20120270 Ver 1_401 Application_20120312

UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 2012 2 7 O
MARINE CORPS BASE
PSC BOX 20004
CAMP LEJEUNE NC 28542 -0004
�j W REPLY R&FER TO
d(�i�► 5 0 9 0 11 2
BEMD
" MAR 0 7 2012
From Commanding Officer, Marine Corps Base, Camp Le3eune
To Commanding Officer, United States Army Corps of
Engineers, Wilmington District 69 Darlington Avenue,
Wilmington, NC 28403 Attn, Brad Shaver
Subs APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT FOR THE
MAINTENANCE HANGAR P683/P687, PARKING STRUCTURE, AND
AIRFIELD SERVICE ROADS ON MARINE CORPS AIR STATION NEW
RIVER, MARINE CORPS BASE CAMP LEJEUNE NORTH CAROLINA
Encl (1) Pre - construction Notification form for the
Maintenance Hangar P683/P687, Parking Structure, and
Airfield Service Roads on Marine Corps Air Station
New River, Marine Corps Base Camp Le3eune North
Carolina
1 The enclosed application to discharge fill into Section 404
wetlands to construct the Maintenance Hangar P683/P687, Parking
Structure, and Airfield Service Roads on Marine Corps Air
Station New River is submitted for your review and approval
2 Camp Le]eune proposes to permanently fill 0 62 acres,
temporarily impact 0 18 acres of Section 404 wetlands, and
permanently impact 207 linear feet of stream to complete Phase 1
of the project described in the application Unavoidable
wetland impacts will be compensated with mitigation credits
purchased from the NCEEP
3 The point of contact for this pro3ect is Mr Martin Korenek,
Environmental Conservation Branch, Environment and Installations
Department, at telephone [phone] or email
martin korenek@usmc mil
MAR 142012
DENR WATER QUALITY
yOSA(1}p S�MOYATER 6f�H
Sincerely,
a '.1".
OHN R TOWNSON
Director, Environmental Management
By direction of the
Commanding Officer
Copy to
NCDENR, DWQ, 401 Section, attn I McMillan (5 copies w/ fee)
NCDENR, DWQ, WRO, attn J Steenhuis

!'
�L

` -ot W A Ill O,
h
O 't
20 1 2 0 2 7 0
Office Use Only
Corps action ID no
DWQ project no
Form Version 1 3 Dec 10 2008
Page 1 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version
Pre - Construction Notification PC Form
A Applicant Information
1
Processing
la
Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps
® Section 404 Permit ® Section 10 Permit
1 b Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number n/a or General Permit (GP) number n/a
1c
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑ Yes ® No
1 d
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply)
® 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non 404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
le
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification
❑ Yes ® No
For the record only for Corps Permit
❑ Yes ® No
1f
Is payment into a mitigation bank or in lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in lieu
fee program
® Yes ❑ No
1g
Is the project located in any of NC s twenty coastal counties If yes answer 1h
below
® Yes ❑ No
1h
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
® Yes ❑ No
2
Project Information
2a
Name of project
Hangar P683/P687 and Airfield Roads MCAS New River
2b
County
Onslow
p
F2
1117M
2c
Nearest municipality / town
Jacksonville NC
2d
Subdivision name
n/a MAR 1 4 2012
2e
NCDOT only T I P or state
project no
n/a
OENR HATER QUALITY
3
Owner Information
3a
Name(s) on Recorded Deed
U S Government
3b
Deed Book and Page No
n/a
3c
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable)
U S Marne Corps c/o Carl Baker
3d
Street address
Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune Public Works Division 1005 Michael Road
3e
City state zip
Camp Lejeune NC 28542
3f
Telephone no
910 451 2213
3g
Fax no
910 451 2927
3h
Email address
cart h baker @usmc and and copy to martin korenek @usmc and
Page 1 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version

4
Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a
Applicant is
❑ Agent ❑ Other specify
4b
Name
4c
Business name
(if applicable)
4d
Street address
4e
City state zip
4f
Telephone no
4g
Fax no
4h
Email address
5
Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a
Name
Jason Evert
5b
Business name
(if applicable)
Dial Cordy and Associates
5c
Street address
490 Osceola Avenue
5d
City state zip
Jacksonville Beach Florida 32250
5e
Telephone no
904 -476 9571
5f
Fax no
904 241 8885
5g
Email address
revert@dialcordy com
Page 2 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version

