20240671 Ver 1_ePCN Application_20240509

1 DWR
Division of Water Resources
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
For Nationwide Permits and Regional General Permits
(along with corresponding Water Quality Certifications)
October 2, 2023 Ver 4.3
Initial Review
Has this project met the requirements for acceptance in to the review process?
Yes No
Is this project a public transportation project?*
Yes No
Change only If needed.
Does this project involve maintenance dredging funded by the Shallow Draft Navigation Channel Dredging and Aquatic Weed Fund or involve the distribution or transmission of energy or
fuel, including natural gas, diesel, petroleum, or electricity?
Yes No
BIMS # Assigned Version# *
20240671 1
Is a payment required for this project?*
No payment required
Fee received
Fee needed - send electronic notification
Reviewing Office*
Washington Regional Office - [phone]
Information for Initial Review
la. Name of project:
Coastal Carolina Regional Airport (EWN) —Aerospace Development Additional Area
la. Who is the Primary Contact?*
Rick Trone
1b. Primary Contact Email: *
[e-mail]
Date Submitted
5/9/2024
Nearest Body of Water
Brice Creek
Basin
Nauss
Water Classification
C,SW;NSW
Site Coordinates
Latitude: Longitude:
35.06599-77.04271
A. Processing Information
Is this project connected with ARPA funding?
Yes No
County (or Counties) where the project is located:
Craven
Is this a NCDMS Project
Yes No
What amount is owed?*
$240.00
$323.00
Select Project Reviewer*
Garcy Ward:garcy.ward
1c. Primary Contact Phone:*
[phone]
$570.00
$767.00
Is this project a public transportation project?*
Yes No

Is this a NCDOT Project?*
Yes No
1a. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
Section 404 Permit (wetlands, streams and waters, Clean Water Act)
Section 10 Permit (navigable waters, tidal waters, Rivers and Harbors Act)
Has this PCN previously been submitted?*
Yes
No
1b. What type(s) of permit(s) do you wish to seek authorization?
Nationwide Permit (NWP)
Regional General Permit (RGP)
Standard (IP)
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
Yes No
Nationwide Permit (NWP) Number: 14 - Linear transportation
NWP Numbers (for multiple NWPS):
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWR:
401 Water Quality Certification - Regular
Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
Individual 401 Water Quality Certification
401 Water Quality Certification - Express
Riparian Buffer Authorization
le. Is this notification solely for the record because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWR 401 Certification: Yes No
For the record only for Corps Permit: Yes No
1f. Is this an after -the -fact permit application? *
Yes No
1g. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
Yes No
1g. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
Yes No
1h. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties?
Yes No
1i. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
Yes No Unknown
1j. Is the project located in a designated trout watershed?
Yes No
B. Applicant Information
1d. Who is applying for the permit?
Owner Applicant (other than owner)
le. Is there an Agent/Consultant for this project?
Yes No
2. Owner Information
2a. Name(s) on recorded deed:
Craven County
2b. Deed book and page no.:
D:2671; P:0835
2c. Contact Person:
Andrew Shorter - Airport Director

2d. Address
Street Address
200 Terminal Drive
Address Line 2
City
New Bern
Postal / Zip Code
28562
2e. Telephone Number:
[phone]
2g. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
4. Agent/Consultant (if applicable)
4a. Name:
Rick Trone
4b. Business Name:
WithersRavenel
4c.Address
Street Address
115 MacKenan Drive
Address Line 2
city
Cary
Postal / Zip Code
27511
4d. Telephone Number:
[phone]
4f. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
C. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Project Information
1b. Subdivision name:
(if appropriate)
1c. Nearest municipality / town:
New Bern, NC
2. Project Identification
2a. Property Identification Number:
7-103-12002
2c. Project Address
Street Address
200 Terminal Drive
Address Line 2
City
New Bern
Postal / Zip Code
28562
3. Surface Waters
3a. Name of the nearest body of water to proposed project:
Brice Creek
3b. Water Resources Classification of nearest receiving water:
C,SW;NSW
3c. What river basin(s) is your project located it *
Neuse
State / Province / Region
NC
Country
USA
2f. Fax Number:
State / Province / Region
Nc
Country
USA
4e. Fax Number:
2b. Property size:
93
State / Province / Region
NC
Country
USA

3d. Please provide the 12-digit HUC in which the project is located.
