20180133 Ver 1_Public Notice Comments - USACE_20180404

Regulatory Division/1200A
Action ID: SAW -2008-02741
Mr. Eric Evans
Edgecombe County
201 St. Andrew Street
Tarboro, North Carolina 27886
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
Mr. Tony Coggins
NC Department of Transportation (Division 4)
509 Ward Boulevard
Wilson, North Carolina 57895
Dear Mr. Evans and Mr. Coggins:
April 4, 2018
Please reference your Individual Permit application for Department of the Army (DA)
authorization to permanently discharge fill material into 2,134 linear feet of stream channel, 9.12
acre of riparian wetlands, and 5.23 acres of open water; and temporarily discharge fill material
into 635 linear feet of stream channel, associated with the proposed construction of a tire
manufacturing facility, rail access, and associated roadway construction for site access on the
Kingsboro CSX Select Site. The project area is located within the Walnut Creek and Penders
Run watersheds, north of U.S. Highway 64, and approximately 5 miles east of Rocky Mount, in
Kingsboro, Edgecombe County, North Carolina.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (Corps) advertised your proposal by
public notice dated February 23, 2018. Comments in response to the notice were received from
the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR), North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC), North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
(NCDNCR), United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), US Department of Commerce -
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Mogensen Mitigation, Inc., Sound
Rivers, and Mr. Marvin Horton. The comments received are enclosed for your information and
to provide you with the opportunity to address any of the stated concerns.
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,

-2 -
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.
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.
i. Specifically, please add to the alternatives analysis provided in your
Individual Permit application, received February 9, 2018, to further
explore Off -Site alternatives. If Off -Site alternatives are not
practicable, please explain why.
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.
i. I have evaluated the avoidance and minimization information included
in your application, and determined the details to be sufficient for our
evaluation.
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.
i. I have evaluated the compensatory mitigation plan included in your
application, and have determined the details to be generally sufficient
for our evaluation. As discussed during our April 2, 2018 meeting, you
are proposing to purchase the available stream credits (589.5) from the
Mogensen Mitigation, Inc.'s Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation
Bank. The remaining stream and wetland credits would be purchased
from the NC Division of Mitigation Services.

-3 -
The aforementioned requested information is essential to the expeditious processing of your
application; please forward this information to us within 30 days of your receipt of this letter. If
you have any questions regarding these matters, please contact me at [phone] extension
22 or Samantha.J.Daileygusace.army.mil.
Sincerely,
DAILEY.SAMADigitally signed by
DAILEYSAMANTHAJ.1387567948
NTHA.J.13875 ou=Dc=1.15, o=U.S. Government,
ou=oD, ou=PKI, ou=USA,
,n=DAI LEY.SAMANTHAJ.13875679
48
67948 Date: 2018.04.0413:47:34-04'00'
Samantha Dailey
Regulatory Project Manager
Raleigh Field Office
Enclosures
Copies Furnished:
Mr. Phillip May
Carolina Ecosystems, Inc.
3040 NC Highway 42 West
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
Mr. Todd Bowers
Permit Review Specialist
Wetlands Regulatory Section
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region IV
Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Ms. Sue Homewood
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
450 W. Hanes Mill Rd, Suite 300
Winston Salem, North Carolina 27105

Dailey, Samantha J CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
From: Homewood, Sue <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 9:10 AM
To: Dailey, Samantha J CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Triangle Tyre Public Notice
Ms. Dailey,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Triangle Tyre Facility in Edgecombe County. At this time
the Division of Water Resources does not have any comments to offer. The Division will continue working with the
applicant on their 401 Individual Certification application.
Thanks,
Sue Homewood
Division of Water Resources, Winston Salem Regional Office
Department of Environmental Quality
336 776 9693 office
336 813 1863 mobile
[e-mail]
450 W. Hanes Mill Rd, Suite 300
Winston Salem NC 27105
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
I

