LRH 2022-55

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:  The following application has been submitted for Department of the Army (DA) authorization under the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. 

APPLICANT: 
Nucor Steel West Virginia
1915 Rexford Road
Charlotte, North Carolina 28211

LOCATION:  The proposed project, referred to as the Nucor Steel West Virginia (Nucor) Apple Grove Site, would be located within an approximate 691-acre (ac) site located along 7,500 linear feet (lf) of the left descending bank (LDB) of the Ohio River, between river mile points 281 and 282, near Apple Grove, in Mason County, West Virginia (latitude 38.647729°, longitude -82.175875°).  The proposed project is situated north of the confluence of Sixteenmile Creek and the Ohio River. See attached Sheet 1.

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK:  Reference Public Notice LRH-2022-55-OHR, which was issued on May 11, 2022.  A copy of this previous public notice can be accessed at: https://www.lrh.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/Public-Notices/Article/3027829/lrh-2022-55-ohr/.  Since issuance of the May 11, 2022 notice, the applicant has modified the project design.  This public notice describes the revised proposal.

The applicant has requested DA authorization for work within the Ohio River, a navigable water of the United States, and for proposed discharges of dredged and/or fill material into waters of the United States to facilitate construction of a new carbon steel mill.  Implementation of the proposal would result in permanent discharges of dredged and/or fill material into a total of 9.891 ac of 33 wetlands, 731 lf of two (2) unnamed ephemeral and intermittent streams, and 21.53 ac of disturbance along 5,500 lf of the LDB of the Ohio River.  Proposed discharges of fill material are described in the attached Tables 1-3.  Additional details on the features of the proposed development are included below.  Select plans of the proposal are attached to this notice. 

Steel Mill Development: The applicant has indicated the mill development would include: two electric arc furnaces, a hot strip mill, a cold mill, indoor and outdoor storage facilities, inbound and outbound transportation facilities, air pollution control baghouses, electric substations, a slag processing facility, access roads, material storage areas, and stormwater and wastewater treatment facilities.  The total construction would occupy approximately 660 ac of the overall 691-acre site.  The applicant has indicated the discharge of fill material into 731 lf of stream is necessary for construction of an access road, riprap stabilization, building foundations, and stormwater features.  The applicant has indicated the discharge of fill material into 9.891 ac of 33 wetlands is necessary for cuts and/or fill associated with construction of the development. See Sheets 2 and 6-10.

River Development: For the delivery of raw material and transportation of finished products, the applicant proposes to construct new barge loading, unloading, and fleeting areas within the Ohio River.  Since issuance of the original public notice, the applicant has stated proposal has been redesigned to include an initial, one-time dredging event, with riverbank contouring.  The applicant has also proposed ten-year, as-needed, maintenance dredging along 5,500 lf of the Ohio River.   

Proposed work within the Ohio River includes:

• installation of new river mooring cells for barge fleeting with loading areas;
• construction of a direct reduced iron (DRI) unloading dock to receive iron ore;
• construction of outbound/inbound loading docks with quay bulkhead walls;
• installation of a new ramp with temporary material unloading;
• one-time construction dredging with riverbank contouring;
• ten-year, as-needed, maintenance dredging;
• installation of three (3) roof foundation cells at the inbound dock;
• installation of five (5) stormwater outfalls and one (1) wastewater outfall; and
• installation of on- and off-site fish habitat features.  

Work along the Ohio River would include 3.082 ac of permanent fill for dock and mooring cell construction within the normal pool limits. 

Fleeting Areas and DRI Dock: The proposal includes the construction of five (5) barge fleeting areas each with three (3) mooring cells.  Three of the proposed fleeting areas would accommodate 8 barges moored 4-wide by 2-long.  Two of the proposed fleeting areas would accommodate 12 barges moored 4-wide by 3-long. As a maximum, the barge fleeting areas would be located an average of 70 feet into the Ohio River as measured from the normal pool elevation limits.  The proposed mooring cells would consist of a maximum 25-foot diameter, circular steel sheet piling driven into the river bottom.  Each mooring cell would extend 60 feet into the Ohio River as measured from the normal pool elevation limits. The fleeted barges would have an average maximum riverward extent of 210 feet from the normal pool elevation limit. The single-point maximum riverward extent is 230 feet from the normal pool limits at mooring cell M11 (the shoreline curves landward at this location).  See Sheet 3, 6, and 12

An additional two (2) mooring cells and a barge-mounted crane would be located at the southern end of the site to facilitate DRI material unloading.  The maximum riverward extent of the mooring cell would be 100 lf from the normal pool limits at mooring cells DRI 18-19. See Sheets 6 and 22.

