20171559 Ver 3_USACE More Info Requested_20211208

Homewood, Sue
From: Williams, Andrew E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 8, 2021 2:45 PM
To: [e-mail]; Wendee Smith; Miller, Vickie M. (Raleigh)
Cc: Homewood, Sue; Mickey Sugg; McLendon, C S CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Crumbley,
Tyler A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Gibby, Jean B CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Williams,
Andrew E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: [External] SAW-2015-01268 Public Notice Comments and request for additional
information
Attachments: 20211208GRMScomments_all.pdf
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Jim/Wendee/Vickie:
Reference is made to your revised permit application for individual Department of the Army (DA) permit authorization
to construct the project identified as the Greensboro Randolph Megasite. The application was for the discharge of fill
material into 41,876 linear feet of stream, 10.095 acres of wetlands and 22.04 acres of open water for the establish an
automotive storage battery manufacturing, production, and assembly facility with utilities (electricity, water, sewer,
roads, and rail) associated with the development of the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite. The site is located in northern
Randolph County, northwest of the town of Liberty and east of the Town of Julian. The site is generally bounded by Old
US Highway 421 to the north, Julian Airport Road to the west, Troy Smith Road to the east, and US Highway 421 to the
south. A revised public notice for this project was issued on November 19, 2021, with a comment deadline date of
December 6, 2021.
Attached are the comments we received in response to this public notice for your information and consideration.
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 and provide additional information as follows:
1) Capacity for the proposed battery facility; Toyota recently announcement that the GRMS site was selected as
the location for their new automotive battery manufacturing plant. The reported capacity of the plant (i.e. batteries for
specific number of vehicles per year or specific number of battery packs per year) is pertinent to the proposed size of
the facility and consequently the avoidance/minimization to the on -site aquatic resources. Current publicly available
information reports differing capacities. Please confirm the intended capacity of the proposed plant and a brief
discussion regarding the capacity as it relates to avoidance and minimization to aquatic resources impacts.
2) Phasing- the recent announcement of Toyota's selection of the GRMS site indicated that the project would have
several phases. As requested in the November 8, 2021 meeting at the District Office, please provide additional specific
information regarding the construction phases of the proposed facility and specific construction timelines for the
components of the proposed facility
3) Additional information regarding avoidance/minimization related to Dodson's Lake. During recent conversation
with GRMS consultants, the potential re -construction of the Dodson's Lake dam was mentioned as one reason for the
selection of the applicant's preferred alternative. Please provide a written response regarding dam integrity in relation
1

to the selected on site alternative and any correspondences from the State of North Carolina resource agencies
regarding this issue.
In an effort to expedite our permit decision, please provide this information by Friday, December 10, 2021 or at your
earliest convenience.
Thanks.
Andrew Williams
Regulatory Project Manager
Regulatory Division Office
US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Office Tel: [phone], x26
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at our website at
https://regulatory.ops.usace.army.mil/customer-service-survey/
to complete the survey online.
2

Williams, Andrew E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: David Hill <[e-mail]>
Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2021 5:38 AM
To: Williams, Andrew E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Liberty Mega Site SAW-2015-01268
Mr. Williams:
Given the amount of impacts to such a large amount of water sources on this site (6 miles of streams, 10 acres of
wetlands, and over 20 acres of open water), irrespective of them being subject to the Jordan Lake Buffer rules, some
sort of buffer protection should be given to these water sources. The Deep River watershed will be negatively affected
without buffers. Given the site is 1000 acres, a fair compromise would seem to be using some of that acreage for
buffers.
I work in Randolph County.
Thank you for listening.
David Hill
Graham, NC
1

Williams, Andrew E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: Williams, Andrew E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2021 10:28 AM
To: Terry Lee
Cc: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] GSO-Randolph Megasite
Terry,
Below is a link to the Public Notice that the US Army Corps of Engineers published for a proposed project associated with
the Randolph County Megasite. Please feel free to contact me if you have any specific questions regarding the notice.
Thanks.
https://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory-Permit-Program/Public-Notices/
Andrew Williams
Regulatory Project Manager
Regulatory Division Office
US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Office Tel: [phone], x26
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at our website at
https://regulatory.ops.usace.army.mil/customer-service-survey/
to complete the survey online.
From: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2021 10:17 AM
To: Terry Lee <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] GSO-Randolph Megasite
Hi Terry. I haven't had any involvement with this project. To request information about specific projects, you would
submit a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. Information on submitting a FOIA request to the Corps of
Engineers Wilmington District can be found here: https://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Contact/Freedom-of-Information-
Act .
After reviewing this information, your written FOIA request may be sent electronically to the following address: foia-
[e-mail].
Thanks, and have a good Thanksgiving.
-Dave Bailey
David E. Bailey, PWS
1

Regulatory Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
CE-SAW-RG-R
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Office: [phone], Ext. 30.
Mobile: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
We would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated Customer Service Survey is
located at: https://regulatory.ops.usace.army.mil/customer-service-survey/
Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and complete the survey.
From: Terry Lee <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2021 9:58 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)<[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] GSO-Randolph Megasite
Good morning,
I'm reading reports that COE has issued permits for grading this site and has posted notices regarding the work. How
would I go about getting copies of the permits/notices? Has a contractor been selected to do the work? Anything that
you can share will be appreciated.
Thanks,
Terry Lee
2

Williams, Andrew E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: Williams, Andrew E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2021 2:10 PM
To: David Allen
Subject: RE: Corps Action ID SAW-2015-01268 - Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Mr. Allen:
Our administrative personnel have informed me that the SAW-2015-01268 - Greensboro -Randolph Megasite public
notice and plans have been mailed to you. Please let me know if you don't receive them within the next few days.
Thanks.
Andrew Williams
Regulatory Project Manager
Regulatory Division Office
US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Office Tel: [phone], x26
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at our website at
https://regulatory.ops.usace.army.mil/customer-service-survey/
to complete the survey online.
From: Williams, Andrew E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2021 1:48 PM
To: 'David Allen' <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Corps Action ID SAW-2015-01268 - Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Mr. Allen:
I have sent your request to our administrative personnel. You should be receiving your copy of the public notice and
plans in the next few days.
Please let me know if you don't receive it within a few days.
Thank you and please have a safe and happy Thanksgiving.
Andrew Williams
Regulatory Project Manager
Regulatory Division Office
US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Office Tel: [phone], x26
1

The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at our website at
https://regulatory.ops.usace.army.mil/customer-service-survey/
to complete the survey online.
From: David Allen <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2021 1:39 PM
To: Williams, Andrew E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Corps Action ID SAW-2015-01268 - Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Mr. Williams,
Please forward to me a paper copy of the public notice and plans for this application per your notice
by postcard postmarked November 19, 2021 which I received November 22, 2021 My address is:
David L. Allen
6411 Shiloh Rd.
Liberty, NC 27298
Thank you.
David L. Allen
2

Williams, Andrew E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: Ian Greene <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2021 2:45 PM
To: Williams, Andrew E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Guilford -Randolph Megasite Public Comment
Hello.
My name is Ian Greene and I live a short crow's flight from the Guilford Randolph Megasite at 5281 Bedrock Rd, Julian
NC 27283.
I welcome the jobs and social progress offered by a potential battery manufacturing plant in my neighborhood. I also
have significant concerns to ensure this is done responsibly with a minimal impact on the environment and to mitigate
the negative impacts this will bring on our community, which today is a beautiful, nature -filled area at the heart of the
state of North Carolina.
- -Water Quality: Everyone around this site relies on well water. We need to be 101% sure there will be zero drainage of
the many pollutants involved in battery manufacturing into our water table and into our wells.
- -Air Quality: I have concerns over emissions of pollutants that could in any way place carcinogens into the air that my
family breathes, and into the rainwater that permeates into our wells.
- -Light Pollution: light pollution is an internationally -acknowledged nuisance to experiencing the night sky. Today I have
beautiful stars in my skyscape. Today there are outdoor lighting solutions that emit much less light pollution
when mitigating light pollution is a priority. I ask that this remain a top priority.
- -Highway Traffic: I ask that access to the site for the soon to be flood of employees and surrounding residences be done
in a way to utilizes the highways optimally, keeping traffic on local and residential roads to a minimum.
I am happy to speak with anyone about these concerns. Feel free to call me at 919-360-9539.
Thank you,
Ian Greene
1

7052 Hemphill Rd.
Julian, NC 27283
November 27, 2021
Andrew Williams
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Dr., Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Re: Corps Action ID #SAW-2015-01268
Dear Mr. Williams:
I wish to express my great concern about the application from Greensboro -Randolph
Megasite Foundation for further study on the land associated with the megasite near
Liberty, NC. As I expressed in January 2019, there are many reasons to NOT allow the
destruction of property on this area. To think of realigning more and more natural areas
all in the name of "progress" is troublesome, to say the least. Once gone, they cannot
be replaced.
It boggles the mind to think how much disruption to the area will come just by the
movement of the dirt as expected. How many years will the relocated dirt be allowed to
"settle" and become stable enough to support building. And is there even a "ballpark"
guess as to the cost of such an endeavor?
realize this is not in your area of expertise, but I wonder if the proposed facilities do
come in the form of an electric battery plant, what sort of impact will that have on our
environment in the area, now and in the future? What type(s) of discharge will occur
and where will it go?
1t keeps being touted about how many jobs this will create. It seems there are many
businesses already in the area who are begging for employees, with little success. So
where will all the extra employees be found?
Thank you for any insight you can give.
Sincerely,
_% `c..,'
Nancy S. Brown

Williams, Andrew E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: Geoff Gisler <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, December 6, 2021 4:43 PM
To: Williams, Andrew E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Cc: Ramona McGee; 'Rick Savage'; '[e-mail]'; 'Emily Sutton'
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Revised comments -Greensboro Megasite
Attachments: 2021-12-06 SELC revised letter re Greensboro Megasite.PDF
Mr. Williams,
I have attached a slightly revised version of the comment letter I submitted earlier today. These comments are also sent
on behalf of Haw River Assembly. Thank you for considering these comments.
Geoff
Geoffrey R. Gisler
Senior Attorney
[e-mail]
he/his/him
Southern Environmental Law Center
601 West Rosemary Street, Suite 220
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Office [phone]
southernenvironment.org
PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This email and any attachments may be protected by the attorney -client privilege, as attorney work -product, or
based on other privileges or provisions of law. If you are not an intended recipient of this message, do not
read, copy, use, forward, or disclose the email or any of its attachments. Instead, immediately notify the sender
by replying to this email and then delete it from your system. The unauthorized disclosure, copying,
distribution, or use of this email or any attachments is prohibited.
i

SOUTHERN
ENVIRONMENTAL
NVRONMENTAL
LAW
CENTER
December 6, 2021
Sent via Electronic Mail
Andrew Williams
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
[e-mail]
601 West Rosemary Street, Suite 220 Telephone [phone]
Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Facsimile 919-929-9421
Re: Comments on Greensboro -Randolph Megasite (SAW-2015-01268)
Dear Mr. Williams,
The Southern Environmental Law Center ("SELC") submits the following comments, on
behalf of Carolina Wetlands Association, Defenders of Wildlife, and Haw River Assembly
regarding the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite Foundation's revised application for its proposal
to establish an automobile manufacturing facility. In 2019, SELC submitted comments
highlighting the many shortcomings with the Foundation's original, 2018 application for this
proposal. We attach and incorporate those comments by reference.'
A. The Revised Application Remains Deficient.
The current, revised application is minimally altered from the 2018 application and thus
suffers from many of the same deficiencies we identified more than two years ago.
The revised application still fails to identify a tenant and provides minimal details about
the purpose and nature of the proposed project. The previous project description of constructing
an "approximate 1,000-acre advanced automotive manufacturing facility" has now been
expanded slightly to "1,000-acre automotive storage battery manufacturing, production, and
assembly facility." 2 The purpose remains largely the same, with the main difference being the
removal of a reference to a construction pad. As we previously explained, the Foundation's
vague, aspirational purpose to potentially attract an automotive facility with hypothetical
associated economic benefits cannot justify the impacts to wetlands. 3 And while the
Foundation's revised application indicates a conditional mitigation plan,4 the Foundation still has
not demonstrated any attempt at avoidance and minimization measures.5
' Letter from Geoff Gisler, SELC, to Andrew Williams, USACE (Jan. 17, 2019) ("2019 SELC Comments"),
attached.
2 USACE Public Notice, Corps Action ID Number: SAW-2015-01268, Nov. 19, 2021 ("Public Notice") at 1, 6.
3 See 2019 SELC Comments at 1, 3.
4 Public Notice at 8.
5 See 2019 SELC Comments at 3-4.
Charlottesville Chapel Hill Atlanta Asheville Birmingham Charleston Nashville Richmond Washington, DC

