20191081 Ver 1_20191081 Ver 1_Public Notice_20190821_20190821

US Army Corps PUBLIC NOTICE
Of Engineers
Wilmington District
Issue Date: August 21, 2019
Comment Deadline: September 20, 2019
Corps Action ID Number: SAW -2017-00103
The Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers (Corps) received an application from the
Piedmont Triad Airport Authority (PTAA) seeking Department of the Army
authorization to discharge dredged or fill material into 383 linear feet of stream channel,
0.08 acre of wetlands, and 1.72 acres of open water, and temporarily discharge dredged
or fill material into 0.02 acre of wetlands, associated with the relocation of existing rental
car facilities in order to eliminate a "I i ne-of-si ght" issue for a proposed air traffi c control
tower at the Piedmont Triad International Airport (GSO), in Greensboro in Guilford
County, North Carolina.
Specific plans and location information are described below and shown on the attached
plans. This Public Notice and all attached plans are also available on the Wilmington
District Web Site at
http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Re ug IatoryPermitProgra�aspx
Applicant: Mr. J. Alex Rosser, P.E.
Piedmont Triad Airport Authority
1000A Ted Johnson Parkway
Greensboro, North Carolina 27409
Agent: Mr. Richard B. Darling
Michael Baker International
200 Centreport Drive, Suite 350
Greensboro, North Carolina 27409
Authority
The Corps evaluates this application and decides whether to issue, conditionally issue, or
deny the proposed work pursuant to applicable procedures of the following Statutory
Authorities:
❑ Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 13 44)
❑ Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403)
❑ Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972
(33 U.S.C. 1413)
Version 6.15.2017 Page 1

Location
Location Description
Project Area (acres): —188 Nearest Town: Greensboro
Nearest Waterway: Unnamed Tributaries to Brush Creek and Horsepen Creek
River Basin: Cape Fear
Latitude and Longitude: 36.120991 N, -79.911210 W
Existing Site Conditions
The proposed project area (see Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] Environmental
Assessment [EA] Section 1 Figure 1.) is located within the Carolina Slate Belt of the
R edmont Physiographic Province. This region's geology consists of weakly
metamorphosed sedimentary and volcanic rocks. Project area geomorphology generally
includes flat and developed uplands bisected by relatively narrow undeveloped drainages
sloping south to north in the vicinity of the proposed Worldwide Drive/Air Cargo and
Chimney Rock/Spoil Embankment sites, and from north to south in the vicinity of the
proposed Inman/Rental Car Facilities site. Elevation across the sites range from
approximately 904 feet above mean sea level (MSL) in the vicinity of the Worldwide
Drive/Air Cargo site, to 812 feet MSL in the downstream extent of the undeveloped
drainage in the Chimney Rock/Spoil Embankment site. Soils within the three component
locations (Chimney Rock, Inman, and Air Cargo sites) are mapped as Clifford sandy
loam (CkB, CkC), Clifford sandy clay loam (C1B2, C1C2), Iredell fine sandy loam (IrB),
Mecklenburg sandy clay loam (MhB2, MhC2), Poplar Forest sandy loam (PoC), Poplar
Forest clay loam (PpC2, PpD2, PpE2), and Urban land (Ur) mapping units. None of these
series are included on the 2014 National Hydric Soils List for Guilford County, North
Carolina. Average annual precipitation for Guilford County is 43.1 inches.
Historically, land use in this area of the North Carolina Piedmont was primarily farming,
with forested areas on the steeper slopes and bottomlands. Airport runways appear on
topographic maps of the current Piedmont Triad International Airport (GSO) property as
early as 1952 (just west of the proposed project areas), with the three component
locations (Chimney Rock, Inman, and Air Cargo sites) themselves a mixture of pasture,
row crops, forest, and widely scattered residential landuses according to 1955 aerial
photography. Existing development directly to the south of the proposed Worldwide
Drive/Air Cargo site took place between 1982 and 1993. The Chimney Rock and Inman
sites have remained generally undeveloped.