B
Project Information and Prior Project History
1
Property Identification
1a
Property identification no (tax PIN or parcel ID)
n/a
Latitude 34 7040825 Longitude
1 b
Site coordinates (in decimal degrees)
77 4318381
(DD DDDDDD) ( DD DDDDDD)
1c
Property size
600 acres
2
Surface Waters
2a
Name of nearest body of water (stream river etc ) to
New River
proposed project
2b
Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water
SC HQW NSW
2c
River basin
White Oak HUC 03030001
3
Project Description
3a
Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application
The existing conditions in the project area include vacant land adjacent to runways and taxiways and a residential
development adjacent to the airfield on existing military land adjacent to the airfield Use in the vicinity comprises
military/aviation functions See Figures 1 and 2 Figure 3 illustrates sod types in the project area
3b
List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property
Total acreage on the base is approximately 55 000 acres However the USACE approved jurisdictional determinations
provide acreages of specific surveyed areas The two USACE Wilmington District wetland jurisdictional determinations
that are related to the proposed action have Action IDs SAW 2010 00796 (south and west portions of MCAS New River)
and SAW 2010 01797
3c
List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property
7 500 in /near Phase I several additional miles in /adjacent to Phases II and III
3d
Explain the purpose of the proposed project
The purpose of work proposed for Phase I is to serve additional personnel and equipment growth as directed by the
President and authorized by Congress and evaluated in the EIS (NAVFAC Mid Atlantic 2009) The specific purposes
are to construct facilities to accommodate aircraft maintenance storage and deploymentllanding to accommodate
personnel driving /parking their cars to /at the facility and to re locate the existing road (from lands that will accommodate
the proposed apron) to permit transit through the area and around the airfield to the ammunition facility on the west Daily
operations include avaition military exercises equipment maintenance and associated vehicular and pedestrian traffic
The purpose of work proposed for Phases II and III is (1) to affect roadway realignment to accommodate a runway
extension to the south and (2) to attain compliance with Federal Aviation Authority laws for roadway and budding
setbacks related to that extension and existing runways to the west Additional details regarding purpose and need are
discussed below in the justification section
3e
Describe the overall project in detail including the type of equipment to be used
Please see attached sheets
Page 3 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version

4
Jurisdictional Determinations
4a
Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments The two USACE Wilmington District wetland
® Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
jurisdictional determinations that are related to the proposed
action have Action IDs SAW 2010 00796 (south and west
portions of MCAS New River) and SAW 2010 01797
4b
If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination what type
❑preliminary ®Final
of determination was made
4c
If yes who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Agency /Consultant Company USMC/ Tetra Tech
Name (if known) Federal staff and contractors
Other
4d
If yes list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation
SAW 2010 00796 was finalized 28 October 2010 and SAW 2010 01797 was finalized 22 November 2010
5
Project History
5a
Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
❑ Yes ® No ❑ Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b
If yes explain in detail according to help file instructions
n/a
6
Future Project Plans
6a
Is this a phased project?
® Yes ❑ No
6b
If yes explain
Please see 3d and 3e above The applicant is seeking to obtain permits for the entire project area including Phases 1 11
and III The applicant is not justifying exclusion of Phases II and III from this application but only requesting that
authorization be provided for Phase I as soon as wetland impacts associated with it have been determined /documented
avoided /minimized and compensated for through appropriate mitigation regardless if these issues have been resolved
for Phases II and III
The applicant respectfully requests that regulatory agencies and contractors focus on providing /obtaining authorization to
proceed with Phase I as soon as possible and when it appears that regulatory requirements for Phase I are met to then
correspond regarding regulatory requirements for Phase 11 and Phase III (perhaps concurrently) Authorizations for work
associated with construction and impacts associated with Phases II or III may be issued as modifications to the first
authorization provided for Phase I
Phases II and III are not requested for immediate authorization (1) in order to focus on (and thereby increase efficiency of
correspondence and effort) issues related to Phase I as there is a critical construction commencement deadline to be
met for Phase I even if authorizations for Phases II and III are slightly delayed (2) because Phases II and III are in
different geographic areas from Phase 1 (3) because Phases II and III not anticipated for construction until Phase I work
is completed (4) because for Phases II and III necessary field survey /engineenng data is currently unavailable or not
properly formatted for precise planning and projection of wetland impacts or avoidance /minimization and (5) work for
Phase I is not dependent on the other phases Phase I does not necessarily require work is performed for the other
phases
Other than the above no other actions are anticipated to affect wetlands in the portions of the base involved in the
Proposed Action However plans are currently being made to install another new hangar on the west side of the airfield
No details are available for that project permitting work for that project may be conducted in late 2012 or early 2013
Page 4 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version

C Proposed Impacts Inventory
1 Impacts Summary
1a Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply)
® Wetlands ® Streams tributaries ❑ Buffers
❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
Page 5 of 13
PCN Form — Version 13 December 10 2008 Version