B. The Proposed Project Would Have a Significant Environmental Impact.
The revised application increases proposed stream and wetland impacts. As described
below and in the attached letter, the environmental effects of the project would be significant
based on any applicable standard.
The proposed wetland impacts are even more significant when put into context.
According to North Carolina's 2021-2025 Wetland Program Plan, the Department of
Environmental Quality has not authorized more than 10 acres of wetland impacts in Randolph
County in any of the last three decades.6 This project would include impacts to 10.095 acres of
wetlands —more in a single project than have been authorized in Randolph County in any of the
last three decades.' In addition, the project would fill more than 22 acres of open water.8
The proposed impacts to more than 41,000 linear feet of stream —more than 7 miles —are
also significant. The Corps' public notice states that some of the named waterbodies to be
impacted by the proposal flow into the Deep River basin.9 The Deep River basin contains
critical habitat for both the endangered Cape Fear Shiner10 and threatened Atlantic pigtoell in
waters downstream from the project site —and those downstream waters in the Deep River basin
are home to known occurrences of both species. As the Corps recognizes in the instant public
notice, the proposal thus "may affect federally listed endangered or threatened species,"
triggering the consultation process with the Fish and Wildlife Service.12 A permit cannot be
issued until that process is complete.
C. The Proposed Impact Necessitates an EIS Under Either Long -Standing or Current
NEPA Regulations.
Since the Corps received the original application for the project in 2018, the Council for
Environmental Quality ("CEQ") promulgated revised regulations for NEPA implementation,
which went into effect September 14, 2020. Going forward, the Corps should continue to apply
the prior, long-standing NEPA regulations that were in effect when it initiated its review of this
project,13 given that the existing NEPA regulations are being challenged in court and that CEQ
intends to revise the regulations.14 Moreover, the Corps has an independent obligation to meet
6 N.C. Dep't of Envtl. Quality, The State of North Carolina Wetland Program Plan, 2021,
hops://www.ncwetlands. org/wp-content/uploads/NC-Wetland-Program-Plan-2021-to-2025-Final-web.pdf
Public Notice at 7.
8 Public Notice at 7.
9 Public Notice at 3.
10 Determination of Endangered Species Status and Designation of Critical Habitat for Cape Fear Shiner, 52 Fed.
Reg. 36,034, 36,039 (Sept. 25, 1987).
11 Threatened Species Status with Section 4(d) Rule and Designation of Critical Habitat for Atlantic pigtoe, 86 Fed.
Reg. 64,000, 64,501-02 (Nov. 16, 2021).
12 Public Notice at 10.
13 40 C.F.R. § 1506.13 (2020) (The new regulations apply to "any NEPA process begun after September 14, 2020."
(emphasis added)). Thus even under the new rule, an agency may continue using the old regulations for ongoing
processes such as this one. Id.
14 See Wild Virginia v. Council on Environmental Quality, No. 3:20-cv-00045-MFU (W.D. Va. filed Aug. 18, 2020);
California v. CEQ, No. 3:20-cv-06057-RS (N.D. Ca1. filed Aug. 28, 2020); Env 't Just. Health All. v. CEQ, No.
1:20-cv-06143-CM (S.D.N.Y. filed Aug. 6, 2020); Alaska Cmty. Action on Toxics v. CEQ, No. 3:20-cv-05199-RS
(N.D. Ca1. filed July 29, 2020).
2

those requirements "to the fullest extent possible," notwithstanding CEQ's unlawful new rules.15
Under either set of regulations, however, this project requires an environmental impact
statement.
The "significance" of a proposed action has historically been determined by evaluating
both the context of the action and the intensity of the impact.16 Under the regulations in effect at
the time the Corps received the initial permit request for this project, intensity referred to the
severity of the activity as revealed through the consideration of ten factors, several of which
apply to this proposal:
(1) Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse;
(2) The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety;
(3) Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural
resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or
ecologically critical areas;
(4) The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to
be highly controversial;
(5) The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly
unknown or involve unique or unknown risks;
(6) The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with
significant effects;
(7) Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but
cumulatively significant impacts...;
(8) The degree to which the action...may cause loss or destruction of significant
scientific, cultural, or historical resources;
(9) The degree to which the action may adversely affect any endangered or threatened
species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the [ESA]; and
(10) Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or
requirements imposed for the protection of the environment.17
"An action may be `significant' if one of these factors is met."18 Furthermore, "[a]
determination that significant effects on the human environment will in fact occur is not
essential" for an EIS to be required; "[i]f substantial questions are raised whether a project may
have a significant effect upon the human environment, an EIS must be prepared." 19
Many of the intensity factors are applicable here. Impacting 10 acres of wetlands, 20
acres of open water, and more than 7 miles of streams will have adverse environmental
consequences. The project will affect significant acreage of prime farmlands, wetlands and,
potentially, ecologically critical areas. Approval of a project of this scale without an identified
end -user that has demonstrated that impacts are necessary threatens to set a dangerous precedent
15 42 U.S.C. § 4332.
16 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27 (1978).
17 Id.
18 Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 538 F.3d 1172, 1220 (9th Cir. 2008).
19 Sierra Club v. U.S. Forest Serv., 843 F.2d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir. 1988) (quotations omitted) (emphasis added); see
also Steamboaters v. F.E.R.C., 759 F.2d 1382, 1393 (9th Cir. 1985) (stating that an agency "must supply a
convincing statement of reasons why potential effects are insignificant").
3

for actions with significant effects. Project proponents have argued that the development of the
site will have cumulative effects from industries that may choose to develop in close proximity.20
As the Corps has acknowledged, the proposal may affect species protected by the ESA and
consultation with FWS is required. Finally, the proposal violates North Carolina's requirements
for avoidance and minimization due to its vague nature. This project requires an environmental
impact statement.
Even if the new NEPA regulations applied, an EIS is necessary. Under the new NEPA
regulations, agencies determine if the effects of a proposed action are significant enough to
require an EIS by analyzing "the potentially affected environment and degree of the effects of
the action."21 In assessing the potentially affected environment, agencies should consider "the
affected area (national, regional, or local) and its resources, such as listed species and designated
critical habitat under the [ESA]."22 In considering the degree of the effects, agencies should
consider:
(1) Both short- and long-term effects.
(2) Both beneficial and adverse effects.
(3) Effects on public health and safety.
(4) Effects that would violate Federal, State, Tribal, or local law protecting the
environment.23
As described above, the proposed project would have far-ranging short-term and
long-term adverse effects on the environment in the project's vicinity. The project as
proposed would affect a precedent -setting acreage of wetlands in Randolph County, as
well as long stretches of streams and other water bodies. The proposed project also may
affect ESA -listed species and critical habitat, and stands to violate state law regarding
avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetlands and water bodies. As a result, an EIS
is necessary even under the new NEPA regulations.
Thank you for considering these comments. Please contact me at [phone]
or [e-mail] if you have any questions regarding this letter.
Sincerely,
Geoff Gisler
Senior Attorney
20 See Richard Barron, Greensboro News & Record, After Toyota Reports Surface, Corps of Engineers Files Public
Notice of Grading the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite for Battery Factory, Nov. 23, 2021,
https://greensboro.com/busine ss/locaUafter-toyota-reports-surface-corps-of-engineers-files-public-notice-of-grading-
the-geensboro-randolph/article_ebafba82-4bd9-11 ec-be 1 c-c7d 19f7b4aac.html.
21Id. § 1501.3(b).
zz Id. § 1501.3(b)(1).
23Id. § 1501.3(b)(2).
4

SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER
Telephone [phone]
601 WEST ROSEMARY STREET, SUITE 220 Facsimile 919-929-9421
CHAPEL HILL. NC 27516-2356
January 17, 2019
Via U.S. and Electronic Mail
Andrew Williams
Raleigh Regulatory Field office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Dr.
Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
[e-mail]
Re: SAW-2015-01268 Greensboro -Randolph Megasite Foundation, Inc.
Dear Mr. Williams:
Please accept these comments on the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite Foundation's
proposal to build a construction pad in Liberty, North Carolina. In short, the Foundation's
apparent purpose is to fill streams and wetlands. Although the Foundation has not identified a
tenant or user for the site, and will not be the tenant or user, it seeks to fill 34,342 feet of
perennial streams, 2,954 feet of intermittent stream, 8.85 acres of jurisdictional wetlands, and
22.60 acres of open water.1 The public notice omits any information about what will ultimately
be built on the pad except in the broadest terms, fails to justify the size of the pad, and does not
support its basic assumptions regarding the expected use of the proposed pad. As such, the
Foundation's application is premature and cannot be permitted. At a minimum, the Corps must
prepare an environmental impact statement.
A. The public notice is deficient.
The public notice is intended to perform a critical role in Section 404 permitting. It is
"the primary method of advising all interested parties of the proposed activity for which a permit
is sought and of soliciting comments and information necessary to evaluate the probable impact
on the public interest."2 The public notice must "include sufficient information to give a clear
understanding of the nature and magnitude of the activity to generate meaningful comment."3
That information must include a "description of the proposed activity, its purpose and intended
use, so as to provide sufficient information concerning the nature of the activity to generate
meaningful comments."4 To thwart piecemeal analysis of projects, "[a]11 activities which the
applicant plans to undertake which are reasonably related to the same project and for which a DA
permit would be required should be included in the same permit application" and the Corps
' Public Notice at 6.
2 33 C.F.R. §325.3(a).
31d.
41d.
Charlottesville • Chapel Hill • Atlanta • Asheville • Birmingham • Charleston • Nashville • Richmond • Washington, DC
100% recycled paper

"should reject, as incomplete, any permit application which fails to comply with this
requirement."5
The public notice for the Megasite fails all of these requirements. No information is
provided that supports the project as proposed. Given that no tenant has been identified, it is not
possible to give a full description of the activity that purportedly justifies the substantial impacts
to waters of the United States. The public cannot provide meaningful comment about the extent
of impacts, potential avoidance and minimization, or any other aspect of the 404(b)(1) guidelines
without significantly more detail about the alleged automotive manufacturing facility that the
extensive construction pad is intended to support. For similar reasons, the Corps cannot fulfill its
obligations under the Clean Water Act and the 404(b)(1) guidelines without additional
information.
B. The proposed fill of more than seven miles of streams requires an environmental
impact statement.
The National Environmental Policy Act requires the Corps to prepare an environmental
impact statement for any "major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment."6 This project is plainly a major federal action with significant environmental
effects.
The significance of those effects is plainly stated in the 404(b)(1) guidelines:
"[f]undamental to these Guidelines is the precept that dredged or fill material should not be
discharged into the aquatic ecosystem, unless it can be demonstrated that such a discharge will
not have an unacceptable adverse impact."' The guidelines go on to recognize that "[f]rom 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."8 As mandated in the guidelines, "[t]he guiding principle should be
that degradation or destruction of special sites may represent an irreversible loss of valuable
aquatic resources."9
It is clear from the public notice that the resources that would be destroyed by the project
are environmentally significant. As recognized in the notice, each of the creeks on the site is
classified as water supplies, as is Dodsons Lake.10 In addition, Little Polecat Creek is a high
quality water, "a supplemental classification intended to protect waters which are rated excellent
based on biological and physical/chemical characteristics."11 The loss of these streams "may
affect federally endangered or threatened species or their formally designated critical habitat." 12
These significant environmental effects of the project warrant an environmental impact
statement.
5 33 C.F.R. § 325.1.
6 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C).
40 C.F.R. § 230.1(c).
8 40 C.F.R. § 230.1(d).
9 Id.
1° Public Notice at 3.
11 Id
12 Public Notice at 8.
2