The undeveloped portions of the three component locations include maintained/disturbed
and early -mid successional mixed pine/hardwood forest terrestrial communities with
small streams, impoundments, and adjacent wetlands.
Version 6.15.2017 Page

Forested uplands consist of canopy species such as loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), Virginia
pine (Pinus virginiana), red maple (Acer rubrum), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera),
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), white oak (Quercus alba), southern red oak
(Quercus falcata), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), mockernut hickory (Carya
tomentosa), and black cherry (Prunus serotina). Understory species including canopy
species as well as American beech (Fagus grandifolia), red mulberry (Morus rubra),
persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), American holly (Ilex opaca), eastern red cedar
(Juniperus virginiana), flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), and sassafras (Sassafras
albidum). In mesic areas near streams and wetlands, species adapted to wetter conditions
such as willow oak (Quercus phellos), American elm (Ulmus americana), green ash
(Fraxinus pennsylvanicum), redbud (Cercis canadensis), river birch (Betula nigra), black
willow (Salix nigra), tag alder (Alnus serrulata), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), and
tulip poplar tend to dominate the canopy and sapling layers. Shrubs are thickest along
woodland edges and in mesic areas near streams, wetlands and pond edges, including
species such as Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellate),
highbush blueberry (TVaccinium corymbosum), strawberry bush (Euonymus americanus),
spicebush (Lindera benzoin), and various sedges. Vines present include poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Virginia creeper
(Parthenocisus quinquifolia), common greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), and muscadine
grape (Tlitis rotundifolia). Herbs within this community are sparse to frequent and include
Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), rattlesnake fern (Botrychium virginianum),
ebony spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron), Japanese stilt grass (Microstegium
vimineum), large whorled pogonia (Isotria verticillate), Indian cucumber -root (Medeola
virginiana), Solomon's seal (Polygonatum biflorum), wild ginger (Asarum canadense),
ground cedar (Lycopodium complanatum), and spotted wintergreen (Pyrola americana).
The developed portions around these component locations are primarily roads, aircraft
hangars, concrete aprons, taxiway connectors, and support facilities, including parking
lots and stormwater ponds.
General area land use includes GSO and associated development, commercial and
industrial development to the south of GSO, and residential land to the north of GSO, as
well as several large state maintained highways (1-40,1-73,1-840). The Worldwide
Drive/Air Cargo site is surrounded by existing GSO development, with the exception of a
wooded area to its north that extends into wetland areas along Brush Creek preserved as
part of prior GSO permit requirements. The Chimney Rock site is bordered by existing
GSO and related infrastructure to the northwest and southwest, a currently undeveloped
area to the northeast, and Interstate Highway 840 (I-840) on the southeast. The Inman site
is bordered to the east, south, and northwest by I-840, Bryan Boulevard, and Inman Road,
respectively, and by commercial property to the northeast.
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. conducted a jurisdictional delineation for the proposed
Worldwide Drive/Air Cargo site in 2015; the jurisdictional boundaries were verified by
the Corps, and a Jurisdictional Determination was approved on March 9, 2015 (Corps
Action ID: SAW -2015-00091).
Version 6.15.2017 Page 3

Pilot Environmental, Inc. conducted jurisdictional delineations for the Chimney Rock and
Inman sites in 2017, the jurisdictional boundaries at each site were verified by the Corps,
and Jurisdictional Determinations were approved on March 14, 2017 (Corps Action ID:
SAW-2017-00101) and March 17, 2017 (Corps Action ID: SAW-2017-00103 for the
Chimney Rock and Inman sites, respectively). All streams on these sites are considered
Relatively Permanent Waters, have intermittent or perennial flow regimes, and are
unnamed tributaries to Brush Creek or Horsepen Creek, which flow via Horsepen Creek
and Reedy Fork to the Haw River, a Traditionally Navigable Water. These streams all
carry the NC Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) best usage classification of "WS-
NSW." WS-III refers to those waters used as water supply for drinking, culinary, or
food processing purposes where a WS-I or II classification is not feasible. WS-III waters
are generally in low to moderately developed watersheds. NSW is a supplemental
classification intended for waters needing additional nutrient management due to being
subject to excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation. There are no
designated Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters (HQW), Water
Supply I (WS-1), or Water Supply (WS-II) waters within 1.0 mile of the project area.