2 Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site then complete this question for each wetland area impacted
2a
2b
2c
2d
2e
2f
Wetland impact
Type of jurisdiction
number —
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
(Corps 404 10
Area of impact
Permanent (P) or
(if known)
DWQ — non -404 other)
(acres)
Temporary T
W1 ❑ P ❑ T
SEE ATTACHED
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Corps
I ❑ DWQ
W2 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W4 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Corps
❑ DWQ
2g Total wetland impacts
2h Comments Because the wetlands that will be impacted were provided designations in the jurisdictional determinations
the wetland impact table is attached using nomenclature that will not be obscured by the designations in column 2a
1 Up to approximately 0 62 acres of Wetland W4 in Phase 1 will be permanently affected by unavoidable impacts due
to the following activities (which comprise a single continuous impact at that wetland) (see Figure 5)
a Construction of a new 24 wide road consisting of sub base base and asphalt wearing course
b Installation of a new water line will be routed through jurisdictional Wetland W4
c Installation of a new gas line will be routed through the jurisdictional Wetland W4
d Construction of a new concrete retaining wall will be placed between the roadway and wetland area To construct the
retaining wall wetlands within up to 20 feet away from the wall may be temporarily impacted That impact would comprise
approximately 0 18 acres of temporary impact (see hatching to the east of constructed bulkhead in Figure 5) in addition to the
0 62 acre of unavoidable permanent impacts (west of the bulkhead) noted in 1 above
e Placement of hangar foundation and cantilever piers ( v shaped structures in Figure 5)
2 Wetlands for Phase 2 will be impacted by construction of a new 24 wide road consisting of sub base base and
asphalt wearing course Wetlands may also be impacted by grading /fill from the road surface down to wetland elevations east
of the new road Acreages of impacts will be provided upon receipt of further survey data but are estimated in the attached
table
3 Wetlands for Phase 3 will be impacted by construction of a new 24 wide road consisting of sub base base and
asphalt wearing course Wetlands may also be impacted by grading /fill from the road surface down to wetland elevations east
of the new road Acreages of impacts will be provided upon receipt of further survey data but are estimated in the attached
table
Page 6 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version

Page 7 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version
3 Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted
3a
3b
3c
3d
3e
3f
3g
Stream impact
Type of impact
Stream name
Perennial
Type of jurisdiction
Average
Impact
number
(PER) or
(Corps 404 10
stream
length
Permanent (P) or
intermittent
DWQ — non 404
width
(linear
Temporary (T)
(INT)
other)
(feet)
feet)
S1 ❑ P ❑ T
SEE ATTACHED
❑ PER
❑ INT
❑ Corps
❑ DWQ
S2 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S4 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
3h Total stream and tributary impacts
31 Comments Because the streams that will be impacted were provided designations in former NAVFAC reports the stream
impact table is attached using nomenclature that will not be obscured by the designations in column 3a
4 Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes ponds estuaries tributaries sounds the Atlantic Ocean or any other open water of
the U S then individually list all open water impacts below
4a
4b
4c
4d
4e
Open water
Name of waterbody
impact number —
(if applicable)
Type of impact
Waterbody type
Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
01 ❑P ❑T
n/a
02 ❑P ❑T
03 ❑P ❑T
04 ❑P ❑T
41' Total open water impacts
4g Comments n/a
5 Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed then complete the chart below
5a
5b
5c
5d
5e
Wetland Impacts (acres)
Stream Impacts (feet)
Upland
Pond ID
Proposed use or purpose
(acres)
number
of pond
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
n/a
P2
5f Total
5g Comments Not anticipated at this time more will be known (and updated if relevant) as the stormwater permit
modification is completed
Page 7 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version

5h Is a dam high hazard permit required
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes permit ID no
51 Expected pond surface area (acres)
5j Size of pond watershed (acres)
5k Method of construction
6 Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer then complete the chart below If yes then individually list all buffer impacts
below If any impacts require mitigation then you MUST fill out Section D of this form
6a
❑ Neuse ❑Tar Pamlico ED Other n/a
Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman
6b
6c
6d
6e
6f
6g
Buffer impact
number —
Reason
Buffer
Zone 1 impact
Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or
for
Stream name
mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
Temporary T
impact
required?
131 ❑ P [:IT
n/a
❑ Yes
❑ No
B2 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ No
B3 ❑P ❑T
El Yes
❑ No
6h Total buffer impacts
61 Comments n/a
D Impact Justification and Mitigation
1 Avoidance and Minimization
1a Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project
Please see attached sheets
1 b Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques
The most important constructed feature for limiting wetland impacts is the 500 foot long roadside retaining wall in Wetland W4
which will eliminate the need to grade from the proposed elavation of the road surface down (to the east) to wetland surface
elevation This will eliminate the need for approximately 0 6 acre of permanent wetland removal Furthermore the wall will be
constructed before road construction is implemented so that the wall will physically separate the wetland area to be left
urnmpacted from the worksite while roads and other features are being constructed During construction silt fences will be
erected between work areas and jurisdictional wetlands and streams Silt fences will be inspected weekly and maintained as
needed If dewatenng turbidity screens hay bales or other control devices will be used to ensure that the quality of water from
the discharge meets state standards All other best management practices regarding sedimentation and erosion control
methods will be implemented as specified by NCDWQ Prior to construction wetlands near work areas will be clearly marked
in the field Also a buffer area around wetlands will flagged The field supervisor will monitor contractor activities to ensure that
no equipment crosses into the wetlands
2 Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U S or Waters of the State
2a Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
® Yes ❑ No
impacts to Waters of the U S or Waters of the State?
2b If yes mitigation is required by (check all that apply)
® DWQ ® Corps
❑ Mitigation bank
2c If yes which mitigation option will be used for this
® Payment to in lieu fee program
project?
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
Page 8 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version