K"'j' North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Samantha Dailey
US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
FROM: Maria T. Dunn, Coastal Coordinator / y
Habitat Conservation
DATE: March 26, 2018
SUBJECT: Public Notice for Edgecombe County and North Carolina Department of
Transportation, Triangle Tyre, Edgecombe County, North Carolina,
SAW -2008-02741
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) reviewed the
public notice with regard to impacts on fish and wildlife resources. The project site is within a
1400 -acre tract of agriculture and forested lands bordered to the north by US Highway 64
Alternate, to the west by Kingsboro Road, to the south by US Highway 64 and the CSX
Railroad, and to the east by Harts Mill Run Road, approximately 5 miles east of Rocky Mount, in
Kingsboro, NC. Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of Sections 401 and
404 of the Clean Water Act, as amended, and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat.
401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.)-
The applicants' stated purpose is to provide site infrastructure capable of supporting a tire
manufacturing facility and to relieve economic distress in Edgecombe County through major
industrial development. The proposal includes the discharge of fill material into 5.23 acres of
open water, 9.12 acres of wetlands, and 2,769' of stream channel associated with the
construction of a 400 -acre pad site for the Triangle Tyre facility, and a 2 -lane roadway assessing
the site from Kingsboro Road to the west and US 64 Alternate to the north. The Triangle Tyre
facility would consist of four separate factories built in two phases, and associated supporting
infrastructure including rail spurs, internal roadways, and parking areas, raw material and
Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fag: [phone]

finished product receiving and shipping areas, offices and stormwater best management
practices. Jurisdictional boundaries were reviewed by the USACE in August 2008 and an
approved jurisdictional determination (AJD) was received and renewed on December 20, 2013.
The on-site streams are three UTs to Walnut Creek, Walnut Creek, and one UT to Penders Mill
Run. These features are classified WS -N, NSW and are subject to the Tar / Pamlico Basin
Buffer Rules.
The NCWRC has reviewed the information associated with the public notice and does not
believe adequate information has been provided to assess the impacts the project will have on
wildlife resources. The project essentially removes the entire watershed for Walnut Creek and
likely will have an adverse effect on aquatic resources, such as freshwater mussels and
freshwater non -game fish, that utilize Walnut Creek, the UTs of Walnut Creek, and the Tar
River. Therefore, we request additional data be obtained and alternatives considered that reduce
project impacts.
Information associated with the project included a mussel survey that was conducted in 2008.
We request a new mussel survey be conducted throughout the project area and downstream the
project area to determine species present and habitat opportunities. The Tar River and tributaries,
including Walnut Creek, are known to have numerous fresh water mussel species. Included in
the USFWS Edgecombe County records are Dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), Tar
River spinymussel (Parvaspina steinstansana), Yellow lance (Elliptio lanceolata), Atlantic
pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni), and Green floater (Lasmigona suhviridis)_ Several other species
important to the NCWRC and listed in the Wildlife Action Plan are Eastern Elliptio (Elliptio
complanata) and Creeper (Strophitus undulates). Since the Walnut Creek system has been under
sampled, a survey conducted by experienced ES permitted biologists should be done. The survey
should be conducted to demonstrate appropriate amount of effort for the system. In addition to
the freshwater mussels, observations should be made for Carolina madtom (Noturus furiosus)
during aquatic surveys. NCWRC recommends a 200 -foot native, forested buffer on perennial
streams and a 100 -foot forested buffer on intermittent streams, or the full extent of the 100 -year
floodplain, adjacent to features that contain threatened or endangered species. This is greater
than the buffer requirements for the NCDWR's Tar / Pamlico Basin Buffer Rules, but
maintaining undisturbed, forested buffers along these areas would reduce impacts to aquatic and
terrestrial wildlife resources and improve water quality_ Grassed buffers do not provide the
necessary and highly valuable functions that forested buffers provide. Sediment and erosion
control structures should also be located outside of these buffers.
The NCWRC would like to see additional avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream
impacts. The public notice is focused on the 400 -acre Triangle Tyre pad, but several other
impacts are also presented that could be avoided or minimized. Use of the existing road system
and elimination of the proposed access road would eliminate several stream impacts, especially if
these reaches contain important aquatic resources. It appears the access road is to provide future
access to developments not disclosed at this time. This will likely increase total wetland and
stream impacts for the 1400 -acre site. All impacts should be presented, avoided, minimized, and
then mitigated at appropriate mitigation ratios. The public notice mentions the NCWAK but
does not provide data sheets or an indication of wetland function. We request this information be

provided. Depending on the results of the NCWA 4, mitigation ratios greater than 1:1 may be
requested.
Upon completion of the proposed 1400 -acre development, the majority of the Walnut Creek
watershed will become impervious. Details regarding stormwater treatment, treatment locations
from wetlands and streams, and discharge rates should be provided. Our agency has concern that
the hydrology of the system will experience significantly altered flow rates, water temperatures,
nutrients, and other water quality parameters that would affect important downstream aquatic
habitats_ Therefore, it is important stormwater systems are carefully designed to treat stormwater
while maintaining appropriate flows, water quality parameters, and buffers to these systems. It is
also important to survey reaches downstream the project area to determine if population changes
are noted post -project construction and if so potential remediation measures may need to be
considered.
The NCWRC appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on this public notice and looks
forward to additional information. Please do not hesitate to contact me at [phone] or at
maria. dunn�,ncwildlife.org if can provide additional assistance.