Inbound and Outbound Docks:  The proposed outbound dock would include an overhanging roof with a maximum riverward extent of 180 feet, and would be secured with nine (9) 4-foot diameter pilings. The proposed outbound barge-loading quay and bulkhead docks consists of sheet pile wall with a maximum riverward projection of 140 feet. The proposed inbound loading quay would consist of a sheet pile bulkhead wall with an approximate riverward extent of 80 feet from the normal pool shoreline. Each of the inbound and outbound docks consists of two (2) dolphin mooring cells at the side of each dock.  The upstream and downstream sides of each dock would be protected by approximately 50 lf of riprap to prevent erosion. See Sheets 11-14.

Alternative Landward Shift:  The above descriptions include maximum river projections.  Based on the applicant’s Hydrologic and Hydraulic (H&H) Study, the proposed project may be shifted landward. The landward shift would affect the overall fleeting area footprint(s) and loading/unloading docks. The updated on-site alternative would include a landward shift of the northern dock (45 feet landward) and the southern dock (20 feet landward), with a raise in the overall bank elevation, as described above. The mooring cells would shift between 20 feet and 45 feet east (landward), closer to the normal pool limits of the river. Should alternative be selected, the mooring cells would be situated approximately 40-50 feet riverward, and the overall barge fleeting limits would be 190 feet riverward, from the normal pool limits. This landward shift would not be applied to mooring cell M17, nor would it be applied to the DRI material unloading dock, the maximum riverward extent of the footprint of these structures, as described above, would not change. See Sheet 3.

Ramp Construction and Temporary Unloading: The proposed ramp would be a shallow slope ramp excavated within the bank of the Ohio River. The length of the ramp within the Ohio River would be approximately 55 lf.  One-time dredging of this area is proposed to allow for the necessary keel clearance for loaded barges and tugboat maneuvering during the temporary material unloading for construction.  For this one-time initial dredging, approximately 2,370 cubic yards (cy) of material would be removed from approximately 150 ft (riverward) of the river, to a maximum depth of 20 ft.  Dredged materials would be placed within upland areas of the site.  See Sheet 15.

To facilitate construction of the facility, temporary unloading activities would occur at the ramp location.  Materials would be unloaded by crane, ramps, and/or conveyors one barge (195 feet long by 35 feet wide) at a time.  The temporary unloading would include temporarily anchoring a typical crane barge with spuds in the Ohio River along the bank with a maximum riverward extent of 150 feet from normal pool.  See Sheet 15.

One-Time Construction Dredging and Bank Contouring: In order to create sufficient operational water depth and maintain no-rise flood conditions, the applicant has proposed one-time dredging of approximately 21.53 ac of the river in order to recontour the river channel slope along the 5,500 lf of the riverbank. The proposed one-time dredging and bank contouring the removal of 62,000 cy of material from the Ohio River, and the discharge of 15,456 cy of fill materials within the Ohio River, all below normal pool and along the bank.  Dredging would be completed by either a spud-anchored barge with a long-reach excavator or clamshell bucket (mechanical dredging), or hydraulic excavator and pipeline conveyance.  Dredged sediment would be placed onto a hopper barge or transferred directly to shore by pipeline to be subsequently moved by dump truck or bulldozer to an upland stockpile area within the steel mill site limits. Turbidity curtains would be used to minimize instream sedimentation for areas of direct excavation or dredging using a floating weighted buoy.  Perimeter controls would be placed around dredged material dewatering areas to minimize sediment-laden runoff. The re-contoured channel slope would be restored using stockpiled native substrate supplemented by a line of riprap at the water’s edge to reduce erosion.  The riverbank would be restored with vegetative cover in accordance with the approved erosion and sediment control plan and permit. See Sheet 3, 6, 16-17, and 18-19.  