3 Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a Name of Mitigation Bank
3b Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type
Quantity
3c Comments
4 Complete if Making a Payment to In lieu Fee Program
4a Approval letter from in lieu fee program is attached
❑ Yes
4b Stream mitigation requested
207 linear feet
4c If using stream mitigation stream temperature
® warm ❑ cool ❑cold
4d Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only)
n/a square feet
4e Riparian wetland mitigation requested
0 62 acres
4f Non riparian wetland mitigation requested
n/a acres
4g Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested
n/a acres
4h Comments Approval has not yet been confirmed
5 Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan
n/a
6 Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation?
❑ Yes ® No
6b If yes then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation Calculate the
amount of mitigation required
Zone
6c
Reason for impact
6d
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1
n/a
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
15
6f Total buffer mitigation required
6g If buffer mitigation is required discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e g payment to private mitigation bank
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration payment into an approved in lieu fee fund)
n/a
6h Comments n/a
Page 9 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version

E
Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1
Diffuse Flow Plan
la
Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b
If yes then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no explain why
❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments Does not include diffuse flow plan not in special buffer basin
2
Stormwater Management Plan
2a
What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
Approx 40 %
2b
Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
® Yes ❑ No
2c
If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan explain why n/a
2d
If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan then provide a brief narrative description of the plan
Stormwater treatment incorporating Phases 1 II and III will be via systems of grassed
swales piped culverts and dry
infiltration basins LEED and LID principles will be incorporated to the maximum extent practicable including underground
infiltration chambers as well as a rainwater harvesting system that will collect roof drain
runoff to be used for vehicle
washing Discharge from proposed grassed swales or engineered BMP s will either connect to existing swales or outfall
into surrounding wetlands All discharge created by this proposed project will abide by the allowable permissible flow
rates per NCDENR regulations including the usage of level spreaders where necessary
❑ Certified Local Government
2e
Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
® DWQ Stormwater Program
3
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a
In which local government s jurisdiction is this project?
U S Marine Corps /Dept of Navy
❑ Phase II
❑ NSW
3b
Which of the following locally implemented stormwater management programs
El USMP
apply (check all that apply)
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other
3c Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ® No
attached?
4
DWQ Stormwater Program Review
® Coastal counties
® HQW
4a
Which of the following state implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ ORW
(check all that apply)
® Session Law 2006 246
® Other NSW
4b Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
E] Yes No
attached?
5
DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a
Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ No
Page 10 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version

5b Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
°°ems' ❑ No
F Supplementary Information
1 Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1a Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal /state /local) funds or the
® Yes ❑ No
use of public (federal /state) land?
1 b If you answered yes to the above does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
® Yes ❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1c If you answered yes to the above has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter )
® Yes ❑ No
Comments Exhibit 2
2 Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H 0500) Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H 1300) DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards
❑ Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B 0200)?
2b Is this an after the fact permit application?
❑ Yes ® No
2c If you answered yes to one or both of the above questions provide an explanation of the violation(s) n/a
3 Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
❑ Yes ® No
additional development which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b If you answered yes to the above submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy If you answered no provide a short narrative description
The Proposed Action will result in some reasonably anticipated future development specifically additional housing to
accommodate personnel using /servicing the new aviation equipment that the Proposed Action will facilitate and a future
proposed squadron warehouse that will be constructed south of the currently proposed hanger facility However due to
new stormwater facilities and water treatment upgrades it will not likely adversely impact downstream water quality An
increase in additional troops based at MCAS New River in future years is expected Cumulative impacts to stormwater
and groundwater will be avoided with the implementation of BMPs adherence to NPDES permit requirements and North
Carolinas Coastal Stormwater Rules and guidelines established in the stormwater management plan Within the ROI
the potential for cumulative adverse impacts to wetland areas and waterways (though none are anticipated at this time)
would be mitigated through the adherence to existing USMC Federal and State policies and recommendations by
NCDENR to reduce and /or maintain point and non point sediment complying with NPDES permit limits and
requirements adopting Natural Resources Conservation Service conservation practices following guidance in the
wetland permitting process implementing Sod Erosion Control Plans and applying BMPs
Page 11 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version

4 Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project or available capacity of the subject facility
Concurrent with the Proposed Action the Courthouse Bay WTP Onslow Beach WTP Hadnot Point WTP and Holcomb
Boulevard WTP would be demolished and replaced with one new WTP with a 12 mgd capacity The new 12 mgd WTP and
the MCAS New River WTP would have sufficient capacity to support the current load (5 mgd) and increased demand
(183 360 gpd) for potable water New distribution lines along Marines Road would need to be installed to supply the Onslow
Beach and Courthouse Bay water systems Proper coordination with the NCDENR Public Water Supply Section would be
conducted as needed to obtain a Water Connection Permit
Page 12 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version