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper
Secretary Susi H. Hamilton
March 22, 2018
Samantha Dailey
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Office
1331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Re: Discharge Fill Material into US Waters for the Construction of a Tire Manufacturing Facility,
US 64, Kingsboro, SAW 2008-02741, Edgecombe County, ER 12-1459
Dear Ms. Dailey:
We have received a public notice for the above -referenced project.
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 919-807-6579 or
environmental.reviewgncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
�OvRamona M. Bartos
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

Dailey, Samantha J CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
From: Ellis, John <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 3:30 PM
To: Dailey, Samantha J CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] csx kingsboro
Sam,
Good afternoon.
I have a few questions regarding the CSX- Kingsboro PN.
To minimize impacts to streams, would it be possible to utilize Kingsboro Road and Business 64 instead of building the
proposed industrial access road? That would eliminate 2 stream crossings as well as avoid a potential buffer
encroachment near the junction with Kingsboro and offer additional buffer from the stream where it is running parallel
to the proposed road.
Do you know what they are proposing for storm water control and treatment? Due to the proximity to the Tar and large
amount of impervious surface associated with the plant and road this will be of great concern and should factor into the
Sect 7 determination.
Also, the T&E survey that I have seen is almost 10 years old. The previous concurrence letter is also a few years old and
did not include info regarding this level of impact this close to streams. It would be good to update the surveys
including areas downstream of the site in Walnut Creek and the confluence with the Tar River. In addition to mussel
surveys I recommend that they survey for Neuse River waterdog and Carolina madtom as the Service has been
petitioned to list them.
Without updated survey info and information showing adequate stormwater control and treatment at the tire plant and
along the roads I don't think we could concur with the NLAA.
Thanks
John

(Sent via Electronic Mail)
Colonel Robert J. Clark, Commander
USACE Wilmington District
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403-1398
Dear Colonel Clark:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad ministration
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Southeast Regional Office
26313th Avenue South
St. Petersburg, Florida 33701-5505
http:ltsera. n mfs. noaa.gov
March 2, 2018
NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) reviewed the project described in the public
notice listed below. Based on the information in the public notice, the proposed project would
NOT occur in the vicinity of essential fish habitat (EFH) designated by the South Atlantic
Fishery Management Council, Mid -Atlantic Fishery Management Council, or the NMFS.
Present staffing levels preclude further analysis of the proposed work and no further action is
planned. This position is neither supportive of nor in opposition to authorization of the proposed
work.
Notice No. Applicant(s) Notice Date Comment Due Date
SAW -2008-02741 NCDOT; Kingsboro February 23, 2018 March 26, 2018
CSX Select
Please note these comments do not satisfy consultation responsibilities under section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. If an activity "may effect" listed species or critical
habitat under the purview of the NMFS, please initiate consultation with the Protected Resources
Division at the letterhead address.
Sincerely,
Pace Wilber for
Virginia M. Fay
Assistant Regional Administrator
Habitat Conservation Division