C. The purpose and need cannot justify the impact.
The Foundation's stated purpose is little more than to fill streams and wetlands. With this
purpose, the Foundation can never demonstrate "why it is necessary for the [development] to be
located on the wetlands rather than the uplands, except for its preference to build on the
wetlands." Shoreline Associates v. Marsh, 555 F. Supp. 169, 179-80 (D. Md. 1983), affd, 725
F.2d 677 (4th Cir. 1984). The desire to fill streams and wetlands in furtherance of a speculative
desire to lure a third -party to develop some type of manufacturing facility at some point in the
future does not demonstrate that the impacts proposed for this project are necessary.
Even if the purpose is considered to be providing economic stimulus and job creation, the
project should be rejected. Nothing in the public notice or plans demonstrates that construction
of an automotive manufacturing facility is the only practicable alternative that could provide
comparable economic stimulus. As noted in the attached letter, your colleagues in the Savannah
District rejected a similar proposal as "insufficient and speculative." 13
D. The project has not avoided or minimized impacts as required under the 404(b)(1)
guidelines.
The abbreviated alternatives analysis included with document plans cannot support
issuance of a permit. The most fundamental problem with the alternatives analysis is that there is
no basis for the criteria selected. "An alternative is practicable if it is available and capable of
being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of
overall project purposes."14 The Foundation's purpose —given that it is not the end user —is, at
most, to create jobs.15 Although the Foundation has suggested an automotive manufacturing
facility as the vehicle for that job creation, there is no basis for limiting the alternatives analysis
to that industry. Moreover, nothing in the public notice, plans, or alternatives analysis indicates
that the site would be developed in such a manner as to make it only suitable for automotive
manufacturing. Indeed, the Chair of the Greensboro Chamber of Commerce has been quoted as
saying that "[w]e want to cast a wide net and not pigeonhole this site as being for one type of
industry," undermining the very basis for this application.16 The Foundation's purpose, to
stimulate job growth, could be achieved by any number of alternatives which would have
different requirements and could be done with less impact to jurisdictional waters.
Without an identified end user, the criteria for alternatives identified in Section 4.2.1 of
the application have no basis. There is no support for the purported needs of a "transformational
automotive" facility and nothing to justify the Foundation's focus on such a facility to limit the
scope of alternatives. According to at least one industry expert, the "industry has reached a
13 Letter from W. Rutlin, USACE, to H. Tollison at 2 (July 2, 2015).
14 40 C.F.R. § 230.10.
15 More directly, the Foundation's purpose is to fill streams and wetlands, an unlawful purpose that should be
rej ected.
16 Winston Salem Journal, "So, Now What? Toyota -Mazda deal leaves polished megasite, team in place" (Jan. 13,
2018) (https://www.joumalnow.com/business/business_news/local/toyota-mazda-deal-leaves-polished-megasite-
team-in-place/article 4079b 1 a6-c783-51 fc-96b5-549092adfl 8b.html).
3

production peak since its near disastrous recession in 2008" and "the recent flow of expansions,
most notably BMW and Volvo, is likely to stop."17
In addition, the complete lack of detail regarding the expected facility renders the on -site
alternatives analysis meaningless and unlawful. The presumption that a 1,000 acre construction
pad must be situated on the site is wholly unjustified. If an actual facility were described,
additional avoidance and minimization would be required by evaluating the size, orientation, and
necessity of specific aspects of the facility.
As described in the regulations, for activities such as the proposed project that do not
require water access, "practicable alternatives that do not involve special aquatic sites are
presumed to be available, unless clearly demonstrated otherwise."18 Courts have recognized that
"[t]his presumption of practicable alternatives is very strong, ... creat[ing] an incentive for
developers to avoid choosing wetlands when they could choose an alternative upland site." Nat'l
Wildlife Fed'n v. Whistler, 27 F.3d 1341, 1344 (8th Cir. 1994) (citing Bersani v. Robichaud, 850
F.2d 36, 44 (2d Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1089 (1989)) (emphasis in original). To meet
this burden, the Applicant must demonstrate "why it is necessary for the [development] to be
located on the wetlands rather than the uplands, except for its preference to build on the
wetlands." Shoreline Associates v. Marsh, 555 F. Supp. 169, 179-80 (D. Md. 1983), affd, 725
F.2d 677 (4th Cir. 1984). The Foundation has not overcome this presumption due to the limited
information and pure speculation in the alternatives analysis.
Further, the lack of information prevents the Corps from conducting any meaningful
analysis of the project under the 404(b)(1) guidelines. There is no certainty that the proposed
construction pad will meet the needs of an unidentified future tenant, meaning that the Corps
cannot assess whether the project constitutes the full scope of anticipated impacts. Beyond that
uncertainty, the paucity of information provided leaves the Corps unable to assess impacts on
downstream water supplies, fish, wildlife, aquatic ecosystems, fish and wildlife habitat,
ecosystem services, cumulative impacts, or the public interest as required by the guidelines.19
E. The Corps must consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The Endangered Species Act requires the Corps to initiate consultation with the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service when it determines that an action may affect a federally endangered or
threatened species.20 Here, the Corps has concluded that the project "may affect federally listed
endangered or threatened species.2 Although the public notice acknowledges such a potential
effect, it does not provide any information regarding consultation. The Corps cannot issue the
permit without Section 7 consultation.
17 Id.
18 40 C.F.R. § 230.10(a)(3).
19 See 40 C.F.R. § 230.10.
20 16 U.S.C. § 1531(a)(2).
21 Public Notice at 8.
4

F. The permit application must be rejected.
The Corps must reject this permit application. There is simply no project that the Corps
can meaningfully review. Filling streams, wetlands, and ponds for an unidentified future tenant
that will carry out some type of unspecified manufacturing or other industrial activity is not a
lawful purpose. The application deprives the public and the Corps of essential information that is
necessary to evaluate the project's compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act,
Clean Water Act, and Endangered Species Act. The only appropriate response to this application
is to direct the Foundation to re -apply when they have identified a future tenant. At that time, the
Corps can meaningfully engage in the required analyses under the applicable laws.
With this letter, I request to be notified when the Corps takes action on this application. If
you have any questions regarding the comments, you may reach me at [phone] or
[e-mail].
GG/rgd
Cc:
Emily Sutton, Haw River Assembly
Sincerely,
,t-ii a n/7--
Geoffrey R. Gisler
Senior Attorney
5

Williams, Andrew E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: Geoff Gisler <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, December 6, 2021 11:42 AM
To: Williams, Andrew E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Cc: Ramona McGee; 'Rick Savage'; '[e-mail]'
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Comments on Greensboro -Randolph Megasite (SAW 2015-01268)
Attachments: 2021-12-06 SELC letter re Greensboro Megasite.PDF
Mr. Williams,
Please accept the attached comment regarding the proposed Greensboro -Randolph Megasite (SAW 2015-01268).
Best regards,
Geoff
Geoffrey R. Gisler
Senior Attorney
[e-mail]
he/his/him
Southern Environmental Law Center
601 West Rosemary Street, Suite 220
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Office [phone]
southernenvironment.org
PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This email and any attachments may be protected by the attorney -client privilege, as attorney work -product, or
based on other privileges or provisions of law. If you are not an intended recipient of this message, do not
read, copy, use, forward, or disclose the email or any of its attachments. Instead, immediately notify the sender
by replying to this email and then delete it from your system. The unauthorized disclosure, copying,
distribution, or use of this email or any attachments is prohibited.
i

SOUTHERN
ENVIRONMENTAL
NVRONMENTAL
LAW
CENTER
December 6, 2021
Sent via Electronic Mail
Andrew Williams
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
601 West Rosemary Street, Suite 220 Telephone [phone]
Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Facsimile 919-929-9421
Re: Comments on Greensboro -Randolph Megasite (SAW-2015-01268)
Dear Mr. Williams,
The Southern Environmental Law Center ("SELC") submits the following comments, on
behalf of Carolina Wetlands Association and Defenders of Wildlife regarding the Greensboro -
Randolph Megasite Foundation's revised application for its proposal to establish an automobile
manufacturing facility. In 2019, SELC submitted comments highlighting the many shortcomings
with the Foundation's original, 2018 application for this proposal. We attach and incorporate
those comments by reference.'
A. The Revised Application Remains Deficient.
The current, revised application is minimally altered from the 2018 application and thus
suffers from many of the same deficiencies we identified more than two years ago.
The revised application still fails to identify a tenant and provides minimal details about
the purpose and nature of the proposed project. The previous project description of constructing
an "approximate 1,000-acre advanced automotive manufacturing facility" has now been
expanded slightly to "1,000-acre automotive storage battery manufacturing, production, and
assembly facility." 2 The purpose remains largely the same, with the main difference being the
removal of a reference to a construction pad. As we previously explained, the Foundation's
vague, aspirational purpose to potentially attract an automotive facility with hypothetical
associated economic benefits cannot justify the impacts to wetlands. 3 And while the
Foundation's revised application indicates a conditional mitigation plan,4 the Foundation still has
not demonstrated any attempt at avoidance and minimization measures.5
' Letter from Geoff Gisler, SELC, to Andrew Williams, USACE (Jan. 17, 2019) ("2019 SELC Comments"),
attached as Attachment 1.
2 USACE Public Notice, Corps Action ID Number: SAW-2015-01268, Nov. 19, 2021 ("Public Notice") at 1, 6.
3 See 2019 SELC Comments at 1, 3.
4 Public Notice at 8.
5 See 2019 SELC Comments at 3-4.
Charlottesville Chapel Hill Atlanta Asheville Birmingham Charleston Nashville Richmond Washington, DC

B. The Proposed Project Would Have a Significant Environmental Impact.
The revised application increases proposed stream and wetland impacts. As described
below and in the attached letter, the environmental effects of the project would be significant
based on any applicable standard.
The proposed wetland impacts are even more significant when put into context.
According to North Carolina's 2021-2025 Wetland Program Plan, the Department of
Environmental Quality has not authorized more than 10 acres of wetland impacts in Randolph
County in any of the last three decades.6 This project would include impacts to 10.095 acres of
wetlands —more in a single project than have been authorized in Randolph County in any of the
last three decades.' In addition, the project would fill more than 22 acres of open water.8
The proposed impacts to more than 41,000 linear feet of stream —more than 7 miles —are
also significant. The Corps' public notice states that some of the named waterbodies to be
impacted by the proposal flow into the Deep River basin.9 The Deep River basin contains
critical habitat for both the endangered Cape Fear Shiner10 and threatened Atlantic pigtoell in
waters downstream from the project site —and those downstream waters in the Deep River basin
are home to known occurrences of both species. As the Corps recognizes in the instant public
notice, the proposal thus "may affect federally listed endangered or threatened species,"
triggering the consultation process with the Fish and Wildlife Service.12 A permit cannot be
issued until that process is complete.
C. The Proposed Impact Necessitates an EIS Under Either Long -Standing or Current
NEPA Regulations.
Since the Corps received the original application for the project in 2018, the Council for
Environmental Quality ("CEQ") promulgated revised regulations for NEPA implementation,
which went into effect September 14, 2020. Going forward, the Corps should continue to apply
the prior, long-standing NEPA regulations that were in effect when it initiated its review of this
project,13 given that the existing NEPA regulations are being challenged in court and that CEQ
intends to revise the regulations.14 Moreover, the Corps has an independent obligation to meet
6 N.C. Dep't of Envtl. Quality, The State of North Carolina Wetland Program Plan, 2021,
hops://www.ncwetlands. org/wp-content/uploads/NC-Wetland-Program-Plan-2021-to-2025-Final-web.pdf
Public Notice at 7.
8 Public Notice at 7.
9 Public Notice at 3.
10 Determination of Endangered Species Status and Designation of Critical Habitat for Cape Fear Shiner, 52 Fed.
Reg. 36,034, 36,039 (Sept. 25, 1987).
11 Threatened Species Status with Section 4(d) Rule and Designation of Critical Habitat for Atlantic pigtoe, 86 Fed.
Reg. 64,000, 64,501-02 (Nov. 16, 2021).
12 Public Notice at 10.
13 40 C.F.R. § 1506.13 (2020) (The new regulations apply to "any NEPA process begun after September 14, 2020."
(emphasis added)). Thus even under the new rule, an agency may continue using the old regulations for ongoing
processes such as this one. Id.
14 See Wild Virginia v. Council on Environmental Quality, No. 3:20-cv-00045-MFU (W.D. Va. filed Aug. 18, 2020);
California v. CEQ, No. 3:20-cv-06057-RS (N.D. Cal. filed Aug. 28, 2020); Env'tJust. Health All. v. CEQ, No.
1:20-cv-06143-CM (S.D.N.Y. filed Aug. 6, 2020); Alaska Cmty. Action on Toxics v. CEQ, No. 3:20-cv-05199-RS
(N.D. Cal. filed July 29, 2020).
2