5 Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
habitat?
❑ Yes ® No
5b Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
impacts?
® Yes ❑ No
5c If yes indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted
® Raleigh
❑ Asheville
5d What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
FEIS NAVFAC Mid Atlantic 2009
6 Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a Will this project occur In or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
® Yes ❑ No
6b What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
FEIS NAVFAC Mid Atlantic 2009
7 Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a Will this project occur in or near an area that the state federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
status (e g National Historic Trust designation or properties significant In
❑Yes ®No
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
FEIS NAVFAC Mid Atlantic 2009
8 Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a Will this project occur in a FEMA designated 100 year floodplain?
❑ Yes ® No
8b If yes explain how project meets FEMA requirements
8c What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FEMA maps
OAPJ,
/
Applicant/Agent s Printed Name
Appl a Agents ignature
Date
(Agents signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is rov+ded
Page 13 of 13
PCN Form — Version 13 December 10 2008 Version

Responses to selected PCN items for
Hangar P683/P687 and Airfield Roads MCAS New River
29 February 2012
Response to Question B 3e
The proposed work for which an Individual Permit is sought is associated with the preferred
alternative evaluated in Final Environmental Impact Statement U S Marine Corps Grow the
Force at MCB Camp Leleune MCAS New River and MCAS Cherry Point North Carolina
(NAVFAC Mid Atlantic 2009) henceforth denoted as the EIS' Although the EIS covers
multiple bases and improvements the U S Marine Corps (USMC) seeks regulatory
permission /concurrence for only a portion of the projects proposed for implementation at
Marne Corps Air Station New River (MCAS New River) at this time as other related projects
are currently only conceptual in nature or have not yet received full Congressional funding
for construction Specifically the focal elements of this application are the construction and
associated wetland impacts to the east south and southwest of the existing airfield at
Marine Corps Air Station New River (MCAS New River) Furthermore permission for
projected wetland impacts in these areas is sought in three phases generally based on
project geography and anticipated order of need and construction Descriptions of the
phases are below Phase 1 has two components identified as A and B
(1) PHASE I
a Component A MAINTENANCE HANGAR PARKING STRUCTURE AND
ADJACENT MAIN AND SERVICE ROADS Work includes a four module hangar
faciliby multi level parking structure (for use by maintenance and aviation
personnel using the hangars and aircraft) airfield fencing roadways and
intersections (providing access to the hangar on its north and south providing
access to the parking structure providing north /south passage through the
east side of the base and providing access to existing roads formerly part of
the residential area that has been removed) as well as the necessary utililty
infrastructure to make a complete and usable facility (see Figure 4)
b Component B PARALLEL TAXIWAY AND AIRCRAFT PARKING
APRON This work includes a new parallel taxiway or bituminous pavement a
new apron of heat resistant concrete pavement (see Figure 4) taxiway lighting
necessary water storm electrical and telephone infrastructure to make a
complete and usable airfield area and incidental related work
(2) PHASE II SOUTHERN AIRFIELD ROAD This road will ultimately be installed
to connect the east and west parts of the airfield following installation of the runway
extension (see Figure 4) This will be constructed after the elements above
(3) PHASE III WESTERN ROAD This road on the southwest side of the airfield
will be reconfigured (see Figure 4) This is intended for construction following Phases
11 and III

Selected PCN Responses 29 February 2012
Hangar 13683/13687 and Airfield Roads WAS New River
The methodology to construct necessary Phase 1 elements in and immediately
adjacent to juriscitional wetland area involves the following
1 All equipment will be stored in a lay down area to the northwest of
Wetland W4 in an existing grass field and gravel lot approximately 200 away
from the limits of the jurisdictional wetlands Equipment includes the
following
o 1 Front end loader 15 CY capacity
o 1 Dozier
o 1 Backhoe loader 1 CY capacity
o 1 Grader
o 3 Dump trucks
o 1 Augercast pile truck rig
o 1 Concrete pump(1 each)
o 1 Two ton Vibratory Roller /Compactor
o 1 Paving Machine
2 Erosion control fencing and devices will be placed to isolate wetland
areas not being disturbed
3 Clear and grubbing of trees and shrubs will take place at the areas of
proposed construction
4 A new retaining wall will be laid about and built where the North /South
road crosses /impacts Wetland W4 (see Figure 5) The wall foundation will be
excavated formed and poured with concrete via pump Forms will be removed
and sods will be backfilled against the retaining wall and compacted in
appropriate lifts until reaching the level of the sub base
5 The new water line will be trenched or directional bored in the area
between the retaining wall and the building foundation
6 The new gas line will be trenched or directional bored in the area
between the retaining wall and the building foundation
7 Foundation piles for the new proposed hangar will be driven or
augured under the proposed location of the foundation
8 Foundations for the hangar will be excavated formed and poured with
reinforced concrete
9 The road sub base will be installed compacted and tested The base
material will be installed and compacted Asphaltic concrete will be placed for
the roadway surfaces
Page 2 of 6