The wetlands within the proposed project component areas are all of the Headwater
Forest wetland type, according to the North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method
(NCWAM). These on-site features generally have plant assemblages containing trees and
shrubs such as red maple, sweetgum, and tulip poplar, and understory species such as soft
rush (Juncus effusus), Japanese stilt grass, blackberry (Rubus argutus), and common
greenbrier. Soils within these features are primarily loamy with a low chroma (10YR 6/1)
matrix and bright (7.5YR 5/8) redoximorphic concentrations. Typical of wetlands in
small stream valleys, these wetlands display hydrology indicators such as high water
tables, soil saturation, and water stained leaves.
Applicant's Stated Purpose
The purpose of the proposed project, as stated by the applicant, is the following:
The purpose of the Proposed Action is to eliminate a "line -of -sight" issue for the
proposed air traffic control tower (ATCT) created by existing rental car facilities, thereby
requiring the relocation of the facilities posing visibility obstructions. The Proposed
Action must be implemented in accordance with FAA design standards and Federal
Aviation Regulations while maintaining rental car service provider neutrality. Because
the parameters of the ATCT line -of -sight are not flexible, the only viable alternative is to
eliminate the obstruction and move the subject facilities.
Version 6.15.2017 Page

Background
Previous DA authorizations at GSO include the following permanent impacts to waters of
the US:
* NWP = Nationwide Permit; IP = Individual Permit.
**These projects were never constructed and the permits are expired; not included in total impacts.
The previously issued IP involving Runway 5L/23R and an overnight express cargo
facility at GSO (Corps Action ID SAW -2000-21655) authorized the currently proposed
stream impacts for the Worldwide Drive/Air Cargo site (see part 2 of the "Project
Description" section below). However, the IP expired without that section of the
overnight express cargo facility being constructed, and therefore the impacts proposed as
part of the Worldwide Drive/Air Cargo project component must be re-evaluated as newly
proposed impacts.
Project Description
The Piedmont Triad Airport Authority (PTAA) is obligated to remove obstructions to the
visibility of Taxiway E from the new proposed ATCT as determined by the FAA
Comparative Safety Analysis (FAA EA Appendix A). The Proposed Action includes the
following four components (FAA EA Section 1 Figure 2):
1) Site preparation and stabilization of approximately 49 acres of developed land
including Removal of Existing Rental Car Facilities and adjacent air cargo
structures and re -grading to allow line -of -sight from the ATCT to Taxiway E. See
FAA EA Section 1 Figure 3 and FAA EA Appendix A-2 "Site 1 —Existing Rental
Version 6.15.2017 Page 5
Stream
Wetland
Open Water
Action ID
Project Name
Date
Permit
Impacts
Impacts
Impacts
Type
(linVerified/Issued
ear feet
acres
acres
SAW -2015-00920
HAECO
April 25, 2015
IP
1,601
0.81
---
Stormwater outfall
NWP
SAW-2015-00091**
March 9, 2015
18
---
---
repair
18
Cross -field Taxiway/
SAW -2012-01547
Phase I Northwest
March 15, 2016
IP
394
---
5.96
Site Development
SAW -2011-01169
Honda Jet facility
December 19, 2012
NWP
136
---
---
connector
18
SAW -2007-00602
Ballinger Road
February 12, 2007
NWP
100
---
---
extension
14
SAW -2006-41354**
Runway Safety Area
February 14, 2008
IP
674
0.09
---
Improvements
Runway 5L/23R and
SAW -2000-21655
overnight express
December 8, 2003
IP
12,719
22.68
---
cargo facility
Runway 14 Safety
NWP
SAW -1998-20865
Area extension
May 21, 1998
23
760
0.3
---
SAW -1991-02137
Air cargo expansion
July 31, 1991
NWP
---
3
---
sediment basin
26
Total
15,710
26.79
5.96
* NWP = Nationwide Permit; IP = Individual Permit.
