20171527 Ver 1_USACE Request for More Info_20190521

i
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343 ,.
NC Department of
May 21, 2019 Environmental Quality
Received
Regulatory Division *" MAY 2 8 2019 j
_44_
Action ID No. SAW -2016-02542 - Winston-Salem
_ Regional Office
Mr. David Newell
Person County
Post Office Box
Roxboro, North Carolina 27573
Dear Mr. Newell:
Please reference your application of January 8, 2019, for individual Department of
the Army (DA) permit authorization to construct a semiconductor chip manufacturing
plant and associated infrastructure within the area identified as the Person County
Mega Park. The application was for the discharge of fill material into 10,529 linear feet
of stream and 1.94 acres of wetlands subject to our regulatory authority pursuant to
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The requested impacts are associated with the
proposed development of a semiconductor chip manufacturing plant, including a fill pad
and transportation and utility infrastructure. The proposed project site is located south
of Edwin Robertson Road and is bisected by Country Club Road, north of the City of
Roxboro, in northern Person County, North Carolina. The associated infrastructure
projects for the semiconductor chip manufacturing plant include water and gas utility
lines that extend south from the project along Country Club Road and transportation
improvements that extend east from the project along Edwin Robertson Road and
Shiloh Church Road to US Highway 501.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (Corps) advertised your
proposal by public notice dated January 23, 2019, with a comment deadline date of
February 22, 2019. A total of six (6) written comments were received in response to the
notice from the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR), North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), North Carolina Department of Natural and
Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office (NCSHPO), U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS), the Cherokee Nation, and one local resident. The comments
received are enclosed for your information and to provide you with the opportunity to
address any of the stated concerns. In particular, please provide a written response to
comments from the NCSHPO. Note that the Cherokee Nation and the USFWS both
indicated that they had no comments or objections in their respective letters. Reference
also the Request for Additional Information sent by the NCDWR dated February 19,
2019 (copy enclosed).

-2 -
Please be aware that Section 404(b)(1), of the Clean Water Act, states that 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. As such, please elaborate on or provide additional
information regarding alternatives as follows:
Please clarify if there will be any co -applicants for this project.
2. Additional site specific information regarding the alternatives analysis is
required to ensure compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) and the Section 404(b)(1) guidelines. This includes the following
items:
a. Provide additional discussion/analysis for the Overall Layout Plan
(Sheet 1). Specifically, please clearly label each feature (building,
parking lot, component of the facility, etc.) and provide details
regarding the purpose of each feature (i.e., what the use of that
feature would be, reason for the size, etc.).
i. Note that the second sentence of the second paragraph of
the Executive Summary for the Person County Mega Park
Individual Permit Request states that "The proposed Project
layout is comprised of an approximate 3.5 million square feet
central operations facility to house the clean room,
manufacturing spaces, office spaces, mechanical yard,
vehicular load deck areas and associated parking." Please
clearly identify the above -referenced project components on
the site plans and provide a written explanation describing
the need for and arrangement of the specific buildings and
components within the framework of the overall project.
ii. Clearly describe the capacity of the proposed parking lot
layout for each of the alternatives. Is the proposed parking
layout sufficient to meet the needs of the estimated labor
force (4,000 employees) at the proposed facility?
iii. The on-site alternatives do not include an analysis for
impacts associated with the proposed utility lines and
transportation improvements. Please explain how the
preferred alternatives for the utility lines and transportation
improvements would affect the total impacts for the on-site
alternatives.

iv. Please provide additional information and a detailed
discussion regarding the methods used to determine the
layout of the Overall Layout Plan (Sheet 1). Please indicate
if other current or former semiconductor chip manufacturing
plants were used to determine the number, size, use of each
building and surface lot (and if so, which facilities?) and
methods used to arrive at the current proposed
configuration. Please explain how this was determined to be
a requirement of all semiconductor chip manufacturing
plants.
V. Please provide additional discussion regarding the Overall
Layout Plan (Sheet 1). As this plan appears to be a typical
semiconductor chip manufacturing plant site plan, please
provide additional details/discussion regarding the
mechanism and methods the applicant would take to ensure
that any potential end user would not request to re -design
the proposed campus to their own specifications and would
ultimately build the proposed design as indicated. We
believe it is important to reiterate that in the event a permit is
issued for this project, it must be built exactly as depicted in
the plans you have submitted and for the purpose and need
expressed in your application, unless a modification to the
proposed project is authorized by the District Engineer.
b. Provide an alternatives analysis for each of the utility line and
transportation improvement projects associated with the proposed
project. Specifically explain how and why the preferred alternative
was chosen for the following:
i. The proposed water utility line that extends south from the
proposed semiconductor chip manufacturing facility;
ii. The proposed gas utility line that extends south from the
proposed semiconductor chip manufacturing facility; and
iii. The proposed transportation improvements along Edwin
Robertson Road and Shiloh Church Road.
c. The Person County Megasite Traffic Impact Analysis, dated
September 20, 2017, was written with the assumption that the
proposed project was a "six (6) million square foot (SF) plus semi-