030202040304
4. Project Description and History
4a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this application:
The project area is currently part of the larger airport property and consists of a mowed/maintained plant community. A very small portion of the project area consists of mixed
hardwood/pine forest.
4b. Have Corps permits or DWR certifications been obtained for this project (including all prior phases) in the past?'�
Yes No Unknown
4f. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0.25
4g. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams on the property
4h. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:"
The purpose of the project is to construct an access road between Old Airport Road and the planned Aerospace Corporate Development located at the Coastal Carolina Regional Airport
(EWN).
4i. Describe the overall project in detail, including indirect impacts and the type of equipment to be used:
The Aerospace Development will be located on a 86.68 acre parcel (Parcel ID: 7-103-12002) owned by Craven County, which is outside of the Airport Operations Area (AOA) of the
Coastal Carolina Regional Airport and will not be part of, or a function of the airport operations. The Aerospace Corporate Development will be an industrial park, located outside of the
AOA/security fence, in which the businesses will support the aeronautical industry and will result in the construction of new hangars, apron space, and taxilanes connecting the new apron
to the existing Taxiway A.
The Aerospace Development is proposed by Coastal Carolina Regional Airport to support aerospace -related companies interested in locating on airport property with airside access in
Eastern North Carolina. EWN is located in close proximity to several military installations, including MCAS Cherry Point, the Second Marine Aircraft Wing and Fleet Readiness Center
East. In addition to being able to support these military installations, this proposed development will be able to support all types of aviation and aerospace activities from manufacturing and
maintenance/repair/overhaul to flight and flight test operations. Coastal Carolina Regional Airport has recently been approached by multiple business entities that have inquired about
basing their operations at the airport and indicated that if a site on the airport was prepared and infrastructure ready for development, they would be able to utilize the space with new
aerospace -related development.
Currently, EWN does not have a shovel -ready site to accommodate these requests. This project will provide the airport with an area that has been cleared and a portion of the site
prepared and ready to immediately accommodate the aerospace development requests being received from potential airport tenants. The Airport would significantly benefit from the land
and/or hangar leases for this area as well as increased fuel sales revenue due to the increased aircraft traffic and users, this would help the Airport fulfill federal obligations to be self-
sustaining.
The Aerospace Development will be aeronautical in nature, including the construction of new hangars, apron space, and taxilanes connecting the new apron to the existing Taxiway A. The
proposed access road is necessary to provide access to the Aerospace Development from Old Airport Road. The proposed access road is necessary to provide tenants, employees,
clients, visitors, etc. to access the Aerospace Development, as access would not be allowed through the Airport Operations Area (AOA), which is a restricted access area inside the
perimeter security fence. Therefore, an access road from an existing public road, located outside of the ADA and perimeter security fence is the only viable option. This request is specific
to the access road.
Standard construction equipment and techniques for road construction will be used to construct the proposed access road. Access during construction will be in uplands.
5. Jurisdictional Determinations
5a. Have the wetlands or streams been delineated on the property or proposed impact areas? *
Yes
Comments:
No
5b. If the Corps made a jurisdictional determination, what type of determination was made?"
Preliminary Approved Not Verified Unknown N/A
Corps AID Number:
5c. If 5a is yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known): Gary Kreiser, Rick Trone
Agency/Consultant Company: WithersRavenel
Other:
6. Future Project Plans
9 Unknown
6a. Is this a phased project?"
Yes No
Are any other NWP(s), regional general permit(s), or individual permits(s) used, or intended to be used, to authorize any part of the proposed project or related activity?