Outfalls: Five (5) stormwater outfalls and one (1) wastewater diffuser pipe would be installed along the LDB of the Ohio River. The stormwater outfalls would be installed at the normal pool limits and stabilized with riprap aprons. The discharge diffuser pipe would extend into the river a maximum of 260 feet from the normal pool elevation limit.  The attached Sheet 21 further illustrates the diffuser pipe would consist of 240 feet of pipe extending riverward from mooring cell M9.  The diffuser pipe would be anchored to the riverbed with protective pilings.  See Sheets 20 and 21.

Intakes: A total of three (3) water intakes structures would be installed.  The intake structures would not include a discharge of dredged and/or fill material, nor would the intake structure installation require any dredge activities.  The intakes would consist of floating cylindrical wedge-wire drum screens suspended or rail-mounted off the southern end of the direct reduced iron (DRI) “casino barge” and mooring cell DRI 19.  The casino barge, a 300’ long x 11’ tall barge, is depicted on Sheet 22 and would contain a proposed crane and hopper. See Sheet 22.

Ten-Year Maintenance Dredging: In order to maintain appropriate depth at the facility, the applicant has proposed periodic maintenance dredging of approximately 13.42 ac. The periodic maintenance dredging would include the removal of 43,400 cy of material. Maintenance dredging would be completed using the same procedures and BMPs outlined above for the one-time construction dredging.  Maintenance dredging would be limited to no more than two weeks in duration at any given time and will be performed outside of the fish spawning season (April 1 – June 1).  Perimeter controls would be placed around dredged material dewatering areas to minimize sediment-laden runoff. See Sheet 3, 6, 16-17, and 18-19.

Note: The proposal may include widening of approximately 6,800 lf of West Virginia Route 2.  However, the applicant has stated this roadway work would not include the discharge of dredged and/or fill materials into waters of the United States subject to Corps’ regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. 

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS:  A total of 731 lf of intermittent/ephemeral streams and 9.891 ac of palustrine wetlands would be permanently filled as a result of the proposed project.  The project would also include an additional 21.53 ac of one-time construction dredging and contouring along 5,500 lf of the Ohio River, as described above, and the permanent installation of 3.082 ac of permanent fill for dock and mooring cell construction.  The project does not require access, proximity to, or siting within special aquatic sites to fulfill its basic purpose and is considered a non-water dependent activity.  The Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines state for non-water dependent activities, practicable alternatives that do not involve special aquatic sites are presumed to be available, unless clearly demonstrated otherwise.  The applicant has submitted an alternatives analysis for review. 

The applicant’s alternatives analysis includes an assessment of a “no action” alternative, a preferred alternative with three (3) on-site design configurations, and three (3) off-site alternatives to the Apple Grove location (totaling four [4] locations evaluated).  Additional on-site alternatives have been reviewed by the applicant, specific to the H&H Study for the site.  The updated on-site alternative would include one-time dredging and riverbank contouring in conjunction with the shift of the northern (45 feet landward) and southern docks (20 feet landward), with a raise in the overall bank elevation, as described above. Under the “no action” alternative, no discharge of dredged and/or fill material into waters of the United States would occur.  The applicant has indicated this alternative would not meet the overall project purpose. 

Site locations were evaluated based on property size (500 buildable acres; 120 adjacent acres for parking/staging), topography/grading requirements, proximity to major railroad and highway transportation infrastructure, proximity to navigable lock-and-dam controlled waters for barge transport and water supply/treatment options, and estimated aquatic resources impacts. The applicant also considered potential effects to known historic resources and threatened and endangered species while evaluating site selection and on-site configurations. The initial screening process involved thirteen (13) potential locations, nine (9) of which were eliminated given they failed to meet the criteria listed above. The applicant stated the remaining four (4) locations were evaluated further through detailed engineering and environmental impacts evaluations.