www.Mogmit.com
MMI - Charlotte [phone]
MMI -Raleigh [phone]
March 22, 2018
NCDWR Central Office
MOGENSEN MITIGATION INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING
Attention: Ms. Karen Higgins
401 and Buffer Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District — Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Attention: Ms. Samantha Dailey
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Nm
MOGENSEN MITIGATION, INC
RE: SAW -2008-02741 Kingsboro CSX Select Site Infrastructure 5 Miles East of Rocky Mount,
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Higgins & Ms. Dailey:
This letter is in response to the Public Notice for SAW 2008-02741 Kingsboro CSX Select Site
project proposed by the NCDOT and Edgecombe County (Project). We support this permit
application for improving public transportation and economic development in a responsible
manner. The Project is at a good location for economic development along the Highway 64
corridor east of Raleigh. We understand that increasing existing infrastructure projects typically
have minimal options and that the amount of stream and wetland impacts have been minimized
to the greatest extent practicable.
Mogensen Mitigation, Inc. (MMI) has been developing the Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation
Bank (Stream Bank) for the last six years. MMI has also developed the Tar River Headwaters
Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Mitigation Bank (Buffer & Nutrient Bank) but is currently sold
out of riparian buffer credits. The Stream Bank was approved in November 2016 and the Buffer &
Nutrient Bank was approved in April 2013. Both Banks are located in and have a Service Area of
Tar -Pamlico River Basin HUC 03020101. Stream credits totaling 589.5 have been released by the
NC IRT and these credits should be considered as the first option as they are truly "advanced
mitigation". This should be the preferred option as the mitigation is already in the ground and the
site is already protected in perpetuity (conservation easement held by long-term land steward).
This bank has been constructed and planted and is in the monitoring stages. As -Built surveys for
both banks have been approved by the IRT. The conservation easement has been completed,
approved and transferred to the long-term land steward (Tar River Land Conservancy).
Environmental Field Studies ■ Wetland & Stream Delineation ■ 404-401 Permits ■ Mitigation Plans & Banking

MOGENSEN MITIGATION INC.
The Federal 2008 Rule "Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources: Final Rule 40
CFR Part 230" clearly spells out the hierarchy for mitigation options with bank credits as the
preferred option followed by In Lieu Fee Programs and then Permittee Responsible Mitigation.
Page 19673 of the Federal Rules says "For these reasons, the district engineer should give
preference to the use of mitigation bank credits when these considerations are applicable." NC
State Law and NC Division of Mitigation Services internal policies also specify the use of mitigation
bank credits (stream, wetland, buffer and nutrients) before In Lieu Fee or PRM mitigation is
acceptable. Currently the PN states that it will use NC DMS instead of the released stream bank
credits which does not comply with the federal rule or state law.
We understand that, because we cannot provide all the mitigation credits for this substantial
project, the permittee must rely on other mitigation options. We make no judgement on the other
proposed options as long as bank credits are used first. Regardless, the stream bank credits should
surely be considered as "advanced mitigation" and the preferred option.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this Clean Water Act Permit Public Notice for this
important infrastructure project.
Sincerely,
Richard K. Mogensen
President, MMI
BMwww.Mogmit.com Page 12
MOGENSEN MITIGATION, INC

SOUND
RIVERS
PROTECTING THE REUSE & TAR- PAM LICO
March 26, 2018
Delivered via Electronic Mail to Samantha.J.Dailey@usace. army. mi I
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Attention: Ms. Samantha Dailey
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Re: Comments on SAW -02741
Ms. Dailey,
Please accept these comments regarding the application for a Clean Water Act (CWA) section 404 permit
for impacts to wetlands and waterways by Edgecombe County and the North Carolina Department of
Transportation's Project Diamond.
Sound Rivers is a nonprofit organization representing over 3,000 members with a mission to monitor and
protect the Neuse and Tar -Pamlico River watersheds covering nearly one quarter of North Carolina, and
to preserve the health and beauty of the river basin through environmental justice.
The applicants propose to impact 2,769 linear feet of streams, 5.23 acres of riparian ponds, and 11.11
acres of wetlands that are part of the Tar River watershed.
As described in more detail below, the proposed filling of jurisdictional wetlands and streams can not be
permitted.
Purpose and Need
The stated purpose and need is not a water dependent use.
The purpose of the project is for the County and NCDOT to provide site and transportation
infrastructure capable of supporting the Triangle Tyre plant, and on a larger scale to bring
economic benefit to Edgecombe County through a major industrial development.
The applicants must clearly demonstrate that there are no practicable alternatives to meet the stated
purpose and need that avoid impacts to water resources. The applicants fail to meet that burden of proof.
See 40 CFR § 230. 1 0(a)(2).
In fact on page 5 of the permit application, the applicant details a wide search for non -environmental site
criteria, yet only gives a passing mention that other sites would probably have the same impacts.
While similar sized sites in other regions of the state (mountain and piedmont) may
have fewer jurisdictional wetland impacts, they would likely have much greater jurisdictional
stream impacts. However, the majority (9 out of 10) of the most economically distressed counties
are in the coastal plain region. Therefore, it is reasonably likely that sites of equal size found in
these counties, or in Edgecombe County, would have similar levels of impacts due to the
predominance of wetlands in this region.
P.O. Box 1854 rt�
=A77RRCIR111'+u�Mee
Washington, NC 27889 �;;nn
New Bern [phone] — Raleigh [phone] — Washington [phone]