Selected PCN Responses 29 February 2012
Hangar P683/P687 and Airfield Roads MCAS New River
Table C 2
Precise impacts not yet discernable for wetlands in Phases II and III
*Isolated wetland not under federal jurisdiction
Table C 3
v M
Q 1=
Cu
E
i U
++
N
L n
O
4+
N
4!
u
co
L f0
U
C M
M E on
M
N W
O
v
Q E
Q
O
ate-+
°o
Q� L
z
4.1
ay,
E E c
E
� v
3
M
a
l0
s
'a :
C Z
O
� to
O O
-a LL
Q) L
�O C
=
M
N
Q
N O U
O M
M
U
u E
C
+.
O
n/a
N
Intermittent
3
J
c0
N_ L,
f0
Q1
R12(ED)
v
Permanent
L
n/a
N
Q
I
W4(P)
Permanent
Forested
No
0
062
I
W4(T)
Temporary
Forested
No
0
018
II
W71
Permanent
Forested
No
180
032
II
W9
Permanent
Forested
No
540
056
III
W7 2
Permanent
Forested
No
60
024
III
W1 1
Permanent
Forested
No
100
0 74*
III
Wi 2
1 Permanent I
Forested
No
15
022
Total Wetland Impact (acres)
281
Precise impacts not yet discernable for wetlands in Phases II and III
*Isolated wetland not under federal jurisdiction
Table C 3
Page 3 of 6
v M
Q 1=
Cu
E
v
L n
O
E uU
t
� +J
u
co
L
Q
Z
D.
O
v
O.
t
O
E cu
M O
O
E a-+
C
{n m M
a
tO
J `+-
�' L
U
4J
w L
O
a
M
M
v
E
m
N C
>
Q
E ..
Q
I
R12(IS)
n/a
Permanent
Intermittent
3
207
00143
1
R12(ED)
n/a
Permanent
Ephemeral
n/a
n/a
n/a
II
Not determined
III
Not determined
Total Stream Impact (by length and
acreage)
00143
Page 3 of 6

Selected PCN Responses 29 February 2012
Hangar P683/P687 and Airfield Roads WAS New River
Response to Question D 1 a (Avoidance and Mimization)
Purpose and Need The USMC (U S Marine Corps) needs to be prepared to meet any potential
crisis or conflict have the speed and agility to move immediately and respond at a level that
is consistent with the type of conflict encountered and meet the challenges and
opportunities of a rapidly changing world and emerging threats To meet these needs
President Bush announced in the January 2007 State of the Union address his decision to
permanently increase USMC forces This initiative received Congressional approval and
funding and is being implemented across USMC fighting organizations The Proposed Action
is needed to support and implement the Presidents mandate and Congressional direction to
increase end strength across the USMC war fighting organizations
Specifically the proposed work for which an Individual Permit is sought is associated
with the preferred alternative evaluated in Final Environmental Impact Statement U S Marine
Corps Grow the Force at MCB Camp Lejeune MCAS New River and MCAS Cherry Point
North Carolina (NAVFAC Mid Atlantic 2009) henceforth denoted as the EIS The Preferred
Alternative (also referred to as the Proposed Action ) evaluated in the EIS will permanently
increase USMC forces by 9 900 Marine Corps and civilian personnel at MCB Camp Lejeune
MCAS New River and MCAS Cherry Point The purpose of the Proposed Action is to provide
the infrastructure to support the permanent increases at these three Installations This EIS
analyzed several action alternatives to support this permanent increase The Proposed
Action includes 1) new infrastructure construction (e g buildings roads and utility lines) 2)
demolition and /or upgrades to existing infrastructure or 3) relocating and realigning existing
units and personnel to consolidate and better support the three installation s missions The
Proposed Action evaluated in this EIS includes only required activities necessary to support
permanent personnel increases at USMC Installations in North Carolina and does not include
actions at other USMC bases Relevant portions of the EIS are hereby incorporated by
reference into this permit application
Geographic Considerations The primary purpose of the Proposed Action was to increase the
aircraft and personnel numbers in the region s USMC North Carolina bases as discussed in
the EIS The strategy employed by the USMC was to implement the additional facilities in a
logistically feasible and cost efficient manner with proper regard for minimizing adverse
environmental and social effects Due to the type of aircraft proposed for acquisition by
USMC MCAS New River was the only site that was appropriate or capable of handling the
aircraft Once this was determined NAVFAC proceeded to site the general location on the
based where the facilities could be implemented
Spatial Considerations at MCAS New River The most appropriate general location on the
base for establishing the facilities for the Proposed Action were discussed in the EIS
(NAVFAC Mid Atlantic 2009) and is incorporated by reference Due to the addition of the new
aircraft a hangar was needed to facilitate maintenance as was an apron for aircraft storage
and a parallel taxiway for deployment and return of the aircraft to the facilities Due to the
configuration of the existing runways at MCAS New River only the east side of the airfield
could accommodate the taxiway and hence that area became the proposed site and the
other features were sited on adjacent lands to make transportation of the aircraft and their
service by personnel as efficient and safe as possible
Page 4 of 6