those requirements "to the fullest extent possible," notwithstanding CEQ's unlawful new rules.15
Under either set of regulations, however, this project requires an environmental impact
statement.
The "significance" of a proposed action has historically been determined by evaluating
both the context of the action and the intensity of the impact.16 Under the regulations in effect at
the time the Corps received the initial permit request for this project, intensity referred to the
severity of the activity as revealed through the consideration of ten factors, several of which
apply to this proposal:
(1) Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse;
(2) The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety;
(3) Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural
resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or
ecologically critical areas;
(4) The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to
be highly controversial;
(5) The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly
unknown or involve unique or unknown risks;
(6) The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with
significant effects;
(7) Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but
cumulatively significant impacts...;
(8) The degree to which the action...may cause loss or destruction of significant
scientific, cultural, or historical resources;
(9) The degree to which the action may adversely affect any endangered or threatened
species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the [ESA]; and
(10) Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or
requirements imposed for the protection of the environment.17
"An action may be `significant' if one of these factors is met."18 Furthermore, "[a]
determination that significant effects on the human environment will in fact occur is not
essential" for an EIS to be required; "[i]f substantial questions are raised whether a project may
have a significant effect upon the human environment, an EIS must be prepared." 19
Many of the intensity factors are applicable here. Impacting 10 acres of wetlands, 20
acres of open water, and more than 7 miles of streams will have adverse environmental
consequences. The project will affect significant acreage of prime farmlands, wetlands and,
potentially, ecologically critical areas. Approval of a project of this scale without an identified
end -user that has demonstrated that impacts are necessary threatens to set a dangerous precedent
15 42 U.S.C. § 4332.
16 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27 (1978).
17 Id.
18 Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 538 F.3d 1172, 1220 (9th Cir. 2008).
19 Sierra Club v. U.S. Forest Serv., 843 F.2d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir. 1988) (quotations omitted) (emphasis added); see
also Steamboaters v. F.E.R.C., 759 F.2d 1382, 1393 (9th Cir. 1985) (stating that an agency "must supply a
convincing statement of reasons why potential effects are insignificant").
3

for actions with significant effects. Project proponents have argued that the development of the
site will have cumulative effects from industries that may choose to develop in close proximity.20
As the Corps has acknowledged, the proposal may affect species protected by the ESA and
consultation with FWS is required. Finally, the proposal violates North Carolina's requirements
for avoidance and minimization due to its vague nature. This project requires an environmental
impact statement.
Even if the new NEPA regulations applied, an EIS is necessary. Under the new NEPA
regulations, agencies determine if the effects of a proposed action are significant enough to
require an EIS by analyzing "the potentially affected environment and degree of the effects of
the action."21 In assessing the potentially affected environment, agencies should consider "the
affected area (national, regional, or local) and its resources, such as listed species and designated
critical habitat under the [ESA]."22 In considering the degree of the effects, agencies should
consider:
(1) Both short- and long-term effects.
(2) Both beneficial and adverse effects.
(3) Effects on public health and safety.
(4) Effects that would violate Federal, State, Tribal, or local law protecting the
environment.23
As described above, the proposed project would have far-ranging short-term and
long-term adverse effects on the environment in the project's vicinity. The project as
proposed would affect a precedent -setting acreage of wetlands in Randolph County, as
well as long stretches of streams and other water bodies. The proposed project also may
affect ESA -listed species and critical habitat, and stands to violate state law regarding
avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetlands and water bodies. As a result, an EIS
is necessary even under the new NEPA regulations.
Thank you for considering these comments. Please contact me at [phone]
or [e-mail] if you have any questions regarding this letter.
Sincerely,
Geoff Gisler
Senior Attorney
20 See Richard Barron, Greensboro News & Record, After Toyota Reports Surface, Corps of Engineers Files Public
Notice of Grading the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite for Battery Factory, Nov. 23, 2021,
https://greensboro.com/busine ss/locaUafter-toyota-reports-surface-corps-of-engineers-files-public-notice-of-grading-
the-geensboro-randolph/article_ebafba82-4bd9-11 ec-be 1 c-c7d 19f7b4aac.html.
21Id. § 1501.3(b).
zz Id. § 1501.3(b)(1).
23Id. § 1501.3(b)(2).
4

SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER
Telephone [phone]
601 WEST ROSEMARY STREET, SUITE 220 Facsimile 919-929-9421
CHAPEL HILL. NC 27516-2356
January 17, 2019
Via U.S. and Electronic Mail
Andrew Williams
Raleigh Regulatory Field office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Dr.
Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
[e-mail]
Re: SAW-2015-01268 Greensboro -Randolph Megasite Foundation, Inc.
Dear Mr. Williams:
Please accept these comments on the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite Foundation's
proposal to build a construction pad in Liberty, North Carolina. In short, the Foundation's
apparent purpose is to fill streams and wetlands. Although the Foundation has not identified a
tenant or user for the site, and will not be the tenant or user, it seeks to fill 34,342 feet of
perennial streams, 2,954 feet of intermittent stream, 8.85 acres of jurisdictional wetlands, and
22.60 acres of open water.1 The public notice omits any information about what will ultimately
be built on the pad except in the broadest terms, fails to justify the size of the pad, and does not
support its basic assumptions regarding the expected use of the proposed pad. As such, the
Foundation's application is premature and cannot be permitted. At a minimum, the Corps must
prepare an environmental impact statement.
A. The public notice is deficient.
The public notice is intended to perform a critical role in Section 404 permitting. It is
"the primary method of advising all interested parties of the proposed activity for which a permit
is sought and of soliciting comments and information necessary to evaluate the probable impact
on the public interest."2 The public notice must "include sufficient information to give a clear
understanding of the nature and magnitude of the activity to generate meaningful comment."3
That information must include a "description of the proposed activity, its purpose and intended
use, so as to provide sufficient information concerning the nature of the activity to generate
meaningful comments."4 To thwart piecemeal analysis of projects, "[a]11 activities which the
applicant plans to undertake which are reasonably related to the same project and for which a DA
permit would be required should be included in the same permit application" and the Corps
' Public Notice at 6.
2 33 C.F.R. §325.3(a).
31d.
41d.
Charlottesville • Chapel Hill • Atlanta • Asheville • Birmingham • Charleston • Nashville • Richmond • Washington, DC
100% recycled paper

"should reject, as incomplete, any permit application which fails to comply with this
requirement."5
The public notice for the Megasite fails all of these requirements. No information is
provided that supports the project as proposed. Given that no tenant has been identified, it is not
possible to give a full description of the activity that purportedly justifies the substantial impacts
to waters of the United States. The public cannot provide meaningful comment about the extent
of impacts, potential avoidance and minimization, or any other aspect of the 404(b)(1) guidelines
without significantly more detail about the alleged automotive manufacturing facility that the
extensive construction pad is intended to support. For similar reasons, the Corps cannot fulfill its
obligations under the Clean Water Act and the 404(b)(1) guidelines without additional
information.
B. The proposed fill of more than seven miles of streams requires an environmental
impact statement.
The National Environmental Policy Act requires the Corps to prepare an environmental
impact statement for any "major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment."6 This project is plainly a major federal action with significant environmental
effects.
The significance of those effects is plainly stated in the 404(b)(1) guidelines:
"[f]undamental to these Guidelines is the precept that dredged or fill material should not be
discharged into the aquatic ecosystem, unless it can be demonstrated that such a discharge will
not have an unacceptable adverse impact."' The guidelines go on to recognize that "[f]rom 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."8 As mandated in the guidelines, "[t]he guiding principle should be
that degradation or destruction of special sites may represent an irreversible loss of valuable
aquatic resources."9
It is clear from the public notice that the resources that would be destroyed by the project
are environmentally significant. As recognized in the notice, each of the creeks on the site is
classified as water supplies, as is Dodsons Lake.10 In addition, Little Polecat Creek is a high
quality water, "a supplemental classification intended to protect waters which are rated excellent
based on biological and physical/chemical characteristics."11 The loss of these streams "may
affect federally endangered or threatened species or their formally designated critical habitat." 12
These significant environmental effects of the project warrant an environmental impact
statement.
5 33 C.F.R. § 325.1.
6 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C).
40 C.F.R. § 230.1(c).
8 40 C.F.R. § 230.1(d).
9 Id.
1° Public Notice at 3.
11 Id
12 Public Notice at 8.
2

C. The purpose and need cannot justify the impact.
The Foundation's stated purpose is little more than to fill streams and wetlands. With this
purpose, the Foundation can never demonstrate "why it is necessary for the [development] to be
located on the wetlands rather than the uplands, except for its preference to build on the
wetlands." Shoreline Associates v. Marsh, 555 F. Supp. 169, 179-80 (D. Md. 1983), affd, 725
F.2d 677 (4th Cir. 1984). The desire to fill streams and wetlands in furtherance of a speculative
desire to lure a third -party to develop some type of manufacturing facility at some point in the
future does not demonstrate that the impacts proposed for this project are necessary.
Even if the purpose is considered to be providing economic stimulus and job creation, the
project should be rejected. Nothing in the public notice or plans demonstrates that construction
of an automotive manufacturing facility is the only practicable alternative that could provide
comparable economic stimulus. As noted in the attached letter, your colleagues in the Savannah
District rejected a similar proposal as "insufficient and speculative." 13
D. The project has not avoided or minimized impacts as required under the 404(b)(1)
guidelines.
The abbreviated alternatives analysis included with document plans cannot support
issuance of a permit. The most fundamental problem with the alternatives analysis is that there is
no basis for the criteria selected. "An alternative is practicable if it is available and capable of
being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of
overall project purposes."14 The Foundation's purpose —given that it is not the end user —is, at
most, to create jobs.15 Although the Foundation has suggested an automotive manufacturing
facility as the vehicle for that job creation, there is no basis for limiting the alternatives analysis
to that industry. Moreover, nothing in the public notice, plans, or alternatives analysis indicates
that the site would be developed in such a manner as to make it only suitable for automotive
manufacturing. Indeed, the Chair of the Greensboro Chamber of Commerce has been quoted as
saying that "[w]e want to cast a wide net and not pigeonhole this site as being for one type of
industry," undermining the very basis for this application.16 The Foundation's purpose, to
stimulate job growth, could be achieved by any number of alternatives which would have
different requirements and could be done with less impact to jurisdictional waters.
Without an identified end user, the criteria for alternatives identified in Section 4.2.1 of
the application have no basis. There is no support for the purported needs of a "transformational
automotive" facility and nothing to justify the Foundation's focus on such a facility to limit the
scope of alternatives. According to at least one industry expert, the "industry has reached a
13 Letter from W. Rutlin, USACE, to H. Tollison at 2 (July 2, 2015).
14 40 C.F.R. § 230.10.
15 More directly, the Foundation's purpose is to fill streams and wetlands, an unlawful purpose that should be
rej ected.
16 Winston Salem Journal, "So, Now What? Toyota -Mazda deal leaves polished megasite, team in place" (Jan. 13,
2018) (https://www.joumalnow.com/business/business_news/local/toyota-mazda-deal-leaves-polished-megasite-
team-in-place/article 4079b 1 a6-c783-51 fc-96b5-549092adfl 8b.html).
3