As stated on page 4 of the application, the applicants presume that sites of equal size that would be found
in the target region would have similar impacts without actually assessing if this is the case. This
evaluation of other sites is critical to meet requirements. For uses that do not specifically require access to
water, "practicable alternatives that do not involve special aquatic sites are presumed to be available,
unless clearly demonstrated otherwise." 40 CFR § 230. 1 0(a)(3). Further, the courts have recognized that
the bar for practicable alternatives is quite high, such as in Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Whistler (8th Circuit
1994), and Shoreline Associates v. Marsh (4th Circuit 1984).
Under the CWA 404(b)(1) guidelines, avoidable stream and wetland impacts like those proposed by the
applicants can not be permitted. "No discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if there is a
practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic
ecosystem, so long as the alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental
consequences." 40 CFR § 230.10(a). "From a national perspective, the degradation or destruction of
special aquatic sites, such as filling operations in wetlands, is considered to be among the most severe
environmental impacts covered by these Guidelines." 40 CFR § 230.1(d).
Further detailed analysis of other properties that would avoid or minimize degradation of waterways is
needed to meet the requirements of the CWA.
Impacts Unknown
In may cases, the amount of impacts described is inconsistent, and the application lacks the needed detail
required to consider permitting.
For example on page 9 of the application, it is discussed that 11.11 acres of wetlands will be filled, yet
table 5 tallies only 9.12 acres of wetland impacts. Without knowing accurately the acres of wetland to be
impacted by the applicant, it is impossible to properly assess the impacts and any needs for mitigation.
Additionally, on page 10 the applicant states clearly that the impact totals are unknown, and they have
failed to provide complete information during the permit application process.
The following impacts are calculated based on corridor/preliminary design. Final impact totals
are expected to be less than described. Once final design is complete and final impacts numbers
are calculated, that information will be submitted during permit review or addressed in a permit
modification request, depending on when final designs are complete.
The Corps should only be evaluating a final proposal. The applicant should make a final, rather than
preliminary plan, and resubmit for review by the public and the Corps. Till that time the Corps should
deny this permit application.
Mitigation
While the project is stated to impact 2,769 linear feet of streams, 5.23 acres of riparian ponds, and 11.11
acres of wetlands, mitigation has only been proposed for 2,134 feet of stream impacts, and 8.56 acres of
wetland impacts. The applicant has proposed no mitigation for the remaining impacts of these type, nor
for any of the impacts to 5.23 acres of open water ponds described as riparian.
Since no private mitigation bank is available in the HUC that can meet requirements, the applicant is
working with the NC Division of Mitigation Service. We are concerned specifically that any mitigation
would be located outside the impacted watershed and result in further unmitigated degradation.
33 CRR § 332.3 (b)(1) and other portions of part 332.3 direct that, "the required compensatory
mitigation should be located within the same watershed as the impact site, and should be located
where it is most likely to successfully replace lost functions and services, taking into account