Selected PCN Responses 29 February 2012
Hangar P683/P687 and Airfield Roads MCAS New River
On site Avoidance and Minimization Conceptual Plan The initial conceptual design of
Phase I facilities (Figure 6) shows that necessary impacts to wetlands were generally
avoided and where they could not be avoided they were minimized keeping the majority of
all proposed facilities to the west of the riparian wetlands that occur irregularly along the
shore of New River
On site Avoidance and Minimization Wetland Avoidance & Impact Minimization Plan The
final Phase I plan that maximizes wetland avoidance and impact minimization includes three
specific design elements /adjustments First to further minimize wetland impacts and
conserve building costs the two proposed hangars were combined into one and moved
farther to the south which resulted in the road being moved to the west so as to avoid the
need to impact Wetland W3
Second a bulkhead along the only proposed wetland impact (at Wetland W4) for Phase I will
limit direct impacts by eliminating the need for fill east of the roadway This is estimated to
decrease permanent impacts by 0 63 acre That area instead will have only a temporary
impact due to small construction equipment which will total 0 174 acre
Finally when the parking garage was cited it was not proposed for the undeveloped wetland
areas but was instead planned for construction in the area that was occupied by a residential
neighborhood The houses that were destroyed to accommodate this plan were in sum
valued at over $16 million (estimate based on 2011 sales of comparable homes dust west of
Wilmington Highway /U S 17 directly west of the base) but the applicant was able to
maximize wetland impact avoidance and minimization by this choice
In summary the final Phase I plan shows that proposed construction impacts wetlands only
when/where necessary to realign the north /south road that must encircle the airfield and to
insert fill necessary to support the cantilever posts supporting the roofs of the two proposed
hangars
Further Alternatives Analyses An alternatives analysis was carried out in order to attempt to
further avoid and minimize wetland impacts Investigated alternatives and findings are listed
below
Can the apron be positioned south of the east runway ( #01119 which runs
north /south) so that the hangar and road can be moved to the west so as not to
impact wetlands?
No Neither facilities nor apron can move to that location because a runway
extension is planned for the future Furthermore the open side of the hangar must
abut directly to the apron the two cannot be separated
2 Can the apron be decreased in size such that the hangar and road can be moved to
the west so as not to impact wetlands?
No The apron must be of adequate size to accommodate 48 MV 22 aircraft
Furthermore UFC 2 000 05N Criteria (11320 8 MAINTENANCE HANGAR OFFSET
FROM APRON) states that maintenance hangars opening to the apron shall be offset
15 2 meters (50 feet) from the apron edge For criteria for 15 2 meter (50 foot) access
pavement to the hangar see Category Code 113 40 Aircraft Access Apron
Page 5 of 6

Selected PCN Responses 29 February 2012
Hangar P683/P687 and Airfield Roads MCAS New River
3 Can the apron be moved to the north
No There are existing structures in that location and even of those were
destroyed /relocated moving the hangar which must be located along the apron
would still involve more acreage of wetland impacts than are currently proposed
4 Can the hangar be moved to the south keeping its proposed north/south orientation
so that wetland impacts can be avoided?
No The USMC has proposed a new squadron warehouse immediately south of the
currently proposed location to accommodate equipment associated with the
Presidents Grow the Force initiative and the hangar needs to face the apron directly
as it does in its currently proposed configuration
5 Can the hangar be moved to the south and its orientation be changed to east/west so
as to avoid wetland impacts?
No The USMC has proposed a new squadron warehouse immediately south of the
currently proposed location to accommodate equipment associated with the
Presidents Grow the Force initiative and if the hangar were placed in that location it
would also interfere with the runway 01/19 extension planned for Phase II
6 Can the hangar be moved to the north?
No This would increase wetland impacts (as they would have been under the
initially proposed conceptual plan as described above) if it were moved to the
immediate north It cannot be moved farther to the north due to existing structures
that must stay in place for future use
7 Can hangar size be decreased2
No The space required (and incidental wetland impacts) for hangar(s) has already
been reduced by combining the formerly TWO proposed hangars into one facility The
size cannot undergo further reduction the proposed design is shown in attached
Exhibit 1 Note that in order to completely cover and service the aircraft the current
facility depth is required Furthermore HQMC policy is that hangars shall comply with
UFC-4 211 01N of 25 October 2004 and change 3 of 16 December 2009 Page 3 clearly
states that Type II hangars shall be 119 feet deep As for width UFC 4 211 01 N
w /Change 3 mandates Type 11 hangar dimensions Type II hangar dimensions were
derived from the MV 22 facility requirement to have three spread MV 22s and one
folded MV 22 in the hangar bay at the same time The mandated dimensions allow for
ten feet of clearance between each MV 22 t and ten feet of clearance between the MV
22 and the hangar sidewalls The dimensions of the Type II hangar were also
influenced by the HQMC requirement to build one type hangar large enough to
accommodate the three largest aircraft in the inventory MV 22 CH 53E /K and the C
130 Thus the expression universal Type 11 hangar
Page 6 of 6