production peak since its near disastrous recession in 2008" and "the recent flow of expansions,
most notably BMW and Volvo, is likely to stop."17
In addition, the complete lack of detail regarding the expected facility renders the on -site
alternatives analysis meaningless and unlawful. The presumption that a 1,000 acre construction
pad must be situated on the site is wholly unjustified. If an actual facility were described,
additional avoidance and minimization would be required by evaluating the size, orientation, and
necessity of specific aspects of the facility.
As described in the regulations, for activities such as the proposed project that do not
require water access, "practicable alternatives that do not involve special aquatic sites are
presumed to be available, unless clearly demonstrated otherwise."18 Courts have recognized that
"[t]his presumption of practicable alternatives is very strong, ... creat[ing] an incentive for
developers to avoid choosing wetlands when they could choose an alternative upland site." Nat'l
Wildlife Fed'n v. Whistler, 27 F.3d 1341, 1344 (8th Cir. 1994) (citing Bersani v. Robichaud, 850
F.2d 36, 44 (2d Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1089 (1989)) (emphasis in original). To meet
this burden, the Applicant must demonstrate "why it is necessary for the [development] to be
located on the wetlands rather than the uplands, except for its preference to build on the
wetlands." Shoreline Associates v. Marsh, 555 F. Supp. 169, 179-80 (D. Md. 1983), affd, 725
F.2d 677 (4th Cir. 1984). The Foundation has not overcome this presumption due to the limited
information and pure speculation in the alternatives analysis.
Further, the lack of information prevents the Corps from conducting any meaningful
analysis of the project under the 404(b)(1) guidelines. There is no certainty that the proposed
construction pad will meet the needs of an unidentified future tenant, meaning that the Corps
cannot assess whether the project constitutes the full scope of anticipated impacts. Beyond that
uncertainty, the paucity of information provided leaves the Corps unable to assess impacts on
downstream water supplies, fish, wildlife, aquatic ecosystems, fish and wildlife habitat,
ecosystem services, cumulative impacts, or the public interest as required by the guidelines.19
E. The Corps must consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The Endangered Species Act requires the Corps to initiate consultation with the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service when it determines that an action may affect a federally endangered or
threatened species.20 Here, the Corps has concluded that the project "may affect federally listed
endangered or threatened species.2 Although the public notice acknowledges such a potential
effect, it does not provide any information regarding consultation. The Corps cannot issue the
permit without Section 7 consultation.
17 Id.
18 40 C.F.R. § 230.10(a)(3).
19 See 40 C.F.R. § 230.10.
20 16 U.S.C. § 1531(a)(2).
21 Public Notice at 8.
4

F. The permit application must be rejected.
The Corps must reject this permit application. There is simply no project that the Corps
can meaningfully review. Filling streams, wetlands, and ponds for an unidentified future tenant
that will carry out some type of unspecified manufacturing or other industrial activity is not a
lawful purpose. The application deprives the public and the Corps of essential information that is
necessary to evaluate the project's compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act,
Clean Water Act, and Endangered Species Act. The only appropriate response to this application
is to direct the Foundation to re -apply when they have identified a future tenant. At that time, the
Corps can meaningfully engage in the required analyses under the applicable laws.
With this letter, I request to be notified when the Corps takes action on this application. If
you have any questions regarding the comments, you may reach me at [phone] or
[e-mail].
GG/rgd
Cc:
Emily Sutton, Haw River Assembly
Sincerely,
,t-ii a n/7--
Geoffrey R. Gisler
Senior Attorney
5

Williams, Andrew E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: Wells, Emily N <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, December 6, 2021 12:19 PM
To: Williams, Andrew E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Cc: Ellis, John; Matthews, Kathryn H; Mann, Leigh
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Comments for the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Attachments: 20210930_SelfCertPkt_HDR_FWS_GreensboroRandolphMegasite.pdf; 20211206
_Itr_RFO_Corps_Wells_Williams_Ellis_greensbororandolphmegasite_pubnotice_comments.pdf
Hi Andy,
Please see the Service's comments and associated survey report for the project area and proposed megasite in
Randolph County.
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Emily
Please note that our Office is teleworking to reduce the COVID-19 risk. Email is the best way to reach me.
Emily Wells
USFWS Fish and Wildlife Biologist
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
551-F Pylon Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
Office # 919-856-4520 x25
Fax # [phone]
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
1

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh ES Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
December 6, 2021
Mr. Andrew Williams
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
RE: Comments on the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite Public Notice, November 19, 2021, SAW-2015-
01268, Randolph County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Williams:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) provides these comments in response to the Public Notice
for the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite. This letter is submitted in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and the Endangered Species Act of
1973 (ESA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et. seq.), to be used in your review relative to the protection of
fish and wildlife resources.
The proposed Greensboro -Randolph Megasite and associated US 421 transportation improvements
encompass approximately 1,858 acres of land including approximately 23.7 acres of wetlands, 76,133
linear feet of named and unnamed tributaries flowing primarily into Sandy Creek and the Deep River, 34
acres of open water ponds, and the 53 acre Dodson's Lake. Proposed impacts associated with the 1000
acre development and transportation component include 41,876 linear feet of stream impact (732 linear
feet of temporary and 41,144 linear feet of permanent), 10.095 acres of wetland impact (0.45 acres of
temporary and 9.645 acres of permanent) and 22.04 acres of open water impacts.
For this public notice, two boxes were checked regarding the Corps' Endangered Species initial
determinations. The first box states "The Corps determines that the proposed project may affect federally
listed endangered or threatened species or their formally designated critical habitat. This determination
only applies to the Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis). The Corps reviewed this project in
accordance with (IAW) the NLEB Standard Local Operating Procedures for Endangered Species
(SLOPES) between the USACE, Wilmington District, and the Asheville and Raleigh USFWS Offices,
and determined that the action area for this proj ect 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. " The Service concurs with this
determination for NLEB.
There have been previous discussions and coordination with consultants regarding portions of this project
from 2017-2021, which include surveys for Schweinitz's Sunflower (Helianthusschweinitzii), Cape Fear
Shiner (Notropis mekistocholas) and the Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconaia mason). Surveys were conducted in
2017 within the proposed US 421 improvement project area and portions of the adjacent Sandy Creek for
Cape Fear Shiner and Schweinitz's Sunflower, with results finding no individuals of either species, nor
was suitable habitat present for the Cape Fear Shiner in Sandy Creek adjacent to this site. The Service
concurred with a Self Certification letter in 2018 forthese two species within the transportation
improvement project area only, and would still find this determination to be applicable for that area of the
project.

In the fall of 2021 additional surveys were conducted on the larger portion of the project area that is not
associated with the transportation component for Atlantic Pigtoe, Cape Fear Shiner, Schweinitz's
Sunflower and the Bald Eagle. The findings of these surveys did not indicate that the species was present
due to lack of suitable habitat for the Cape Fear Shiner and Atlantic Pigtoe, and that no species were
observed during surveys for the Schweinitz's Sunflower or the Bald Eagle.
The second box states that the Corps is initiating consultation under Section 7 of the ESA for this
project's impacts. The Service appreciates the opportunity to provide comments concerning this large-
scale commercial development within the Cape Fear River Basin, which is habitat formany imperiled
aquatic species, including the federally endangered Cape Fear Shiner, Atlantic Pigtoe, and habitat for
numerous state protected mussel species. We would concur that the onsite habitat would not be suitable
for the Cape Fear Shiner or Atlantic Pigtoe, and our data does not indicate occupied reaches immediately
downstream of the project area in Sandy Creek. However, land use change on a scale this large has the
potential to result in downstream impacts from sedimentation to suitable habitat and pollutants within
Sandy Creek, and eventually within with Deep River. Close coordination should occur with the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission to discuss impacts to the imperiled mussel species under their
purview including the Carolina Creekshell (Villosa vaughaniana), Eastern Creekshell (Villosa delumbis),
and the Notched rainbow (Villosa constricta) immediately downstream in Sandy Creek.
Bald eagles are commonly found near large bodies of water such as lakes, ponds and rivers. The
proximity of this project area to the multiple ponds and Dodsons Lake may allow for suitable nest trees to
be present or within 600 feet of the project area. We would request that an additional review be
conducted prior to large tree removal and land disturbance in suitable areas of the project area to ensure
no new nests have been constructed. To determine if bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) are within
the action area, we recommend the Corps or applicant complete our online project review process
(available at: http://www.fws.gov/southeast/es✓baldeagle/).
We would request that the applicant use innovative stormwater designs and other Best Management
Practices (BMP's) above what is legally required within their development to reduce sedimentation runoff
during all phases of this large scale, natural landscape altering project. Additionally, the Service has
supported the expansion of riparian buffer widths on all intermittent and perennial streams as one
appropriate measure to treat sediment running off the landscape prior to it entering onsite streams on other
large scale projects in the Cape Fear River Basin. We encourage the applicant to plant and retain riparian
buffer widths on any remaining streams to 100ft on intermittent streams, and 200ft on perennial streams
within the project area to further minimize potential water quality impacts.
We encourage the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite partners and NCDOT to work with Town, County,
State and Federal staff to address potential secondary and cumulative impacts of this new development,
specifically how stormwater controls will handle the potential for excessive off -site sedimentation, and
we continue to offer our assistance. If you have any questions please contact John Ellis at 919-856-4520
or [e-mail].
Sincerely,
dot Pete Benjamin
Field Supervisor

eC: Gabriela Garrison, NCWRC
Sue Homewood, NCDEQ

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Date: 9/30/2021
Self -Certification Letter
Project Name Greensboro Randolph Megasite
Dear Applicant:
Thank you for using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) Raleigh Ecological
Services online project review process. By printing this letter in conjunction with your
project review package, you are certifying that you have completed the online project
review process for the project named above in accordance with all instructions
provided, using the best available information to reach your conclusions. This letter,
and the enclosed project review package, completes the review of your project in
accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 Stat.
884), as amended (ESA), and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C.
668-668c, 54 Stat. 250), as amended (Eagle Act). This letter also provides
information for your project review under the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (P.L. 91-190, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, 83 Stat. 852), as amended. A copy of this
letter and the project review package must be submitted to this office for this
certification to be valid. This letter and the project review package will be maintained
in our records.
The species conclusions table in the enclosed project review package summarizes
your ESA and Eagle Act conclusions. Based on your analysis, mark all the
determinations that apply:
❑✓
o
o
"no effect" determinations for proposed/listed species and/or
proposed/designated critical habitat; and/or
"may affect, not likely to adversely affect" determinations for proposed/listed
species and/or proposed/designated critical habitat; and/or
"may affect, likely to adversely affect" determination for the Northern long-
eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) and relying on the findings of the January 5,
2016, Programmatic Biological Opinion for the Final 4(d) Rule on the
Northern long-eared bat;
"no Eagle Act permit required" determinations for eagles.