such watershed scale features as aquatic habitat diversity, habitat connectivity, relationships to
hydrologic sources..." (emphasis added).
33 C.F.R § 332.3 states that not only should the mitigation site provide desired functions, but should
specifically consider ESA listed species and the relative locations of mitigation and impact sites in a
stream network. "The compensatory mitigation project site must be ecologically suitable for providing the
desired aquatic resource functions.... the district engineer must consider, to the extent practicable, the
following factors:
(vi) Other relevant factors including, but not limited to, development trends,
anticipated land use changes, habitat status and trends, the relative locations of the
impact and mitigation sites in the stream network, local or regional goals for the
restoration or protection of particular habitat types or functions (e.g., reestablishment
of habitat corridors or habitat for species of concern), water quality
goals, floodplain management goals, and the relative potential for chemical
contamination of the aquatic resources."
33 C.F.R. § 332.3(d)(1) (emphasis added).
Once the applicant has clarified their final project design for review, including final numbers to mitigate
for, any mitigation should sufficiently replicate the location and type of wetlands. The location and type
of wetlands is critical to attempting to replicate the functions and values provided by different types of
wetlands, as well as regional variations. See 40 CFR § 230.91.
Additionally, some wetland types such as forested wetlands are impossible to create in a short time. For
these types of wetlands impacts, the Corps should consider requirements of much higher ratios to account
for a substantial temporal delay from loss of wetland functions, to the growth of a relatively functional
replacement habitat type.
33 C.F.R § 332.3(m) states that "Implementation of the compensatory mitigation project shall be, to the
maximum extent practicable, in advance of or concurrent with the activity causing the authorized impacts.
The district engineer shall require, to the extent appropriate and practicable, additional compensatory
mitigation to offset temporal losses of aquatic functions that will result from the permitted activity"
(emphasis added).
The location of mitigation sites within the watershed, and requirements for mitigation to be prepared in
advance should be considered before issuing any permit.
Sensitive Species
In addition to the sensitive species listed in the permit application, we suggest that the agency also
consider the potential impacts to the following species of special concern that have been previously
identified within 1 mile of the proposed project location according to the North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program.
Neuse River Waterdog (Necturus lewisi) — Federal species of concern, State special concern
Roanoke Slabshell (Elliptio roanokensis) — Federal species of concern, State threatened
Carolina Madtom (Noturus furiosus) — Federal species of concern, State threatened
Cumulative Impacts
The Corps must take cumulative impacts to these headwater streams and wetlands into consideration in
allowing discharges to occur at all, and/or in considering mitigation ratios. In 2017 North Carolina Senate

Bill 1311 was signed into law and removed protections for any intermittent streams, as well as increased
the linear feet of streams that can be impacted without mitigation requirements from 150 feet to 300 feet.
The Corps must consider the cumulative impacts that will occur within this watershed and regionally as a
result of this change.
Conclusion
We believe that the permit application must be denied until a time the applicant undertakes a sufficient
analysis of alternative sites, and describes the impacts in a final rather than preliminary design. Only then
can the Corps properly look into the issues around mitigation and cumulative impacts.
We appreciate your consideration of these when evaluating this permit application.
Sincerely,
Forrest English, Pamlico -Tar Riverkeeper
Sound Rivers
1 https://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/billlookup/billlookup.pl?Session=2017&BillID=S 131

Dailey, Samantha J CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
From: Marvin Horton <topwater31 @gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2018 2:44 PM
To: Dailey, Samantha J CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: SAW -2008-02741 Public Notice / my comments and request for
public hearing
Dear Samantha: please see that this response is properly channeled.
FIRST,my comments and observations are based on residence in the county since 1952 and close contact with the area
in question. We have lived adjacent to the site for 30 years. Our property is along Hart's Mill Road across the road from
the proposed site on the west, railroad on the south, Raccoon Branch Road on the east and US 64 Alt on the north. I am
personally familiar with the roads, fields ,streams, lakes , ponds, woods and other physical attributes having either/or
owned, managed or investigated almost every acre of it.
THAT BEING SAID,
SECOND, it does not appear that due consideration has been given to arranging the buildings and other items to avoid
impact on the surrounding area and on the Tar River which is the water source for Tarboro, Greenville and Washington
and which is an important influence on the aquatic life of the Tar -Pamlico River and PamilicoSound. Water quality will be
affected by run-off, discharge of sewerage, chemicals and whatever. How much water will this operation require and
where will they get it, how will it be treated? What about solid waste? FINALLY, the people affected have not been
notified of this, only us property owners adjoining the site. The general public has the right to know what impact this
operation will have on us, good or bad, environmentally, economically, socially and general quality of life. These and
other aspects should be discussed before, not after construction begins. Public hearings should address all these and
other issues .
> Sincerely, Marvin V. Horton On Mar 13, 2018, at 11:30 AM, Dailey, Samantha J CIV
USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Marvin,
> As requested, attached is the public notice along with the attachments. Please let me know when you receive this and
also, please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have. The suspense date for your comments are March
26th, so please ensure you provide them before this date.
> Sincerely,
> Sam
> Samantha Dailey
> Regulatory Project Manager
> U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
> Regulatory Division
> 3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
> Wake Forest, NC 27587
> [phone], Ext. Ext. 22
> [e-mail]
> <SAW-2008-02741-Drawings.pdf>
> <SAW-2008-02741-PN.pdf>