**These projects were never constructed and the permits are expired; not included in total impacts.
The previously issued IP involving Runway 5L/23R and an overnight express cargo
facility at GSO (Corps Action ID SAW -2000-21655) authorized the currently proposed
stream impacts for the Worldwide Drive/Air Cargo site (see part 2 of the "Project
Description" section below). However, the IP expired without that section of the
overnight express cargo facility being constructed, and therefore the impacts proposed as
part of the Worldwide Drive/Air Cargo project component must be re-evaluated as newly
proposed impacts.
Project Description
The Piedmont Triad Airport Authority (PTAA) is obligated to remove obstructions to the
visibility of Taxiway E from the new proposed ATCT as determined by the FAA
Comparative Safety Analysis (FAA EA Appendix A). The Proposed Action includes the
following four components (FAA EA Section 1 Figure 2):
1) Site preparation and stabilization of approximately 49 acres of developed land
including Removal of Existing Rental Car Facilities and adjacent air cargo
structures and re -grading to allow line -of -sight from the ATCT to Taxiway E. See
FAA EA Section 1 Figure 3 and FAA EA Appendix A-2 "Site 1 —Existing Rental
Version 6.15.2017 Page 5

Car Facilities —Existing Conditions" and "...Proposed Conditions." No impacts
to waters of the US are proposed for this project component,
2) Site preparation (including hauling of approximately 300,000 cubic yards clean
fill from the existing rental car facilities, above) of approximately 44 acres of
approved future aerospace development. Adjacent to this location, approximately
10 acres of clearing and grading for construction and continuation of utilities
along the proposed Worldwide Drive right-of-way, including electrical/lighting,
communications, and stormwater management (Air Cargo site). See FAA EA
Section 1 Figure 4 and FAA EA Appendix A-2 "Site 2 —Proposed Worldwide
Drive and Future Aerospace Development— Existing Conditions" and
"...Proposed Conditions." This project component would result in permanent
impacts (loss of waters) to 383 linear feet of stream channel;
3) Site preparation of approximately 57 acres of land including clearing and grading
for construction of paved parking areas for approximately 2,360 spaces and
infrastructure for approximately 16,900 square feet building space, including
connection of utilities, stormwater management, and communications for the
proposed New Rental Car Facilities (Inman site). See " Wetl and, Surface Water
and Ri pari an Buffer I mpacts" Sheets 1-4, FAA EA Section 1 Figure 5, and FAA
EA Appendix A-2 " Ste 3 — New Rental Car Facility (Inman Road) — Existing
Conditions" and "...Proposed Conditi ons." This project component would result
in permanent impacts (loss of waters) to 0.08 acre of wetlands and 1.72 acres of
open water, and temporary impacts to 0.02 acre of wetlands; and
4) Site preparation and stabilization of approximately 28 acres for proposed Spoil
Embankment of approximately 600,000 cubic yards of clean fill (from the Inman
site, above) adjacent to and north of the Honda Aircraft Company Maintenance
Repair and Overhaul (MRO) facility (Chimney Rock site). See FAA EA Section 1
Figure 6 and FAA EA Appendix A-2 "Site 4 — Spoil Embankment (Chimney
Rock Site) — Existing Conditions" and "...Proposed Conditions." No impacts to
waters of the US are proposed for this project component.
Project completion would be anticipated at least two years after commencement.
Additional information including the above reference figures and plans are also available
on the Wilmington District Web Site at
http://www.saw.usace.aimy.mil/Missions/Re ug latoiyPermitPro r� amaspx
Avoidance and Minimization
The applicant provided the following information in support of efforts to avoid and/or
minimize impacts to the aquatic environment:
MI Efforts to avoid impacts to environmental resources through alternatives analysis are
detailed in Section 3 of the EA, dated July 12, 2019, prepared by the FAA and
Version 6.15.2017 Page

available as supplemental information on the District Website at
http://www.saw.usace.aimy.mil/Missions/Re ug latoiyPermitPro r� amaspx.