Applicant Page 2
We certify that use of the online project review process in strict accordance with the
instructions provided as documented in the enclosed project review package results in
reaching the appropriate determinations. Therefore, we concur with the "no effect" or
"not likely to adversely affect" determinations for proposed and listed species and
proposed and designated critical habitat; the "may affect" determination for Northern
long-eared bat; and/or the "no Eagle Act permit required" determinations for eagles.
Additional coordination with this office is not needed. Candidate species are not
legally protected pursuant to the ESA. However, the Service encourages consideration
of these species by avoiding adverse impacts to them. Please contact this office for
additional coordination if your project action area contains candidate species.
Should project plans change or if additional information on the distribution of
proposed or listed species, proposed or designated critical habitat, or bald eagles
becomes available, this determination may be reconsidered. This certification letter is
valid for 1 year. Information about the online project review process including
instructions, species information, and other information regarding project reviews
within North Carolina is available at our website http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/pp.html.
If you have any questions, you can write to us at [e-mail] or please contact
Leigh Mann of this office at 919-856-4520, ext. 10.
Sincerely,
/s/Pete Benjamin
Pete Benjamin
Field Supervisor
Raleigh Ecological Services
Enclosures - project review package

x
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
In Reply Refer To:
Consultation Code: 04EN2000-2020-SLI-0072
Event Code: 04EN2000-2021-E-04804
Project Name: Greensboro Randolph Megasite
September 30, 2021
Subject: Updated list of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed
project location or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:
The species list generated pursuant to the information you provided identifies threatened,
endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical
habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by
your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of
species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to
contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to
federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical
habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the
Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be
completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be
completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and
implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested
through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.
Section 7 of the Act requires that all federal agencies (or their designated non-federal
representative), in consultation with the Service, insure that any action federally authorized,
funded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
federally -listed endangered or threatened species. A biological assessment or evaluation may be
prepared to fulfill that requirement and in determining whether additional consultation with the
Service is necessary. In addition to the federally -protected species list, information on the
species' life histories and habitats and information on completing a biological assessment or

09/30/2021
Event Code: 04EN2000-2021-E-04804 2
evaluation and can be found on our web page at http://www.fws.gov/raleigh. Please check the
web site often for updated information or changes
If your project contains suitable habitat for any of the federally -listed species known to be
present within the county where your project occurs, the proposed action has the potential to
adversely affect those species. As such, we recommend that surveys be conducted to determine
the species' presence or absence within the project area. The use of North Carolina Natural
Heritage program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys.
If you determine that the proposed action may affect (i.e., likely to adversely affect or not likely
to adversely affect) a federally -protected species, you should notify this office with your
determination, the results of your surveys, survey methodologies, and an analysis of the effects
of the action on listed species, including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects,
before conducting any activities that might affect the species. If you determine that the proposed
action will have no effect (i.e., no beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect effect) on federally
listed species, then you are not required to contact our office for concurrence (unless an
Environmental Impact Statement is prepared). However, you should maintain a complete record
of the assessment, including steps leading to your determination of effect, the qualified personnel
conducting the assessment, habitat conditions, site photographs, and any other related articles.
Please be aware that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.), and projects affecting these species may require
development of an eagle conservation plan (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/
eagle_guidance.html). Additionally, wind energy projects should follow the wind energy
guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/) for minimizing impacts to migratory birds and
bats.
Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for projects including communications
towers (e.g., cellular, digital television, radio, and emergency broadcast) can be found at: http://
www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdlssues/Hazards/towers/towers.htm; http://
www.towerkill.com; and http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdlssues/Hazards/
towers/comtow.html.
Not all Threatened and Endangered Species that occur in North Carolina are subject to section 7
consultation with the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon, sea
turtles,when in the water, and certain marine mammals are under purview of the National Marine
Fisheries Service. If your project occurs in marine, estuarine, or coastal river systems you should
also contact the National Marine Fisheries Service, http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/
We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages
Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project
planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in
the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project
that you submit to our office. If you have any questions or comments, please contact John Ellis
of this office at [e-mail].

09/30/2021
Event Code: 04EN2000-2021-E-04804 3
Attachment(s):
• Official Species List

09/30/2021
Event Code: 04EN2000-2021-E-04804 1
Official Species List
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the
requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether
any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed
action".
This species list is provided by:
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
[phone]

09/30/2021
Event Code: 04EN2000-2021-E-04804 2
Project Summary
Consultation Code:
Event Code:
Project Name:
Project Type:
Project Description:
04EN2000-2020-SLI-0072
Some(04EN2000-2021-E-04804)
Greensboro Randolph Megasite
The Greensboro Randolph Megasite is located south of Greensboro in
Randolph County near the Town of Liberty. This site has been identified
as a possible site for an advanced manufacturing and assembly plant.
Highway 421 runs adjacent to the site which provides good access to
major interstates and an existing railroad parallels the northern boundary
of the site. This combined with a large employment base in the greater
Greensboro area makes the GRMS very attractive to potential advanced
manufacturers.
General Purpose and Need
The purpose of the proposed project is generation of jobs and labor
income to improve unemployment, increase median income, and decrease
the poverty rate in Randolph County and the region. In addition, an
advanced manufacturing plant could generate state and local revenue.
Proposed Action
The proposed action includes development of facilities and infrastructure
necessary to create a megasite to attract and support an advanced
manufacturing operation.
Project Location:
Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https://
www.google.com/maps/@35.888659475155066,-79.62663251578857,14z
Counties: Randolph County, North Carolina

09/30/2021
Event Code: 04EN2000-2021-E-04804 3
Endangered Species Act Species
There is a total of 4 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.
Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include
species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species
list because a project could affect downstream species.
IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA
Fisheriesl, as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the
Department of Commerce.
See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially
within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office
if you have questions.
1. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an
office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of
Commerce.
Fishes
NAME
Cape Fear Shiner Notropis mekistocholas
There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6063
Clams
NAME
Atlantic Pigtoe Fusconaia masoni
There is proposed critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not
available.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5164
Insects
NAME
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
STATUS
Endangered
STATUS
Proposed
Threatened
STATUS
Candidate

09/30/2021
Event Code: 04EN2000-2021-E-04804 4
Flowering Plants
NAME
Schweinitz's Sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3849
STATUS
Endangered
Critical habitats
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S
JURISDICTION.

■ ■...
—BM'. NC DEPARTMENT OF
■ EI= NATURAL AN❑ CULTURAL RESOURCES
■.■■■
September 30, 2021
Jessica Tisdale
HDR
555 Fayetteville Street
Raleigh, NC 27601
RE: Greensboro Randolph Megasite
Dear Jessica Tisdale:
Roy Cooper, Governor
D. Reid Wilson, Secretary
Walter Clark
Director, Division of Land and Water Stewardship
NCNHDE-15880
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide
information about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above.
A query of the NCNHP database indicates that there are records for rare species, important natural
communities, natural areas, and/or conservation/managed areas within the proposed project
boundary. These results are presented in the attached `Documented Occurrences' tables and map.
The attached `Potential Occurrences' table summarizes rare species and natural communities that
have been documented within a one -mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these
records suggests that these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area
if suitable habitat exists. Tables of natural areas and conservation/managed areas within a one -mile
radius of the project area, if any, are also included in this report.
If a Federally -listed species is documented within the project area or indicated within a one -mile
radius of the project area, the NCNHP recommends contacting the US Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) for guidance. Contact information for USFWS offices in North Carolina is found here:
https://www.fws.gov/offices/Directory/ListOffices.cfm?statecode=37.
Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation
planning, project review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria
for regulatory decisions. Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published
without prior written notification to the NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information
source in these publications. Maps of NCNHP data may not be redistributed without permission.
Also please note that the NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional
correspondence if a Dedicated Nature Preserve, Registered Heritage Area, Land and Water Fund
easement, or an occurrence of a Federally -listed species is documented near the project area.
If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance,
please contact Rodney A. Butler at rodnev.butlerncdcr.aov or 919-707-8603.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOVRCES
Q 121 W. JONES STREET. RALEIGH. NC 27603 • 16S1 MAIL SERVICE CENTER. RALEIGH. NC 27699
OFC 'M9.707.9120 • FAX [phone]

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Intersecting the Project Area
Greensboro Randolph Megasite
September 30, 2021
NCNHDE-15880
No Element Occurrences are Documented within the Project Area
There are no documented element occurrences (of medium to very high accuracy) that intersect with the project area. Please note, however, that although the
NCNHP database does not show records for rare species within the project area, it does not necessarily mean that they are not present; it may simply mean that
the area has not been surveyed. The use of Natural Heritage Program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys if needed, particularly if the project
area contains suitable habitat for rare species. If rare species are found, the NCNHP would appreciate receiving this information so that we may update our
database.
No Natural Areas are Documented within the Project Area
Managed Areas Documented Within Project Area*
Managed A=71=111 Owner Owner Type
Randolph County Open Space Randolph County Local Government
Randolph County Open Space Randolph County Local Government
NOTE: If the proposed project intersects with a conservation/managed area, please contact the landowner directly for additional information. If the project intersects with a Dedicated Nature Preserve
(DNP), Registered Natural Heritage Area (RHA), or Federally -listed species, NCNHP staff may provide additional correspondence regarding the project.
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https://ncnhde.natureserve.ora/help. Data query generated on September 30, 2021; source: NCNHP, Q2 July 2021. Please
resubmit your information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 2 of 4

Taxonomic
Group
Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Greensboro Randolph Megasite
September 30, 2021
NCNHDE-15880
Element Occurrences Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Laster
EO ID Scientific Named Common Name
- A
servation
Date
Element Accuracy Federal State Global State
Occurrence
Rank
Status tatus Rank Rank
Vascular Plant 38672 Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz's Sunflower 2018-09-27
No Natural Areas are Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Areas Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Area Name
Piedmont Land Conservancy Easement
Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program
Easement
Randolph County Open Space
Randolph County Open Space
NC Division of Mitigation Services Easement
Owner
Piedmont Land Conservancy
US Department of Agriculture, Natural
Resources Conservation Service
Randolph County
Randolph County
NC DEQ, Division of Mitigation Services
E 2-High Endangered Endangered G3 S3
Owner Type
Private
Federal
Local Government
Local Government
State
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/help. Data query generated on September 30, 2021; source: NCNHP, Q2 July 2021. Please
resubmit your information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 3 of 4

s
September 30, 2021
▪ Project Boundary
▪ Buffered Project Boundary
Managed Area (MAREA)
NCNHDE-15880: Greensboro Randolph Megasite
1:40,407
0 0.35 0.7
I � i
1.4 mi
0 0.5 1
2 km
Sources' Esri, HERE, Garmin,, Intermap, increment P Corp_, GEBCO, USGS,
FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esn Japan,
METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS
User Community
Page 4 of 4

Species Conclusions Table
Project Name: Greensboro Randolph Megasite
Date: 9/30/2021
Species / Resource Name
Conclusion
ESA Section 7 / Eagle Act Determination
Notes / Documentation
Cape Fear Shiner (Notropis
mekistocholas)
No suitable habitat present
No effect
Field visit confirmations of habitat — 2015-
2021. Species survey was conducted in the
Study Area and in Sandy Creek by qualified
biologist on September 26, 2017. Species
was not found. Low flow conditions in
streams prevent suitability. Please see
attached survey report for more details.
Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconaia
masoni)
No suitable habitat present
No effect
Field visit confirmations of habitat — 2015-
2021. No survey conducted. Low flow
conditions in streams prevent suitability.
Please see attached Cape Fear Shiner
survey report for more details
Schweinitz's Sunflower
(Helianthus schweinitzii)
Suitable habitat present,
species not present
No effect
Field visit confirmations of habitat — 2015-
2021. Field survey during optimal flower
season conducted Sept 27th and 28th with
no species found. Confirms prior Sep 18th
and 19th, 2017 and Oct 8th and 9th, 2019
surveys.
Critical Habitat
No critical habitat present
No effect
Critical habitat for Cape Fear Shiner is
located in Randolph County, but not within
one mile of the Study Area.
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus
Ieucocephalus)
Unlikely to disturb nesting
bald eagles
No Eagle Act Permit Required
Suitable foraging habitat exists for the bald
eagle at Dodsons Lake. No impacts to the
lake are expected and no eagle nests have
been documented.
Acknowledgement: I agree that the above information about my proposed project is true. I used all of the provided resources to make an
informed decision about impacts in the immediate and surrounding areas.
Signature /Title
Date
9/30/2021

hdrinc.com
MEMORANDUM
DATE: Thursday, September 30, 2021
PROJECT:
TO:
Greensboro Randolph Megasite
Project File
FROM: Vickie Miller - HDR
SUBJECT: Schweinitz's Sunflower Survey for the Greensboro Randolph
Megasite
This memo serves to document the field review for the federally protected Schweinitz's
sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) for the Greensboro Randolph Megasite (GRMS)
(Figure 1). The GRMS is located south of Greensboro in Randolph County near the Town
of Liberty and has been identified as a possible site for an advanced manufacturing and
assembly plant.
Field surveys for the presence of Schweinitz's sunflowers within suitable habitat were
conducted on September 18, 19, 20; October 11, 12, and 20, 2017; conducted again on
October 8 and 9, 2019, and most recently on September 27 and 28, 2021 during the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service optimal survey window. Prior to conducting the
onsite assessment, a review of North Carolina Natural Heritage Program data, last
updated in September 2021, indicated one known record of Schweinitz's sunflower within
one mile of the study area. Recent aerial photographs were evaluated to identify areas of
likely habitat within the study areas.
The field crews visited the known population to ensure the plants vegetative state prior to
beginning the surveys. Suitable habitat for the species was determined to be areas with
open woods and other sunny or semi -sunny habitats which were typically created by
disturbance such as mowing, clearing, or grazing. Because the species is intolerant to
shade and grows best in areas with disturbance, railroad, roadsides, power lines, and
utility rights -of -way; areas where forest canopies were opened up; areas adjacent to
agricultural fields; along pastured areas; areas adjacent to yards; and in and along edges
of other artificially maintained clearings undergoing natural succession were all reviewed
during the survey.
555 Fayetteville Street, Suites 900 & 210, Raleigh, NC 27601-3034
[phone]