No
D. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary

1a. Where are the impacts associated with your project? (check all that apply):
Wetlands Streams -tributaries O Buffers
Open Waters Pond Construction
4. Open Water Impacts
4a. Site #
4a1. Impact Reason
4b. Impact type
4c. Name of waterbody
4d. Activity type �114a.
Waterbody type
4f. Impact area
OW1
Road Crossing
P
Pond 1
Fill
Pond
0.05
OW2
Road Crossing
P
Pond 2
Fill
Pond
0.05
4g. Total temporary open water Impacts: 4g. Total permanent open water impacts:
0.00 0.10
4g. Total open water impacts:
0.10
4h. Comments:
E. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
la. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing the project:
Prior to site plan design, the applicant requested that a detailed wetland delineation be conducted so that impacts to wetlands and "waters" could be
minimized.
Proposed permanent open water impacts for the Aerospace Corporate Development Area access road project have been minimized to only those
necessary for construction of an access road from Old Airport Road. Various alternatives have been explored for the access road, all of which resulted in
impacts to Wetlands A and B. The proposed alignment avoids impacting Wetlands A and B.
The proposed alignment of the necessary access road means that impacts to two ponds are unavoidable. The proposed road alignment is necessary to
provide sufficient space for the planned aerospace development while remaining within the project boundaries. The two ponds are proposed to be
entirely filled in order to construct the access road and necessary grading while reducing the amount of open water near the airport to reduce conflicts
with waterfowl attracted to the ponds. Removing the two ponds will help mitigate public safety hazards associated with aircraft travel by eliminating
wildlife habitat hazards to prevent wildlife strikes.
1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques:
Access during construction will occur within uplands. Additionally, sediment and erosion control measures will be installed prior to construction.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
Yes No
2b. If this project DOES NOT require Compensatory Mitigation, explain why:
Project proposes permanent impacts to ponds. Impacts to ponds do not require compensatory mitigation from neither the USACE or NCDWR.
F. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWR)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
la. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
Yes No
If no, explain why:
No features subject to the Neuse Riparian Buffer Rules are present within the project area.
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. Is this a NCDOT project subject to compliance with NCDOT's Individual NPDES permit NCS000250?'�
Yes No
2b. Does this project meet the requirements for low density projects as defined in 15A NCAC 02H .1003(2)?
Yes No
2c. Does this project have a stormwater management plan (SMP) reviewed and approved under a state stormwater program or state -approved local government stormwater program?
Yes
N/A - project disturbs < 1 acre
2d. Which of the following stormwater management program(s) apply:
Local Government State
No
0
O

State Stormwater Programs
Phase II Coastal Counties
HWQ or ORW Other
Comments:
G. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation
la. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of public (federal/state) land?
Yes No
1b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State (North Carolina)
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?*
Yes No
1c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearing House?
Yes No
Comments: *
The FAA required a short -form Environmental Assessment (EA) which as been prepared and submitted to the FAA as part of the NEPA process.
2. Violations (DWR Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWR Water Quality Certification Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), or DWR Surface Water or Wetland Standards or
Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)? *
Yes No
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWR Requirement)
3a. Will this project result in additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
Yes No
3b. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
Proposed project will result in additional development (Aerospace Development Area) but this development will not impact nearby downstream water
quality.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWR Requirement)
4a. Is sewage disposal required by DWR for this project?
Yes No N/A
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or habitat?*
Yes No
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act impacts?
Yes No
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
Raleigh
5d. Is another Federal agency involved?*
Yes No
What Federal Agency is involved?
FAA
5e. Is this a DOT project located within Division's 1-8?
Yes No
5f. Will you cut any trees in order to conduct the work in waters of the U.S.?
Yes No
5g. Does this project involve bridge maintenance or removal?
Yes No
5h. Does this project involve the construction/installation of a wind turbine(s)?*
Yes No
Unknown
5i. Does this project involve (1) blasting, and/or (2) other percussive activities that will be conducted by machines, such as jackhammers, mechanized pile drivers, etc.?