MI Construction of stream culverts will minimize smothering of organisms by utilizing
" pump -around"; mini mi ze construction time, control turbidity through adherence to
the Erosion and Sedimentation Control (E&SC) Plan, avoid unnecessary discharge,
prevent creation of standing water, and prevent drainage of wet areas,
i; During construction, physiochemical conditions will be maintained, and potency and
availability of pollutants will be reduced, material to be discharged will be limited;
treatment substances may be added if necessary, chemical flocculants may be utilized
to enhance the deposition of suspended particulates in appropriate disposal areas;
e° The effects of dredged or fill material may be controlled by selecting discharge
methods and disposal sites where the potential for erosion, slumping or leaching of
materials into the surrounding aquatic ecosystem will be reduced. These methods
include using containment levees, sediment basins, and cover crops to reduce erosion;
g; Discharge effects will also be controlled by containing discharged material properly
to prevent point and nonpoint sources of pollution, and timing the discharge to
minimize impact, for instance during periods of unusual high-water flows,
e° The effects of a discharge will be minimized by the manner in which it is dispersed,
such as, where environmentally desirable, orienting dredged/fill material to minimize
undesirable obstruction to the surface water or natural flow, and utilizing natural
contours to minimize the size of the fill, using silt screens or other appropriate
methods to confine suspended particulates/turbidity to a small area where settling or
removal can occur, selecting sites or managing discharges to confine and minimize
the release of suspended particulates to give decreased turbidity levels and to
maintain light penetration for organisms; and setting limitations on the amount of
material to be discharged per unit of time or volume of receiving water,
Discharge technology will be adapted to the needs of the site. The applicant will
consider using appropriate equipment or machinery, including protective devices, and
the use of such equipment in activities related to the discharge of dredged or fill
material, employing appropriate maintenance and operation on equipment or
machinery, including adequate training, staffing, and working procedures; using
machinery and techniques that are especially designed to reduce damage to streams;
designing access roads and channel spanning structures using culverts, open channels,
and diversions that will pass both low and high water flows, accommodate fluctuating
water levels, and maintain circulation and faunal movement; employing appropriate
machinery and methods of transport of the material for discharge,
t; Minimization of adverse effects on populations of plants and animals will be achieved
by minimizing changes in water flow patterns which would interfere with the
movement of animals, managing discharges to avoid creating habitat conducive to the
development of undesirable airport wildlife hazards; avoiding sites having unique
habitat or other value, including habitat of threatened or endangered species; using
planning and construction practices to institute habitat development and restoration to
produce a new or modified environmental state of higher ecological value by
Version 6.15.2017 Page 7

displacement of some or all of the existing environmental characteristics; timing
discharge to avoid spawning or migration seasons and other biologically critical time
periods; and avoiding the destruction of remnant natural sites within areas already
affected by development.
Compensatory Mitigation
The applicant offered the following compensatory mitigation plan to offset unavoidable
functional loss to the aquatic environment:
In order to comply with FAA wildlife hazard avoidance protocols (FAA AC 150/5200-
33B) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) mitigation rule,
unavoidable impacts are proposed to be mitigated off-site. There are no adjacent
resources which would be impacted or require mitigation as a result of the Project.
Impacts to any nearby jurisdictional streams or wetlands will be avoided. Proposed
impacts to 1,221 linear feet of stream tributary to Brush Creek located at the Air Cargo
site have already been mitigated at the Causey Farm Mitigation site under Corps Action
ID SAW -2000-021655 (DWR File 00-0846), deemed successful in 2009 and 2010.
Mitigation required based on proposed impacts is estimated at 0.16 Wetland Mitigation
Units (WMU) based on 1:1 replacement for 0.07 acres LOW rated wetland WD4 and 3:1
replacement for 0.03 HIGH rated wetland WD2 impacts. 2.08 WMU are currently
avail able at PTAA' s Causey Farm mitigation site for use on future GSO projects, pending
Corps review and approval. PTAA is hereby requesting approval to apply 0.16 WMU
available at Causey Farm to mitigate the proposed GSO Rental Car Facilities Relocation
project impacts. The mitigation proposed will thus meet the estimated requirement.