Of the available on-site alternatives, the applicant stated the proposed action and preferred alternative would meet the purpose and need of the applicant’s proposal while reducing potential impacts to waters of the United States. According to the information provided, the Apple Grove Site, the preferred alternative, meets the size and topography requirements for a steel mill and provides the applicant with important transportation and logistical advantages to serve customers in the Midwest and Northeast, while also avoiding impacts to waters of the United States. Based on the alternatives analysis, the applicant has indicated the other alternatives considered would result in either a greater loss of aquatic resources, reduced access to navigation access, a reduced buildable area, and/or are not feasible alternatives considering logistics and topography. 

The applicant’s alternatives analysis is currently under review.  A complete copy of the applicant’s submittal can be reviewed, by appointment, at the above address or a copy may be requested under the Freedom of Information Act.  No permit will be issued unless the alternatives analysis clearly demonstrates that practicable upland alternatives are not available to achieve the overall project purpose. 

AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION:  In evaluating a project area containing waters of the United States, consideration must be given to avoiding impacts on this site.  If waters of the United States cannot be avoided, then the impacts must be minimized.  Approximately 1,115 lf of two intermittent streams, 658 lf of four ephemeral streams, 80 lf of one ephemeral feature, 9.313 ac of thirty palustrine emergent wetlands (PEM), 4.569 ac of six palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands (PSS), 5.875 ac of fourteen palustrine forested wetlands (PFO), and 0.32 ac of three palustrine unconsolidated bottom (PUB) wetlands are located within the 691-acre site. In total, 20.077 ac of wetland, 1,853 lf of intermittent/ephemeral stream, and approximately 7,447 lf of the Ohio River are present within the site.  See Sheets 4 and 5.

Avoidance and minimization efforts were incorporated into the proposal.  According to the information provided, a total of 1,122 lf of intermittent/ephemeral features (61%) would be avoided completely and 10.186 acre of wetlands (51%) were avoided completely.  Additionally, work would occur along approximately 5,500 lf of the Ohio River, avoiding 1,947 lf of the Ohio River on-site. The applicant states best management practices would be implemented to minimize downstream sedimentation and turbidity. The applicant would be required to obtain stormwater permits from the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) and to implement stormwater protection plans as needed for site construction. The applicant would also acquire and comply with all terms and conditions of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) and the NPDES permit. 

A wastewater treatment system would be designed and installed to comply with the project- and site- specific requirements of the WVDEP NPDES industrial wastewater permit. A single wastewater treatment outfall would be installed within the project limits.  The approximate volume of the discharge is anticipated to be 3.3 million gallons per day. The extent of the mixing zone would be 1,000 feet downstream of the proposed wastewater discharge and within 240 feet of the eastern bank, which is within the footprint of the proposed inbound dock and mooring cells. The wastewater treatment system plan is currently under review by the WVDEP.

COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN:   To compensate for the loss of aquatic features associated with the temporary and permanent discharges of dredged and/or fill material into the features listed above and in the attached Table, the applicant has proposed the purchase of mitigation bank credits in order to satisfy stream mitigation requirements (731 lf loss; 392.26 debits) and the purchase of wetland credits from the West Virginia In-Lieu Fee Program (9.891 ac loss; 26.152 debits calculated with ration of PEM/PUB 2:1 and PFO/PSS 3:1, respectively). As there are no mitigation banks within the immediate service area for the proposal, however, an extended service area request for stream credits is currently under review. Mitigation requirements are calculated based on the West Virginia Stream and Wetland Valuation Metric Version 2.1 (WV SWVM).

As part of our evaluation, the Corps will review the applicant’s WV SWVM calculation sheets for accuracy.  The conceptual CMP is currently under review and is subject to change based on comments received and the Corps’ independent evaluation.  After review of all the submitted information, the Corps will make a determination of appropriate compensatory mitigation, in the event a decision is made to issue a permit.