Yes No

5j. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical Habitat?
WR submitted a project review request to the NCNHP through their Data Explorer webpage, located at: https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/, to identify
known occurrences of federally listed threatened or endangered species within 1.0 mile of the review area. The NCNHP project review did not identify
any known occurrences of federally listed species within the review area. However, it did identify three federally listed species (bald eagle, American
alligator, sensitive jointvetch) within 1.0 mile of the review area, as documented in the attached project review letter from NCNHP dated 04/22/2024.
An official species list was generated using USFWS' Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC), located at https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/, on
10/10/2022 and 3/22/2023 and 04/22/2024. This species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed
and designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of the project and may be affected by the project. The IPaC list specified that there
are eleven species (northern long-eared bat, tricolored bat, west Indian manatee, eastern black rail, red knot, red cockaded woodpecker, American
alligator, green sea turtle, leatherback turtle, Neuse River water dog, and rough -leaved loosestrife,) that may be within the vicinity of the project area.
The IPaC list has been provided as an attachment.
On 10/12/2022 and 3/23/23, WR conducted a pedestrian survey to assess vegetative communities and identify potential habitat for, or occurrences of
federally listed species within or immediately adjacent to the review area. Though the bald eagle is no longer protected under the Endangered Species
Act, it is still protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and was included in the survey. The review area contains two vegetative
communities as described in the attached Threatened and Endangered Species Assessment Report.
The eastern black rail is a small black bird with a short bill. Black rails usually weigh 29-39 g, are 10-15 cm in length, and have a wingspan of 8.7-11.0 in
(22-28 cm). The body is dark, with white speckles along the back and wings. Both the beak and legs are dark. Adults have red eyes. There are five
recognized subspecies of the black rail with the eastern black rail being declared a threatened species in October 2020. The eastern black rail is a
wetland dependent bird primarily associated with herbaceous, persistent, emergent wetland plant cover. It requires dense overhead cover and soils that
are moist to saturated and interspersed with or adjacent to very shallow water. Nests are typically well hidden in a dense clump of vegetation and are
constructed from live and dead fine -stemmed emergent grasses, rushes, or other herbaceous plant species. The review of NCNHP GIS data did not
identify any known occurrences of eastern black rail within 1.0 mile of the review area.
The review area consisted of mowed vegetation and dense mixed hardwood/pine forests. The wetlands found in the review area did not have dense
herbaceous and persistent wetland plant cover and therefore potential habitat is not present. Based on a lack of potential habitat within the review area,
WR concludes that the proposed activities will have No Effect on eastern black rail.
Biological Determination - No Effect
The Neuse River waterdog is a permanent aquatic salamander that can grow up to 11 inches long. It has a reddish -brown body with an irregular pattern
of large blue or black spots, and the belly is typically dull brown or gray color with spots like those seen elsewhere on the body. Adults have elongated
heads with squared -off noses, cylindrical trunks and tails that are laterally compressed and ridged. Three dark -red, bushy gills project from either side of
the head and a dark line runs through the eye. The limbs are rather small, and the front and hind feet have four toes. The Neuse River waterdog is
endemic to the Neuse River basin and has specific habitat characteristics of low to moderate gradient streams and low current velocity and are typically
found in streams wider than 15 meters. The Neuse River waterdog requires relatively high oxygen levels and water quality and is found in large
accumulations of submerged leaves in eddies, or backwaters of streams. The review of NCNHP GIS data did not identify any known occurrences of
eastern black rail within 1.0 mile of the review area.
There are no streams within the project area, therefore there is no suitable habitat within the review area. Based on a lack of potential habitat within the
review area, WR concludes that the proposed activities will have No Effect on Neuse River waterdog.
