20240241 Ver 1_USACE More Info Requested_20240520

a4 x
A t
1Gryfrfd ` STA7E5`Oti PJh4'4T
Regulatory Division
Action ID: SAW-2001-20723
Mr. Phil Lanier
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
Johnston Regional Airport (JNX)
3149 Swift Creek Road
Smithfield North Carolina 27577
Dear Mr. Phil Lanier,
May 20, 2024
Please reference your Individual Permit application for Department of the Army (DA)
authorization to permanently discharge fill material into 0.095 acre (ac) (1390 linear feet
(If)) of stream channel and 18.67 ac of wetlands associated with the proposed
construction of the Midfield Apron Development (Project). The Project area is located at
3149 Swift Creek Road, and is bounded by Swift Creek Road on the west, Swift Creek
on the south, and US Highway 70 Business on the north in Smithfield, in Johnston
County, North Carolina.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (Corps) advertised your
proposal by public notice dated February 20, 2024. Comments in response to the notice
were received from the North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
(NCDNCR) and North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ). The
NCDNCR, in a letter dated February 28, 2024, stated that they are aware of no historic
resources which would be affected by the project and therefore, have no comment on
the Project. The comments received are enclosed for your information and to provide
you with the opportunity to address any of the stated concerns.
Please provide a comprehensive and detailed response to the comments from the
NCDEQ, specifically comments 1 — 6, from their letter dated March 14, 2024, and
comments 1-7 from their letter dated April 24, 2024.
Further, on February 6, 1990, the Department of the Army (DA) and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) signed a memorandum of agreement (MOA)
establishing procedures to determine the type and level of mitigation necessary to
comply with Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. This MOA provides
for first, avoiding impacts to waters and wetlands through the selection of the least
damaging, practical alternative; second, taking appropriate and practical steps to reduce
impacts on waters and wetlands; and finally, compensation for remaining unavoidable
impacts to the extent appropriate and practical. To enable us to process your

application, in compliance with the MOA, we request that you provide the following
additional information:
A. Permits for work within wetlands or other special aquatic sites are available
only if the proposed work is the least environmentally damaging, practicable
alternative (LEDPA). Please furnish information regarding any other
alternatives, including upland alternatives, to the work for which you have
applied and provide justification that your selected plan is the least damaging
to water or wetland areas.
See item 1 below.
B. It is necessary for you to have taken all appropriate and practicable steps to
minimize losses of Waters of the U.S., including wetlands. Please indicate all
that you have done, especially regarding development and modification of
plans and proposed construction techniques, to minimize adverse impacts.
See items 3-6 and 8 below.
C. The MOA requires that appropriate and practicable mitigation will be required
for all unavoidable adverse impacts remaining after the applicant has
employed all appropriate and practicable minimization. Please indicate your
plan to mitigate for the projected, unavoidable loss of waters or wetlands or
provide information as to the absence of any such appropriate and practicable
measures.
No further information required.
Additionally, the following items must be resolved prior to continuing to process your
permit request:
1) It is unclear, based on the information provided, that the Preferred Alternative is
the LEDPA when compared to the other alternatives. The Corps may not issue a
permit for the discharge of dredged or fill material if there is a practicable
alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on
the aquatic ecosystem (40 CFR 230.10(a)).
a. Siting Criteria: Please provide more defined siting criteria for the project.
Currently the siting criteria does not indicate the number and type of
hangers required to meet the current demand. Please include other siting
criteria reviewed including, but not limited to, impacts to waters of the US,
impacts to floodplains, and impacts to federally listed species. Please
-2-

ensure that the criteria are measurable to allow for comparison across
alternatives.
b. Offsite Alternative "Preliminary Alternative A": Please provide additional
information to support the decision that this alternative is not practicable
(40 CFR 230.3(I)). As presented, this alternative is considerably less
environmentally damaging than the preferred alternative.
Your application states that this alternative is not a practicable
alternative due to cost. If cost is the basis for this alternative not
being practicable, please provide the detailed cost -benefit analysis
to support the record.
Furthermore, the applicant identified the cost of the preferred
alternative as $31 million (M) and proposed a compensatory
mitigation plan including (based on available NCDMS rates)
approximately $5.6M of mitigation credits; these costs total
approximately $36.5M. Alternative A is presented as $36.1 M, which
is less costly than the preferred alternative. As such, your preferred
alternative does not appear to be the LEDPA.
c. Onsite Alternative "Preliminary Alternative B": Please provide additional
information to justify that this alternative is not practicable. Although not
presented as such, upon review this alternative is considerably less
environmentally damaging when compared to the preferred alternative
(including stormwater infrastructure). In your application you presented
this alternative as resulting in the loss of 10.1 ac of wetlands while your
preferred alternative would result in the loss of 18.67 ac of wetlands. Your
application states that this alternative is not practicable due to logistics.
However, this alternative appears to be a part of the JNX 2040 plan.
Please further detail why these stated logistical concerns are
insurmountable in the case of the Project but are planned for future
proposed expansions of the airport.
2) 40 CFR 230.10(a)(4) states, "For actions subject to NEPA where the Corps of
Engineers is the permitting agency, the analysis of alternatives required for
NEPA environmental documents, including supplemental Corps NEPA
documents, will in most cases provide the information for the evaluation of
alternatives under these Guidelines. On occasion, these NEPA documents may
address a broader range of alternatives than required to be considered under this
paragraph or may not have considered the alternatives in sufficient detail to
respond to the requirements of these Guidelines. In the latter case, it may be
-3-