Additionally, in order to offset potential adverse effects to fish and wildlife values, the applicant has proposed fish habitat enhancement at a ratio of  over 1:1 for the impacted riverbed (1.601 ac loss of Ohio River riverbed within the normal pool limits), calculated based on the area of enhancement (at 25 feet from the normal pool shoreline) plus an additional 25-foot buffer. The proposed on-site fish habitat mitigation includes the installation of 11 vertical feet of artificial fish habitat on the landward side of each mooring cell (16 cells) and dock quay, totaling 0.818 ac, below normal pool. Artificial habitat would include wire baskets and arrays of varied fish tubes along the sheet pile walls. The off-site fish habitat (0.895 ac) would include riverbank restoration and littoral zone habitat enhancements at a proposed site (Mercers Bottom at Sixteenmile Creek) located immediately downstream of the project area. The off-site fish habitat would create low-velocity shelter areas and substrate heterogeneity using rock boulder dikes and anchored woody materials that benefit larval fish and mussels by increasing spawning/rearing habitat and larval stage attachment opportunities, retaining sediment and colonizing vegetation during recessional flow stages, and protecting shoreline from the scour of boat traffic wake and drawdown. Work would include the installation of 13 longitudinal dikes, made up of rip rap with embedded tree boles/root wads, placed in a staggered array along 630 lf of the Ohio River. The total discharge of fill material into the river for these features would be 910 cy within a 0.233 ac footprint. See Sheets 23-25.  The Corps is seeking agency comment on the proposed on-/off-site fish and wildlife values mitigation plan.

WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION: The applicant must obtain a Section 401 WQC from the WVDEP, assuring that applicable laws and regulations pertaining to water quality are not violated.  The applicant has submitted an individual Section 401 WQC application to the WVDEP for this project.  A DA permit, if otherwise warranted, would not be issued on this project until the Section 401 WQC has been issued or waived and the Section 401(a)(2) process has been completed with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).  The Reasonable Period of Time for the certifying authority (WVDEP) to act on the Section 401 WQC has been extended to December 6, 2022.  A waiver may be explicit or will be deemed to occur if the WVDEP fails or refuses to act on a request for certification within 365 days after receipt of a valid certification request.

HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES: The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) has been consulted and it has been determined there are no properties currently listed on the NRHP that would be indirectly or directly affected by the proposed work. Previous cultural resource surveys have been conducted within portions of the site.  Eligibility determinations for the previously identified resources are incomplete.  The applicant has conducted preliminary archaeological investigations and architectural surveys within the overall project boundary and viewshed.  Additionally, updated Phase I documentation and Phase II archaeological investigations have been conducted, or are underway, for the entire project area.

The Corps will assess the identified/reidentified cultural resources for NRHP eligibility.  Any impacts on such properties will be evaluated in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) and will be considered in making the final decision. A copy of this Public Notice will be sent to the Ohio History Connection State Historic Preservation Office (OSHPO) and the West Virginia Department of the Arts, Culture, and History State Historic Preservation Office (WVSHPO) for their review.  Comments concerning archaeological sensitivity of the project area should be based upon collected data. No DA permit will be issued until all obligations under Section 106 of the NHPA have been fulfilled.  

ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES: The proposed project is located within the known or historic range of the following endangered (E) or threatened (T) species:

• Indiana bat (E), Myotis sodalis
• northern long-eared bat (T), Myotis septentrionalis
• clubshell mussel (E), Pleurobema clava
• pink mucket (pearlymussel) (E), Lampsilis abrupta
• snuffbox mussel (E), Epioblasma triquetra
• fanshell mussel (E), Cyprogenia stegaria
• sheepnose mussel (E), Plethobasus cyphyus
• northern riffleshell mussel (E), Epioblasma torulosa rangiana

Suitable habitat for the Indiana bat and the northern long-eared bat may be present within the site. According to the Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) database, the project area does not occur within a known use area for the Indiana bat. Additionally, the proposed project is not located near known hibernacula or known maternity roost trees for the northern long-eared bat. The Corps is evaluating the scope of the proposed tree clearing (90 ac) relative to the available habitat in the immediately surrounding area. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service, West Virginia Field Office (USFWS WVFO) recommended a summer survey be conducted to determine the presence or absence of the Indiana bats within the project area. The mist-net survey was conducted, and no federally-listed bat species were captured.  No Indiana bats were identified or captured during the surveying activities. Based on the survey results, it is anticipated that any associated effects to the Indiana bat would be insignificant and/or discountable. The Corps has determined the proposal may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the Indiana bat. Based on the information provided by the applicant and the information above, it is the Corps determination that any ‘take’ that may occur incidental to the proposed project is not prohibited under the final 4(d) rule. 