Biological Determination — No Effect
The northern long-eared bat (NLEB) is a medium-sized bat about 3 to 3.7 inches in length but with a wingspan of 9 to 10 inches. This bat is
distinguished by its long ears. During the summer, northern long-eared bats roost singly or in colonies underneath bark, in cavities or in crevices of both
live and dead trees, typically within the interior of large blocks of mature forests. It has also been found, rarely, roosting in structures like barns and
sheds. There has been no critical habitat designated for the northern long-eared bat at this time. Based on the review of the NCNHP GIS data, there are
no known occurrences NLB within 1.0 mile of the review area.
The review area consists of mixed hardwood/pine forest and is considered potential NLEB habitat. The project is in a Red HUC, which represents that a
documented maternity colony or hibernacula may be in the area. The proposed access road will be constructed within the mowed/maintained habitat.
On March 31, 2023, the USFWS reclassified NLEB from threatened to endangered and implemented an Interim Consultation Framework for NLEB.
Consultation tools include a NLEB Range wide Determination Key that is intended to streamline review of projects for potential effects to NLEB. Using
IPaC, the range wide determination key was completed, and a determination of May Affect was reached. The completed determination key is included in
the Threatened and Endangered Species Assessment attached.
Due to the determination made from the Range wide Determination Key, potential suitable habitat present and the project within a red HUC, WR
concludes that the proposed activities May Affect the northern long-eared bat. The proposed action may qualify for the Interim Consultation Framework
to complete section 7 consultation with USFWS. The USFWS will need to review the project to complete section 7 consultation requirements.
Biological Determination — May Affect — Further Consultation Needed
The red -cockaded woodpecker (RCW) occurs in extensive tracts of open stands of mature pines, particularly longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), for foraging
and nesting/roosting habitat, typically 70 to 100 acres or more. The red -cockaded woodpecker is rarely found in deciduous or mixed pine -hardwoods.
The RCW excavates cavities for nesting and roosting in living pine trees, aged 60 years or older, which are contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years
of age to provide foraging habitat. Optimal habitat is characterized as a broad savanna with a scattered overstory of large pines and a dense
groundcover containing a diversity of grass, (orbs, and shrub species. Midstory vegetation is sparse or absent. Frequent fires maintain the quality of the
RCW's habitat. The foraging range of the RCW is normally no more than 0.5 miles. Based on the review of the NCNHP GIS data, there are no known
occurrences of RCW within 1.0 mile of the review area.
The review area consists of mowed/maintained and mixed hardwood/pine forest and does not contain potential RCW nesting habitat. Additionally, there
are no large, mature pine dominated areas within 0.5 miles of the review area. Therefore, the review area does not contain potential RCW foraging
habitat. The proposed access road will be constructed within the mowed/maintained habitat.
Based on a lack of suitable nesting/foraging habitat within the review area, along with a lack of nearby records, WR concludes that proposed activities
within the review areas will have No Effect on the red -cockaded woodpecker.
Biological Determination — No Effect
Rough -Leaved loosestrife is an erect, rhizomatous, late spring- to early summer -flowering perennial herb which grows to 2 feet tall. Its leaves are mostly
3-whorled, lanceolate to ovate -lanceolate, sessile, and 2-4 cm long. There are usually three conspicuous veins on each leaf. The flowers are 5-petales,
showy, yellow flowers with yellow -orange anthers. The fruit is an ovoid or subglobose capsule, 34.5 mm in diameter, with several somewhat winged
seeds. Rough -leaf loosestrife occurs most often in ecotones between longleaf pine uplands and pond pine pocosins in moist, sandy or peaty soils with
low vegetation that allows for abundant sunlight to the herb layer. Fire is primarily responsible for maintaining low vegetation in these ecotones, as well
as regular maintenance/mowing that mimics fire and maintains vegetation so that the herbaceous species are open to sunlight. Based on the review of
the NCNHP GIS data, there are no known occurrences of rough -leaved loosestrife within 1.0 mile of the review area.
The review area consists mostly of mixed hardwood/pine forest and was not considered suitable habitat. There are no pond pine pocosins with low
vegetation that allows for the required sunlight adjacent to the review area. Additionally, the mowed/maintained vegetation is mowed frequently enough
to maintain vegetation heights of 5 to 7 inches which prevents growth of woody species, including rough -leaved loosestrife. Therefore, there is no
potential habitat present in the review area.
