20150525 Ver 1_USACE Correspondence_20070514

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
CESAW-RG (1145b) 3 May 2007
MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic, ATTN:
OLF SEIS Project Manager, Code EV21, 6506 Hampton Boulevard, Norfolk, Virginia 23508-
1278.
SUBJECT: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Comments on Draft Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement: Construction and Operation of OLF: Action ID 2002 1 1 070
1. References:
a. Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS), dated February 2007.
b. Correspondence dated 21 February 2007, from Mr. Mark H. Anthony, Director of Shore
Insulation and Management OPS Assessment, Department of the Navy Fleet Forces Command
requesting comments on the DSEIS (Attachment 1).
2. The purpose of this Memorandum is to provide the Department of the Navy (Navy) with U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) comments on the subject project with regard to potential
impacts on the natural and human environment. The following comments are presented in
accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), Section 10 of the Rivers and
Harbors Act of 1899, and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
3. The DSEIS proposed action is to construct and operate an Outlying Landing Field (OLF)
supporting Field Carrier Landing Practice of Super Hornet squadrons stationed at Naval Air
Station (NAS) Oceana, Virginia, and Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Cherry Point, North
Carolina. The DSEIS is not an independent document and is considered a component of the
proposed action evaluated in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). The Record of
Decision (ROD) on the FEIS was published in the Federal Register on September 10, 2003 (68
FR 53353). The ROD documented the Navy's decision with respect to the FEIS to base eight
Super Hornet fleet squadrons and the Fleet Replacement Squadron (FRS) at NAS Oceana and
two fleet squadrons at MCAS Cherry Point, and to construct an OLF in Washington County,
North Carolina (Alternative Site C).
The DSEIS addresses areas identified by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
North Carolina and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit requiring additional
analysis. The same five alternative OLF sites in northeastern North Carolina evaluated in the
FEIS to support home basing of the Super Hornet squadrons at NAS Oceana and MCAS Cherry
Point are considered in the DSEIS and include: Site A in Perquimans County; Site B in Bertie
County; Site C in Washington County; Site D in Hyde County; and Site E in Craven County.
The Navy's stated preferred alternative for construction and operation of an OLF remains Site C
in Washington County, North Carolina. r~ r- - -~ ~,
;r.~
i ,_......, ..._ _,. i.J~ ~L..r I Y u
:y
W 1
~~t,~,Y x ~Y ~'~l~% f
)i,i ~,
~;
~tiA ~ RF~snu,s~

CESAW-RG (1145b)
SUBJECT: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Comments on Draft Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement: Construction and Operation of OLF: Action ID 200211070
4. The DSEIS reaffirms that CWA authorization will be required to construct an OLF at any of
the alternative sites. In an effort to quantify potential impacts to waters of the United States, the
Navy undertook a wetland mapping project in 2006. As indicated to the Navy in correspondence
dated 2 November 2006, the Corps believes this study adequate for considering impacts to the
aquatic environment under NEPA. However, Section 404 of the CWA requires an accurate
depiction of impacts to all jurisdictional areas. A USACE reviewed and approved wetland
delineation will be required for permit processing. The Corps will make the final decision
regarding Department of the Army (DA) wetland jurisdiction pursuant to the 1987 Corps of
Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
5. The Navy addressed USACE jurisdiction within the DSEIS focusing mainly on direct
impacts to wetlands, which are designated special aquatic sites. However, by regulation, there
are other special aquatic sites that must be considered (CFR 40 Part 230, Subpart E). Sanctuaries
and refuges are also designated special aquatic sites. Comments from the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service describe serious concerns about the impacts of constructing an OLF adjacent to
national wildlife refuges centering on the loss of foraging habitat for wintering waterfowl, the
effects of aircraft noise on waterfowl, and the cumulative impacts on the refuges and historic
waterfowl use patterns. A determination that the construction and operation of an OLF at either
Site C or Site D that results in the significant degradation of nearby refuges or sanctuaries will
preclude CWA authorization.
6. The Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
in conjunction with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, contain substantive environmental
criteria used in evaluating discharges of dredged or fill material. Under these guidelines, no
discharge can be permitted if a practicable alternative with less adverse impact on the aquatic
environment is available (unless the identified alternative poses other significant environmental
consequences). The USACE requires that an EIS, being prepared for an action which will
require a Section 404 permit, identify the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable
Alternative (LEDPA) on the aquatic environment in accordance with the Section 404(b)(1)
Guidelines. However, the USACE's evaluation of a Section 404 permit application is a two part
test involving: 1) the determination of whether a project complies with the Section 404(b)(1)
Guidelines, and 2) a public interest review. This public interest review is a balancing test in
which the public and private benefits of a project are compared against its adverse impacts to the
environment. It includes such considerations as conservation, economics, aesthetics, navigation,
fish and wildlife values, water supply, water quality, energy needs, flood damage prevention, and
cultural resources. The USACE also considers all comments received in the permit process,
whether in response to a public notice or a public hearing. A DA permit cannot be issued if the
proposal fails to comply with the 404(b)(1) Guidelines, or is found to be contrary to the public
interest.
2

CESAW,-RG (1145b)
SUBJECT: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Comments on Draft Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement: Construction and Operation of OLF: Action ID 2002 1 1 070
7. Recent comments from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the North Carolina Wildlife
Commission, and other stakeholders have expressed support for Alternative Site E in Craven
County. The recommendations to consider Site E as a preferred alternative over sites C and D
were articulated with regard to locating an OLF away from sanctuaries and refuges. However,
information provided to date and reviewed by my staff indicates that Site E contains not only the
largest potential wetland impact associated with construction of an OLF in North Carolina, but
also contains the widest variety of wetland types ranging from non-riverine swamp forest,
headwater wetlands, wet hardwood flats and pine flats. The United States Geological Survey
topographic map identifies the area encompassed by Site E as Big Pocosin. Numerous
tributaries originate from this wetland complex and flow directly to both the Neuse and Pamlico
Rivers. This vast, palustrine tract is one of the last inter-stream, wooded comdors connecting
two of North Carolina's largest river basins. Both river systems have been designated "nutrient
sensitive waters", necessitating additional regulatory consideration. As discussed in Item 6,
CWA authorization cannot be granted if a practicable alternative with less adverse impacts on
the aquatic environment exists.
8. The DSEIS and FEIS rely on an OLF siting study published in May 2003. Due to the age of
this data, coupled with the explosive development experienced in eastern North Carolina, the
USACE recommends that the Navy undertake an updated OLF siting alternatives analysis. To
allow for a realistic comparison between alternatives, this analysis must include a detailed
environmental description and practicability statement for each proposed OLF alternative.
Alternatives such as the construction of smaller facilities, relocation of proposed facilities within
previously examined sites, renovation of existing facilities and exploration of potential new
locations for OLF construction must be conducted to determine if such alternatives will have less
overall environmental and public interest impacts than the Navy's stated preferred alternative.
9. POC with my staff is Mr. Scott Jones at [phone],
Encl
Colonel, EN
Commanding
CF:
Mr. Ronald J. Mikulak, Chief
Wetlands Regulatory Section
Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
3

CESAW-RG (1145b)
SUBJECT: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Comments on Draft Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement: Construction and Operation of OLF: Action ID 2002 1 1 070
Mr. Pete Benjamin
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Ron Sechler
National Marine Fisheries Service
Habitat Conservation Service
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Mr. Ted Tyndall, Assistant Director
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
4