Essential Fish Habitat
Pursuant to the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, this
Public Notice initiates the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) consultation requirements. The
Corps' initial determination is that the proposed project would not effect EFH or
associated fisheries managed by the South Atlantic or Mid Atlantic Fishery Management
Councils or the National Marine Fisheries Service.
Cultural Resources
Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Appendix C of
33 CFR Part 325, and the 2005 Revised Interim Guidance for Implementing Appendix C,
the District Engineer consulted district files and records and the latest published version
of the National Register of Historic Places and initially determines that:
Properties ineligible for inclusion in the National Register are present within the
Corps' permit area; there will be no historic properties affected by the proposed
work. The Corps subsequently requests concurrence from the SHPO (or TIIPO).
Version 6.15.2017 Page 8

See section 4.7 of the EA, dated July 12, 2019, prepared by the FAA and
available as supplemental information on the District Website at
http://www.saw.usace.aimy.mil/Missions/Re ug latoiyPermitPro r� amaspx.
The District Engineer's final eligibility and effect determination will be based upon
coordination with the SHPO and/or THPO, as appropriate and required, and with full
consideration given to the proposed undertaking's potential direct and indirect effects on
historic properties within the Corps-indentified permit area.
Endangered Species
FXI The Corps determines that the proposed project
may affect, not likely to adversely affect federally listed endangered or threatened
species or their formally designated critical habitat.
The Corps initiates consultation under Section 7 of the ESA and will not make
a permit decision until the consultation process is complete.
This determination is made specific to the Schwei nitz' s sunflower (Helianthus
schweinitzii) and small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides). The nearest
known populations for small whorled pogoni a and Schwei ni tz' s sunflower are
greater than 18 miles to the east and greater than 20 miles to the southeast,
respectively. Further, the application stated that there was no suitable habitat for
small whorled pogonia or Schwa nitz' s sunfl ower at the project site.
FXI The Corps determines that the proposed project may affect federally listed
endangered or threatened species or their formally designated critical habitat.
The Corps reviewed this project in accordance with (IAW) the NLEB Standard
Local Operating Procedures for Endangered Species (SLOPES) between the
USAGE, Wilmington District, and the Asheville and Raleigh USFWS Offices,
and determined that the action area for this project is located outside of the
highlighted areas/red 12 -digit HUCs and activities in the action area do not
require prohibited incidental take; as such, this project meets the criteria for the
4(d) rule and any associated take is exempted/excepted.
Pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Corps reviewed the project area,
examined all information provided by the applicant and consulted the latest North
Carolina Natural Heritage Database. Based on available information:
The Corps determines that the proposed project would not affect federally listed
endangered or threatened species or their formally designated critical habitat.
This determination is made specific for the Cape Fear shiner (Notropis
mekistocholas), Roanoke logperch (Percina rex), and Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia
masoni), whose habitat ranges do not include the project vicinity.
Version 6.15.2017 Page 9

FXI The Corps determines that the proposed project
may affect, not likely to adversely affect federally listed endangered or threatened
species or their formally designated critical habitat.
The Corps initiates consultation under Section 7 of the ESA and will not make
a permit decision until the consultation process is complete.
This determination is made specific for Schwei nitz' s sunflower (Helianthus
schweinitzii) and small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides). The nearest
known popul ati ons for smal I whorled pogoni a and Schwei nitz' s sunflower are
greater than 18 miles to the east and greater than 20 miles to the southeast,
respectively. Further, the application stated that there was no suitable habitat for
small whorled pogonia or Schwa nitz' s sunfl ower at the project site.
The Corps determines that the proposed project may affect federally listed
endangered or threatened species or their formally designated critical habitat.