n
conductor facility along with ancillary, supporting land uses."
However, the current application only considers an approximately 3.5
million square feet semiconductor ship manufacturing plant. Please
explain how the Traffic Impact Analysis mentioned above still applies
to the proposed project in light of the reduction in size and scope of
the proposed project? If the Traffic Impact Analysis no longer applies
due to changes in the scope of the proposed project, please revise
the analysis accordingly to match the currently proposed scope of the
project.
d. The project is proposed to be constructed in two phases. It appears
that Phase 1 would effectively disconnect Country Club Road from
Edwin Robertson Road. Is there a plan to route traffic through or
around the site during and following the implementation of Phase 1 of
the proposed project?
e. There is no accounting for any temporary impacts associated with
the transportation component of this project. Typically, temporary
impacts are necessary for dewatering activities associated with
culvert installation. Please provide and/or distinguish between
temporary and permanent impacts associated with the transportation
portion of this project. Additionally, please itemize permanent
impacts by type of fill (e.g. culvert fill versus outlet stabilization via rip
rap dissipater pad).
f. The Preliminary Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. Impacts Maps
(Sheets 5 and 6) do not accurately show the limits of waters within
the project corridor. Therefore, the impact totals to streams and
wetlands are not accurate on the above referenced impacts maps
and in the permit application. Please reference the revised
delineation maps entitled "Figure 6: Waters of the U.S. Delineation
Map" (Sheets 2 and 3 of 3) that were submitted to the Corps on
September 24, 2018, as part of the Preliminary Jurisdictional
Determination Request; these features were field verified by Mr.
Ross Sullivan with the Corps on May 3, 2018. Please revise the
permit application to correctly account for all impacts to Waters of the
U.S.

-5-
g. The permit application and supporting documentation highlights the
proposed project's needs for redundant power supplies and
highlights the availability of multiple 230 kV lines and 115 kV lines
that currently cross the property. However, the plans do not clearly
identify the location of these utility lines or show how they would tie
into each of the proposed project alternatives. Please clearly display
and explain how the proposed project alternatives would connect to
the existing utility lines and indicate whether or not any impacts to
waters of the U.S. would occur as a result of these utility connections.
3. Provide additional discussion/analysis for the Overall Layout Plan (Sheet 1).
Specifically, please clearly label each feature (building, parking lot, component of the
facility, etc.) and provide details regarding the purpose of each feature (i.e., what the
use of that feature would be, reason for the size, etc.).
4. Your offsite alternatives analysis should also include the transportation and utility
components when assessing the environmental impacts in order to compare it to the
preferred alternative.
5. Provide the Corps with a copy of your responses to Items 2-7 listed in the
Request for Additional Information from the NCDWR, dated February 19, 2019.
6. A more detailed compensatory mitigation proposal is needed once you have a
final site plan. Note that any impacts where the proposed mitigation is not located within
the same 8 -digit HUC may be subject to higher compensatory mitigation ratios.
7. Please provide a more detailed indirect impacts analysis with regards to streams
and wetlands that exist just outside of the fill footprint for the proposed project. In
particular, Will any streams lose their watershed through rerouting of stormwater? Will
any wetlands lose their recharge area due to fill/rerouting of stormwater? If so, please
quantify these indirect impacts and include them in the compensatory mitigation
proposal?
Your response to the comments must be given full consideration before we can
make a final decision on your application. You may submit additional information,
revise your plans to help resolve the issues, rebut the issues made or request a
decision based on the existing record. Please be aware that, depending upon the level
of detailed information you provide, we may still have concerns and/or questions that
will need to be addressed. Finally, if a permit is issued for your proposed project, it is
our intention to condition the permit such that no fill could be placed in waters of the
U.S. until a specific end user has been identified and all additional steps have been
taken to avoid and minimize impacts to waters of the U.S. for that particular end user. If

W
you need additional assistance regarding any issues mentioned in or information
requested in this letter, please call Mr. Ross Sullivan at telephone [phone] ext.
25 or contact him at email address [e-mail].
Sincerely,
kLn WyOL
Henry Wicker
Deputy Chief, Regulatory Division
Wilmington District
Copy Furnished:
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, Winston Salem Regional Office
Department of Environmental Quality
450 West Hanes Mill Road, Suite 300
Winston Salem, North Carolina 27105
Mr. Brian Breissinger
Timmons Group
1001 Boulders Parkway, Suite 300
Richmond, Virginia 23225