Based on a lack of potential habitat, and lack of nearby records, WR concludes that the proposed activities within the review areas will have No Effect on
rough -leaved loosestrife.
Biological determination - No Effect
Ccneifi.,e in M_.,efnh ie — en ni,.l nlenl in the new f—il., lfehnn 1 whinh nrn In hein Kfe of q q — R R fc f I .,ifh nlenrl_rinfherl

leaflets. Each leaf consists of 30-56 leaflets, which fold when touched. Plants flower from July to September, and occasionally into October. The flowers
are irregular and streaked with red. Sensitive joint -vetch typically grows in the intertidal zone of coastal marshes where plants are flooded twice daily. In
North Carolina, sensitive joint -vetch is most often found in roadside ditches, often with some connection to nearby brackish marshes.
The NCNHP GIS data identified historic occurrences of sensitive joint -vetch within 1.0 mile north of the review area in a pond (observed in 1956) and in
a roadside ditch northeast of the review area (observed in 1949). However, additional surveys conducted in 2013 were unable to locate the population.
There is no potential habitat for sensitive joint -vetch observed within the review area as there is no brackish waters within the review area. Due to a lack
of potential habitat, and lack of current recent nearby records, WR concludes that proposed activities within the review area will have No Effect on
sensitive joint -vetch.
Biological Determination — No Effect
The tricolored bat is a small insectivorous bat that is distinguished by its unique tricolored fur and often appears yellowish to nearly orange. Tricolored
bats are typically 3 to 3.5 inches long and have an average weight of 0.25 ounces. The tricolored bat is distinguished by its unique tricolored fur that
appears dark at the base, lighter in the middle and dark at the tip. Tricolored bats often appear yellowish, varying from pale yellow to nearly orange, but
may also appear silvery -gray, chocolate brown or black. During the winter, tricolored bats are often found in caves and abandoned mines, although in the
southern United States, where caves are sparse, tricolored bats are often found roosting in road -associated culverts where they exhibit shorter torpor
bouts and forage during warm nights. During the spring, summer, and fall, tricolored bats are found in forested habitats where they roost in trees,
primarily among leaves of live or recently dead deciduous hardwood trees, but may also be found in Spanish moss, pine trees, and occasionally human
structures. The review of the NCNHP GIS data did not identify any known occurrences of tricolored bat within 1.0 mile of the review area.
The USFWS proposed to list the tricolored bat as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act on September 13, 2022, largely because
of white -nose syndrome, a disease that affects cave -dwelling bats and is decimating hibernating bat species. There has been no critical habitat
designated for the tricolored bat at this time. The USFWS has no definitive guidance on tricolored bat but is working towards developing guidelines by
the time the listing is finalized.
The mowed/maintained area does not contain trees and would not be suitable habitat. The mixed hardwood/pine forest is potentially suitable habitat.
Targeted surveys were not conducted for tricolored bat. The project will not result in demolition of any manmade structures. The proposed access road
will be constructed within the mowed/maintained habitat.
USFWS has not provided an official effective listing date, but it is anticipated to occur in the second half of 2023, Upon listing, USFWS is expected to
provide habitat descriptions and an area of influence/distribution range for tricolored bat. When this information is provided, it will help to inform
determinations on habitat that could be impacted by proposed actions.
Based on the potential habitat, no demolition of manmade structures, and lack of nearby records, WR concludes that the proposed action is Not Likely to
Adversely Affect tricolored bat. Any restrictions on tree clearing will not be known until the USFWS releases the final guidance for the tricolored bat.
Biological Determination — Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Godfrey's sandwort is a state -listed low -growing, mostly prostrate or weak -stemmed 4-16" perennial herb with opposite, linear leaves. Plants flower
between April — June, and flowers consist of five white to very pale pink 3/8-inch petals on a long thin stalk. Godfrey's sandwort grows on the edge of
tidal freshwater marshes, moist roadside ditches, and stream banks, mostly in full sun.