The Corps reviewed this project in accordance with (IAW) the NLEB Standard
Local Operating Procedures for Endangered Species (SLOPES) between the
USAGE, Wilmington District, and the Asheville and Raleigh USFWS Offices,
and determined that the action area for this project is located outside of the
highlighted areas/red 12 -digit HUCs and activities in the action area do not
require prohibited incidental take; as such, this project meets the criteria for the
4(d) rule and any associated take is exempted/excepted.
Other Required Authorizations
The Corps forwards this notice and all applicable application materials to the appropriate
State agencies for review.
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR): The Corps will generally not
make a final permit decision until the NCDWR issues, denies, or waives the state
Certification as required by Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (PL 92-500). The receipt
of the application and this public notice, combined with the appropriate application fee, at
the NCDWR Central Office in Raleigh constitutes initial receipt of an application for a
401 Certification. A waiver will be deemed to occur if the NCDWR fails to act on this
request for certification within sixty days of receipt of a complete application. Additional
information regarding the 401 Certification may be reviewed at the NCDWR Central
Office, 401 and Buffer Permitting Unit, 512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27604-2260. All persons desiring to make comments regarding the application
for a 401 Certification should do so, in writing, by September 10, 2019 to:
Version 6.15.2017 Page 10

NCDWR Central Office
Attention: Ms. Karen Higgins, 401 and Buffer Permitting Unit
(USPS mailing address): 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Or,
(physical address): 512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM):
❑ The application did not include a certification that the proposed work complies
with and would be conducted in a manner that is consistent with the approved
North Carolina Coastal Zone Management Program. Pursuant to 33 CFR 325.2
(b)(2) the Corps cannot issue a Department of Army (DA) permit for the
proposed work until the applicant submits such a certification to the Corps and
the NCDCM, and the NCDCM notifies the Corps that it concurs with the
applicant's consistency certification. As the application did not include the
consistency certification, the Corps will request, upon receipt„ concurrence or
objection from the NCDCM.
❑ Based upon all available information, the Corps determines that this application
for a Department of Army (DA) permit does not involve an activity which would
affect the coastal zone, which is defined by the Coastal Zone Management (CZM)
Act (16 U.S.C. § 1453).
Evaluation
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable
impacts including cumulative impacts of the proposed activity on the public interest. That
decision will reflect the national concern for both protection and utilization of important
resources. The benefit which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal
must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. All factors which may be
relevant to the proposal will be considered including the cumulative effects thereof;
among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns,
wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, flood plain values
(in accordance with Executive Order 11988), land use, navigation, shoreline erosion and
accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety,
food and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of property ownership, and, in
general, the needs and welfare of the people. For activities involving the discharge of
dredged or fill materials in waters of the United States, the evaluation of the impact of the
activity on the public interest will include application of the Environmental Protection
Agency's 404(b)(1) guidelines.
Version 6.15.2017 Page 11

Commenting Information
The Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments from the public, Federal, State and local
agencies and officials, including any consolidated State Viewpoint or written position of
the Governor, Indian Tribes and other interested parties in order to consider and evaluate
the impacts of this proposed activity. Any comments received will be considered by the
Corps of Engineers to determine whether to issue, modify, condition or deny a permit for
this proposal. To make this decision, comments are used to assess impacts on endangered
species, historic properties, water quality, general environmental effects and the other
public interest factors listed above. Comments are used in the preparation of an
Environmental Assessment (EA) and/or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Comments are also used to
determine the need for a public hearing and to determine the overall public interest of the
proposed activity.
Any person may request, in writing, within the comment period specified in this notice,
that a public hearing be held to consider the application. Requests for public hearings
shall state, with particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing. Requests for a
public hearing will be granted, unless the District Engineer determines that the issues
raised are insubstantial or there is otherwise no valid interest to be served by a hearing.
The Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District will receive written comments pertinent to
the proposed work, as outlined above, until 5pm, September 20, 2019. Comments should
be submitted to David E. Bailey, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office,
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105 , Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587, at (919)
554-4884 extension 30, or [e-mail].
Version 6.15.2017 Page 12