necessary to supplement these NEPA documents with this additional
information." This case appears to be the latter. Please provide the following
information to assist in the Corps supplemental NEPA document.
a. Potential impacts on human use characteristics (Subpart F 40 CFR
230.50);
b. Potential impacts on special aquatic sites (40 CFR 230.40);
c. Potential impacts on physical and chemical characteristics of the aquatic
ecosystem (40 CFR 230.20-40 CFR 230.25);
d. Factual Determinations (40 CFR 230.11);
e. General Public Interest Review (33 CFR 320.4 and Regulatory Guidance
Letter 84-09);
f. Please include a "no action" alternative (i.e., no activity requiring a Corps
permit) 33 CFR Part 325 Appendix B; and
g. EO 11988, Floodplain Management: The proposed stormwater device
would be located within the 100-year FEMA Floodplain. Please provide
documentation from FEMA that this project will comply with their
guidelines.
3) It appears impacts associated with the proposed "submerged gravel wetland"
could result in the indirect loss of S3 in its entirety. The Corps is concerned that
the proposed device would not maintain perennial stream flow and thereby
modify the hydrologic regime of the S3. Please provide documentation that
perennial stream flow would remain in this feature post -construction. If hydrologic
degradation of the S3 is reasonably foreseeable, please provide a compensatory
mitigation plan for indirect impacts.
4) It is unclear if the Project or on -site alternatives are avoiding and minimizing
adverse impacts to the maximum extent practicable on the applicant's currently
owned property. Please provide a delineation for the entirety of the property
(parcel numbers 168500-12-1015, 168500-22-7443, 168510-26-7218, 168510-
36-5188 and 168510-36-3467) so that impacts for these alternatives can be
accurately evaluated and compared.
5) Please provide the detailed methods used to estimate the extent of offsite
portions of "Preliminary Alternative A" and "Preliminary Alternative B" aquatic
resources.
-4-

6) In the section of your submitted application labeled "Stormwater Control Measure
Alternatives Analysis" on pages 5 and 6, you state "there are no other feasible
locations for a SCM." Please provide the siting criteria and a detailed evaluation
of alternatives used for the SCM portion of the Project (40 CFR 230.10). Further,
please evaluate the SCM within the context of the larger action it is connected to,
in this case the applicant's preferred alternative.
7) In order to verify compliance with Endangered Species Act of 1973 and 40 CFR
230.10(b)(3), the Corps has initiated informal consultation with the US Fish and
Wildlife Service and will not be able to render a permit decision until ESA Section
7 consultation is complete.
8) Agencies are required to consider connected actions consistent with 40 CFR
1501.9(e)(1) & 40 CFR 1501.3(b). It appears that the proposed JNX safety
hanger, corporate industrial development area (Area D JNX 2040) and
aeronautical services, and industrial development area (Area C JNX 2040) could
be considered connected actions for the JNX single and complete project. Please
provide additional information to enable an accurate evaluation of actions
connected with JNX.
9) Please note that additional comments and questions may be required after
review of the responses to the comments above.
The above requested information is essential to the expeditious processing of your
application; please forward this information to us within 30 days of your receipt of this
letter. If you have any questions regarding these matters, please contact me at (984)
800-3741 or matthew.k.martin(a�-usace.army.mil.
Enclosures
Sincerely,
d
Matthew K. Martin, Regulatory Specialist
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
-5-

E-Copies Furnished:
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Attn: Ms. Sue Homewood
sue. homewood(a),deg.nc.gov
AECOM
Attn: Mr. Kevin Lapp
Kevin. Lapp(a�aecom.com
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region IV
Attn: Mr. Todd Bowers
Bowers.Todd(a-).epa.gov
-6-