The NCNHP GIS data identified a historic occurrence (1951) of Godfrey's sandwort within 1.0-mile northwest of the review area, in a marsh near the
confluence of Brice's Creek and the Trent River, which is approximate 2,800 If northwest of the review area. There are no other known occurrences
within of Godfrey's sandwort within 1.0 mile of the review area.
There is no potential habitat for Godfrey's sandwort observed within the review area as it consists mostly of uplands. The wetlands in the review area
were not tidal freshwater marshes or roadside ditches. Due to a lack of potential habitat and lack of recent nearby records, WR concludes that the
proposed activities within the review areas will have No Effect on Godfrey's sandwort.
Biological Conclusion — No Effect
The review area does not contain occurrences of, or potential habitat for the west Indian manatee, eastern black rail, red knot, red cockaded
woodpecker, American alligator, green sea turtle, leatherback turtle, Neuse River water dog, and rough -leaved loosestrife and will have no effect on
these species. The review area has potential habitat for NLEB and tri-colored bat. WR concludes that the proposed activities are Not Likely to Adversely
Affect tri-colored bat. Based on the Range wide Determination Key for NLEB, potential habitat and that a documented maternity colony or hibernacula
may be in the area, WR concludes that the proposed activities May Affect NLEB and that future consultation with USFWS is required. The project area
for the proposed access road is within the mowed/maintained area and little to no tree clearing will be necessary.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as an Essential Fish Habitat?*
Yes No
Are there submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) around the project vicinity?*
Yes
No
O Unknown
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact an Essential Fish Habitat?*
WR reviewed the NOAA Essential Fish Habitat online mapper, located at: http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/efhmapper/index.html. The project
is located with EFH for Summer Flounder, Bluefish, and Atlantic Butterfish. The project will not result in adverse impacts to the Essential Fish Habitat.
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation status?
Yes No
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
In a letter dated July 6, 2023, NCSHPO recommended a comprehensive archeological survey be undertaken due to there being twenty-five prehistoric
and historic archeological sites within the vicinity of the Area of Potential Effect. An archeological survey was conducted by Terracon Consultants, Inc. in
September 2023. In a follow-up letter after submission of the archeological survey report, NCSHPO concurred that no new archeological sites eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places are located within the survey area. Copies of the NCSHPO letters are included as attachments.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? *
Yes No
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
FEMA flood maps.

Miscellaneous
0
u
Please use the space below to attach all required documentation or any additional information you feel is helpful for application review. Documents should be combined into one file when
possible, with a Cover Letter, Table of Contents, and a Cover Sheet for each Section preferred.
Click the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach document
20230925_Biological Opinion_FAA_CCRA_AerospaceDev_signed.pdf 357.06KB
MA Consistency Letter_ Northern Long-eared Bat Rangewide Determination Key 2023-05-22.pdf 292.66KB
CCRA aerospce development TE assessment report- 2023-5-26.pdf 4.15MB
USACE PJD Request_CCRA-Aerospace Development Tract_2024.05.06.pdf 12.19MB
Cover Letter and Attachments.pdf 31.3MB
File must be PDF or KMZ
Comments
Please see included Cover Letter and Attachments.
Signature
By checking the box and signing below, I certify that:
• The project proponent hereby certifies that all information contained herein is true, accurate, and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief'; and
• The project proponent hereby requests that the certifying authority review and take action on this CWA 401 certification request within the applicable reasonable period of time.
• I have given true, accurate, and complete information on this form;
• I agree that submission of this PCN form is a "transaction" subject to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act");
• I agree to conduct this transaction by electronic means pursuant to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act");
• I understand that an electronic signature has the same legal effect and can be enforced in the same way as a written signature; AND
• I intend to electronically sign and submit the PCN form.
Full Name:
Rick Trone
Signature
44 T"At
Date
5/9/2024
O