest issue for the conceptual site plan was the design and
placement of the 1,001,000 SF building. Based on known aquatic resources on the
Clinard Farms site, it is impossible to place a building of this size anywhere within the
property boundaries without impacting aquatic resources. In addition to building size, the
conceptual design must consider associated ingress and egress roadways, trailer and
automobile parking spaces, and the ability to safely navigate those spaces. Furthermore,
we do not evaluate the total impacts on aquatic resources in the LEDPA analysis. Rather
the LEDPA analysis is designed to assess the potential impacts the LEDPA alternatives
have on environmental resources in relation to one another. We must first assess impacts
on various environmental factors for each LEDPA alternative before we decide on which
alternative is our true LEDPA. Once the LEDPA is selected, then we can evaluate and
consider avoidance and minimization measures to further reduce the potential impacts to
aquatic resources and other important environmental factors.
NCDWR RFAI COMMENT 4: The applicant proposes stream mitigation at a ratio of 1.5:1
based NCSAM ratings. Based on historical imagery, the property has been recently
cleared which is likely to have had a negative effect on the ratings. The Division requests
that you consider whether recent clearing to promote development of the property should
be considered when determining the appropriate mitigation ratio for the proposed impacts.
NCDWR RFAI RESPONSE 4: The proposed project site has a long history of use for
agriculture (since before the 1990s based on historical imagery). More recently (late 2020-
early 2021), portions of the site were logged, but a vegetated buffer around the streams
remained. The current conditions were considered in the evaluation of stream condition as
evidenced in the NC SAM form. We understand that NCDWR policy does not require
greater than a 1:1 ratio for mitigation of perennial streams. Our proposal to provide 1.5:1
mitigation recognizes the policy and is consistent with the quality of streams being
impacted based on their current condition.
NCDWR RFAI COMMENT 5: The Division is unable to complete a review of the project
for compliance with 15A NCAC 02H .0506 at this time. The Division has requested
additional technical information from the applicant and requests that the USACE also
consider the attached letter during the review of the application.
NCDWR RFAI RESPONSE 5: The USACE has informed us that they do not have
additional comments on the proposed action in response to the public notice, nor have
ATLAS Environmental, Inc.
338 S. Sharon Amity Road #411 Charlotte, North Carolina 28211 1 704-512-1206 (o) / 828-712-9205 (m)
www.atlasenvi.com / Offices in Asheville and Charlotte

F"hb�&Alb
� ��
\\�WA �' A
they received additional comments from the public or other agencies beyond those
comments submitted by NCDWR (dated March 21, 2024) and the State Historic
Preservation Office (dated April 4, 2024). Responses to NCDWR comments are provided
here to satisfy your request for additional technical information and expedite your final
review of the proposed project application. Please let us know if you require additional
information to complete your review of the project in accordance with 15A NCAC 02H
.0506.
Thank you for allowing us to respond to comments from NCDWR on the proposed project.
Please contact me if you need any additional information.
Best regards,
j&M,+ dllbz VAP-,
Jennifer L Robertson, President
[e-mail]
ATLAS Environmental, Inc.
338 S. Sharon Amity Road #411 Charlotte, North Carolina 28211 1 704-512-1206 (o) / 828-712-9205 (m)
www.atlasenvi.com / Offices in Asheville and Charlotte