Survey Results: The field teams spent 2 days reviewing the study area. Suitable habitat
for the species occurs throughout the study area; however, no occurrences of Schweinitz's
sunflower were found. Based upon these findings, it was determined the project would
have no effect on Schweinitz's sunflower.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Field Investigators
Investigators/Years of Experience: Vickie Miller — 20+ years
Sara Easterly — 20+ years
Ryan Dugger — 7 years
Jackson Garvey — 5 years
If you have any questions please contact Vickie Miller at 919-232-6637 or
[e-mail].
hdrinc.com 555 Fayetteville Street, Suites 900 & 210, Raleigh, NC 27601-3034
[phone]
2

Legend
Megasite Boundary
County Boundary
0 Feet 1,500
SCHWEINITZ'S SUNFLOWER SURVEY
FY2
FIGURE 1

Cape Fear Shiner Survey Report
For
Greensboro Randolph Megasite
Randolph County, North Carolina
Prepared For:
555 Fayetteville St., Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
Contact Person:
Vickie Miller
Senior Environmental Planner
HDR
[e-mail]
November 7, 2017

Prepared by:
RkK
900 Ridgefield Drive, Suite 350
Raleigh, NC 27609
Contact Person:
Neil Medlin
Senior Project Scientist
[e-mail]
919-878-9560

Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Waters Affected 1
2.1 NPDES Dischargers 1
2.2 303(d) Classification 1
3.0 Target Federally Protected Species Description 1
3.1 Cape Fear Shiner (Notropis mekistocholas) 1
3.1.1 Characteristics 2
3.1.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements 2
3.2 Survey Efforts 2
3.3 Stream Conditions at Time of Survey: Sandy Creek at US 421 3
3.4 Assessment Location (AL) Conditions at Time of Observation 4
3.5 Methodology 4
3.6 Results 4
4.0 Discussion/Conclusions 5
5.0 References 6
Appendix A. Figures:
Figure 1: Project Vicinity & Survey Location
Figure 2: NCNHP Element Occurrences
Figure 3: NPDES Dischargers and 303(d) Listed Streams

1.0 Introduction
This evaluation was conducted as part of the environmental studies currently underway for the
potential development of a tract of land located in northeast Randolph County typically referred
to as the Greensboro Randolph Megasite (Appendix A, Figure 1). This portion of Randolph
County is located in the Cape Fear River Basin. The Cape Fear Shiner (Notropis mekistolas) is
listed for Randolph County by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as Endangered
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
A review of the NC Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) records, last accessed on October 12,
2017, indicates there are no element occurrences (EOs) for the Cape Fear Shiner within a 5-mile
buffer of the site (Figure 2). The closest EO for the Cape Fear Shiner (EO ID 218) is in the Deep
River, approximately 19 stream miles downstream from the site. The only observation date
listed for EO 218 is August 2, 2007 and the EO is considered to be current.
2.0 Waters Affected
The Greensboro Randolph Megasite and the potential interchange projects that are associated
with the site's future development are located within the Sandy Creek watershed in the Cape
Fear River Basin (HUC# 03030003). From the southernmost Megasite property boundary a UT
and then Sandy Creek flows approximately 13.5 stream miles to its confluence with the Deep
River. Two dams are located between the Megasite and the Deep River. An old mill dam is
located immediately above SR 2453 (Kidds Millpond Road) on Sandy Creek approximately
seven stream miles below the property boundary. The Ramseur Lake Dam is also located on
Sandy Creek less than one stream mile above its confluence with the Deep River.
2.1 NPDES Dischargers
There is one NPDES permitted discharger located within the 5-mile buffer of the Megasite.
However, it does not discharge into the Sandy Creek watershed and therefore has no effect on
Sandy Creek at any of the assessment locations or the survey location.
2.2 303(d) Classification
Sandy Creek is not on the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) -
Division of Water Resources 2014 303(d) list of impaired streams or the 2016 draft list.
3.0 Target Federally Protected Species Description
3.1 Cape Fear Shiner (Notropis mekistocholns)
3.1.1 Characteristics
The Cape Fear Shiner was first described as a new species in 1971. It is a small (approximately
2 inches long), yellowish minnow with a black band along the sides of its body. The shiner's
fins are yellow and somewhat pointed. It has a black upper lip, and the lower lip bears a thin
Cape Fear Shiner Survey, HDR1, Randolph County
November 2017
Page 1

black bar along its margin. The Cape Fear Shiner is known to consume plant and animal
material. However, unlike most other minnows in the genus Notropis spp., the Cape Fear
Shiner's digestive tract is modified primarily for a plant diet by having an elongated, convoluted
intestine.
3.1.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements
The Cape Fear Shiner is endemic to the upper Cape Fear River Basin in the Central Piedmont of
North Carolina. The species is known from tributaries and mainstreams of the Cape Fear, Deep,
Haw and Rocky Rivers in Chatham, Harnett, Lee, Moore and Randolph counties.
This shiner is generally associated with gravel, cobble, and boulder substrates, and has been
observed in slow pools, riffles, and slow runs. These areas occasionally support water willow
(Justicia americana), which may be used as cover or protection from predators {e.g. flathead
catfish (Pylodictis olivaris), bass (Micropterus spp.) and crappie (Pomoxis spp.)}. The Cape
Fear Shiner can be found swimming in schools of other minnow species but is never the most
abundant species.
3.2 Survey/Assessment Efforts
A fish survey was conducted in association with this project by RK&K employees Neil Medlin
(NC Wildlife Resources Commission Permit #17-ES00030 and #17-SFC00091), Hal Bain and
Tris Ford on September 26, 2017.
3.3 Stream Conditions at Time of Survey: Sandy Creek at US 421
This survey location was selected as a general representative for the upper Sandy Creek
watershed, including the Unnamed Tributaries (UTs) to Sandy Creek that drain the Megasite
parcel. In addition, this location is the closest to known Cape Fear Shiner records and therefore
should have a greater potential to have the species present than the upstream assessment
locations on Sandy Creek and all the UTs above the survey location. Sandy Creek in the survey
reach was estimated to have a channel width that varied between 30 and 35 feet. The actual wet
width of the stream within the channel varied greatly. The stream segment underneath the
southbound US 421 bridge had water in the entire channel. The pattern below the road was quite
different with stream segments approximately three feet wide flowing between pools or slightly
deeper runs that occupied at least half of the stream channel. Numerous large sand bars were
exposed in the areas between the runs and pools.
The banks were approximately five feet high with some areas exhibiting erosion and/or
undercutting. The maximum depth was three feet with an average depth of one foot. The
substrate was dominated by sand with clay as greatly subdominant. Gravel and silt were also
present in the survey reach. Beaver activity in the form of gnawed sticks was observed at the
survey location. A narrow to moderately wide forested buffer is present along the survey
location with a mix of active crop and pasture land use outside of the buffer. However, Sandy
Creek had no wooded stream buffer for the portion of the stream located on the north side of US
Cape Fear Shiner Survey, HDR1, Randolph County
November 2017
Page 2

421. This unbuffered stream reach is located roughly 325 feet above the upper end of the survey
reach.
3.5 Assessment Location (AL) Conditions at Time of Observation
Two assessment locations (locations where stream habitat was assessed but no fish surveys were
conducted) were on Sandy Creek. The other four were on UTs to Sandy Creek (Figure 1).
These UTs have been assigned stream numbers as part of other environmental studies currently
being conducted on the Greensboro Randolph Megasite. These stream numbers, as of the date of
this report, are included in the assessment location descriptions below.
AL-7 Sandy Creek at SR 2406 (Hollow Hill Road)
This was the most upstream location assessed on Sandy Creek. The stream channel at this road
crossing averaged roughly 13 feet wide but the width varied greatly. The substrate was very
rocky and dominated by bedrock and boulder with cobble, gravel, and sand also present. The
only flowing water observed was a trickle between small rocky pools and runs.
AL-6 Sandy Creek at SR 2442 (Ramseur -Julian Road)
This site is located approximately 1.5 stream miles below the SR 2406 crossing. The stream
channel was estimated to average 20 feet wide with a wet width that varied from six feet to the
full channel width in some runs. Sand was the dominant substrate type at this location with
gravel as the subdominant type. Cobble and sparse boulder were also present.
AL-5 UT at SR 2408 (Browns Meadow Road)
Stream 40 was approximately eight to ten feet wide at the road crossing but narrowed to less than
two feet wide and only one inch deep roughly 125 feet downstream of the road. Water flow was
barely visible in this narrow, shallow reach. From the constriction, the stream continued another
150 feet before becoming part of the upper end of Dodsons Lake. Heavy sediment deposition
was noted in the floodplain below the road crossing, possibly the results of the heavy rainfall and
high flows resulting from Hurricane Matthew. Above Browns Meadow Road, the UT had a
channel width of approximately 10 feet. A small beaver dam was observed 150 feet above the
road with very little flowing water moving around one end of it. The substrate throughout the
reach assessed was dominated by sand with gravel as subdominant.
AL-4 UT at Cow Pasture
Stream 21 at this location was completely dry at the time of observation. The channel was
approximately six feet wide with a sand and gravel substrate along with a very small amount of
cobble.
AL-3 UT at SR 2407 (Starmount Road) below Dodsons Lake
This section of stream 18 comes out of Dodsons Lake and was wooded above the road crossing.
The stream was estimated to be six feet wide with minimal flow observed only in very shallow
(' one inch deep) areas of this stream reach. Some areas of bank erosion were observed in bends
suggesting periods of high flows. Below the road crossing, the stream narrowed and flowed
through a completely clear-cut area until its confluence with Sandy Creek.
Cape Fear Shiner Survey, HDR1, Randolph County
November 2017
Page 3

AL-2 UT at SR 2407 (Starmount Road)
Stream 21 at this road crossing was incised and had a stream bed that varied between 16 and 22
feet wide. The banks were as much as six feet high with areas of erosion. Little water was
present within the stream bed and very minimal flow was observed between isolated small pools.
This stream was completely dry upstream at the Cow Pasture assessment location (AL-4).
3.5 Methodology
A freshwater fish survey was conducted from approximately 450 yards downstream of the
southbound bridge of US 421 to approximately 50 yards upstream of the bridge (but still just
downstream of the northbound bridge) for a total distance of approximately 500 yards. The
survey reach was selected to include the deep run between the US 421 bridges. The survey was
conducted using a Smith -Root model LR-24 backpack electrofishing unit, dip nets, and a seine.
The electrofishing unit was set to provide an output consistent with the nonlethal levels
established by Holliman et. al., 2003. The stream was sampled with one biologist operating the
electrofishing unit while the other biologists collected the stunned fish with dip nets. All stunned
fish were collected and temporarily placed in five (5) gallon buckets. In addition to the backpack
electrofishing efforts, active seine hauls were made in areas of habitat appropriate for this
collection technique. All fish were identified and released onsite.
3.6 Results
Fourteen freshwater fish species were identified during the survey with a total of 340 individuals
observed (Table 1). The number of individuals of Eastern Mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki)
included in the total was a conservative estimate as many more individuals were observed than
were collected. This species is common and is often the only species of fish found in extremely
low dissolved oxygen, stagnant bodies of water such as ditches. No Cape Fear Shiners were
collected or observed during the survey. A total of 923 shocking seconds were utilized during
this survey along with six seine hauls.
Table 1. Freshwater Fish Suecies in Sand v Creek.
Common Name
Scientific Name
No. Individuals
Redbreast Sunfish
Lepomis auritus
41
Bluegill
Lepomis macrochirus
27
Green Sunfish
Lepomis cyanellus
1
Bluehead Chub
Nocomis leptochephalus
6
Creek Chub
Semotilus atromaculatus
11
Margined Madtom
Noturus insignis
2
Flat Bullhead
Ameiurus platycephalus
4
Redfin Pickerel
Esox americanus
4
Highfin Shiner
Notropis altipinnis
1
Golden Shiner
Notemigonus crysoleucas
1
Pirate Perch
Aphredoderus sayanus
1
Creek Chub Sucker
Erimyzon oblongus
1
Eastern Mosquitofish
Gambusia holbrooki
>200*
Cape Fear Shiner Survey, HDR1, Randolph County
November 2017
Page 4

