20150525 Ver 1_Other Agency Correspondence_20070507

O~O~ WAT ~9pG
r
~ ~
~ ~
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P. E. Director
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
May 2, 2007
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
FROM: Hannah Stallings
Division of Water Quality
SUBJECT: Washington County
OLF
DENR#07-0285, DWQ#13816
~`~ G `~ t.~<< ~, ~ ~~~ r,
r r tiw !~..., a
~~
I~~~AY "? ~C~i; l
L~EPJ~i - ~`YA; Ins t~U,w~,rr
(~~,p.r i -X'y Pr;~^;p, ~J Srr:q T'.n vn n~hf/
The Planning Section of the Division of Water Quality has the following concerns with the
subject project:
The Navy developed the SIES in response to court orders to addresses topics identified
by the courts that require additional analysis. These include:
• Evaluation of potential impacts to migratory waterfowl and the Pocosin Lakes NWR;
• Evaluation of impacts associated with surge operations;
• Identification and evaluation of mitigative measures; and
• Evaluation of cumulative impacts of the operation of the OLF and other military uses
of airspace in NC.
The Sikes Act recognizes the importance and value of military lands to natural resources and
seeks to ensure that these ecosystems are protected and enhanced while allowing an area to meet
the needs of military operations. Accordingly, the Sikes Act requires the development and
implementation of Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans (INRMPs) for military
installations. In cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), INRMPs are developed that reflect
mutual agreement of the parties concerning the conservation, protection, and management of
affected areas.
According to the SEIS:
The Navy identified measures to mitigate potentially adverse environmental impacts to migratory
waterfowl and other resource areas based on its assessment of impacts associated with construction and
operation of an OLF under average annual operations and surge operations. The Navy has also identified

mitigation measures associated with potential cumulative impacts of the operation of the OLF and other
military uses of airspace in North Carolina.
While the Navy has developed flight tracks that would avoid population centers and sensitive
ecological areas, this project will still result in significant negative environmental impact.
DENR has a tool to measure the value(s) that wetlands provide to the citizens of North
Carolina. Values are those ecosystem functions that are perceived to have a positive impact on
people. The six (6) values recognized in the Guidance are: 1) water storage; 2) bank/shoreline
stabilization; 3) pollutant removal; 4) wildlife habitat; 5) aquatic life value; and 6) recreation and
education. Placing the OLF at Site C will denigrate the values, especially the wildlife habitat and
recreation and education values, surrounding wetlands and/or other jurisdictional waters provide.
The SEIS even acknowledges that the "Visitor experience at NWRs and other natural areas may
be interfered with at relatively low aircraft noise levels because of the increased noise
expectation of an unmasked natural soundscape (4-131)."
Wetlands and other jurisdictional waters abound in the area surrounding Site C. The
State and Federal Governments have recognized the exceptionality of some of these areas as
game lands and NWRs. As the SEIS states, the objectives of these areas "are to provide habitat
for migratory waterfowl and other birds, protect and enhance pocosin wetlands and other habitats
used by rare species, and provide opportunities for public use." "NWRs and other natural areas
with waterfowl habitat near OLF Site C include Pocosin Lakes NWR, Pettigrew State Park, and
several state game lands, including Bachelor Bay, Lantern Acres, New Lake, Pungo River Black
Bear Sanctuary, and Van Swamp Game Lands. Highest waterfowl concentrations occur at
Pocosin Lakes NWR and Pettigrew State Park, which have a variety of wetland and open water
habitats for over wintering waterfowl (3-160)." Congress established the Pungo Unit
"specifically as an inviolate waterfowl sanctuary." Therefore, it would seem that any Federal
action should avoid detrimental impact to this area. The SEIS conclusion that only minor
impacts to waterfowl will be associated with locating the project at Site C (24, 34, 4-223, 4-227,
5-82, 9-5, C-53) is incorrect. Not only will the visitor experience at these locations be
diminished by locating the project at Site C, wildlife that are dependent on the jurisdictional
waters in the Site C area will be exposed to an extremely abnormal soundscape. This would
likely lead to the waterfowl and other wildlife to desert the area in favor of habitat without
inexplicable and alien noise, reducing the wildlife habitat value provided by these waters. And
as the Opinion written by Circuit Judge Wilkinson states, "The point of a wildlife refuge is not to
just protect and area that is beautiful and valuable in its own right, but to remind us that an
environment is welcoming to wildlife will ultimately be one that is more hospitable to
humankind (page 12 of Opinion)." Judge Wilkinson also found that the Navy did not take a
"hard look" at the value provided by protected areas. And it is evident that this effort has yet to
take place.
Page 2-40 states that Site C will not result in impacts to wetlands and that the 6 acres of
wetlands within the core area will be avoided. However, page 11-2 says that wetland impacts at
Site C will depend on the final OLF design. Also, page 11-2 states that there would be necessary
land alterations in the core area of Site C for it to reduce BASH risk. It is imperative to know
whether or not the proposed project will impact wetlands so that the proper mitigation can be
accomplished. Please amend the text accordingly.