Suitable habitat for listed mussel species is present within the site. Given the scope of the project and the current Mussel Survey Protocols for the State of West Virginia, a mussel survey was required to determine presence or absence of mussel species, included the listed species above. The mussel survey was conducted and federally-listed threatened and endangered mussel species were identified. As a result, the Corps has determined the proposal may affect, and is likely to adversely affect, the aforementioned mussel species.  The Corps will initiate formal consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) with the USFWS WVFO.  The DA permit will not be issued until the requirements of Section 7 of the ESA of 1972 (as amended) are fulfilled.

PUBLIC INTEREST REVIEW AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS: This application will be reviewed in accordance with 33 CFR 320-332, the Regulatory Program of the Corps, and other pertinent laws, regulations, and executive orders. Our evaluation will also follow guidelines published by the United States Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act (40 CFR part 230). The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity on the public interest. That decision will reflect the national concern for both protection and utilization of important resources. The benefits that reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. All factors that may be relevant to the proposal will be considered including the cumulative effects thereof; of those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, floodplain values, land use, navigation, shoreline erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of property ownership and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people.

SOLICITATION OF COMMENTS: The Corps is soliciting comments from the public, federal, state and local agencies and officials, Indian Tribes and other interested parties in order to consider and evaluate the impacts of this proposed activity.  For accuracy and completeness of the administrative record, all data in support of or in opposition to the proposed work should be submitted in writing (preferably via email if possible) setting forth sufficient detail to furnish a clear understanding of the reasons for support or opposition.  Any person may request, in writing, within the comment period specified in the notice, that a public hearing be held to consider the application.  Requests for public hearings shall state, with particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing.  Any comments received will be considered by the Corps to determine whether to issue, modify, condition or deny a permit for this proposal.  To make this decision, comments are used to assess impacts on endangered species, historic properties, water quality, general environmental effects, and the other public interest factors listed above. Comments are used in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment and/or an Environmental Impact Statement pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act.  Comments are also used to determine the need for a public hearing and to determine the overall public interest of the proposed activity.  Written statements, either physical or electronic, received in this office on or before the expiration date of this Public Notice will become a part of the record and will be considered in the final determination.  A permit will be granted unless its issuance is found to be contrary to the public interest.

CLOSE OF COMMENT PERIOD: All comments pertaining to this Public Notice must reach this office on or before the close of the comment period listed on page one of this Public Notice.  Comments, information requests, and any public hearing requests should be submitted in accordance with the submission methods listed below.  If no comments are received by the close of the comment period, it will be considered that there are no objections.

Comments and requests for additional information should be submitted electronically to Ms. Lauren Pritt by email to lauren.a.pritt@usace.army.mil.  Project drawings are pending upload to the website.  If the drawings are not yet posted on this website, you may request copies of the drawings via email to Mrs. Pritt.  

If you do not have internet access, comments may be submitted thru the United States Postal Service (USPS) to the following address:

United States Army Corps of Engineers

ATTN: CELRH-RDS

Public Notice No. LRH-2022-55-OHR-rev

502 Eighth Street

Huntington, West Virginia 25701-2070

Comments should only be provided through the USPS when electronic transmission is not possible.  Precautionary internal mail handling procedures may be instituted to protect our workforce, which may result in longer than normal times to process and receive hard copy submissions.  To be considered in our evaluation, comments submitted through the USPS should have a postmark dated on, or prior to, the close of the comment period listed on page one of this Public Notice.

Please note that names and addresses of those who submit comments in response to this Public Notice become part of our administrative record, and, as such, may be available to the public under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. Thank you for your interest in our nation's water resources.