Common Name
Scientific Name
No. Individuals
Tessellated Darter
Etheostoma olmstedi
42
s
�
Total Number of Individuals
340**
Total Number of Species
14
Electrofishing Seconds
923
*This conservative estimate was derived from over 100 individuals being collected and several
times that number being observed.
**The total number of individuals includes an estimated number of Eastern Mosquitofish.
4.0 Discussion/Conclusions
The site assessment results indicate that the small streams in the study area were experiencing
low flow conditions at the time of observation. One assessment location, AL-4, was completely
dry and all the other locations had very low water levels. While these stream conditions may not
be common throughout the year, streams experiencing these conditions tend to support a more
limited aquatic fauna than streams not subjected to such low flow conditions. Although a total of
14 species of fish were collected at the survey location in Sandy Creek, five of the species were
represented by only a single individual. In terms of the number of individuals collected and/or
observed, the Eastern Mosquitofish was by far the dominant species at the survey location. As
previously pointed out, this species is very tolerant of extremely low dissolved oxygen (DO)
levels and its dominance within the survey reach of Sandy Creek suggests the stream has
experienced low DO levels for at least a moderate amount of time.
In addition to the portion of Sandy Creek surveyed for this project, NCDOT has previously
conducted fish surveys at two locations further downstream in Sandy Creek. Sandy Creek at SR
2453 (Kidds Mill Road) was surveyed on April 19, 2016 and Sandy Creek at SR 2481 (Low
Bridge Road) was surveyed on April 19, 2012. No Cape Fear Shiners were collected or observed
during either of these surveys. The results of all three surveys indicate Cape Fear Shiners are not
present in Sandy Creek.
Based the distance to known Cape Fear Shiner records, the current and previous Sandy Creek
fish survey results, and the presence of two dams isolating Sandy Creek from possible
colonization from known downstream populations, impacts to the species will not occur due to
the development of the Greensboro Randolph Megasite.
Biological Conclusion for Cape Fear Shiner: No Effect
Cape Fear Shiner Survey, HDR1, Randolph County
November 2017
Page 5

5.0 References.
Holliman,F.M., J.B. Reynolds, and T.J. Kwak. 2003. A predictive risk model for electroshock -
induced mortality of the endangered Cape Fear shiner. North American Journal of
Fisheries Management 23: 90-912.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E., J.T. Finnegan, S.E. McRae, S.P. Hall. 2010. Natural Heritage Program List of
the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. N.C. Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh,
NC.
North Carolina Depailiuent of Environmental Quality - Division of Water Resources.2014. 2014
North Carolina 303(d) and Draft 2016 Lists.
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/mtu/assessment
North Carolina Depaitiuent of Environmental Quality. NPDES Wastewater Treatment Facility
Permits. Accessed July 21, 2017. http://data-
ncdenr.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/a86af4f7549343419b4c8177cedb3e4b_0
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP). 2017. nheo-2017-04. Natural Heritage
Element Occurrence polygon shapefile. April 12, 2017.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. Cape Fear Shiner (Notropis mekistocholas).
http://www.ncwildlife.org/Learning/Species/Fish/Cape-Fear-Shiner.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. Unpublished Aquatics Database.
Pottern, G.B. 2009. 2007 Status update of the Cape Fear Shiner (Notropis mekistocholas).
Report to the North Carolina Resources Commission. 27 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Cape Fear Shiner (Notropis mekistocholas) Fact Sheet.
USFWS, Raleigh, NC. https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/es_cape_ fear_shiner.hmtl.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. Cape Fear Shiner Recovery Plan. USFWS, Atlanta, GA.
58 pp.
Cape Fear Shiner Survey, HDR1, Randolph County
November 2017
Page 6

Appendix A
Figures

Legend
Survey Location
Assessment Locations
`NG OneMapfN'gC
B2a�d
;G ograplyiic Info?
Prepared By:
RfelC
Prepared For:
GREENSBORO
RANDOLPH
Freshwater Fish Survey
SURVEY LOCATION ON
SANDY CREEK AT US421
RANDOLPH COUNTY
Date:
Scale
Job No.
November 2017
0 1,000 2,000 Feet
Drawn by: GSM
Checked by
Figure
1
KNM

Legend
Survey Location
Assessment Locations
Cape Fear Shinner
Prepared By:
RfelC
Prepared For:
GREENSBORO
RANDOLPH
NC NHP
Element Occurrence
SURVEY LOCATION ON
SANDY CREEK AT US421
RANDOLPH COUNTY
Guilford County
'Y�
RadoIphCounty
Date:
November 2017
Scale
0
1 Miles
Job No
Drawn by:
Checked by:
Figure
GSM
KNM

1
9
MIN
I
Legend
O NPDES Sites
Assessment Locations
Survey Location
5-Mile Buffer
303(d) Listed Streams
11-r
421
64
62 G#
040ei
Guilford County)
Randolph County
4
B i)dom Creek
i
5 rd'
fnt leas�afnt Creek
OneM
421
Liberty
NV
Prepared By:
RfelC
Prepared For:
GREENSBORO
RANDOLPH
NPDES Dischargers and
303(d) Listed Streams
SURVEY LOCATION ON
SANDY CREEK AT US421
RANDOLPH COUNTY
Date:
November 2017
Scale
0
1 Miles
Job No
Drawn by: GSM
Checked by: KNM
Figure

From: Neil Medlin
To: Miller, Vickie M. (Raleigh)
Cc: Kristina Miller; Henderson. Jonathan
Subject: Cape Fear Shiner Evaluation
Date: Thursday, September 28, 2017 1:48:19 PM
Attachments: image001.pnq
image002.pnq
image003.pnq
image004.pnq
image005.pnq
Vickie,
A fish survey in Sandy Creek at US 421 and stream/habitat assessments at several additional
locations on and in the vicinity of the project site were completed by RK&K staff on September 26,
2017. No Cape Fear Shiners were observed during the survey in Sandy Creek. I have also reviewed
existing information for the species for the northeast portion of Randolph County. Provided that
appropriate sediment and erosion control measures are utilized during construction, development
of the project site will not affect the Cape Fear Shiner.
A draft survey report (summarizing the information collected in the field and all other information
reviewed) will be provided to you as soon as practical. The recommended Biological Conclusion (No
Effect as outlined in the above paragraph) for the Cape Fear Shiner will be included in the report. In
the interim, until you receive the draft report, if you have any specific questions, please let me
know.
NEIL MEDLIN
Senior Project Scientist
RJt 3C
900 Ridgefield Drive, Suite 350
Raleigh, NC 27609
919.878.9560 P 1 919.965.7900 C
www.rkk.com
Responsive People I Creative Solutions
13 MI Y o u
Tube
"RK&K" and "RK&K Engineers" are registered trade names of Rummel, Klepper &
Kahl, LLP, a Maryland limited liability partnership. This message contains confidential
information intended only for the person or persons named above. If you have
received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by return email
and delete the message. Thank you.

Williams, Andrew E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: Devon Shelton <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, December 6, 2021 5:18 PM
To: Williams, Andrew E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] "Greensboro" Randolph Megasite
Mr. Andrew Williams
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
[phone] extension 26
[e-mail]
December 6, 2021
Dear Mr. Williams,
As a property owner especially near the proposed "Greensboro Randolph Megasite" I am expressly concerned
about the environmental impact an industry will have on the land, citizens' health, and the overall future of the
state.
To begin with, I will detail my frustration with the lack of time given to review the incredibly robust amount of
information provided. While some of the documentation was submitted previously and this may be the
specified allowable time, now there is a specific entity to apply to the site with more specific threats. For
someone who works fulltime as an engineer, finding the time to dedicate to such a large non -work -related
project during the holiday season proves difficult. Granted, that may very well be why this specific timing was
chosen as it seems to follow suit with the previous submittal. I would like to request additional time to provide
more detailed comments and request that a public hearing be granted.
Environmental Protection Agency's 404(b)(1)'s purpose is "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of waters of the United States through the control of discharges of dredged or fill
material." I sincerely feel that this will not be upheld should the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite be developed
and industrialized as indicated in the proposal.
Again, in speaking from one engineer to another, I do not feel the need to delve into details regarding what
drastic effects changing the topography and permeable surface of 1,000+ acres can and will have on the
surrounding area, especially given the current climate crisis. We are now having extreme weather events (such
as droughts, 500-year floods, etc.) more and more frequently. The ecosystem is very fragile and any subtle
change may have a long-lasting effect on our lives.
The fact that 1,000+ acres of land previously filtered and utilized by trees and vegetation, wetlands, fields, and
animals of all types will now be dominated by impermeable buildings, pavement for roads and parking lots, and
railway draining into three "ponds" to where the additional pollutants of the 2,000 — 4,000 workers'
automobiles, the countless semi -trucks, and non-stop railroad traffic, and trash will collect. The water and
"accompaniments" will no longer be filtered and dealt with on a micro -level, but will be amplified, combined
and stored to eventually be leached into the drinking water. Greensboro's "superb" water utilities that are being
extended will only serve the Megasite; therefore all of the neighbors (including those whose land is taken for
I.

the utilities) will not receive the ("perceived") benefit of City water, but will continue to rely on the ground
water (and accompaniments) to survive. As stated in the USACE's Public Notice, all but two ponds within the
project area are hydrologically connected to waterbodies classified as "Water Supply", "High Quality Waters",
and "Nutrient Sensitive Waters". I feel the need to remind others of the not -so -distant past when we had one of
our periodic severe droughts and water was pumped (at great expense) from Dodsons Lake to Siler City for
population consumption as the usual water source was severely low. Drainage Pond B is terrifyingly near
Dodsons Lake.
Do I even need to mention PFAS contamination across NC, Gen X in the Cape Fear River, and the continuing
Duke Energy Coal Ash debacle that we are all literally paying for (most monetarily, some with their lives)? I
believe that a lithium battery manufacturing plant in the middle of "agricultural fields, residential property, and
forested land" is a tremendous cause for concern especially considering how chemical manufacturers are not
even required to disclose what they put in the water and are unregulated (https://www.wral.com/state-struggles-
to-understand-impact-on-health-environment-from-man-made-chemicals/ 19807049/).
I also do not understand how and why this application is being processed while others have been halted with the
EPA saying its own review of the 2020 rule "identified substantial concerns with a number of provisions that
relate to cooperative federalism principles and CWA section 401's goal of ensuring that states and Tribes are
empowered to protect water resources that are essential to public health, ecosystems, and economic
opportunity. The agency has already begun working on a regulatory effort to address those
concerns." (https://www.wral.com/corps-of-engineers-suspends-nationwide-clean-water-permitting-
action/19977401/)
I also find it genuinely insulting that the announcement has been made of the company coming in spite of not
having all approvals in place. I thought this was a democracy. Quite frankly, if I were you, I would be
absolutely mortified at the lack of input you "have" over your own area of expertise.
Sincerely,
Devon Lee Shelton, P.E.
4849 Troy Smith Rd.
Liberty NC, 27298
[e-mail]
PIN: 8717855107
2