�C
North Carolina
Department of Administration
Beverly Eaves Perdue GoviLmor
September 9 2009
Capt J D Voltz
US Marine Corps
Marine Corps Installation East
PSC Box 20005
Camp Lejeune NC 28542 0005
:111•
Bntt Cobb Secretary
Re SCH File # 10 -E 0000 -0019, DEIS, Assess the potential impacts associated with
permanently increasing United States Marine Corps (USMC) forces At three USMC
installations View document at http //w %4w Grow TheForceNC com
Dear Capt Voltz
I he above referenced environmental impact information has been submitted to the State Clearinghouse
under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act According to G S 113A 10, when a
state agency is required to prepare an environmental document under the provisions of federal law thL
environmental document meets the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act Attached to this
letter for your consideration are the comments made by agencies to the course of this review
If any further environmental review documents are prepared for this project they should be forwarded to
this office for intergovernmental review
Should you have any questions pleas(. do not hesitate to call
Sincerely
Valene W McMillan Director
State Environmental Revlcw Clearinghouse
Attachments
cc Region P
Alailurg Address Telephone [phone] '15 1 ocallon Addrt.ts
1301 Mali Service Center Fax [phone] West 1onc+ Street
Raleigh NC 27(99 1301 State Courier #51 -01 00 Raleigh North Carolina
e mail talerre iv mcmillan(Odoa nc gov
An Fqual (lpporruna)lAfrmarrve 4cnon Fmpinter
H 31

i
IN
uo�jer
in
C. N
NV,
�77
Hd
os/_
saffy
9z,0 To gz,o 0
x08 uoileool aseqd
PUqBO-j
4,-
94
?ti f Z. 7 J@AT8 MDN UOT;e4S JTV sdJOD DUTJeW
7
A 2OJd @Due
ueW we jnssv
\q, r(O.Lv) J@3T:�:�o WSTJOJJO;T;UV `jag e '
UOTSSTW lujoqj C 0;* 4uensind umoqs ;OU aOeWT
40 SUOT;JOd'
N
0A
f
—:7
mpg
of
I a ORMI
�j x

/,kk
ZAk
611
i..
19
000'£ 09Z'Z 009'1 09L 0
III dS`dHd
II dSVHd
I �ISVHd
413SVHd
saanlea:j posodoad
eaay PUeIlaM
auipaluao asJnoo JaleAA aoelanS
pua6a-1
uoisualx3 Aemun�l
„
peon Ja}aualJad M9N
r
uolsu9lx3 Aemixel lalleJed
uoileolllpoW peon
' uiseg uol;eJjllj
4�.
asnoyaJe/A uoJpenbg
pasodOJd aJnlnd
ssaooy .�
y"
Ja6ueH 'S
speod
ssaooy
{a
6UNed k
speob
ssaooy
g
Ja6ueH
1.
r
ssaooy
JabueH
peon{ m9N
4
uoJdy
I�_,
ZAk
611
i..
19
000'£ 09Z'Z 009'1 09L 0
III dS`dHd
II dSVHd
I �ISVHd
413SVHd
saanlea:j posodoad
eaay PUeIlaM
auipaluao asJnoo JaleAA aoelanS
pua6a-1
uoileoilipoiN peon{
r
. 7
.Jani21 MaN
uoi ;elS .Jiff sd,JOD aui.JeW `(Qld) ,J@DTJJO wSI JO.J.Ja ;i }UV `.Ja2eueW we J2O.Jd '
aDueJnssd uoissiW `u.Joyl � off. ;Uensind uMoys jou a2ewi �o suoT PJOd
r
4�.
uoileoilipoiN peon{
r
. 7
.Jani21 MaN
uoi ;elS .Jiff sd,JOD aui.JeW `(Qld) ,J@DTJJO wSI JO.J.Ja ;i }UV `.Ja2eueW we J2O.Jd '
aDueJnssd uoissiW `u.Joyl � off. ;Uensind uMoys jou a2ewi �o suoT PJOd

OOZ 006 0
easy puel}a/A
eajy }oedwl we@JIS I aseyd
lueaodwei
luaueuaaad
ad Al
ee id hoed wl
IdSVHd
PU868-1
i aa6ueH
El
uoady
peaq�jn8 pajonaisuoo
'saaoe VlV0 `IVM

ORIGINAL CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR HANGARS P683 AND P687
PRE - CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
MCAS NEW RIVER, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Not To Scale
Drawn By: MR
Date: February 2012
Approved By: JE
DIAL CUl �DY
AIN 1> AS.l f l IA 1 1 ,ter-
f'.I 11'11• it lill•'l 111 ll f cll i.tii I)i•li �,'
J12 -1210
FIGURE 6