Figure 17 in the OLF Wetland Mapping Project (www.olfseis.com) does not appear to
show the 6 acre waterfowl impoundment/wetlands. It only shows the canals present at the site.
Please amend accordingly.
Page 5-69 states that since there would be no wetlands directly impacted by the
construction of the project at Site C that there would not be any cumulative impacts to this area
either. This is an incorrect assumption. As the SEIS itself states, cumulative impacts include
future actions that will occur in the region, not just the direct impacts of project construction.
Since the Courts ordered the further "Evaluation of cumulative impacts of the operation of the
OLF and other military uses of airspace in North Carolina," the Navy should conduct additional
research into the cumulative impacts that will result from this prof ect.
Throughout the SEIS it is stated that best management practices (BMPs) will be used to
lessen the impact of this project on the local environment. However, specific mitigative
measures are never listed. Please provide the BMPs that will be used to reduce the negative
environmental impact of this project.
The EIS states that eight large canals are present at Site C. However, page 5 of 92 in the
OLF Wetland Mapping Project (www.olfseis.com) states that "five large canals are maintained
to provide drainage" at Site C. It is imperative to know the number/area of drainage canals at
Site C "Because these canals are considered waters of the U.S. Therefore the Navy would need
to obtain a Section 401/404 permit from the USACE if Site C is selected (4-160)" and the Navy
proposes to "reroute these drainage canals around the core area in order to maintain the current
flow of surface water on the site (4-160). Please amend the text accordingly.
While some sections of the SEIS state that portions of extensive network of drainage
canals would be altered (an estimated 12,9121.f. would be rerouted, and 70,8731.f. of drainage
would be created; Portions of eight large canals (12,9121.f.) would need to be rerouted,
culverted, or bridged), page 4-160 says that approximately 12,912 of these canals will be
permanently filled "and replaced with 70,8731inear feet of new drainage canals." The actions
taken on these canals must be clearly defined in the SEIS. Please amend the text accordingly.
It is stated in the OLF Wetland Mapping Project (www.olfseis.com) that a drainage
districts board members would oppose the proposed modification of the canal system. What is
the name of this district, and will local concerns such as this be blatantly disregarded in the siting
of the OLF?
Page 5-2 states that the cumulative impacts associated with the proposed project are
assessed through 2012, approximately two years after initial operations commence at the
proposed OLF. The assessment of cumulative impacts should be assessed for the life of the
facility -from 2010 until the site is decommissioned. As page 11-1 states, "Irretrievable
commitments of resources are those resources that would be lost for a period of time - in this
case, the life of the facility."
Page 39 of the Opinion written by Circuit Judge Wilkinson states that "The Navy has
publicly stated its plan to out-lease the majority of the land it acquires for agricultural activities,

and it plans no restrictions on the types of crops that can be grown there." There are many
instances in the SEIS where it states that the Navy will restrict the types of crops and farming
activities for BASH management activities: pages 14, 25, 1-26, 4-44- -47, 5-52, 4-55, 4-58, 4-
61, 4-211, 4-224, 4-239, 4-244, 4-248, 4-259, 4-260, 4-268, 5-78, 5-88, 6-5, 11-2, C-9, C-53, C-
54, D-14, and D-16. Please amend the text accordingly.
It was reported on 03/07/2006 that bird flocks at OLF could be controlled with fireworks,
chemical repellents and dogs. This was not included in the SEIS: the word "fireworks" is not
contained in the SEIS; the word "repellent" is on page 4-40, but not "chemical." In the same
article, it was stated that if those measures don't work, USDA has recommended the use of
poison and guns: the word "poison" is not contained in the SEIS; only time guns are referred to
is with red wolves: 4-166, 4-169. If this news report is true, the next version of an SEIS needs
to be updated to reflect this as well as the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts that these
wildlife deterrents are expected to have on the environment as well as the mitigative measures
employed to lessen their affects.
All Technical Reports should be presented as part of the EIS instead of just referencing a
webpage (www.olfseis.com) where they can be found.
The following comments relate to 401 Water Quality Certification (15A NCAC 2H
.0500), Neuse River Riparian Protection (15A NCAC 2B .0233) and Tar-Pamlico River Riparian
Protection (15A NCAC 2B .0259) rules and permitting programs. Responses to all these
comments must be submitted with the application for 401 Certification in order for DWQ to
determine that the application is complete.
1. Alternatives -The 401 Certification and Riparian Buffer rules contain requirements
for review of practical alternatives. The draft Supplemental EIS has two major flaws
with respect to alternatives analysis as outlined below. If these shortcomings are not
adequately addressed to DWQ's satisfaction, then the required 401 Water Quality
Certification for this project could be denied by DWQ, which would result in denial of
the 404 Permit to fill waters of the US and thereby construct the OLF. The following
alternatives must be thoroughly examined as required by these stated rules.
a. Open Grounds Farms in Carteret County - A thorough analysis of the extent of
wetlands and the practicality of this site must be conducted in order to allow a
realistic comparison to other alternatives.
b. Two smaller OLFs - An alternative of building a smaller OLF nearer Virginia
(maybe at site A) as well as expansion/revamping of the existing OLF at Oak
Grove or construction of another OLF nearby must be conducted to determine
if this alternative will have less overall environmental impact than the
preferred alternative of one OLF facility in Washington County.
2. Permits -Section 8-1 of the report does not list the Neuse or Tar-Pamlico buffer rules
as permitting requirements as required under Section 401 (d) of the Clean Water Act.
The table should be modified accordingly.
3. Stormwater management - Stormwater management will be required as a condition of
any 401 Certification for this facility. The applicant must provide this plan in
conjunction with the application in order for the application to be complete.
a. There was almost nothing in the document about stormwater. In over 900

pages, a search turned up 4 general references to stormwater management
facilities. The section on "regulatory permits needed" did not mention state
stormwater permitting requirements which would apply for any sites in the 20
coastal counties.
Please contact me at 733-5083, ext. 555, if I can be of any additional help in resolving
these issues. Thank you.
Cc: Coleen Sullins
John Dorney
Bradley Bennett