Public Comments

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper
Secretary D. Reid Wilson
February 28, 2024
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary, Darin J. Waters, Ph.D.
Matthew Martin Matthew.K.Martin(d),usace.army.mil
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Re: Develop Midfield Apron, Johnston Regional Airport, Johnston County, ER 23-2261
Dear Mr. Martin:
Thank you for your letter of February 20, 2024, regarding the above -referenced undertaking. We have
reviewed the submission and offer the following comments.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected
by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-814-6579
or environmental environmental.review(&,,dncr.nc�. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Ramona Bartos, Deputy
State Historic Preservation Officer
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6898

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43CE4A41-8FC4-42EE-B9C4-3489FFC2B899
ROY COOPER
Governor
ELIZABETH S. BISER
Secretary
RICHARD E. ROGERS, JR.
Director
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
March 14, 2024
Corps Action ID# SAW-2001-20723
DWR# 20240241
Johnston County
Matthew Martin
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
Delivered via email to: [e-mail]
Subject Project: Johnston Regional Airport Midfield Apron Development
Dear Mr. Martin:
On behalf of the NC Division of Water Resources, we respectfully request that you consider the
following comments within your review of the 404 Individual Permit request for the above referenced
project:
1. The applicant has indicated that one reason Alternative B is not feasible is the steep slopes.
However, the airport's publicly available Airport Layout Plan shows this area to be developed
with future hanger area and apron which appears to contradict the statements in the
alternatives analysis that indicate this area is not suited to hanger development.
2. The applicant states that Alternative B would not significantly avoid or minimize impacts to
wetlands because approximately 10 acres of wetlands will be impacted by the proposed
Midfield Development Site, however the current application is for 18.67 acres of wetland impact
when inclusion of the associated infrastructure and stormwater treatment systems are included
and therefore Alternative B does appear to significantly reduce impacts.
3. The applicant states that retaining the previous stormwater drainage pattern was determined to
be the least environmentally intrusive. It is unclear how retaining previous drainage patterns is
determined to be the least environmentally intrusive when the proposed SCM is resulting in
significant stream and wetland impacts.
4. The applicant states that multiple small SCMs were deemed infeasible due to the nature of the
planned site construction. While it is understandable that one SCM may be preferred for
construction simplicity, the Division requests that the USACE carefully evaluate whether the
justification provided is sufficient given the significant impacts proposed for the proposed SCM.
�NAR-
n�mm.. North Carolina Department ofEnvironmental Quality I Division ofWater Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 1 1611 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1611
NorrrH C919.707.9000
m e�a.�����i o�.i�

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43CE4A41-8FC4-42EE-B9C4-3489FFC2B899
Corps Action ID# SAW-2001-20723
DWR# 20240241
Johnston County
Page 2 of 2
It also appears that the applicant has discounted the area proposed as the borrow site for a SCM
location because it would require stormwater to be pumped to the area, but it is unclear if the
analysis is based on the existing elevations or the proposed elevations after the area is used as a
borrow site.
6. It appears that there is further opportunity for minimization of impacts from the SCM if it were
shifted towards the existing runway. The Aquatic Resources Map provided with the application
shows uplands between the proposed location and the runway, and it appears that it would be
feasible to shift the location of the proposed SCM and further minimize wetland and stream
impacts.
7. The Division has not received a complete application at this time as the application fee has not
yet been received. Therefore, the Division has not conducted a technical review in accordance
with NC regulations.
Thank you for your considering the Division's comments during your review of this Individual Permit. If
you have any questions, please contact Sue Homewood at 336-813-1863 or
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
DocuSigned by:
ntp�f_ LOSS
0C5097D80E4E9...
Stephanie Goss, Supervisor
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
Electronic cc: Kevin Lapp, AECOM
Gabriela Garrison, NCWRC
DWR 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch file
Filename: 20240241 JNX Midfield Apron -Johnston -Comments to USACE.docx
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 11611 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1611
E Q!
Noa1H raao�iNa 919.707.9000
o�mmeM m e�a.��memei uusi�

r1t Q;gn Envelope ID: 3BA7C379 r:rAD A631-AB16 3C43AB7FD2EE
ROY COOPER
Governor
ELIZABETH S. BISER
Secretary
RICHARD E. ROGERS, JR.
Director
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
April 24, 2024
DWR # 20240241
Johnston County
Johnston County Airport Authority
Attn: Mr. Phil Lanier
3146 Swift Creek Rd
Smithfield NC 27577
Delivered via email to: [e-mail]
Subject: REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Johnston Regional Airport Midfield Apron Development
Corps Action ID# SAW-2001-20723
Dear Mr. Lanier:
On March 13, 2024, the Division of Water Resources (Division) received your application requesting a
401 Individual Water Quality Certification and Neuse Buffer Authorization from the Division for the
subject project. The Division has determined that your application is incomplete and cannot be
processed. The application is on -hold until all of the following information is received:
1. If the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)requests a response to any comments received as a
result of the Public Notice, please provide the Division with a copy of your response to the
USACE.
2. You have indicated steep slopes as a reason why onsite Alternative B is not feasible to further
minimize the proposed impacts. However, the airport's publicly available Airport Layout Plan
shows this area to be developed with future hangers and apron, which appears to contradict the
statements provided in the application indicating this area is not suited for hanger development.
3. The application states that onsite Alternative B would not significantly avoid or minimize
impacts to wetlands because approximately 10 acres of wetlands will be impacted by the
proposed Midfield Development Site. However, the current application proposes 18.67 acres of
wetland impact when associated infrastructure and stormwater treatment systems are included
and therefore Alternative B does appear to significantly reduce impacts.
4. The application states that multiple small SCMs were deemed infeasible due to the nature of the
planned site construction. While it is understandable that one SCM may be preferred for
construction simplicity, please provide additional justification for the proposed stormwater
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 1 1611 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1611
NORTH CAROLINA
Ogwhnnnl of Emlmnnnental Oaali� 919.707.9000

DocuSign Envelope ID: 3BA7C379-EC4B-4631-AB16-3C43AB7FD2EE
Johnston Regional Airport Midfield Apron Development
DWR# 20240241
Request for Additional Information
Page 2 of 3
management plan given the significant impacts proposed for the proposed SCM. In addition the
area proposed as the borrow site appears to have been discounted for a SCM location because it
would require stormwater to be pumped to the area, but it is unclear if the analysis is based on
the existing elevations or the proposed elevations after the area is used as a borrow site
It appears that there is further opportunity for minimization of impacts from the SCM if it were
shifted towards the existing runway. The Aquatic Resources Map provided with the application
shows uplands between the proposed location and the runway, and it appears that it would be
feasible to shift the location of the proposed SCM and further minimize wetland and stream
impacts.
6. Notwithstanding the comments above regarding further avoidance and minimization of the
Stormwater Management Plan (SMP), please provide the following information for the
proposed SMP:
a. Please clearly identify the O&M for the submerged gravel wetland (i.e. add SGW in the title).
The provided description in the O&M table for SGW appears to be incomplete, please
review and revise as needed. Also, please provide additional details on the SGW design
summary/table (similar to the dry pond table).
b. Please provide a draft monitoring plan for the SGW as proposed and in accordance with the
protocols outlined in the 2023 NC Stormwater Control Measure Credit Document, Part C.
Please clarify if any additional impacts are necessary for temporary construction access and/or
appropriate sediment and erosion control measures. The Division is particularly concerned with
how the SCM will be installed without impacting adjacent wetlands and/or streams and ensuring
that downstream water quality will be maintained (of particular concern is turbidity and
sediment impacts).
Pursuant to Title 15A NCAC 02H .0502(e) and 15A NCAC 02B .0611, the applicant shall furnish all of the
above requested information for the proper consideration of the application. Please respond in writing
within 30 calendar days of receipt of this letter by sending one (1) copy of all of the above requested
information to the 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch, 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
OR by submitting all of the above requested information through this
link: https://edocs.deg.nc.gov/Forms/Supplemental-Information-Form (note the DWR# requested on
the link is referenced above).
If all of the requested information is not received within 30 calendar days of receipt of this letter, the
Division will be unable to approve the application and it will be denied as incomplete. The denial of this
project will necessitate reapplication to the Division for approval, including a complete application
package and the appropriate fee.
Please be aware that you have no authorization under the Section 401 of the Clean Water Act or the
Neuse Buffer Rules for this activity and any work done within waters of the state may be a violation of
North Carolina General Statutes and Administrative Code.
D � � North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 1 1611 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1611
NORTH CAROLINA
o�-M&�—� QUaZ �/ 919.707.9000

DocuSign Envelope ID: 3BA7C379-EC4B-4631-AB16-3C43AB7FD2EE
Johnston Regional Airport Midfield Apron Development
DWR# 20240241
Request for Additional Information
Page 3 of 3
Please contact Sue Homewood at 336-813-1863 or [e-mail] if you have any
questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
ESDocuSigned by:
ft p�G bass
980C5097D80E4E9_.
Stephanie Goss, Supervisor
401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
Electronic cc: Kevin Lapp, AECOM
Matt Martin, USACE Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
DWR 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch file
Filename: 20240241 JNX Midfield Apron - Johnston -addinfo.docx
REQ
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
r/ 512 North Salisbury Street 11611 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1611
NORTH CAROiJNA 919.707.9000
npphnaM of EmironmanW 9uallly